Mr. Daniel Holder:

On the issue of the Scottish referendum franchise, obviously we have to be a little careful in the sense because, as all present are aware, the UK does not have a proper written constitution, so things can change and Parliament can change regulations. As things stand, the electoral franchise in Scotland is a matter devolved to the Scottish Government. That is why, for example, in the previous referendum on Scottish independence, 16 to 18 year olds were permitted to vote, which is not the case in England. Electoral franchise is also devolved to Wales but it is not devolved to Northern Ireland. Rather, that is a matter retained by Westminster.

As regards the specific issue of a border poll, the franchise is specifically prescribed by the Secretary of State. Under the Northern Ireland Act, it is a matter for the Secretary of State to decide on the franchise in terms of who would be able to vote in a referendum. The Secretary of State has been asked parliamentary questions on that issue but has not clarified the position. One would think it would be the easiest thing in the world to clarify that, of course, Irish citizens would be entitled to vote in that type of referendum, but the Secretary of State has not done so. In terms of the Scottish situation, it would very much depend on whether there was a second referendum and it was enshrined in Westminster legislation if any provision was made to change the franchise. However, as a general point, it is a devolved matter.

On the question regarding Dublin Airport, there have been several instances of persons landing at Dublin Airport being refused permission to land, not on the grounds of their not having permission to enter the State, but because they were going to travel onwards to the UK, usually to the North because Dublin Airport is the main hub for many people travelling there, and the immigration officer thought they would not meet UK immigration requirements. We do not know whether such decisions are based on representations from the British Home Office. Clearly, there are considerable concerns in that regard. The issue raised is an important one. Many of the examples heretofore involve US citizens who may have family in Tyrone, for example, and intended to travel up there but were refused permission to land. The point made by the Senator is an important one in the sense that such an approach could now be applied also to EU citizens who have a right to freedom of movement and to enter the State but could end up being refused entry on the grounds that they intend to travel to the North, a third country, in spite of their freedom of movement rights to enter this State. That is a concern and the lack of transparency around those processes is something that could be greater explored.