James Bannon (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As a member of the Constitutional Convention, I recall that there was a great deal of debate surrounding the issue of whether we should lower the age of eligibility for election to the Office of President. It was a contentious issue with many arguments being put for and against the proposal. In the end, the recommendation to lower the age requirement was only passed by a majority of three votes. I was one of the 50 delegates who voted in favour of lowering the age requirement, 47 were against it and three members of the convention had no opinion on it at that time.

A number of people, both during the convention and in the media afterwards, criticised the concept of reducing the age of eligibility from 35 to 21 years of age. Certain commentators believe the decision to hold this referendum is patronising and a waste of money, with one particular individual going as far as to say that the referendum is an insult to the young people of Ireland. One of the most common arguments was that the Office of the President requires a certain degree of experience and a level of maturity, special qualities, some might say, that come with age. Others have said that a reduction in the age requirement would lead to a raft of unpresidential candidates being nominated.

These are relatively weak arguments for two reasons. First, as we all know, the nomination process for the presidency is an incredibly restrictive process, whereby four county councils or 20 Oireachtas Members are required to nominate a candidates. I remember this process well when my late female colleague on Longford County Council, councillor Philo Kelly, proposed that Dana be given a nomination to run for the presidency back in 1997. While this was a constitutionally legitimate means of gaining nomination to compete for the presidency, it was the first time it had been tried successfully and I am pleased that Longford County Council was one of the first councils to engage in this process. Either way, it is virtually impossible that an unpresidential or inexperienced candidate could come through this process.

The second reason lies with the citizens of Ireland. I firmly believe that the people of Ireland, through a popular vote, should be trusted to decide for themselves whether a candidate has the required level of experience for the presidency. Eoin O'Malley in his article, "The 2011 Presidential Election: Explaining the Outcome" pointed out:

Analysis of the 2011 Presidential election in Ireland shows that candidates were persistently criticised for being ill-informed about the specific responsibilities and qualification for the role. The evidence suggests that in Irish presidential election campaigns voters take a candidate's experience and qualifications seriously. Presidential contests since the 1990 election have been intensely personal, with a central focus on the suitability of the candidates for the position of president.

Eoin O'Malley was right in what he said. All the evidence to date shows that the people believe that the experience of a presidential candidate is an important factor.

Therefore, I believe it is actually quite insulting to suggest that the Irish people would elect an unsuitable candidate regardless of whether they are 21, 35 or 65 years. There are a number of reasons we should lower the age requirements. If this referendum were to be passed, we are creating diversity on the ballot paper and offering more choice to the Irish people. A quick glance towards some of our European neighbours shows many nations, like France, Croatia, Finland and Slovenia, with 18 years as the age requirement to stand for their respective presidencies. The fact that the age requirement is 18 years in France is noteworthy as they have one of the most powerful presidential systems in Europe.

Reducing the age of eligibility for the Presidency would create a broader reflection of Irish society. If 21 year olds has a vote in a presidential election, surely they should be afforded the right to stand as candidates. I remind the House what an Oireachtas all-party committee on the Constitution recommended in 1998. It called for the age requirement to be dropped to 18 years and felt that there was no logical reason for setting the age at which one becomes eligible to be President higher than that at which one may exercise the right to vote in elections.

It was interesting to listen to Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett talk about other issues, including young people being homeless at 25 or 26 years. On the issue of homelessness, the Deputy is all talk and little action. If he was a good constituency worker, this would not be the situation in his constituency. It all depends on his ability to get things done in his constituency.

See this speech in context