Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Nov 2023

Vol. 296 No. 14

Electoral (Amendment) (Voting at 16) Bill 2021: Second Stage

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

I propose to share time with Senator McGreehan, who is on her way. I want to welcome representatives from the National Youth Council of Ireland, NYCI, and Comhairle na nÓg from Wexford to the Gallery. Indeed, many youth organisations around the country have done a lot of work on the issue of enhancing our democracy and increasing young people's participation in the democratic process. Cuirim fáilte freisin chuig an Aire Stát. The Minister of State, Deputy Noonan, and I have spoken about this issue previously and I am very grateful for his personal support on the matter.

Ireland has always prided itself on being a vibrant democracy. The fact that we in 1937 were the first country in the world to adopt its constitution by means of a popular vote says something about our emphasis on public participation.

We have always looked at ways in which we can strengthen our democracy and involve our citizens, not only in voting but also in our decision-making processes. The citizens' assembly, which was established by the State following votes in both of these Houses, strongly recommended that the voting age be reduced to 16. It has been recommended by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe and by the European Parliament. They have all signalled that they support a reduction in the voting age to 16. I strongly welcome the commitment in the programme for Government that the newly established Electoral Commission be asked to look at the issue of reducing the voting age, having learned from the useful experience in Scotland.

This Bill provides for a reduction in the voting age for local and European elections. It would require a constitutional amendment to reduce it in Dáil elections, referendums and presidential elections, but we can provide for the reduction to 16 in local and European elections legislatively, simply by enacting this or similar legislation.

When the European elections take place next June, as they will in the 27 member states across Europe, in four of the member states citizens over the age of 16 will be voting. In Austria, Belgium, Germany and Malta, 16-year-olds will be voting and in Greece those who are 17 years old will be voting in the European elections next June. In addition to those five EU member states, Estonia has granted the right to those aged 16 and above to vote in local elections. In Scotland and Wales, 16-year-olds have been allowed to vote. Indeed, prior to the Brexit referendum there was an active campaign to allow 16-year-olds to vote on the issue of Brexit, a crucial issue that impacted on the future of many young people. It has been much speculated that had the UK allowed 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, the result might have been different from the one we finally saw. In many other democracies, including Argentina and Brazil, 16-year olds have been allowed to vote for quite some time. The Isle of Man, which interestingly was the first place in the world to allow women to vote, has allowed those aged 16 and above to vote for two decades. In the United States, where a presidential election will take place next year, 17-year-olds can vote in many of the primary elections in different states, provided they will have turned 18 by the election the following November. Senators will be aware that there is quite a degree of focus on the age of the candidates at the moment in the United States. While we are debating the minimum age to be able to vote, I discovered that only one country has a maximum age on voting rights: the Vatican. Members of the college of cardinals in the Vatican cannot vote after they turn 80. I am certainly not proposing that we introduce a maximum age. Senator Mullen has plenty of time to run for leadership in the Vatican City state. It is the only place where a maximum age is in place.

Despite all the positive experiences in all the other territories and the fact that all those organisations, including many youth organisations in this country such as the National Youth Council of Ireland, Comhairle na nÓg and the Irish Second-Level Students Union have actively campaigned for it, the question comes down to whether it is right for Ireland and why we should allow 16-year-olds the right to vote. It is clear that at the age of 16, young people have an interest in their communities, country and planet and have the capacity to make informed choices about who should represent them. They are aware of the issues and the structures where they live. On the greatest existential threat we face on this planet, the climate and biodiversity crisis, it is only fair to argue that young people have led much of the discussion and provided real leadership, the example of which many of us who are more mature in years have had to follow. Anyone who has spoken to groups of young people on issues such as mental health, education, community and youth services will say that young people have provided leadership and have a deep and enthusiastic understanding of and experience in those issues.

Voting is habitual. Surveys have regularly found in every democracy that those who use their first vote are much more likely to continue to vote later in life. It is a simple case of vote early and then vote often. It is true. If we can ensure that people vote when they are 16, 18 or whatever age, they are much more likely to continue to vote. It therefore makes sense that we try to encourage people to vote for the first time from an early age. In fact, the studies from Austria, which in 2007 was the first country in the European Union to reduce the voting age to 16 on a wide scale, having reduced it for local elections from 2000, indicate that voters aged 16 to 18 tend to be as informed about the political issues during the elections as those aged 18 to 21, but are more likely to vote. It is interesting that there are higher turnout rates in that cohort. This is probably related - it is hinted at in much of the research - to the fact that they are likely to be living at home, whereas those aged 18 to 21 are more likely to have gone to college or to be in a transitionary period in their lives and are less likely to vote. The evidence also shows that when people start to vote at that age they tend to have higher levels of trust in democratic participation. At a time when trust in some of our democratic and political institutions is often being challenged, it is important we encourage people to vote early. All the evidence from the countries that have reduced the voting age points to that being the case.

One of the significant concerns in my party, and more widely, is that if we allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote, they will be more easily swayed by their parents, by teachers or by influencers, that they will be more likely to vote for populist slogans or that some fancy TikTok video will encourage young people to vote in a certain way. It is a cynical view. Reducing the voting age - I will come to this - is not the only solution to enhancing young people's participation in democracy, but when young people are informed about the changes happening, they make informed decisions. They look at the evidence. On the crucial question of how we respond to climate change, which is of real importance to young people, if young people look at the Government's record as opposed to the disparate approach of the Opposition, there would be no question but that 16- and 17-year-olds would come out and strongly support the Government parties, as the Opposition has been all over the place on climate change. The challenge is for every political party to be able to sell its message to young people. The evidence from Austria and other countries tends to be that political parties adapt and look at how they can sell their message more effectively to those groups of young people.

As I said, reducing the voting age is not a panacea. Simply reducing it from 18 to 16 will not necessarily solve all our problems around democracy or see lots more young people get involved in politics, which we all want to see. We need to look at the broader context of how to enhance democratic participation. The school system has an important role to play in that. The politics and society subject at leaving certificate level and civic, social and political education, CSPE, at junior certificate level have gone some way towards doing so. In Youthreach and local training initiative, LTI, programmes, there is now much more emphasis on civic participation.

Comhairle na nÓg does a fantastic job in encouraging some of that wider participation. We all need to consider the question of our rights and duties as citizens. In particular, there needs to be a debate among young people about what some of those rights and responsibilities are for young citizens. In addition to the electoral commission examining the important issue of reducing the voting age, we need to consider having a national commission on youth citizenship to examine how we can encourage young people to be citizens in society, which would not only include their voting rights, but also their acquisition of other skills.

I appreciate that we are close to the local and European elections. They will take place next June, so it is unlikely that we will be joining the five member states that have reduced voting ages for them. However, there have been clear indications from the Government that this is the direction in which we want to move. I would like the Minister of State to give a clear indication now of the direction that we as a country are going to move in on this issue. We have an obligation not just to signal a reduction in the voting age, but to enhance young people’s participation more generally.

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following:

“the Bill be read a second time on 1st July, 2024, to allow for further consideration of the Bill.”

I welcome the Minister of State. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Malcolm Byrne, on his work on it. It is important to have a conversation about how we engage our young people in civic society. I remember waiting to register my vote. I did my leaving certificate when I was 16 years old, so it was over a year later before I even got an opportunity to put my tick in any box. One of the first things I did when I hit 18 years of age that summer’s day was to go to the post office to register to vote. Now, that might just have been a problem with me, but it was important to me because voting is important, and it is important that we engage with young people to show them what it means to vote. It is not the tick in the box. It is not just a number. It is a part of this country and their democracy. It is a part of how we have grown over the past 100 years in this great nation, and it is how we will grow in the next couple of years.

When I am out canvassing, I might see young people coming to the doors and they are often quite shocked when I want to talk to them. They first say that they will go to get their mams and dads, but I ask them for their opinions. Young people are not burdened by the shackles of budgets. They are far more optimistic and open to possibilities. We look at things and say that they cannot be done a certain way whereas young people are much more optimistic and unburdened by barriers than older people. When I am out canvassing or out and about more generally, I often get the best ideas and engagement from younger people.

Senator Malcolm Byrne listed the countries that had already lowered their voting ages. It is important to know that things there did not fall apart when 16-year-olds got the vote. Not all of them vote, of course. Sometimes, even 60-year-olds and 70-year-olds do not bother showing up to vote. However, this is about engaging people in our democracy and getting them to become part of the system. Some young people will be like me and be very interested – registering was the first thing I did when I hit 18 years of age – while others will not, but this is about finding ways to engage everyone, starting with young people.

When I was a member of Louth County Council, there were strategic policy committee, SPC, policy meetings. There were no young people around those tables. I was probably the youngest person there. It is important that people start learning about all of this when they are young. I agree with Senator Malcolm Byrne that we need to find straightforward but meaningful ways of engaging young people in policymaking, not just box ticking or bringing them in and telling them they are great and fantastic. We need to give young people a space where their voices are not only heard, but listened to and acted upon.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank the Senators for proposing this legislation for our consideration. I am probably in a speaking minority in this debate because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill. I will explain why, if I may. The Leader of the House intends to postpone consideration of the Bill via an amendment. So be it, but the issues are important and need to be teased out. I wish to express some views of my own on the matter.

The age of majority comes into question in this regard. People under the age of 18 years are not entitled to gamble, smoke or drink. They would not even be entitled to buy vapes under the latest proposals from the citizens’ assembly. Apparently, they will not be allowed to smoke recreational drugs when those proposals come into effect. They are not bound by contract. For legal purposes, including the purposes of criminal law, they are considered to be children. For asylum seeking purposes, we speak about 17-year-olds coming to this country as unaccompanied children. Up to the age of 18 years, they are considered to be unaccompanied children.

The issue that arises for me is much broader and is about whether we are guilty of double standards when it comes to the age of majority. If someone is incapable of going into a pub or off-licence and buying a can of beer or of going into a shop and buying a lottery ticket because he or she is regarded by law as being vulnerable and someone who should not be permitted to do that, why do we say that his or her judgment as to who should be on the local council or in the European Parliament is to be accorded the same status as anyone else’s judgment? It is part of a broader movement to sweep away the concept of childhood and the protection of younger people. I am in favour of protecting young people. They deserve special status under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, the Misuse of Drugs Acts, when they are amended, the provisions on who can drive e-scooters and so forth, and they are entitled to protection. Unaccompanied minors coming to this country seeking recognition as refugees are entitled to special consideration. However, I do not accept that we can simply dine à la carte when it comes to the distinction between childhood and majority and say that, for some purposes, we accord full rights to an individual but, for other purposes, we take those rights away.

I also make the point that no matter what is said in favour of this legislation, local authority elections take place every five years and European elections take place on the same timeframe. Therefore, even if this were to become the law, 80% of people would be unaffected by it because they would not be in the right time slot, so to speak, to be affected by the matter. Let us be clear about this; this is not all that is being claimed for it. Some 80% of younger people would never get to vote under the age of 18 in a local or European election if this were to take place. Senator Byrne talks about the idea that people under the age of 18 should have been allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum and says the result might have been the other way around. Maybe he is right. The result might have been different but that is not an argument for deciding that 14-year-olds should not be allowed vote but 16- or 17-year-olds should. Why say to a 15-year-old that suddenly something is going to happen at the age of 16 and they are going to be endowed with a much greater understanding of the political system or the needs of their society?

I stand against the degradation of the status of childhood. I do not believe we can dine à la carte and say to people they cannot buy a lottery ticket because they are too immature but they can determine who will make decisions on their local authority's housing policy. That does not make sense. I know I am probably in a minority and very few people would have the courage to stand up here and say what I am saying. However, let us remember that this legislation will probably be deferred because of the Government amendment but even then, and even if it were carried into law, the outcome would only affect 20% of young people. There is one last thing I should say. The citizens' assembly came up with the daft idea that presidents should be electable at the age of 21. The people took a look at that suggestion and on the same day as they voted in favour of some other proposition, 75% said "No" to that. Gimmickry is a dangerous thing and citizens' assemblies are not always as wise as sometimes they can be.

Senator Byrne has welcomed some guests. I welcome Wexford Comhairle na nÓg and representatives of Young Voices from the National Youth Council of Ireland to the Public Gallery. They are most welcome.

I have to follow the thought-provoking contribution of my esteemed colleague Senator McDowell. I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. I welcome our friends from Comhairle na nÓg in Wexford, guests of Senator Byrne, and representatives from the National Youth Council. This is thought-provoking legislation. It is one on which I have an open mind. I probably do not look as young as when I entered politics at the age of 21, but being 36 now and having spent nearly 15 years in politics, youth participation in politics is something that has always been very close to my heart.

I also come from an education background and I know the civic, social and political education, CSPE, junior certificate course and politics in society as a leaving certificate subject were referenced in a previous contribution. It was a retrograde step to remove the examination for CSPE that was done as part of the junior cycle curriculum changes and I expressed those views at the time, but it is a really welcome move that we now have a leaving certificate subject in this area because it fosters and encourages young people who have an interest in politics and society to take that interest, explore it in greater depth, and form their own opinions. This is what any subject in school should be about.

Obviously, the programme for Government commits to research being undertaken in this space and for the views formed by evidence from other countries to be factored into that. Also in the programme for Government was the establishment of the Electoral Commission, which is now on a statutory footing and is tasked with the body of research which will go into this. There was research done by one of the Scottish universities, the University of Edinburgh perhaps, that emphasised what Senator Byrne referenced, that if young people participated in the democratic process of voting at an earlier age, there was a greater likelihood of them continuing that throughout their lifetime. I am sure research such as this will be factored into consideration by the Electoral Commission. On the flip side, as Senator McDowell rightly said, is there an element of us putting the cart before the horse when we look at what happened with the referendum on the age at which somebody could stand for the presidential election being defeated in a referendum by quite a sizeable margin? There is not a clear set of definitive answers to this question.

As a young person, and I still consider myself a young person, I can see both the pros and perhaps some of the cons as well. That is why we need to have that wider body of research done by an independent statutory agency, which we have now established in the Electoral Commission, and it is very important that the views of young people are taken on board in that process. It cannot be done by older people as a top-down or desktop exercise here and just looking at pieces of research. There has to be full engagement with all of the youth organisations in any process that will be undertaken in this space because it is extremely important, regardless of the age of consent, that we have participation in the voting process. Not enough people take part in the voting process. I know we are trying to do a body of work on modernising the register but far too few people participate when it comes to voting.

I wish the Minister of State well in his role in this area. It is an exciting time with the modernisation of that electoral system. The pre-registration of 16- and 17-year-olds is something that was debated heavily during the Electoral Reform Act 2022 that was brought through. It is a really welcome move because there were many people who missed out. They turned 18 and missed out on voting because they could not be registered in time. It is a welcome move and I look forward to that body of work being completed by the Electoral Commission.

At a time when it appears increasing numbers of younger people are disengaged, apathetic or, worse, alienated from society, sometimes distracted by addictive social media feeds and misled down dark roads of substance abuse and social alienation, it behoves the political leadership of this country to sit up and endeavour to take appropriate action.

What action is appropriate? The response must be multidisciplinary and co-ordinated. Apart from the ongoing need to invest in education at all levels, there is a strong argument for developing the teaching of social sciences to younger students in secondary schools as well as older primary school children.

I also believe the voting age in political elections should be lowered to 16 years. I come from a party that has many young environmental activists. Maybe that helps to keep me young and stay connected with their needs and what they want. At present, the only significant social science course offered to students is on politics and society. This truly worthwhile initiative was introduced into secondary schools in 2016 but one of the problems with this course is that it is not taught to students until they reach senior cycle or fifth year. In my opinion, students as young as ten years of age should be introduced to introductory issues relating to politics, legal systems and society. We need to develop their ability to assess important events that are happening around them, which they are observing and partaking in the active observation of. We need to encourage them to engage. As they grow into their teenage years, younger people should be told about what the Government does, how it is elected, and how it interacts with Parliament, the courts system and the media. Young people should be given a taster course in how our legal system works. They should be informed about the Constitution and its role in setting and delimiting rights and obligations and giving people entitlements. They can learn about the nature of crime, the difference between a crime and a civil wrong, and the role played by solicitors, barristers and the courts.

Law is the cement of society. It runs through the whole of society. It is what underpins our freedom. Law is what gives society the ability to protect and implement the rights of vulnerable people. It establishes a scaffolding for our society and protects citizens from the dangerous extremism that is so evident in so many countries, including some countries with which Irish people are quite well acquainted. Law is a device that ordinary people can use to promote and defend things they hold dear. That same proposition cannot be said for many other arts subjects.

I speak to the subject from a position of some experience. In a past life I worked as a secondary school teacher. In that role I had the privilege of introducing hundreds of young people to the wonderful subjects of English literature and history. Later, as a practising barrister I organised a public access to law programme for second level students from all over Ireland. The programme culminated in an annual mock trial competition which went on to a world cup event and reached tens upon tens of thousands of students. By the time I retired, it had reached 160,000 transition year students. They were active members of that course but could not vote.

If we educate young people on the workings of society, it follows that they will be better able to comprehend it. If they have a deeper understanding of it, they are more likely to be meaningfully engaged. It is also my opinion that the broadening of this part of the curriculum should be complemented by the lowering to 16 years of age voting eligibility in this country. Senator McDowell mentioned some anomalies, as he would see them, arbitrary anomalies in that people at that age cannot gamble, smoke, vape or buy lottery tickets. None of the above are perhaps good for their health.

Or use an e-scooter.

I would respond to that by pointing out that a young person can work full-time at 15, change their name when they are 16, drive a car, join the Army with parental consent and do many other things but they cannot vote. Allowing 16-year-olds to vote make sense.

Interestingly, lowering the voter eligibility age to 16 is part of the manifesto of Keir Starmer of the Labour Party, which is expected to come to power in Britain next year. It has often been said over recent years that the current generation of young people will be the first generation in recent decades to be less well off than their parents. One practical way of avoiding this unwelcome scenario would be to provide them with empowering education on how society actually works and how to change it for the better. If the current generation of political thinkers wants to mitigate the worst excesses of the Internet, computer games and many other excesses that young people are dealing with, we need to provide our young people with practical guidance on how society works. Only then is it more likely that we can say that the next generation of social leaders will be more informed and will be drawing from a wider, deeper pool of engaged and concerned citizens.

Regarding Senator McDowell's genuine concerns, I would draw his attention to the fact that these changes have been overwhelmingly positive in the countries where the voting age was reduced. One study, which members may or may not be aware of, looked at what effects the lowering of the voting age to 16 in 2014 had on voting habits in the 2021 Scottish parliamentary elections. It found that younger first-time voters in Scotland retain a habit of voting in elections and participated in greater numbers than older first-time voters. Those who were able to vote as a 16-year-old or 17-year-old were more likely to continue voting into their 20s. For the cohort who voted at 16 and 17, the authors also found that socioeconomic turnout inequalities were reduced and engagement in non-electoral politics was increased.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House again today. I also welcome the people in the Public Gallery. They are folks from the NYCI, Wexford Comhairle na nÓg and a comrade of mine, James Stokes, a Sinn Féin candidate in Newbridge in County Kildare, who is 18 years of age and has come to the Seanad to witness this debate.

This is a very interesting debate, which we have had many times here in this House. To be honest, I am somewhat exhausted discussing at length the merits of lowering the voting age to 16. We have said here time and again that Sinn Féin wants to lower the voting age to 16. We support this. The proposers of this Bill, Senators Malcolm Byrne, Fitzpatrick and McGreehan, do not need to convince us. It is clear that they need to convince their own party, Fine Gael and their Government colleagues. I feel like I will be dead before Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael lower the voting age to 16. I wonder if this is just a performative House. Is this just a talking shop? We have discussed this since 2016. We have had motions to delay my own legislation on two occasions. Sinn Féin basically held up the electoral reform Bill back in June to talk about elements we could insert into that Bill that would seek to lower the voting age to 16. This has never moved to the successful implementation or a plan for implementation. There are always excuses. Ministers say they will set up the Electoral Commission and it will advise them, or they will farm it out to a constitutional convention or citizens' assembly, whatever it is at the time. They say the Electoral Commission will do it, or that we need to empower young people and give them the knowledge they need. All of these excuses have been made over and over again and never have we moved to the successful implementation of voting rights for 16- and 17-year-olds. I am a bit cynical at this point. I hope this Bill has been proposed and put forward in good faith. I am particularly exhausted by this idea that we are not ready yet, that the education is not there or whatever. Senator Cummins alluded to that. CSPE being removed as an exam subject at junior cycle is an example of going the opposite way and not doing what we need.

The motion to delay from a Fianna Fáil Leader of the House on a Fianna Fáil Bill is extraordinary. I have not seen that in my time in this House. We will not support the motion to delay this Bill. We support this Bill. We support this Fianna Fáil Bill. We have a Bill on the Order Paper too. On 12 July 2016, it was moved on First Stage and there was a motion to delay for one year. I brought it back in on 29 March 2017.

On 21 March 2018, Fianna Fáil tabled a motion to put a delay on that. As I mentioned, there was the electoral reform Bill in June 2023. We are insulting the intelligence of young people, in a way. That is all I have to say about this. I want to support this Bill and work with all of the Senators who support it. I will do that but I do not want this House to be performative or a talking shop either.

I too welcome all our visitors in the Public Gallery. I welcome my fellow Kildare man and wish him the best of luck in the forthcoming local elections. I also thank Fianna Fáil Senators for introducing the important debate tonight on the Electoral (Amendment) (Voting at 16) Bill 2021. It is a Bill to reduce to 16 years the age at which a person is entitled to be registered as a European Parliament and local government elector.

The debate this evening is timely for me because, on my way into Leinster House today, I met the transition year class in the excellent Cross and Passion College in Kilcullen, along with their teacher, Mr. Sean Dowling, and we discussed this Bill. There were a variety of answers, some of which I think some Members might find very interesting, in the discussion with the transition year class from Kilcullen in County Kildare this morning. A number of students felt that 16 was too young and they would not be mature enough to make an informed decision. It is very welcome that young people are thinking like that. Another interesting comment from a student was that 16 was too young, as that particular student felt they would only vote the way their parents wanted them to. However, the majority of students in that transition year class were in favour of a reduction in the age to 16, with comments like, "I feel I am old enough", "I live in my community, I want to vote", "I want to get my name on the register", "It would mean a lot to me", and "It is my future, I want to vote". That comment was replicated time and time again by the students from Cross and Passion College. One question, which was rather interesting, was whether this would come in time for the local elections of next year. Senator Byrne has gone some way to answering that question and the Government has gone someway to maybe not answering it but it was the question on the lips of those in Cross and Passion College this morning. It is a conversation I have had with many young people.

It is also important, as politicians, that we have those conversations because another part of our discussion today was what they thought of politicians and how we converse with young people. It was interesting to hear comments that we do not converse enough. Young people do not feel they are part of the political system. That is something we can all take on board, and I definitely did. When young people tell you they are not aware of what you are doing on the ground in Kildare South or wherever we may be, it is a worry for us all in this House. It is a worry that we are not getting through to young people. Young people are important to us all. It goes without saying that young people are the future of this country. Many of them want to get involved. They want their voices to be heard. They want to vote. Many were aware of the issues. I am using this morning's discussion as an example of many conversations I have had. They were aware of what was missing in their localities. When we talk about introducing this, as we could, through legislation for local elections, they gave examples of the infrastructure they felt young people were missing in their area. They were very much aware of that and how that needed to be introduced.

It is a Bill the Labour Party has supported in the past in this House. We would support it again. Labour Youth has consistently supported and campaigned on reducing that age to 16. I thank Labour Youth for that because that too is important. All political parties have a youth wing that can keep us informed of what is happening on the ground, particularly at that age. This Bill can be the vehicle we use to engage more with those 16- and 17-year-olds and bring them to understand that politicians do actually care and want 16- and 17-year-olds to be involved in politics. We want to hear their views. It reminds me, which has been referenced before, of the story, which is true in my case, of a local politician who knocked on the door and asked to speak to the mammy and daddy of the young person who answered the door. They did not know that the person had just turned 18, registered to vote only the week before and was looking forward to engagement with that politician at the door and other politicians. When I knocked on the door and discussed, as others suggested tonight, with that young 18-year-old, they were keen to let me know that story and that they would not be voting for the person who did not engage with them at the door because our young people want to be engaged with politics. That is the message we are all putting out tonight. The vast majority of those to whom I spoke today want to hear their voices and want the vote at 16. They want their voices to be heard at 16. Of course, there were those who felt they were not mature enough and their voices and opinions matter too. The majority of people in that class today and the people to whom I have spoken over the past weeks and months want to hear their voices and for their voices to be heard at 16 and 17. We have, as outlined, a mechanism here to allow that to happen for local and European elections.

In supporting the Bill tonight, a conversation has been had, but we have heard this discussion before. We will hear from the Minister about a postponement or another can being kicked down the road. That is not good news for those young people to whom I spoke today. Whatever can it is, it is heading down the road again. Here we are again, as Senator Warfield just stated. I look forward to what the Minister will say. Perhaps he will change his mind when he hears all of what we have said tonight. I thank Senator Byrne and his colleagues for introducing this Bill. Most importantly, the majority of 16-year-olds to whom I speak daily and weekly want their voices and their vote.

I rise, as quite an elderly lemon in this House, to support this Bill.

Do not put yourself down, Senator Craughwell.

Slightly taller than Barry Desmond.

I think back to my youth. At 12 years of age, I started my first job. At 15, I ran a bar in a hotel in Lisdoonvarna for the entire season. Before the age of 16, I was working in a pub called The Hog in the Pound in South Molton Street in London. By the time I was just over 16, I was a member of the armed forces. To suggest, today, that a 16-year-old would be anything like I was when I was 16 is insanity. They are far more advanced, more with it, more educated and more on top of what is going on in society. I appreciate what my colleague Senator McDowell said. As he is an elder lemon like me, I should probably take some of what he had to say on board. I will not address those young people down there. They know what they want. I am not afraid of them electing a President. We have seen presidents around the world, some elected, and my God they should not have been allowed out of the house the first day ever, let alone electing them as presidents. I am not afraid of that at all. I would like to see participation.

Just around the world?

I am deaf so I cannot hear the Senator. I would like to see participation at as early an age as possible. I think 16 is a good age to start. My colleague Senator Cummins made the point that he came from an education background; so too did I. I travelled the length and breadth of the country as president of the Teachers' Union of Ireland, TUI, and I learned how advanced children are from the age of 13 or 14. I am not afraid of 16-year-olds going into a polling booth and voting. I watched my kids growing up and when they started to drive; they were more conscientious about driving than ever I was at their age. I have no fears. It is a good Bill, so what is my reason for being here? My reason is kicking the can down the road until 1 July 2024 - what the hell is that about? It gets us past the local elections. Senator Warfield brought this up. I think he said it was in 2016 that I was here and spoke in favour of it then. He has constantly brought it back. It is time to stop kicking the can down the road. Deal with it and move the Bill through both Houses. Nobody will die. We may finish up with one or two latchikos elected but look around the House. There are a few of them already here. I may be one myself.

It is latchiko central.

The bottom line is that we have nothing to fear. I encourage the Minister of State to kick aside any amendment and go for it. He should be a brave Minister of State. He will go down in history.

I will be brief. This is a good debate. We have had it before and I am somewhat surprised by the change in position and the moving of chairs. The people who were for this Bill are particularly against it from time to time.

I want to acknowledge and thank Senator Malcolm Byrne and his team for preparing what is a very simple Bill and one which I support. I have spoken on it before. I took the time this morning to pull out and read all of the transcripts of the debate on the Bill. The issue is very simple. I want to acknowledge the people in the Gallery and thank them for coming to the House.

I have engaged in the past with the National Youth Council of Ireland, Foróige, Youth Work Ireland and the Irish Second-Level Students' Union. They have been in contact with me and I do not believe their position has changed. It is important that we proceed to empower and franchise 16 and 17-year-olds. I was politically active at 16 years of age. The Minister of State will be aware from his green, environmental and political credentials and community engagement that people are active and politicised at a very early age, and that is a good thing and something we need to encourage.

At the very outset I want to acknowledge the press statement released yesterday which flagged the intention to bring in pre-registration for 16 and 17-year-olds. That is a welcome move, but it does not go far enough. It is an indication of the Government's commitment to at least get people involved. We have seen the statistics. I want to thank the Oireachtas Library and Research Service for the digest it furnished to Members yesterday. It clearly demonstrates that when we engage people early and at a young age in other jurisdictions, such as Latvia, Belgium and certain states in Germany and Switzerland, people want to continue the right to exercise their franchise.

Why are some politicians afraid to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, in particular given the limited scope in which the Bill proposes to do so? It is not about a general election; initially, the franchise would be extended only for local and European elections. I hope the Bill will be passed today and I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to support it. It is only a stage in the process. It is important that we send a clear message. We cannot keep talking about something and doing nothing.

I mean no disrespect to Senator Byrne, because I know he is fiercely committed to this, but I hope he has the support of his party members. If he does not have the support of a substantial number of Government Members, it is very difficult to drive legislation forward. The House has a massive majority. It can bring any legislation forward and reject any amendment, as it does on a weekly basis. In a House with such a big majority, Government parties can block and stop but they can also promote and propagate legislation they believe is correct and right.

It is important that we engage with people, tap into youth and explore the diversity of young people in particular. Young people bring to politics new and fresh ideas and different ways of expression. It is important that we tap into that resource. I want to acknowledge the Minister of State's proposal for pre-registration. It is a good and welcome move, but perhaps it does not go far enough.

Every age brings something new to politics, be they young, middle-aged or elderly. We learn from our life experiences at different stages of life when we are exposed to different elements, opportunities and experiences. It is especially relevant for 16 and 17-year-olds. Let us reflect on the fact that 16-year-olds can consent to medical treatment, leave school and enter the workplace or training, be paid and be eligible to pay tax, including the universal social charge on income, and obtain a tax credit and welfare benefits in their own right. The common age of sexual consent is 17 years of age. People can enter a meaningful and loving relationship and become a member of a trade union. These are all things that 17-year-olds can do, and rightly so. I have listened to some of the things that have been said and they make sense. As I said, I support the Bill. I want to thank in particular Senator Malcolm Byrne for driving this initiative forward at this time.

I welcome the visitors to the Gallery. Needless to say, it is not fashionable, and for good reason, to quote Enoch Powell in these Houses. In fact, it is a long time since I heard Enoch Powell quoted. I am a bit of a history buff and I suspect many Members enjoy looking at various famous speeches on YouTube when they have nothing better to do in the evenings and have written to all of their constituents and delivered on all of the promises. We all remember the infamous "Rivers of Blood" speech. Let there be no misunderstanding; it was an infamous speech. When he used that phrase, "We must be mad, literally mad", it occurred to me that the phrase would not be out of place in describing the proposal that is before us this evening.

Is that because I disrespect the ability of young people to think seriously about the great problems of our time? Far from it. I would like to think that I have done as much as anybody else in these Houses to get young people thinking and talking about the importance of our democracy and political process. I will take this opportunity to mention that we are in the second year of our Oireachtas essay competition, Aiste an Oireachtais, which is aimed at those in fifth and sixth year in senior cycle of the leaving certificate and A-level North of the Border. It is a 32-county bilingual competition and there is €6,000 in prizes. That is all part of encouraging young people to continue to reflect on the importance of our democracy. This year's theme is "Parliamentary Politics Matters for Peace or "An Pholaitíocht Phairliminteach agus an tSíocháin". If any of our guests is in fifth or sixth year or doing A-levels, or knows somebody who is, I encourage them to register on the website Oireachtasessay.ie before the deadline of 17 November and submit essays before 24 November. It would be lovely to welcome winners here next spring to the awards ceremony as we did this year.

The point I am making is that it is extremely important that we invite our future leaders into their role of leadership thinking and talking about our democracy and important issues like peace, the common good and where they fit into that. Of course, not everybody is called to being elected, but there are many other ways to do politics other than stand for election that are just as important and all play a role.

In addition to being an invitation to the next generation of leaders to assert themselves and come forward with ideas, it is also a challenge to people, that does not just lie with the younger generation, to be reflective. It is a challenge to not just communicate ideas, as so many do on the Joe Duffy show and various other fora every day, but rather to come from a reflective place having thought through issues, considered the other person or party's point of view and having reflected on how one deals with that. I do not deny for one moment that there are many young people who have acquired and are acquiring skills in that area. However, it is a process that takes time.

We should not be afraid to say that there is a time in all of our lives for maturing. Indeed, it is debatable whether the age of 18 is too soon to be letting anybody vote. When we discuss other issues, we consider what science tells us about the development of the frontal lobe. We are told it is not fully developed in women under the age of 25. Lest the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach think I am being sexist, some studies suggest it is not until the age of 30 for men. What is the point?

Indeed. The Ceann Comhairle said when a former Sinn Féin Deputy brought her baby into the Dáil that it was the first time there was an actual baby in the Dáil.

My point is quite serious, masked in a small bit of attempted humour. There is a time for maturing. There is a lot of immaturity in our society. I am afraid to say that in our world today we see the increasing infantalisation of adults and perhaps an excessive tendency to defer to the younger generation. I am not worried about the impact of letting 16-year-olds vote, as opposed to the impact they might have on their parents in terms of telling them who to vote for because we have an increasingly deferential older generation who have lost the ability to lead. To lead is not to bully. To lead is to take one's experience of life and share what one has gleaned from it.

In any healthy society, there is a time for leadership and preparing for leadership.

That is what I would respectfully submit the delay in raising the voting age is about. It is about respecting that there are many bright, intelligent, capable, engaged people coming up through the system. Let us hope they are because we need them to run our world and make a better fist of doing it than the current generation is. However, that does not mean we just hand them the vote straight away. The vote is something we prepare for. We prepare for it in school and as we consider the very troubling issues of our time. We do not start with our opinion; we arrive at our opinions. Many more voters in our society could do well to reflect on what they go through before they arrive at their opinion because very often all we hear is the opinion and we never hear the spade work or evidence of it in the reflection that should go into the formation of opinion. It is no insult to the capacity or desserts of the younger generation to say it is important they take an interest in the political system, and we need them to do so. We want them thinking about politics, their community and the common good now. However, the vote is something they are preparing to cast. It is something sacred, in secular terms, we might say, that they are preparing for. It is not something they should have too soon.

I do not see any other Senator indicating, if the Minister of State would like to speak.

On a point of order, are we to assume that notwithstanding that the Government decided it was going to kick this down the road, it is not going to be proposed anymore? I understood the Order Paper was going to bring in the Leader of the House to propose an amendment. Is that not happening now? I would like somebody to tell us. I would have voted against her amendment because I think the issue is simple. Surely we should have some indication as to how it is that the Government puts in a supplemental amendment on the Order Paper and nobody turns up to move it. Somebody could tell us about that. That decision was made today on the basis of a Cabinet decision.

I understand Senator McGreehan has moved the amendment and spoken to it.

It does not need to be seconded, I am informed.

Fair enough. It is defeated, then. I am delighted it is defeated.

Because it is a Government amendment, it does not need to be seconded. We still have an opportunity to vote on it but my understanding is that it is a Government amendment so it does not need to be seconded. It was moved by Senator McGreehan earlier.

So the people proposing the Bill are actually kicking it down the road.

Through the Chair, please. The point of order was whether the amendment was moved and if it was seconded. I am informed the amendment has been moved by Senator McGreehan. It does not need to be seconded because it is a Government amendment. Senators will get an opportunity to vote-----

It is a Government amendment?

It is a Government party amendment. The House will get an opportunity to vote on whether it accepts the amendment that has been moved and, depending on the outcome of that, whether it accepts the amended Bill.

On a point of order, this was a Fianna Fáil Bill that was brought to the House and Fianna Fáil apparently are the people who are kicking it to touch until 1 July 2024. Do they not speak to one another in that party or where are we going? This is nonsense.

What is nonsense is that is not a point of order; it is just making a political point. I am going to hand over to the Minster of State now. Senators will have their opportunity to vote on the amendment.

I thank Senators Malcolm Byrne, Fitzpatrick and McGreehan for their work in bringing forward this Bill. I might reflect back on some of the contributions before I go to the scripted reply, if that is okay. A number of comments were made by Senators Craughwell and Boyhan about their involvement in activism from a very early age. Certainly, my own path into activism began at a very young age of 14 or 15, joining Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, CND, marches. There was no social media back in those days so we were informed by punk music and all sorts of other things. It is a path that kept me in activism and participation in democratic processes and eventually politics, and it has been important to me in my life. For the young people present this evening, we are talking about activism and participation, which are critical. There are other paths. I will speak specifically to the Bill shortly.

Comhairle na nÓg are here. I was involved in Comhairle na nÓg for ten years in my county council in Kilkenny and similarly with the National Youth Council of Ireland. There are many routes and opportunities for young people to participate in decision-making and to be involved in changes in policy. Last year I established the Children and Young People's Assembly on Biodiversity Loss, the first of its kind in the world. That was a deliberative process that involved children and young people. We met them recently in Airfield and the outputs of their work have gone on to inform the national biodiversity action plan, which is hugely important. Senator Martin mentioned the idea of some commission on youth participation. Certainly as a template for young people being involved in deliberative processes, it was fantastic.

Comments were made by Senator McDowell. I appreciate that he is opposed to the Bill. However, to equate issues of making decisions around harmful activities is really not a good comparison with what is a positive action young people can take, namely, participation in our democracy. Similarly, in terms of undermining childhood and future generations, their futures have already been compromised by our generation's inaction on climate and biodiversity. It is important to state that as well. I appreciate the Senator's views on that and similarly those of Senator Mullen. We are trying to take those views on board this evening. It is critically important we do so. There is certainly nothing cynical in this, as Senator Warfield has said. We are trying to reach an informed decision that involves young people in the decision-making process, to ensure we come to the right conclusion for an Irish context and for Irish democracy in general. I really do appreciate the comments of all the Senators as well as the work of Senator Byrne and his colleagues in bringing forward the Bill.

Voting is central to our democracy, and the laws around voting and eligibility to vote should always be taken seriously. We must be open to new ideas but we must also tread carefully when examining change. We have discussed that at length this evening. Senators will recall we had a very extensive discussion on reducing the voting age when the Electoral Reform Bill 2022 was before the House last year, and today provides a good opportunity to further hear the views of Senators and for me to provide an update to the House. My personally held view is that I would like to see the voting age reduced - absolutely. That has long been my personal view.

The Bill before us seeks to lower the minimum voting age for some but not all electoral events. At present, a person must be aged 18 or over to be eligible to vote in any electoral event, be it a general election, presidential election, local election, European Parliament election or referendum. Article 16 of the Constitution states that those who have reached the age of 18 shall have the right to vote at an election for members of Dáil Éireann. Article 12, relating to the President, and Article 47, relating to referendums, state that citizens eligible to vote in Dáil elections are eligible to vote in such polls. Therefore, to change the minimum voting age for all electoral events, such a proposal would have to be approved by the majority of voters in a referendum.

We need to give careful consideration to a proposal that would see the lowering of the voting age for some but not all electoral events. The issue should be examined in detail and within an Irish context. The Programme for Government: Our Shared Future, contains a commitment to examine the Scottish experience of reducing the minimum voting age in order to draw conclusions. Senators will recall that when the Electoral Reform Bill was being debated in this House last year, I gave a commitment that we would task An Coimisiún Toghcháin, the Electoral Commission, with examining the issue of reducing the voting age. I happy to say that in July, my colleague, the Minister, Deputy O’Brien, wrote to the chair of An Coimisiún Toghcháin asking the commission to include this issue in its first research programme. It is for this reason the Government has proposed the amendment to the motion to defer Second Stage. It will give time to the Electoral Commission to consider the issue.

In political, civic and academic circles in Ireland, the issue of lowering the minimum voting age has been debated for a number of years. The debate has happened within the context of change in other countries, including in neighbouring Scotland, where those aged 16 and over can vote in Scottish Parliament and local elections. They were also allowed to vote in the 2014 referendum on independence. In 2007, Austria legislated to allow 16-year-olds vote in all types of elections.

In 2018, Malta lowered its minimum voting age for all elections from 18 to 16. In Greece, the minimum voting age is 17. For European Parliament elections, one of the two elections that would have its minimum voting age changed if this Bill were passed, a number of countries have lowered the minimum voting age in recent times. Belgium adopted a law in 2022 to allow 16 and 17 year old Belgians and other EU nationals resident in Belgium to vote in European Parliament elections.

Germany adopted a law this year that lowered the minimum voting age in European Parliament elections from 18 to 16. However, in 22 of the EU’s 27 member states, the minimum voting age for European Parliament elections remains 18.

Here in Ireland, the issue of lowering the minimum voting age to 17 was debated by the Convention on the Constitution in 2013. At that time, a slim majority of the assembled citizens and parliamentarians, 52%, favoured reducing the minimum voting age for all elections. If the minimum voting age were to be changed, 48%of participants supported lowering the age to 16, compared with 39% who favoured lowering the age to 17.

Interestingly, a sizeable majority, 68% of participants, opposed lowering the minimum voting age for some types of elections but not all. Of the participants, 28 of them supported lowering it for some electoral events but not all.

Among the arguments used for lowering the minimum voting age are the fact that people of 16 and 17 enjoy other legal rights; that by lowering the minimum voting age one engages people with the democratic process earlier, which in turn can increase electoral participation; that initial political engagement is best placed happening within the stable environment of schooling rather than during college years, when there is great change in people’s lives, and that the increased civic education of young people through the school curriculum prepares people at an earlier age than previously for engagement with the political process. This has been referenced by some Senators.

Among the arguments used for maintaining the current age of 18 are that 16 or 17 year olds may not be mature enough to make decisions on who should represent them or govern them; that lowering the minimum voting age to 16 or 17 is an arbitrary decision about when young people are ready to vote; and that maturity is a process rather than something someone obtains at a certain age. Telling 16 or 17 year olds that they have a responsibility or duty to vote is viewed by some as an additional expectation on teenagers who are still in that process of maturing, and that it is not a panacea for lower turnout rates among younger people than among other age cohorts. Senator Cummins raised this point as well. There is a broader societal challenge and a role for An Coimisiún Toghcháin in education and awareness and increasing voter participation.

Whatever the different views on the issue, I would suggest that we are better placed to have this debate now than we were ten years ago when the Convention on the Constitution deliberated. We now have an electoral commission, thanks to the reforming agenda this Government has implemented, which is well placed to look at issues like this, that are complex, nuanced and where there are international comparisons. Having an independent State body dedicated to electoral matters will enhance our deliberations and decisions.

More time has passed since certain countries such as Scotland and Austria lowered the minimum voting age. Lessons from their experiences can inform any decisions. Civic education in Ireland has increased and expanded. Leaving certificate students can study politics and society, something they could not do ten years ago. Learnings from the education system's experience in teaching secondary school students matters relating to citizenship, politics, democracy and related areas might be beneficial. I have met many classes around the country studying politics and society. They are incredibly well-informed young people. It is important we get this decision right and do so with all the facts.

Separately but related, I would like to remind the House - and it has been mentioned by some Senators - of one of the reforms in the area of voting by young people that we introduced last year through the Electoral Reform Act 2022. People of 16 and 17 years can now pre-register to be included on the pending elector list so that their registration details are automatically added to the register of electors when they reach 18. This is transformative and hugely important. It will help people to engage with democracy and politics at an early age.

As we all know, next year will be a busy electoral year. In June, we will have local and European Parliament elections. We may well have referendums next year also and hopefully not a general election. I encourage all young people from the age of 16 upwards who have not registered to vote to do so.

I ask civic groups and organisations working with young people to encourage them to participate. Public participation is the lifeblood of a democracy. We must do all we can to encourage new generations to appreciate this, to keep our democracy healthy and strong. I would like to highlight the role that An Coimisiún Toghcháin can play. The Electoral Reform Act 2022 gives the commission a broad public education role, working to promote public awareness of, and increased public participation in, the State’s electoral and democratic processes via information and education campaigns. This element of the commission's work can help to encourage young people to engage with our electoral processes. We really want to ensure that in its education and awareness work, the commission is successful. This is a broader issue of attracting people into politics as well. There is also the issue of encouraging minorities to participate and stand for election. This is hugely significant in order that our democratic institutions, our council chambers, the Dáil and Seanad Chambers are populated by people who reflect modern Ireland. This is something we all want to achieve.

I thank Senator Byrne for bringing forward this Bill, which I have no doubt will help generate a positive debate on what the minimum voting age in Ireland should be. The debate is an important one. A decision in this area requires considered research and analysis before it can be made. I hope that the report from the commission will be furnished at a time for us to make a well-informed decision and to move, if necessary, ahead of the local elections in 2024 if primary legislation is required and decisions are made to move forward with reducing the voting age. It is critically important that we allow the commission to complete its research work.

I thank the Senators for their participation this evening.

It has been a healthy debate which has allowed views from all sides of the House to be expressed. I was very struck by what Senator Mullen said about our future leaders. I constantly get annoyed when young people are told they are the future. Young people are as much a part of the present within Irish society. They have as much responsibility and as much right to take up leadership roles. We see this already not just with Comhairle na nÓg and various youth organisations. When we meet groups like the BT young scientists, young social innovators and young social entrepreneurs, I am constantly impressed by the vision they have for Ireland. This vision is what should be informing our debate. That is not to discount the contribution that should be made by those with experience. As Senator Craughwell said, somebody who is an "elder lemon" may have an opportunity to contribute because of their different experiences in life.

It is critically important that we recognise the leadership provided by young people. I will give a very specific example of this. For those of us who took part in the debate about the online safety and media regulation legislation, which has since been enacted, the input and contributions by young people who have a far greater awareness of the impact of technology on society, was quite profound.

Senator McDowell is correct in the sense that, yes, we should always have a debate about the age at which somebody can do something. I and others are certainly not arguing that 16 should be the common age of responsibility in all areas.

Senator Martin outlined the different ages at which people can do things such as paying tax, serving in the Defence Forces or driving. Debates on these points do need to happen. The very simple debate here is about what age we believe young people should be allowed the right to franchise. That is the debate here. It is not a debate about criminal responsibility or a thing else. It is very specific to this particular issue. The reason is specifically about the local and European elections is because we can take action on it and we can do something about it.

I was very taken by Senator Wall's remarks about youth wings of the political parties, including Ógra Fianna Fáil, being very active on this issue. Like him, I have gone to transition year classes and spoken with the students. I got a variety of views about whether we extend the right. The majority do take the view that the voting age be extended. It is very clear that young people want to be engaged with the political process.

Whether that is through what is happening in their local communities or in services for young people or whether it is about ensuring the planet is sustained well into the future, young people have a valid and important view and this issue needs to be seen in that broader context. The Minister of State is right in that it has to be seen in terms of the education system and how we engage people more broadly. I agree with Senator Cummins that removing the exam element of CSPE was a mistake. When talking to young people, they want to know from an early age about how decisions are made in their society. I found it unusual that, when I spoke to transition year groups, they wanted to understand taxes – how they were collected and where they were being spent. When those young people got their payslips and saw all the lines of deductions, they wanted to understand exactly what those meant.

All of that is part of a broader civic engagement, but this legislation is clearly about extending the franchise. I was informed early on that it would be allowed to progress. While I have great respect for the Electoral Commission, it can do its research in parallel with the debate in these Houses and each can inform the other’s process. We should be more radical and we need to discuss having a national commission on young people’s participation in democracy. I hope the Minister of State will allow the Bill to progress.

Amendment put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 8.

  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Byrne, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cummins, John.
  • Currie, Emer.
  • Davitt, Aidan.
  • Dolan, Aisling.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Gallagher, Robbie.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lombard, Tim.
  • Martin, Vincent P.
  • McGahon, John.
  • McGreehan, Erin.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • Seery Kearney, Mary.
  • Ward, Barry.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Boyhan, Victor.
  • Boylan, Lynn.
  • Craughwell, Gerard P.
  • Keogan, Sharon.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Mullen, Rónán.
  • Wall, Mark.
  • Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Mary Seery Kearney; Níl, Senators Fintan Warfield and Lynn Boylan.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.
Amendment declared carried.
Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 6.

  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Byrne, Maria.
  • Casey, Pat.
  • Cummins, John.
  • Currie, Emer.
  • Davitt, Aidan.
  • Dolan, Aisling.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Gallagher, Robbie.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lombard, Tim.
  • Martin, Vincent P.
  • McGahon, John.
  • McGreehan, Erin.
  • O'Donovan, Denis.
  • Seery Kearney, Mary.
  • Ward, Barry.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Boyhan, Victor.
  • Boylan, Lynn.
  • Craughwell, Gerard P.
  • McDowell, Michael.
  • Wall, Mark.
  • Warfield, Fintan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Robbie Gallagher and Mary Seery Kearney; Níl, Senators Fintan Warfield and Lynn Boylan.
Pursuant to Standing Order 57A, Senator Alice-Mary Higgins has notified the Cathaoirleach that she is on maternity leave from 19th June to 19th December, 2023, and the Whip of the Fianna Fáil Group has notified the Cathaoirleach that the Fianna Fáil Group has entered into a voting pairing arrangement with Senator Higgins for the duration of her maternity leave.
Question declared carried.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 7.26 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 8 Samhain 2023.
The Seanad adjourned at 7.26 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 November 2023.
Top
Share