Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 6 Feb 2015

Vol. 866 No. 4

Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill 2014: Second Stage [Private Members]

Tairgim: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

I am introducing this Bill, the Thirty-fourth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill, to lower the voting age in all elections and referenda to 16 years of age. The Bill would allow for Article 16 of the Constitution to be changed and amended as follows:

(a) “sé bliana déag” shall be substituted for “ocht mbliana déag” in subsection 2° of section 1 of the Irish text,

(b) “sixteen years” shall be substituted for “eighteen years” in subsection 2° of section 1 of the English text.

When the Constitutional Convention supported the lowering of the voting age to 16 years last March, the Government hinted that it would respond favourably to the proposal or at least give serious consideration to the holding of a referendum in conjunction with other planned referendums. Unfortunately, when it offered a response last July it was to rule out the holding of a referendum to put the proposition to the electorate. This is the reason I have brought the Bill to the House today. We hear people on all sides of the House discussing the inclusion of young people in the democratic process. The fact that other parties and the Independent groups have not put forward speakers is unfortunate. It shows that some people in the House are not serious about this. However, young people are. Our party has listened to extensive lobbying, as I imagine have the Government parties in respect of lowering the voting age.

I believe that the proposed constitutional amendment would bring about a broadening of the franchise and provide more young people with a sense of ownership of the democratic process. Moreover, from a practical point of view it makes sense to hold such a referendum on the same day as the other referendum proposing to lower the age at which citizens can stand for presidential election. We welcome that in Sinn Féin. However, what the Government is putting to the people in May in respect of young people standing for President is narrow and limited. It would allow for the possibility of one person between the ages of 21 and 35 to become President. Although Sinn Féin supports that, what we are proposing is far bigger and broader. We are proposing a measure to allow 100,000 plus young people to fully participate in the democratic process. The proposal would allow young people between the ages of 16 and 18 years to fully participate and be full members of Irish society and they would be allowed to vote in every election and referendum. That is far more important than giving one person the chance to become President, which is the extent of the Government proposal and which requires a referendum. We believe a referendum on this amendment should take place on the same day - whatever date the Government chooses - in May as the same-sex marriage referendum and the lowering of the age to allow a person to become President. We believe this Bill should have been brought forward on the same day. This could be done at no extra expense and would form part of a wider debate on the democratic process.

The programme for Government committed to holding a constitutional referendum and one of the items to be considered was the lowering of the voting age. In fairness, the Government parties refer to 17 years of age in preference to 16 years in this regard. If this is, in fact, their position, there is nothing to stop the Government putting this proposal to referendum rather than ignoring the issue, which is what the Government is doing. This is the most frustrating aspect of the decision to refuse to hold a referendum.

I realise some recent referendums have become party political, particularly when dealing with the European Union, but this is a matter for the electorate to decide rather than those of us who are members of political parties. On that basis alone I urge members of the Government and Opposition parties to allow a referendum on the proposal to be held on the same day as the proposal to lower the voting age of Presidential candidates.

This is not to say that parties and others should not be allowed campaign for or against a proposition. The real issue is that where there is a substantial public demand to the effect that the Constitution requires updating, a referendum is put and citizens have the final say, regardless of what the party political consensus might be. We saw this when the electorate rejected the proposal to abolish the Seanad last year, despite the support of the majority of the parties in the Dáil.

I would urge those on the Government side to support my proposal to hold a referendum on lowering the voting age to 16 years and let the people decide one way or the other. At the very least, they should allow the Bill go to committee, at which point the Government parties could, if they so wished, amend the Bill to have the voting age lowered to 17 years, if that is the preference, rather than 16 years as per my Bill. Simply blocking a referendum, which could be held on the same day with little or no extra cost, indicates a certain degree of arrogance and a lack of trust in the electorate. The programme for Government favours a similar proposal albeit with the age of 17 years. Here is an opportunity to realise that. The Government could allow this Bill to go to committee and change it, if necessary, by lowering the voting age to 17 years.

One of the reasons this issue is attracting attention is the events in Scotland, where 16 and 17 year olds were allowed to vote in the referendum last year. Not only was that a contributory factor in a significant turnout it encouraged considerable interest in the debate as well and, without a doubt, encouraged younger people to take a greater interest and participate in that debate. The extension of the franchise here would have a similar impact and allow younger people to consider themselves more a part of the democratic process. It would empower them and allow them to believe they have more of a say in the way in which our country and society is run.

Lowering the voting age is gaining considerable support in other countries, although as yet only a few states have extended the franchise to 16 year olds. Within the European Union, only Austria has allowed 16 year olds to vote in all elections. This has been the case since 2007. A growing number of German regions now allow 16 year olds to vote in regional and local elections. There are other examples. Some US states allow people under 18 years to vote in primary elections. Israel allows 17 year olds to vote in local elections.

Scotland is probably the most relevant example since it is close to home. Following the referendum, there is some expectation that the franchise for elections to the Scottish Assembly will be lowered to include 16 and 17 year olds as well. That election will take place next year. In that context, this country could set the trend or at the very least contribute to the debate on the issue simply by deciding to hold a referendum on the debate and on this Bill in May.

The main argument I have heard against lowering the voting age is that most young people under 18 years are not paying tax, in work or otherwise in a situation where major budgetary and political decisions affect them directly. Similar arguments were once made about women, that they did not pay taxes, political affairs did not affect them and that they were not fully part of the economy. Before that, the franchise was confined to rate payers who were the only ones considered to have a stake in the country. I do not accept that 16 and 17 year olds are not full citizens. They are an integral part of society through the education system. Many of them are working and on the brink of taking a full part in the education system and the economy. As such, they are entitled not only to have their views on the decisions that impact on their lives taken into consideration but also to have a direct say in electing the people who make these decisions.

From Sinn Féin’s engagement on the Bill, particularly through Senator Kathryn Reilly, it is clear that there is significant interest in and support for lowering the voting age across a broad section of young people and their organisations. We have met representatives of the National Youth Council of Ireland, the Union of Students of Ireland, Foróige, An Óige, Scouting Ireland, Pavee Point and the youth sections of other political parties, which underlines the fact that my proposal is in no way party political, as it has wide support across all parties, probably even in the Minister's party. This must be taken into consideration. In that spirit, the proposal should be dealt with on its merits, rather than as a Bill proposed by Sinn Féin. The Government will, in a serial way, reject every Sinn Féin Bill, but this Bill presents an opportunity, as we are putting forward something constructive. We complain that young people do not take enough interest in politics; this is an opportunity to change that. I ask that we put aside our party hats on this issue, as we have done on the other constitutional proposals to be put to the people this year which the Opposition will be supporting, or at least this party will be at any rate.

Lowering the voting age is a practical proposal to extend the democratic franchise and extend and deepen the participation of young people as full citizens of the State, as well as deepening and broadening our democracy. If the Government parties do not agree with the proposal to lower the age to 16 years, they could address the issue on Committee Stage through an amendment that would reflect their own preference for lowering the voting age to 17. The way to facilitate any proposal is to allow this Bill to proceed to the next Stage.

I acknowledge the work of Deputy Brian Stanley and his colleagues in bringing the Bill before the House. Although it is relatively short, the matter it addresses is significant in electoral terms and I am happy to set out the Government's position on it.

There are few more important matters than the right to vote or, to put it more precisely, the question of who has the right to vote. This debate, is therefore, welcome, as it allows us all - Government and Opposition Deputies - the opportunity to address an issue at the core of our democratic system and society. The Government agrees with the principle of the Bill. We will not, therefore, be opposing it on Second Stage. We agree that a referendum should be held on the proposal to reduce the voting age to 16 years. As we move on from this debate, we, on the Government side of the House, will consider the legislation further. We will examine it for any necessary issue that may need to be addressed during the further stages of the legislative process.

In agreeing to the principle of the Bill, the issue of the timing of a referendum arises. There will be two referendums in May, one on marriage equality and the other on the age of eligibility for election to the office of President. The debate on these proposed amendments to the Constitution has begun. The legislation to hold both referendums has been published and the referendum commissions for both were established on 27 January. The Taoiseach recently indicated in the Dáil that while he did not envisage any further referendum being held in 2015, this was an issue for the Government to consider at a later stage. It is the clear Government position that the best approach is have two referendums only, to be held in May. This is reasonable. The Government agrees that there should be a referendum on this issue, but we believe it would be premature to proceed with the vote in May. I appreciate that some Members would like to have the referendum held sooner, as Deputy Brian Stanley said. However, we must first consider some key practical issues that arise. They must inform our approach in holding a referendum.

During the debate it is important to recognise the work done by the Constitutional Convention. The programme for Government provided for its establishment and it has proved itself to be an innovation in democratic deliberation in Ireland. Irish people from all backgrounds have participated as equals with Members of the Oireachtas from all sides of the Houses. The impact of their work is clear. The two referendums being held in May are based on recommendations made by the convention. Also, just last week, the pre-legislative process to establish an independent electoral commission was commenced. The establishment of an electoral commission was also a recommendation of the convention.

The convention also examined the subject matter of the Bill. It was asked to consider whether the voting age should be reduced to 17 years. It is worth recalling what was decided. In its first report the convention recommended that the voting age be reduced for all elections. The vote was 52% in favour, with 47% against. Having agreed on the principle of reducing the voting age, a further vote was taken. Some 39% favoured 17 years as the minimum age, while 48% favoured 16 years as the minimum voting age. The convention reached its conclusions having considered the different arguments in favour and against. Its recommendation was made and the Government accepted that it should be put to the people in a referendum. The Government agreed to commit to holding a referendum on a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for a voting age of 16 years for Dáil, presidential and local elections and referendums. Deputies may recall that this commitment was given in the Dáil on 18 July 2013. What might not be remembered to the same extent is that the Government statement to the Dáil on that day made it clear that whenever the legislation was being prepared, there would need to be a careful examination of the implications of lowering the voting age across the policy spectrum. This is being done. Preparatory work to inform the legislation was commenced last year.

An important consideration is any potential impact on the "age of majority", the age at which a person is recognised as an adult. The age of majority is 18 years. As part of the preparatory work for a referendum, there has been engagement between my Department and other Departments. Consideration is being given to the consequences or implications, if any, of a decision to lower the voting age to 16 years. We are looking, in particular, at possible issues that might arise for other legislation or age-related schemes or initiatives. It is important that be done. International experience and available research on lowering the voting age to 16 years are also being examined. Deputy Brian Stanley has alluded to a number of international experiences. Our work to date indicates that there is no direct reference or link with the voting age in any legislative provision, other than in electoral law. As far as we have been able to establish, the right to vote is not directly linked in legislation with any other specific right or restriction. This is an important point because we need to know the extent of legislative change that would arise directly from a constitutional amendment. Nonetheless, amending electoral legislation would be needed to give effect to the change if it was to be approved by the people in a referendum.

There are potential issues of concern that arise in having the age of majority set at 18 years and the voting age at 16. We must consider these concerns carefully. It has been suggested a change in the voting age could lead to a demand for a lowering of the age threshold in other areas. It is worth noting that existing legislative codes in the education, children and youth affairs sectors define a child as a person under the age of 18 years. We must consider the implications for these legislative codes if the voting age was to be lowered to 16 years. For example, would it be seen as anomalous that the parents or guardians of children would continue to have specific rights and responsibilities for their children under 18 years in the education system, yet the same persons could vote at 16? We will need to be able to reconcile why a person should be able to vote at 16 years but should not be allowed to do certain other things.

For example, the sale of tobacco to people under 18 is prohibited. The sale, hire and use of sunbeds by those under 18 is prohibited. The sale, supply or consumption of alcohol by anyone under 18 years is also prohibited. The minimum age for entitlement and access to most social welfare schemes is set at 18 years. These matters must be reasonably addressed if a referendum is to be held and if it is to pass. That is our job as legislators, and that is why I welcome today's debate.

Regarding international experience, my Department has also been reviewing what happens in other countries. We have been looking in particular at places where the voting age has already been lowered to 16 or where doing so was considered. Divergent views have been expressed on the benefits of lowering the voting age. This is no surprise. The excellent briefing papers presented to the convention when it considered the question touched on the different views that are out there. Having looked at academic literature and various independent reports, there are some common threads to be gleaned. I would like to take the opportunity to share some of these points with Deputies as I think they are interesting and very relevant to our debate.

Not many countries have a lower voting age of 16 in national elections. Only one European Union country - Austria - provides for it. Norway, Switzerland and Germany provide for voting at age 16 in some sub-national elections at local or regional level. On the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands the voting age is 16 for elections to each island's representative assembly.

Given its particular pioneering role, some useful research has been undertaken in Austria and a number of positive points have emerged. One study found that electoral turnout of Austrian 16 and 17 year olds was significantly higher than for older first-time voters aged from 18 to 20. This study noted that the lowering of the voting age was accompanied by targeted awareness-raising measures, which may be a factor. The authors concluded, "our findings are encouraging for the idea of lowering the voting age as a means to establish higher turnout rates in the future." A separate study of 16 and 17 year olds in Austria observed that political interest in this group was higher after the voting age was lowered. It found that schools were particularly important in influencing political interest.

Another study published in 2012 was based on a survey of 16 and 17 year old prospective voters at the 2009 European Parliament elections in Austria. It rejected the idea that citizens under 18 are particularly unable or unwilling to participate effectively in politics. It found that 18 to 21 year olds were a more problematic group in terms of participation. This study suggested that it may be easier to instill a habit of voting in those who are still in school or who live at home. However, the study acknowledged that longer-term research would be needed to establish this point.

While this represents positive evidence in favour of change, research in some other countries raises other issues. A study of a trial undertaken at municipal elections in Norway in 2011 found evidence of a gap in maturity between those under 18 years of age and older voters. A study undertaken by the UK electoral commission in 2004 recommended that the minimum voting age should remain at 18 and expressed concern that voter turnout might decrease if it was lowered. A 2012 study undertaken in Australia found no evidence that lowering the voting age to 16 would increase political participation. They found that it might have a negative impact on political participation and that there was little public support for it.

I am raising these points now because they will undoubtedly form part of the debate that should rightly take place on this proposal. In considering or preparing for holding a referendum we need to acknowledge that concerns exist. We need to be willing to debate them openly and be up-front about them.

We are all aware, of course, that the voting age was lowered to 16 at the recent Scottish referendum on independence. It is interesting to note that research subsequently undertaken revealed that the level of interest among young people was equivalent to that among adults. The decisive factor, though, was the link to education. This is the point on which there appears to be some convergence across the various studies undertaken in the different countries.

The education system can play an important role in generating the interest and maturity among younger people that would be necessary to make a success of a decision to lower the voting age. We need to reflect on how we can ensure that our own education system contributes to providing the structured support necessary to assist 16 year olds to make an informed choice at election time. The fourth report of the Convention on the Constitution included a recommendation that relevant education programmes should be introduced in schools as part of a suite of measures to improve electoral turnout.

The new junior cycle student award is underpinned by what are called "24 statements of learning". One of these is that students value what it means to be an active citizen, with rights and responsibilities in local and wider contexts. Earlier this year it was announced that a subject titled "politics and society" is to be introduced as part of a suite of subjects available to students at senior cycle, and we welcome that. These are important and significant reforms and I commend the Minister for Education and Skills, and her Department, for their work in this area. In considering a referendum on a proposal to lower the voting age we need to be sure the education system is ready to play its part. There are other necessary preparations that also need to be made, legislative and otherwise. I have mentioned some of these today and I will address them further in my remarks later.

In conclusion, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this proposed amendment to the Constitution to lower the voting age to 16. The Government agrees with the principle of the Bill and will not be opposing it. There is already a Government decision to hold a referendum on this question. We have been undertaking work on the task and intend to continue with that work. Go raibh maith agaibh.

In the context of the Constitutional Convention, Fianna Fáil supported holding a referendum to allow for the voting age to be reduced to 16. Today's debate and views and opinions from outside the House show that there is an interesting discussion to be had, at the very least to see what young people are thinking. Very often, we say people who are most entitled to vote are people who have a stake in society. It can be argued that the people who have the biggest stake in any society are the young people, because they are the ones on whom policies that are being developed now will have an impact for a longer period. It is an interesting proposal that is being put forward in the context of the Constitutional Convention and by Deputy Stanley's Bill.

This leads to broader issues of making voter turnout more attractive to citizens in general, and informing and educating citizens about their obligations, duties, rights and entitlements in the context of a modern democracy. Any debate that would facilitate that type of engagement would be very welcome. The studies and surveys that have been conducted in countries that have engaged in the process of reducing the voting age - Norway, Austria, Scotland, Australia and elsewhere - reveal varying opinions if one goes through the detailed research.

It is still open for discussion and a constitutional referendum would bring all this to the fore so people could make an informed choice. Of course, the people who would be most affected by this would not be able to vote in the constitutional referendum and that in itself would open up further debates among young people as to why they would not be allowed to vote on something that affects them more than anyone else.

All modern western European democracies go through various phases of high and low voter turnout. Apathy is probably the biggest threat to any democracy in terms of the lack of voter participation. Over a long period, as voter turnout drops, the equivalent quid pro quo is that there is a lot of disenfranchised anger out there that is not represented in the political system. That has to be addressed in most modern democracies in western Europe. It can be addressed through debate, changes to our electoral system and changes in the context of electoral reform in general. It also concerns the way we do our business in this House, how we are perceived as a Parliament and as governments and how the citizen engages with the State, not only in the context of voting but in the services provided to the citizen by the State and the obligations of the citizen to the State. With a right come entitlements, but equally there come responsibilities. That is an area about which we as a people have to have a long discussion in terms of our obligations and duties to the State. Very often, there is a view that the State is abstract, exists somewhere else and must provide everything. The State is the collective of the people themselves. I often find, even in the context of debates in this House, that the State is seen as existing at a distant remove.

If citizens see this as the reality, we will have a major problem with engagement and in having people view the State as a collective. That is why there is an issue with disenfranchisement, disillusionment and apathy which could, in essence, be the greatest threat to democracy, particularly the idea of a strong representational view in any parliament. People who do not vote have views and opinions, too, and would like certain matters to be raised; they view the current structures as not reflecting anything in which they are interested. If there is a large cohort of such individuals, it could lead to an unhealthy and unrepresentative democracy.

There is a broader issue of whether it should be mandatory to vote. My view is that it should not be mandatory, but in an election there could be a turnout of 65% or 67%, although the figure has hit the 70% mark and above from time to time. That means that 30% of the electorate have no view or do not believe anybody on the ballot paper represents their views, or they may see everybody on it as being the same. Collectively, we do not know what these people think, as they have not cast an opinion on the candidates before them. That issue must be addressed. It is hard to say if there is any empirical evidence on reducing the voting age to 16 years. There is some evidence which suggests there is an interest in voting among those who are 16 years old. One might ask why there is more interest among young people who are 16, 17 or 19 years than there is among those who are 21 and 22. Perhaps it arises from the structured form of education or the fact that when they live at home, parents encourage them to vote. That is a distinct possibility.

The Minister of State has indicated that a subject entitled "politics and society" is to be introduced as part of a suite of subjects available to students in the senior cycle. We must ensure there is a strong education system in place in schools that encourages young people to become interested in politics, society and how the people are governed. However, we must never allow schools to be politicised. This issue can be elaborated on in a broader debate when we have a referendum on the issue. We cannot have cases where schools or teachers in schools would be able to express their views and opinions in a way that would lead to schools becoming politicised. That would be very dangerous, as it would put too much power in the hands of a small number of individuals in influencing young people in the structured and formal surroundings of a classroom. We must give a certain amount of thought to this in a broader debate. That is not to say 16 year olds cannot make up their minds, but there is no doubt that it is easier to influence them if one is a teacher or another person in authority. This issue must be examined and although it is not a reason not to reduce the voting age, there would have to be a certain suite of measures in place in the education system to ensure such politicisation did not happen. We should encourage full debate and engagement in participatory politics in schools in order that people will become aware of and interested in the institutions of the State and what society and the collective are about. We must do this without exerting undue political influence which can be seen in other parts of the world.

We should have a referendum and full engagement, as it would be healthy for society in dealing with the broader issue of participatory democracy and the obligations, rights and duties of a citizen. It would equally deal with the rights, obligations and duties of parliamentarians, governments and all other arms of the State in order that, collectively, we would have a society in which people always felt represented and which had its views reflected in the Chamber through debate and the participation and make-up of Members. The broader issue of the disenfranchisement of large tracts of communities is one we must address. There is not much point in people being angry if it cannot be expressed in a democratic forum such as this. Such problems have brought other democracies down a slippery path; therefore, anything that encourages participation and makes people feel like casting a vote and expressing an opinion at the ballot box is good. They must believe their votes will be represented.

Parties and Members must do what they say they will do and live up to the commitments they make. The great apathy we have witnessed very often comes from parties stating one thing and doing another. They may campaign on one issue and change their mind the following day for a political reason. Such actions gnaw at the body politic and the confidence people have in the democratic system. I welcome the Bill, as it is a good idea for us to move towards holding a referendum on the issue. There should be a good, incisive and coherent debate. Broadly, the concept of giving young people a vote is welcome. On a wider level, our society should see parliamentary democracy as a meaningful way of expressing views. I hope the debate will also encourage this.

I thank my colleague, Deputy Brian Stanley, for bringing forward the Bill. In January 2013 the first ballot of the members of the Constitutional Convention saw delegates vote in favour of lowering the voting age from 18 years to 16. At the end of March 2013 the first report of the convention called on the Government to hold a referendum on a reduction of two years in the voting age. In July 2013 the Government gave a commitment to do this and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government at the time, former Deputy Phil Hogan, indicated that the Government had committed to holding a referendum before the end of 2015 on a proposal to amend the Constitution to provide for a voting age of 16 years, for which there was a general welcome at the time. On mature reflection, the Government decided that it would look again at the issue, as the Minister of State indicated.

The Minister of State spoke about the possible implications this change would have for policy, the age of majority and so on. The same concerns were articulated in the past. If we go back a couple of hundred years, there was an opinion that working people would lack maturity and education, meaning that the lords of the land were the only one who could vote. I have just come from the launch of Sinn Féin's commemoration of the 1916 Rising. In the 1918 election women had the ability to vote for the first time, as up until then the argument had been they should not have a vote because they lacked maturity, were not grounded in society and were too emotional. The opinion was that they would not really understand the complexities of elections and so on and as a result, they were disenfranchised for years. The suffragettes campaigned against this and I am thankful that the disenfranchisement of women is now a thing of the past.

We would be horrified to think somebody could be denied the right to vote because of his or her colour, creed, religious background or where he or she came from, but there is still a notion that persons aged 16 or 17 years lack maturity. Much of this is nonsense. Many people who vote for parties represented in this House lack maturity.

They certainly lack consistency. Why would they continue to go out and vote for people who are undermining their income, wrecking their communities and destroying their livelihoods? Yet one could conceivably argue that they have done that by voting for the bigger parties which, like tweedle dee and tweedle dum, have carried out the same policies over the years.

We can look on today's debate as being a start, but this matter has been going on for a long time. The Minister of State is out of step, not only with young people in his own party but also with Irish youth generally. It is a common theme in Sinn Féin conferences, that youth sections want to be listened to. They are interested in politics and want to step up to the plate. Those aged 16 and 17 are as interested in these matters as older people of all ages. It is a nonsensical argument to say that we will look at civics classes in school. We do need, however, by all means to simplify what is involved concerning elections.

What does someone do who is going out to vote for the first time? There used to be gardaí on the door and an officious approach was adopted. For an older generation who were not necessarily happy at school, including those who were abused and a considerable amount of people in Irish society were affected by that, the idea of having to vote in a school venue is, thus, not necessarily a welcoming one. We should examine polling venues and ensure they are more suitable. I would argue that people are more comfortable voting in community centres.

I am disappointed that the Government is attempting to deny 120,000 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote in the next election. What are we afraid of as a society? We are out of step with most other progressive countries around the world. Is the Government afraid of the teenage vote? In Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain that age cohort is increasingly faced with the bleak option of pursuing mickey-mouse schemes, including JobBridge. In many cases, third level education is unaffordable so emigration is the only option. We know the impact that has had because we can see it in our own communities where there are insufficient young people to field football teams.

Despite all the Government spin about job creation and the end of austerity, young people continue to face bleak prospects. They are among the most negatively affected by the Government's austerity programme. Perhaps that is why we do not give them the vote. If we are seeking honesty, we should throw that element into the mix. Young people deserve the right to vote but the Government's refusal to accept that has been strongly criticised by youth organisations, including the National Youth Council of Ireland and the Union of Students in Ireland. They are in the frontline dealing with young people every day and, consequently, they are responding to what they hear at the coalface.

We trust 16 year olds to drive mopeds and motorcycles of limited engine power, but we supposedly do not trust them to complete a ballot paper. We trust 17 year olds to drive cars but not to pick their local TDs or councillors. I do not understand that logic. I would argue that the age limit for electing the President also needs to be reduced.

Seventeen year olds can leave home to attend college. They can study for a degree in medicine, physics, journalism or even politics, yet they cannot have a say in who runs their Government. Young people who are involved in this campaign should show the Government that there is a demand to lower the voting age.

The Minister of State referred to Scotland where 16 year olds were allowed to vote in last year's referendum on independence. I did not hear any criticism of lowering the voting age there from either the "Yes" or the "No" side. They all thought that this was hugely positive and it gave added energy to the campaign. Looking at what is happening in this State, we could do with some of that energy as well. It energised and mobilised young people to engage with the democratic system. Surely all politicians should be in favour of that. We should be making it easier for people to vote and encouraging them to be involved.

Political awareness at a younger age may lead to more political engagement and a greater connection between young people's involvement in a variety of political forums, such as student councils and student union activity. There are many positive aspects to lowering the voting age. An extension of voting rights should be combined with appropriate electoral and civic education. I would not limit that to teenagers, because I think that across society we could promote an understanding of what is involved.

In the past, working people, including women, were disenfranchised. The same arguments were made at that time for extending the franchise. In the 21st century we should encourage as many people as possible to vote. One of the key components of any democratic society involves people using their vote. This is such an opportunity and I welcome the fact that the Minister of State is not opposing the Bill.

Let us have an honest debate and examine this issue. We should step up to the plate for those young people who are genuinely interested in politics and want to see a new, inclusive society. If we want such a society, we will have to give them the vote.

I apologise for coming into the House in a rush and not on schedule, but I would like to make some observations about this Bill. It is good sometimes to bring a refreshing view to the state of representation in the Oireachtas. However, to propose that young adults aged 16, who are still not fully physically or mentally mature, would have the responsibility of voting for Dáil candidates is over-enthusiastic and ill-judged.

I have had the experience of jointly raising four children through their teenage years and into adulthood. They are young men and women now, two of whom have emigrated. I was once in that position, aged 16. By their own admission, children aged 16 like a transition year in order to come to terms with themselves, let alone being able to make assessments and judgments about who would be appropriate and responsible representatives to debate and enact legislation in the Dáil.

To be frank and honest with my colleagues, I think it is daft. It is as daft a proposal as seeking to have our head of State as young as 21 years of age. It really defies wisdom.

In even the most primitive of societies across the globe the elders are held in high regard and respected for the very fact alone that they have experience of living. While I do not wish to digress, in the case of the presidency, one needs two generations of life experience before one can offer something of worth as Head of State to the people. It is daft to think somebody aged 21 years could possibly have the experience needed to give example and to encourage, motivate and lead people by life example. Could anyone aged 21 years possibly be in a position to offer that life example to their fellow citizens and represent them?

The same criteria of judgment in considering the matter must apply to the case of whether children aged 16 years should make well judged decisions on who deserves to be supported by a vote to represent the whole people, not just their constituency. We have lost an understanding of the Burke principle, namely, that legislators are not just messenger boys or girls bringing the whimsical wants of the people who vote for them to parliament by way of the algebra arrangements used for elections; it is a solemn responsibility. The cohesion of our community and society depends on how we organise the framework of communication and conversation between the citizens and their responsibilities and what is good and bad for society.

Children aged 16 years are having hormonal battles in their bodies, heads, minds and hearts. They do not even have the confidence to come into a room to meet new people, yet Deputy Brian Stanley is asking them to make decisions on who should represent their constituency and the people of the country. It would be an unfair responsibility to impose on them. Just because they are consumers does not mean that they are in a position to make these solemn assessments or judgments. There is huge confusion between citizens and consumers. Consumers’ rights are mixed up with those of citizens; there is no equivalence. The word "equivalence" is much more profound than "equality". Equality is mathematical, one-dimensional, meaning one equals one, two equals two. Equivalence has to do with value or the meaning of faring well from the Latin valere. It means to fare well, to be well, to journey well - to have equivalence in an enterprise, on a journey, in a decision or work.

We must stop this nonsense. I respect Deputy Brian Stanley's motivation in taking a fresh looking at matters, but what issues does one examine when it comes to representation in Parliament? We need to be serious about this. On another day we will be discussing the 40,000 deeply distressed mortgage holders, the 120,000 to 140,000 human souls who are worrying about the outlook for the next 20 years in terms of how they will survive. We are horrified at how the Tánaiste was recently cornered and surrounded for two hours by ugly behaviour. The Garda came to her rescue, but who will rescue the 140,000 souls in their houses that have become their prisons? The answer is nobody. Statistically, of these 140,000 people, there will be more than a handful who will take their own lives because of the pressure exerted by their financial imprisonment. Families will break up and children will become distressed, the very children aged 16 years whom Deputy Brian Stanley wants to have a vote. These are the problems we need to be addressing without wearing party colours, only the colours of common citizenship, to seek the well-being of all citizens.

Others are suffering, too, such as the 350,000 young people - potential workers, earners and family formers - who have had to emigrate in the past five years. We have a pathetic and regressive taxation system that prevents them from coming home. There are 90,000 further families, about 360,000 souls, without homes or on housing waiting lists. These should be our priorities. Why are we printing these Bills to review the arrangements for the franchise to include children who are trying to work out who they are, their personal and sexual identities? Deputy Brian Stanley wants to give them what they do not want, the right to vote. We want someone aged 21 years to be Head of State when, legally, they have only arrived at the point where they could be trustees. Legally, people have to be 21 years to enter into a solemn contract or status of responsibility. Members need to get real, instead of wasting our time and chattering on about nonsensical issues. We should be standing side by side, shoulder to shoulder with the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras, and his finance Minister, Yanis Varoufakis, on the need for a debt conference for Europe. These should be our priorities.

This has been a very interesting, topical and welcome debate and I thank Deputy Brian Stanley for introducing the Bill. I thank Deputy Peter Mathews for his contribution. In any debate we need to have opposing and alternative views which he expressed strongly. Some of these views I would agree with but others I would oppose vehemently, particularly on Alexis Tsipras. Both his and his party's promises will soon be found out, but that is a matter for another day.

Does the Minister of State have any 16 year old child?

The Government is not opposing the passage of the Bill on Second Stage, simply because we agree with its principle. A strong case has been made in the House in favour of reducing the voting age to 16 years. Some of these points were made at the Convention on the Constitution which voted 52% in favour of reducing the voting age, while 47% voted against. The views of Deputy Peter Mathews were reflected strongly at the convention.

The Government has decided to support the idea that a referendum should be held, but the question of its timing is also important. Two referendums will be held next May. It will not be for the Members of this House to decide whether the voting age will be reduced, but for the Irish people in a referendum.

Some matters need to be examined by the Government in advance of that referendum, for example, legislative changes that could arise, possible secondary implications for the age of majority and the role of education, if lowering the voting age is to have its desired effect on youth electoral and political participation. I was interested in and agree with Deputy Kelleher's comments, in that, if we are to utilise primary and secondary schools, it is important that no specific influence be designed into the system. It should be managed and delivered independently. The education system needs to engage young minds in active citizenship and in considering the impact that electoral politics, politicians, policies and decisions can have on society.

I do not agree with Deputy Crowe, who asked the populist question about why people should keep voting for those who bring austerity or for traditional parties. I would give the electorate more credit. People do not just consider parties' populist policies, but their overall ones so as to determine where a party or Government will take society and how it will manage the economy, the Departments for which it is responsible, etc. It is all very well for the Deputy to criticise this party and previous Governments, but I hope that we are seeing the end of austerity. All recent indicators have shown positive movement in that regard. I fear for our people in the North because they are only starting their term of austerity. Like the Greek Prime Minister, Sinn Féin will soon find that it is a different story when one is in government. Politics is not just about voting people into office, but about being responsible after taking office. This is an important factor in today's debate on 16 year olds. It is not just a question of giving them the vote, although that is important. Instead, it is a question of giving them responsibility for the consequences of how their votes are utilised. This is where deep debate and engagement are necessary prior to a referendum.

I will address a number of issues that arise when holding a referendum. Were the constitutional amendment approved by the people, it would be necessary to introduce an electoral amendment Bill to provide for the registration of an estimated 121,000 16 to 17 year olds. As we all know as politicians, the current system of electoral registration leaves much room for improvement. I welcome the recent announcement of the introduction of an electoral commission to consider such matters. However, if we were to add an extra 121,000 people in the morning, we would have to put the necessary resources in place to allow for it, particularly in local authorities. It is a surmountable issue, but it needs to be planned for properly.

I referred to a number of potential issues that might arise with a voting age that differs from the age of majority. On reflection, we might feel that these considerations do not outweigh the benefits of lowering the voting age, but we must accept that such concerns exist and should be debated in depth and openly. We should also consider and learn from events in other countries to inform what we do. Experience shows that it is not just enough to reduce the voting age and expect positive benefits to flow. We also need to consider the long-term impact.

I welcome this debate and compliment Deputy Stanley on his work in presenting this Bill. We will not oppose it on Second Stage. The Government has committed to holding two referendums in May, so this is a further proposal for consideration.

I welcome the fact that the Government will not oppose the Bill on Second Stage, but it should not just allow it to run it into the sand. The Government should facilitate the Bill's passage to Committee and Report Stages.

"Mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí" is an old, but true, Irish saying. Obviously, Deputy Mathews does not believe in its meaning, namely, that if the youth are encouraged, they will rise and prosper. He stated that we could not give teenagers votes because their hormones were battling in their bodies. Many people in their 40s and 50s also have hormones battling in their bodies, but we do not remove their right to vote. Let us set the hormone battles to one side and deal with the issues, as they are no reason to deny young people the right to vote.

I welcome the Minister of State's constructive comments, but including this proposal among the May referendums would be a simple matter. The two questions that will be put to the people in May are straightforward, those being, do they support same-sex marriage and do they support the right of someone under 35 years of age but over 21 years of age to run for the office of President. If my memory is correct, more than two issues have previously been presented to the people on the same day. Those were complicated issues. Our proposed third question would be straightforward, namely, whether people believe that persons under 18 years of age should be allowed to vote. As such, the Minister of State's reason is not sufficient to defer the referendum to another time. The constitutional convention has been beneficial and allowed the opportunity to tease out many issues. On 18 July 2013, the Government outlined in the Dáil its agreement to hold a referendum on the proposal to amend the Constitution.

In the Minister of State's concluding remarks, he conceded that the issue surrounding the age of majority need not be an obstacle. However, he stated that there could be other legislative implications. Those could be teased out simply. That someone has the right to vote does not confer on him or her the range of entitlements that people who turn 18 years of age acquire. The fact that a number of countries, including the EU, are moving or have moved to lower voting ages should be considered. A study in Austria found that the electoral turnout of 16 year olds and 17 year olds was significantly higher than was the turnout of older first-time voters. This is interesting. Getting people to vote for the first time before the age of 18 years is more likely than it would be before they were 20 or 21 years of age. As every Deputy knows, it can be difficult to convince people in their 20s to vote for anyone, be it a Fine Gael candidate, a Sinn Féin candidate or whoever. They can be apathetic. Deputies often meet young people on tours in Leinster House. They are interested, engaged, keyed into the political system and want to know more about it. Sometimes, they do this through transition year programmes. The Bill could be tied into those. Far from the transition year gig being a negative event that, as Deputy Mathews claimed, should be used as a reason against lowering the voting age, it is actually a reason for doing it.

That is very interesting. I also think people in the younger age group are more likely to be first-time voters when they are at school.

Concern has been expressed about the important link with education. I have a concern about what happens when school principals and teachers invite Deputies and councillors to speak to students. It would be interesting to see a survey of schools that would show which political parties are more likely to receive such invitations. We would be in favour of an arrangement that would give the same share of invitations to each of the four main political parties and to the Independent group. It would be very interesting if each of them was to get one fifth of the slots that are available. I am concerned about the present situation. I have spoken to students in schools at the invitation of teachers, but I have not received that many invitations. I know that members of other political parties speak to students in schools on a fairly regular basis. If the system were scrutinised to ensure children are presented with all the facts rather than being unduly influenced by one political doctrine or another, that would be welcomed by Sinn Féin. Students should be taught about what the responsibility that accompanies the right to vote actually means in terms of shaping society, looking after its future and making sure we have good and fair outcomes.

The youth organisations will be disappointed by the refusal to hold a referendum on this issue. The vote at 16 alliance, in particular, is very anxious for this to be done. It had said that if our Bill was to be defeated - thankfully, that is not going to happen and I welcome that - it would put pressure on the Government parties to amend the electoral laws to move this along. Another Bill in my name went through Second Stage but stopped after that. I do not mean to have a go at the Government - I am being sincere - when I say it has spoken about democratic reform, but some of the reforms it has made are minor. It has not taken action on some more important matters, including this one. Given that it has a maximum of a little over a year left in office - it might be out of office sooner than that - I suggest it should adopt this proposal as a means of showing it is still interested in a democratic revolution. This should be part of any democratic revolution.

I am a parent and a grandparent, but I am no expert. I struggle with trying to get it right. I have always struggled with trying to get the parenting bit right, as most of us do if we are honest with ourselves. I know that if young people are included in decision-making, presented with the facts and allowed to make judgments, that results in better adults, better young people and a better society. I urge the Government not to allow this legislation to run into the sand. It is being allowed to advance to Second Stage but it should be facilitated, encouraged and pushed forward from there. If that happens, the Government will be able to hold it up as an example of the democratic revolution. I am sure it will hold other items up as well.

That concludes the debate.

Hormones and all.

Cuireadh agus aontaíodh an cheist.
Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share