Charlie McConalogue (Donegal North East, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil supports the holding of a referendum on this issue. We supported the proposal at the meetings of the Constitutional Convention also, but as part of a wide range of measures to increase diversity and the level of choice available on the ballot paper to the citizen. While diversity and choice are important at election time, the decision by the Government to proceed with this referendum when there are more pressing issues of political reform to be considered, including the long list provided by the Constitutional Convention, is another distraction from the need for the current Administration to engage in real government.

Proposals of the convention include proposals to strengthen economic and social rights, to elect the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot, to reduce the voting age to 16, and to ensure citizens living abroad are entitled to vote in future elections. However, the Government has effectively shut down debate on these issues of very genuine political reform. As a result, it is denying citizens the right to make decisions on how to reform the political system and culture. The Government has not taken the opportunity to propose a list of minor changes advocated at the Constitutional Convention, which the Government itself set up. From what we can see, it has completely given up at this stage on the idea of holding a Constitution day. It was very fond of advocating this before the last general election and in the first year in office. Overall, this Bill is a cynical sop of political reform, and my party and I believe it is patronising to young people. At a time when the Government is deciding not to hold a referendum that would see the voting age reduced to 16 and other promised measures introduced, it is deciding to bring forward this proposal instead. The proposal is particularly patronising towards citizens between 18 and 21, who are being excluded by it. Those aged 16 and 17 who were looking forward to the option of participating in future elections must now be satisfied with the current proposal, which the Government regards as the most important to be brought before the country in order to seek change and for which it seeks support.

The idea of lowering the age of candidacy was one of the most divisive discussed at the Constitutional Convention last year. The vote at the convention was 50 in favour and 47 against, with three not taking a position on the matter. This shows the matter was not cut and dried, nor a result of the fact that views on it were mixed. It was regarded by the Constitutional Convention as likely to have been adopted and taken forward by the Government at a quicker pace than many of the more urgent and meaningful reforms that had been discussed and that would have had widespread support at the convention. Fianna Fáil backed the idea at the convention, but that was in the belief that it would be a relatively small part of a package of constitutional reform measures to be put to the public as part of what was mooted for Constitution Day. This was the impression of other participants who took part in the convention and debated the issue. In 2011, the Taoiseach promised a programme to allow for a series of constitutional amendments to be decided on what would be called "Constitution Day", to be held within 12 months of a new Government being formed and including a complex question on the abolition of the Seanad. Unfortunately, the Government backtracked on its promise to hold this much-vaunted Constitution day. It now seems to have given up on making any meaningful constitutional or political reforms.

We do not see any great public demand for a vote on the age of the President. I am not sure it was ever brought up with the Minister of State by any of her constituents in advance of its being discussed at the Constitutional Convention. I venture it was not. A straw poll of Deputies to determine how many of them were asked by constituents at any stage in their political careers to seek to reduce from 35 the minimum age of eligibility to run in presidential elections would indicate very few have experienced such public demand. It is not a matter about which there is much excitement. The opposite is the truth; there is much confusion as to why the Government is actually bringing this stand-alone referendum forward without a suite of much more meaningful reforms.

Candidates for Dáil and European Parliament elections must be aged 21. Candidates running for local elections can run once they become 18. It is a well-established practice for countries to opt for a higher age for certain political offices, in accordance with the importance attached to those positions. In Austria, for example, a presidential candidate must be 35 years of age. In Germany, Lithuania and Romania, the age is 40, while Italy requires its presidential candidates to have reached the age of 50. A number of countries have lower age thresholds. Slovenia and France, for example, both have set the age of candidacy at 18. France, in particular, is interesting because its President has much greater powers than in many other countries, where the position tends to be more ceremonial in nature.

There are, however, several arguments in favour of reducing the age. The main ones are the need for greater diversity on the ballot paper and the need to give voters more choice. Lowering the minimum age of presidential candidates represents a step towards broadening political representation. However, as I pointed out, when such a measure is brought forward in isolation, as it is today, it comes across very much as a sop and a patronising measure rather than one to broaden participation.

Lowering candidate age thresholds can lead to greater youth participation in politics.

However, this is a very difficult case to make since research on election turnout and youth political participation indicates that it is influenced by a wide series of factors. Candidate age limits, in particular, are not necessarily prominent among these. Any choice of an age threshold above the age of adulthood, at 18, is arbitrary. The choice of a higher age candidacy requirement is subjective. There is no scientific evidence to suggest someone is more emotionally matured at 35 than at 30 and no guarantee that as people age they will earn more life or political experience.

This referendum is an insult to young people moving abroad, whether on contract or on a more permanent basis. Our emigrants were meant to have a say in presidential elections. This happens in many other states across the world. That option is off the table in this referendum. It would have been a suitable and opportune time to include it and to have the question debated. It would have been much more meaningful as well in terms of its impact had the Government decided to do it. Unfortunately, this has not been the case here.

Several arguments have been made against the idea of reducing the threshold, such as the requirement of nomination by either 20 Members of the Oireachtas or four of the county or city councils to get onto the presidential ballot paper. The nomination process would be a difficult hurdle for a young candidate to overcome. A younger President would also lack the experience which would help him or her handle difficult decisions such as constitutional crises and face down heavy pressure such as was exerted in the past. This is an argument being made by those who feel the threshold should stay the same. When changes are being made to the Constitution, many would argue that it is important someone with significant life experience would be involved. This is the alternative side of the argument.

The Government has failed to live up to its much vaunted new politics. The Minister's attempt with regard to the mere abolition of the Seanad was a bad beginning to how the Government has handled this issue. The Government brought forward a referendum simply to abolish it, with little thought as to how the functions that are performed by the Seanad could be properly embraced within a one Chamber Parliament. The public rejected at that stage what it saw as a PR effort with little meaningful content on changing politics. This is one of the Government's follow up options for proposals to be put to the people. It is relatively minor in the sense that it is seeking to reduce the age threshold to be a Presidential candidate. This will also be cynically looked upon by the public who rightly expected much more from the Government, given its mandate at the last election.

The history of the Government's measures illustrates its real failure to grasp the nettle of reform. Instead, the Government has concentrated power in the hands of the Economic Management Council at the expense of the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government has also systematically broken programme for Government pledges not to guillotine legislation. Some 63% of legislation has been guillotined to date. The Government has also failed to implement its programme for Government commitment to allow for a minimum of two weeks between various stages of Bills. This has been the case in up to 78% of the Bills which this Government has brought to the floor of the Dáil and the Seanad.

The Topical Issues debate has been completely undermined by the regular failure of relevant Ministers to present themselves before the House to take those issues. This has been the case in up to 40% of instances. As a result of that, where a Member of this House exercises his or her right to have the issue deferred, one less Topical Issue is taken on that day. If there are four Topical Issues and two Ministers do not turn up and the Member exercises his or her right to defer it, this could mean that perhaps only two Topical Issues would be taken on that particular day. They are scarce enough as things exist already.

The Friday sitting farce has also come to be widely seen as window dressing to bolster sitting days without seeing any real debate or the normal cut and thrust of exchange and impromptu debate seen during Leaders' Questions.

The Government continues to engage in cronyism in State-----

See this speech in context