Paudie Coffey (Waterford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

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.

See this speech in context