Jerry Buttimer (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I wish that Members who were elected to serve would do so rather than engage in populist nonsense at times, and I say that with the greatest respect to the Deputy.

The Office of President has served us well as a State and as a country. We can think back to the past to the night when telephone calls to the Áras were allegedly made and the then President, Patrick Hillery, allegedly said he would not take them and when we reflect on the modern day phenomenon of our women Presidents, Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, and our current President, Michael D. Higgins, we have been served well. The person holding the Office of President is our Head of State. That officeholder will represent our country as a dignitary, at civic receptions, or as our Head of State on visits across the world.

There is an obligation and responsibility on the incumbent of that office to be up to doing to that job. Apart from the ceremonial aspect of that office on engagements abroad, there is the day-to-day role the President plays in evaluating legislation with the Council of State and in performing the duty and functions of that office around our country as our Head of State. It is important we acknowledge it is an office that is apolitical, that is outside politics: it is the office of the people. That is why this Bill is very important. It asks us to reduce the age of eligibility for a person to run for election to that office.

When we consider what the office entails in terms of the tasks and duties, we could legitimately argue that in the past the holders of that office had a lived experience in terms of their personal life and their work as an academic, a politician or whatever job they held, and they brought that experience to the Office of President. If we reflect upon that, it was a very important part of what they brought to that office. A person on reaching the age of 21 can be elected to Dáil Éireann, the same age requirement applies for election to the Seanad and to the European Parliament while the age requirement for election to local government is 18. There is a discrepancy in the age of eligibility for election to our different offices or institutions which makes the point that eligibility is not age dependent or age specific. It is important that we put that as the backdrop to what this debate is about.

I was very privileged to be a member of the Constitutional Convention and I did not miss any meeting of the convention. I took my role as a member of it seriously. I believe those who will reflect on the work of the Constitutional Convention in time will ultimately acknowledge and pay tribute to the citizen members who were equally committed to their role in the analysis of and participation in the topics upon we were asked to engage. The first item on the agenda of the convention was to examine the proposition of a reduction in the term of the Office of President which the convention rejected. It rejected that proposition by 55 to 43 votes and it rejected, by a majority of 80 to 14, the proposition that a reduced Presidential term be aligned with the European and local elections.

I would have liked to see it introduced, but when we did not vote to reduce the term from seven years to five, I recognised that it could not be done.

More importantly, the Constitutional Convention did not vote to have a single term President. Those who propose term limits for Ministers, Deputies, Senators, councillors and Presidents are misguided about democracy and citizenship. Men, women and children are sitting in the Visitors Gallery and will be the ultimate arbiters of who will sit here or in any other institution when we put ourselves forward for election. We serve at the pleasure of the people, which is the way it should be. I am not in favour of term limits for Ministers, Deputies, Presidents and MEPs and the idea does not serve us well. I would like to see an analysis of what term limits have brought to the United States. I do not think there has been any material benefit for public office there. The vote to reduce the age profile was 50% in favour and 47% against, which is narrow. This underlines the difference in viewpoints within society.

I have heard speeches that this was not the most enduring or important issue. That may be right, but it is an important issue because it is about Uachtarán na hÉireann, the President of Ireland, and what he or she represents. That is why the referendum is important and the issue needs to be examined and scrutinised. If I am given a personal choice, as I will be, I will be broadly in favour of lowering the age limit. Am I 100% sure? No, I am not, but I recognise it is important that we allow every citizen to aspire to being what they can be in society. That is why it is important to lower the age limit.

Other European countries use a different age profile. In France the age limit was 23 years until 2011, but it is now 18. The age limit is 50 years in Italy, 40 in Latvia, 18 in Slovenia and 35 in Austria. There is no happy medium, but it is important that we do the right thing.

I welcome the establishment of an electoral commission. We should change the nomination process, of which the Constitutional Convention voted 94% in favour. Those who remember past presidential terms remember the farce of Members of the Oireachtas and citizens touring the country and hawking themselves to local authorities to try to be nominated. I do not think that is right and it demeans the process and the office of President. If I am wrong, I can be corrected, but I remember a Member of this House having a meeting of his supporters about whether to nominate a candidate in the last presidential election. That is wrong and we need to see the process changed in the context of the office of President. I would like to see the issue debated as part of the work of the electoral commission or to reconvene the Constitutional Convention to examine the issue of the eighth amendment and others we have not seen addressed in their totality.

This is an important office, important legislation and an important referendum. Young people will have an opportunity in the referendum to have their voices heard. If I may stray, as Deputy Paul Murphy and others have done, in the other referendum on marriage equality they will have the opportunity to leave their imprint on the Constitution by voting "Yes". Like Deputy Olivia Mitchell, I am in favour of a change to the electoral process where we would have single seat constituencies using the proportional representation and single transferable vote, PR-STV, system. It would be better for democracy and the citizens would be better represented by having single seat constituencies using that system.

I welcome this Bill which is part of the reforms brought about by the Government. Such reforms were lacking for so long and had not brought about by others in government for almost two generations and who refused to do anything. This is an important referendum and I hope it will receive the attention it deserves in this House, on the public airwaves and among the people of the country.

See this speech in context