Peter Mathews (Dublin South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

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.

See this speech in context