Micheál Carrigy (Longford-Westmeath, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The next item on our agenda is a Private Members' motion on the Office of the President from the Independent Technical Group. Before I call on Deputy Tóibín, I refer to a ruling made by the Ceann Comhairle on 7 October, to be aware that the President is beyond political debate as are the candidates running in the upcoming election. Both sides must respect that we do not delve into the current election or the President himself.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

recognises that:

— there is a need to reform the presidential election nomination and voting process, to ensure all Irish citizens living north and south are entitled to vote for the President of Ireland; and

— future healthy robust campaigns should facilitate a competition of values and ideas, and a diverse range of candidates who will provide democratic choice for citizens;

notes that:

— currently Irish citizens who live in the North of Ireland can stand in a presidential election, campaign in a presidential election, win a presidential election, be the President of Ireland, but cannot vote in a presidential election;

— Irish citizens in the North of Ireland, are recognised by the Good Friday Agreement, hold Irish passports, live in Ireland, but cannot vote in an Irish presidential election;

— affording Irish citizens in the North of Ireland the right to vote in presidential elections does not remove one right from our unionist brothers and sisters;

— 700,000 Irish citizens in the North of Ireland are disenfranchised in presidential elections;

— 73 per cent of the participants of the "Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution - Amending the Constitution to give citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in Presidential elections at Irish embassies, or otherwise", voted in favour of giving Irish citizens in the North of Ireland the right to vote;

— opinion poll research has suggested that 49 per cent of voters do not feel represented by the current presidential election system, and 55 per cent of voters believe that the Constitution should be changed to make the nomination process easier;

— there is a lack of transparency around the Office of the President and Áras an Uachtarán, and these institutions do not have the same level of transparency which applies to Government Departments and State agencies; and

— the Constitution and the law set out the nomination process by Oireachtas members, County Councils, and the nomination by an incumbent, and these rules make it difficult for a prospective candidate to get onto the ballot paper; and

calls on the Government to:

— commit, within a period of two years, to enacting Aontú's Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Voting Rights in Presidential Elections) Bill 2025 or similar, in order to grant voting rights to Irish citizens living in the North of Ireland during presidential elections;

— repeal Section 42(h) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014, which exempts the President from the mechanisms of this Act;

— introduce, within the next six months, legislation which would mandate the publication of an annual report by Áras an Uachtarán, which would detail all costs associated with the entertainment of foreign guests and dignitaries hosted by the President, all costs associated with foreign travel by the President, costs associated with the running of Áras an Uachtarán, including decoration, repairs, and refurbishment costs; and

— amend the law to allow 14 Oireachtas members or more, 110 county and city councillors or more, or three county or city councils, or an incumbent to nominate a presidential candidate.

I am delighted to be able to table Aontú’s second Private Members' motion in this House. This is a significant motion. It is one of the biggest reforms of the presidential election and Áras an Uachtarán in the history of the State. It tackles three areas of real importance.

First, this motion tackles the shocking democratic deficit in the presidential election that we are all witnessing at the moment. So many people are angry at the presidential election farce that is unfolding, and frustrated at being locked out of the presidential election campaign. If implemented, this reform would open up the presidential election nomination process to ensure that a larger number of candidates, more representative of the people, would be able to participate in an election campaign. It would allow for the democratic competition of ideas, where the best ideas would percolate to the top.

In most elections, the people pick the representative but it is not the case in a presidential election. In council, Dáil or European Parliament elections, people can enter their name on the ballot if they reach a certain criteria in relation to how to get onto it. However, that is not the case here. The presidential election has an extremely high threshold. A threshold which is basically giving the power to the Oireachtas and councils to decide who even gets on the ballot. We in Aontú have a very simple proposal. Let the people pick the President. Let the people decide who should be elected President, rather than the political establishment.

If we look at the current system, it was built in 1937, at a time when there were two and a half political parties in the State. We are now in a very different situation. We now have a multi-party, diverse political system where those two legacy political parties are now small minority parties. When I say two legacy parties, I should really say one legacy party - the Fianna Fáil-Fine Gael party - still has major control over the development of the presidential election. That is really unfair.

Not only do we have a very strict legal threshold but in this election we have also seen a very strict political approach. In previous elections, the political parties were very liberal in the ability given to their councillors to nominate individuals for the presidential election. In this case, we had one of those parties imposing a diktat, a whip on their councillors, and another of those parties intimating that thou shalt not select anybody else in this particular election. That is a major difficulty.

That has significantly reduced the routes to nomination for this presidential election and has caused major problems. The result is quite shocking. If we look at opinion polls, 49% of voters say they do not feel they are represented by the current presidential election candidates. Some 55% of voters believe that the Constitution should be changed to make the nomination process easier. The resultant election campaign has been a curated election campaign, and half the population is locked out of it.

The polls show that many people are not likely to vote and that a significant number of people will spoil their vote. One of the polls shows that Maria Steen would have achieved 22% of the vote in the election, and yet she has not been allowed on the ballot. That should be a wake-up call for the political establishment.

The political establishment should be shocked that people are disengaging from the political process to such a level. However, it is not a shock and the political establishment has said little or nothing about the disaffection of people from the political process. It may be in the interest of the political establishment that the electorate is disengaged from this particular election. After the election, we will have people who will decry that it was shocking that such a low level of voters turned out and that there was such a low level of engagement in the political process but, in reality, the political establishment has engineered a low engagement and low turnout in that particular election.

In the political establishment, many people decry the polarisation of the political system in this country. However, the only way to tackle the polarisation of the political system is to show that the parliamentary political system works and to show that it works, we need to convince people that their voices will be heard loud and clear here, that their vote matters and that they have a choice. We need to convince people that they are at the table of the representative democracy that is meant to exist here. However, that is not the message that has been sent out over the past while in terms of this election.

The reality is every single party, bar Aontú, is happy enough for the system to carry on regardless, for them to plough on regardless, and that they get the results they want. That shows the bubble that exists in Leinster House and that the anger and frustration that exists outside of Leinster House is currently only being articulated by Aontú.

Our motion looks for common-sense changes to the political system. We look for a referendum to be held within three years to amend the Constitution to reduce the Oireachtas threshold to 14 members, to reduce the council threshold from four councils to three and to create another pathway to nomination, which would allow for 110 councillors across the country to sign a nomination paper. There would be four pathways to nomination because, obviously, the incumbent President is also allowed to nominate in an election situation. That would make a real difference and allow for a larger ballot. It would allow for a real choice, and a functioning democracy.

I note that People Before Profit has put forward an amendment that seeks a fifth way for people to get on the ballot and that is with 35,000 signatories. I have no problem with the idea of 35,000 signatories selecting or nominating but the only problem I have with it in practical terms is how could we confirm each one of those nominations to be real if it is not done in person, and that would be seriously difficult?

The other significant reform Aontú is looking for in this particular motion is, in many ways, a revolutionary step. We are looking to give the right to vote to Irish citizens North and South. We are looking for equality between Irish citizens North and South. Incredibly, Irish citizens in the North can stand for President and campaign in a presidential election. They can win the presidential election and be this President of this country, but they cannot vote in the presidential election. That is an incredible disparity in any democracy that functions in the world. A person in the North of Ireland is an Irish citizen and an Irish passport holder. He or she is recognised as such by the Good Friday Agreement, but is still not allowed to vote in a presidential election. In effect, that means we have a two-tier citizenship in relation to this country and it is undemocratic. It is against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement.

Imagine for a second the absolute joy that would exist in the hearts of Irish citizens in the North of Ireland if they could cast a vote in an all-Ireland election for the first time since 1918. That would be a significant step forward for most people in the North of Ireland and indeed for the Irish nation as a whole. That gift is not in Westminster. It is not decided by Stormont. It is decided by this House and then by a referendum of the Irish people. Why are we withholding that opportunity?

Some people might say they have heard the Government say things are very serious in the North of Ireland and we do not want to rock the boat and we have to be careful. Míchéal Martin can think of 100 excuses why we should not take any steps towards Irish unity. He even says we need the unity of the Irish people before we have the unity of the territory.

Does anybody think that the unity of the Irish people is more likely in the United Kingdom than in a united Ireland? Why is it that sectarianism is rife in the North but not in the South? Is it because sectarianism is part of the UK and part of the partition of this country? The reality is that if we want to move beyond sectarianism and unite the people, we must first unite the territory. We need to ensure we make this decision. It is not a zero-sum decision. We are not taking any rights from our unionist brothers and sisters in enabling a vote for Irish citizens in the North of Ireland. There are currently 700,000 Irish people in the North with Irish citizenship. They are being blocked by this Government.

There is often a difference between talk and action in this place. Every political party has said openly that it supports the Aontú proposal to give citizens in the North of Ireland the right to vote. Opinion polls show that a majority of people on the island of Ireland seek this measure. We have launched a Bill, which has passed First Stage, to achieve this particular objective. A motion was passed in Stormont recently. A majority of MLAs put forward the same proposal, that is, that people in the North of Ireland would have the right to vote. That is significant. It is not unusual internationally. Countries allow votes in presidential elections to citizens outside the existing jurisdiction of control. This measure would bring this country into alignment with many other western democracies. I believe it is beyond time for that to happen.

People ask me why it is not happening. I do not mean any disrespect to the Minister because he probably has sympathy for this proposal. There is, however, an instinct in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael that if there is an all-Ireland presidential election, they will not be able to win it because we would be introducing 700,000 new voters, many of whom might vote for all-Ireland parties. The first thing to say is that it is wrong to prevent democracy because you do not like the potential result. The second thing I will say is that we should fix that situation. Fianna Fáil at one stage did stand in an election in the North of Ireland and had a cumann in Queen's University Belfast. I say to it: become an all-Ireland party and build across the island. Unity should begin at home and in the functioning of a political party. That is important.

This motion seeks to achieve another important objective, namely, transparency. Incredibly, the Office of the President is one of the few public offices in this country that is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, section 42(h) specifically exempts Áras an Uachtaráin from the provisions of the Act. The Aontú motion seeks to repeal that provision and open the office to the same level of transparency and scrutiny as the Minister is under. Why should he have more transparency enforced on his actions than on the Office of the President? Incredibly, any citizen of this country can request, under the freedom of information provisions, copies of the Minister's briefing notes and emails, and inspect his work, but is insulated from requesting them from the Office of the President. Our motion would ensure that would be introduced in legislation within 16 months. It would also mandate the publication of the annual report of Áras an Uachtaráin and give all the detailed costs in relation to the entertainment of foreign guests and dignitaries hosted by the President, all the costs associated with foreign travel by the President and all the costs associated with the running of Áras an Uachtaráin, including decoration, repairs, refurbishment and costs. This is a basic request and it is incredible that it is not in place already.

What we have before us is important. There will be hullabaloo because one of the most undemocratic elections in the history of State is happening at the moment. There will be a lot of talk today about giving citizens in the North the right to vote in this election. There will be talk on the issue of transparency. My worry, and this is important, is that if we do not act now, in four, five or six months' time, this interest in taking action will disappear. Nothing will be done for six or seven years and we will be up against the next presidential election in exactly the same space, with no change achieved. That would be wrong. That happens in the political system in this country. It often closely follows the media cycle. When people ask me who is the most powerful Minister in the country, I say it is Joe Duffy because if it is not a crisis in the media, it is not a crisis in here. Ministers do not seem to be interested in something unless it is consuming the media cycle. Let us make sure that we act now on this reform. It offers a solution to the democratic deficit that exists in the presidential election. It democratises the system and gives citizens an opportunity to stand in the presidential election. It gives elected representatives more power in the selection of candidates. It stops the blockage of candidates by political parties that, for their narrow self-interest, want to keep other candidates out of the system. It revolutionises the situation in this country and allows citizens, North and South, to vote. It does not go as far as Irish unity, but takes a step towards it without costing anything to our unionist brothers. It would be a major step forward in all-Ireland democracy. It would be celebrated for generations. It would be a fine legacy for the Minister's party and Fine Gael. It opens up to transparency the Office of the President. It would shine the light of transparency into all aspects of our government. I urge the Government to support the Aontú motion.

Michael Collins (Cork South-West, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We in Independent Ireland welcome this motion. This is the kind of genuine, sensible proposal that speaks to ordinary Irish people, North and South. It is a motion about fairness, inclusion and democracy, which have been missing to date from too much of the operation of our political system. The presidential election has brought that into sharp focus in recent weeks.

Independent Ireland supports the motion. We believe it is long past time that all Irish citizens on this island, whether they live in Bantry or Belfast, had the right to vote for the President of Ireland. It is ridiculous that someone born and living in the North of Ireland, an Irish citizen with an Irish passport recognised under the Good Friday Agreement, can run for President, be elected as President and be the President, but cannot vote for the President. That is madness, plain and simple. If we are serious about inclusion and recognising all Irish citizens, this wrong has to be put right. Giving people in the North the vote does not take a single thing away from anyone else. It just means that 700,000 Irish citizens living in the North, who are part of this country, finally get to take part in choosing their head of State. That is what equality looks like in practice. It is not just about the North. It is about the health of our democracy across the board.

Independent Ireland has been clear that we need a system that gets people involved, values their vote and makes it easier for good, genuine candidates to put themselves forward. We do not want a system that is locked up by the big parties or controlled by old-style political gatekeepers. The current presidential nomination process is a shambles. We saw that again recently. Only three people got through in a country of 5 million. I know people who worked their socks off to gather support and do everything right only to be blocked by a rigid system that suits the establishment. Good people, such as Maria Steen and others, put their names forward but were told, "No, thanks", before the public ever had a say. That is not democracy. That is a stitch-up.

Independent Ireland has already called for big changes to that process. We have a Bill to do that with the Bills Office, as we said we would following the recent nomination process. We want a fairer, wider system that allows Oireachtas Members, MEPs and councillors to have a role in nominating. We proposed that a number of councillors could back a candidate that would open the door to genuine competition and give the people real choice.

Another thing that must change is the age requirement. You have to be 35 to run for President. Why? If a person is old enough to vote at 18, can serve in the Defence Forces, pay taxes and contribute to society, he or she should be old enough to stand for office. As I have said previously, the age requirement should be brought down to 21 years. We need to get young people back into politics and make them feel that their voices matter and they can help to shape this country's future. Are they too young at a certain age? Let the people decide. The truth is that too many people have switched off. I fear we are, sadly, going to see one of the lowest turnouts ever in a national election this Friday.

The motion also touches on something that does not get talked about enough, which is the need for greater transparency around the Office of the President and Áras an Uachtaráin. The President does an important job.

We all respect the office. However, that does not mean it should be above scrutiny. Every other public body has to account for its spending and make public reports. Áras an Uachtaráin should be no different. Repealing the section of the Freedom of Information Act that exempts the President is the right move. The public should know what the costs are for travel, for hosting dignitaries and for refurbishments. There is nothing wrong with that. It is just good governance. When people see that their money is being used wisely it builds trust.

This motion is about fairness, transparency and the basic democratic right of our citizens. It is about saying that everyone on the island should have a choice in choosing our President. It is about breaking the grip of the old political system that keeps new candidates and fresh ideas out. It is about holding every single one of our institutions to the same standards of openness and accountability. Independent Ireland fully supports the spirit of this motion. We will work with anyone who is serious about reforming our democracy and giving power back to the people. We have been talking about these issues for years. It is now time for action. Let us see legislation brought forward within the two-year period proposed. Let us make it easier to run for President. Let us open up Áras an Uachtaráin to public scrutiny and, finally, give all Irish citizens, North and South, the right to vote for their President. That is what real democracy looks like. That is what an Ireland that respects all its people looks like.

James Browne (Wexford, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for raising these important matters. I welcome the opportunity to update the House on behalf of the Government. The Government is not opposing this motion. However, I would like to make a number of points in respect of each of the proposals raised in the motion, which might warrant further consideration by the House.

In relation to voting rights, it should be noted that to extend the franchise at presidential elections to our citizens resident in Northern Ireland would require the holding of a referendum to amend the Constitution. In this regard, I am going to propose as set out in the Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Voting Rights in Presidential Elections) Bill 2025, which was published by Aontú on 17 June last. In the event that any such referendum on extending voting rights at presidential elections was held and approved by the people, it would then fall to me, as the Minister responsible for electoral legislation, to bring forward appropriate amendments to our electoral laws to give practical effect to the constitutional change. Such legislation would need to include provisions covering issues such as registration of voters from Northern Ireland, the method of voting, for example, postal voting or otherwise, and a constituency where voters would vote, for example, a separate or reserved constituency for the purposes of collating and counting the votes from Northern Ireland. These are all important practical considerations.

By way of some background, the Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution, published in November 2013, recommended that citizens resident outside the State should have the right to vote in presidential elections. While 73% of the members of the Convention on the Constitution voted in favour of extending the right to vote in presidential elections to our citizens in Northern Ireland, at a separate vote a total of 78% supported the right for our citizens resident outside the State, irrespective of particular jurisdiction, to vote in presidential elections. I note that the Private Members' Bill does not propose to address the latter.

In response to the evolving needs of our society and its relationship with the wider Irish diaspora, in March 2017, the Government at the time agreed to accept, in principle, the main recommendation in the Fifth Report on the Convention on the Constitution that Irish citizens resident outside the State, including citizens resident in Northern Ireland, should have the right to vote at a presidential election and that a referendum would be held to seek to amend the Constitution to give effect to this. Over several years, my Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade worked closely on this issue and on 16 September 2019, the Thirty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution (Presidential Elections) Bill 2019 was initiated in Dáil Éireann by the then Minister for Foreign Affairs to facilitate the holding of a referendum on this important issue. However, as Members will recall, with the advent of Covid-19 and the ensuing restrictions that arose in response to the pandemic, the Bill lapsed with the dissolution of the Thirty-second Dáil on 14 January 2020. Notwithstanding the lapsed Bill, I am aware that on 24 June 2025, a Private Members' motion was tabled in Dáil Éireann calling for the extension of the franchise in presidential elections to those living in Northern Ireland. The Government did not oppose the motion and during that debate, the Minister of State with responsibility for international development and the diaspora confirmed that the Government was reflecting on this important matter.

In relation to freedom of information, as Deputies are aware, section 42(h) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 provides an exclusion of the Presidency from freedom of information. The Office of the President is subject to a separate and discrete Vote of its own. The Vote of the President, which covers all expenditure of the Office of the President, in agreement with the Oireachtas, is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and its expenditure is subject to examination by the Committee of Public Accounts. Therefore, the perceived gains of subjecting the Office of the President to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act may not outweigh the potential risk of injuring the independence or apoliticality of the Presidency.

I should emphasise that the annual accounting financial reporting arrangements for the Office of the President are managed in the same way as the expenditure arrangements for other public services Votes. As is the case with all Government Departments and many other public service offices and agencies, each year, in the course of the Estimates process, the Office of the President engages with the Department of Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation to establish its budget for the forthcoming year. The detail of these allocations is made publicly available when the Estimates are published at budget time. In addition, the Oireachtas Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation, and Taoiseach scrutinises the allocation to the President's establishment Vote as part of its consideration of the annual Estimates. The management of the day-to-day expenditure over the year under the various subheads in the Vote falls to the personnel in the Office of the President who are subject to public financial procedures and audit controls in the same way as everybody else. Expenditure on the President's Vote is audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General and it is reported annually to the Committee of Public Accounts for examination in the usual way.

I also note for the House that the management, upkeep and maintenance of State properties and expenditure in that regard are a matter for the Office of Public Works, which, I am sure Deputies will agree, does a fine job with so many of our historic buildings around the country. The annual accounting financial reporting arrangements for the OPW are the same as for other Votes. In short, there is nothing to suggest that there is a particular value added in any other arrangements being applied uniquely to the Office of the President in respect of financial accounting and reporting.

In relation to the candidate nomination process, similar to the position with regard to the extension of voting rights at presidential elections, proposals to amend the candidate nomination process for election to the Office of the President would require an amendment to Article 12.4.2 of the Constitution. If such a referendum was successful, it would be necessary for me, as the Minister responsible for electoral legislation, to bring forward appropriate amendments to the Presidential Election Act 1993, as amended, to give practical effect to the constitutional change. In this regard, it is important to note that we now have an independent statutory Electoral Commission, An Coimisiún Toghcháin. Ireland's independent Electoral Commission was established in February 2023. An coimisiún's research, advisory and public information function enables it to carry out research on electoral policy and procedure. It is also empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Minister and the Government in relation to any proposals for legislative change or any other policy matters concerning electoral and legislative proposals.

I thank the Deputies for raising these important issues and for providing me with an opportunity to inform and contribute to this debate.

Paul Lawless (Mayo, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The motion is rooted in three simple, democratic principles, namely, that every Irish citizen should have the right to vote for the President, that the Office of the President should be transparent and accountable and the process for standing for election should be fair and open to all citizens, not just the politically connected, and that voting rights for Irish citizens should be extended to the North of Ireland. Close to 2 million people live in the North of Ireland. Thousands of them are proud Irish citizens by birth, by heritage and by right under the Good Friday Agreement. They carry Irish passports, pay Irish taxes and send their children to Irish universities. They are part of the nation in every possible way. However, when it comes to electing the President of Ireland they are excluded from that right.

The President should represent the Irish nation as a whole. Our Constitution speaks of the nation and of the people. The Good Friday Agreement and the constitutional changes that followed it made this all the more clear. That agreement recognises the birthright of the people in the North of Ireland to identify themselves and to be accepted as Irish or British or both. It affirms their right to Irish citizenship, a right recognised in both Irish and international law. That means that every person born on this island, North or South, is part of the Irish nation if he or she so chooses. Yet, our electoral laws deny those living in the North of Ireland the right to vote. This goes directly against the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement and the Constitution.

You cannot recognise a person as Irish in law but deny them the most basic democratic right of citizenship, namely the right to vote for their President. In 2013, the constitutional convention, a citizens' assembly made up of ordinary people and elected representatives, examined this very issue. After detailed discussions and public consultation, it voted overwhelmingly to extend presidential voting rights to Irish citizens living in the North of Ireland. That convention was made up of 66 randomly chosen individuals and 33 politicians from across parties and from the North, and was chaired independently by Tom Arnold. It represented the Irish public in the most genuine sense. Its recommendation was clear and democratic, and, yet, more than a decade later, no action has followed. In 2019, the Government again promised a referendum on this issue and again it was quietly shelved. We hear daily about a shared island, but we cannot credibly talk about sharing if we deny the most basic democratic right. Successive Governments have refused to act in the way long promised in respect of this reform.

The office of President rightly commands deep respect. It symbolises service, dignity and unity but respect for institutions cannot mean a blank cheque. It must rest on trust, and trust comes through transparency. Right now, the financial operations of the Áras are not fully subject to independent audit or publication. The Comptroller and Auditor General does not have complete oversight of the President's spending and budget. Spending reports are not made public in the same way as those for the various State agencies. This lack of transparency serves no one, least of all the President. When every local authority, hospital, school and public body has to account for its expenditure, it is simply wrong that one of the most publicly funded institutions in the State is exempt. Families across Ireland are being asked to stretch every euro. Public trust in Government spending is already fragile. The best way to protect the dignity of the Presidency is not through secrecy but through openness. Aontú's proposal is straightforward, namely publish the annual financial accounts relating to the President's spending in full.

On the nomination process, in this election, people have felt starved of choice.

Richard O'Donoghue (Limerick County, Independent Ireland Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support the motion. The Minister spoke about the Act. The Act should be something the Government reflects on when it comes to presidential election campaigns. This motion is about having people on the island of Ireland be allowed to vote in presidential elections. I am old school. For me, there are 32 counties in Ireland, not 26. I will never change from that. Out of respect for everyone in this country, I will say that it is the island of Ireland.

In the farcical run-up to this presidential election, parties in this Dáil stopped candidates and gave direction to their members and councillors to block candidates running for the office of President of Ireland. Fianna Fáil did not even allow one of its own members to be nominated to go before its convention to run. Instead, it picked someone from outside the grassroots of the party. Fine Gael gave a direction to its councillors to block anyone who wanted to run. This sounds like a dictatorship. Now, we are going to have the lowest turnout ever in the history of the State for a presidential election. Anyone looking in here from the outside, people from all parties and none, are saying to me, that after all the years they have been doing so, they are not even going to vote. I could not believe it. People who used to carry me to vote are telling me they are not even going to go out to vote.

What have Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael done to the loyal members of their parties, the people who put them in here time after time? They dictated to their supporters that they will not give them the basic right of democracy of the choice of President. Is that what we are telling the people of Ireland? It is no wonder that we see what we see when we look at the turnout and the rural versus urban divide when it comes to voting patterns. The highest turnout for any election by percentage occurs in rural areas. That is because of the grassroots. They all came from the county one time, moved to the cities and made their lives there. The grassroots grew up with politics. They saw everything that happened, listened to all the stories and wore different colours with pride because it was the party they followed. Now, they see a mockery being made of it by the Government that is in here today.

When I look at the final couple of days of the presidential election campaign, I see the gutter stuff coming from people. They went into a candidate's past and said that they did this or that. The same Government that is going to the gutter has destroyed this nation. They destroyed their own party members. In the most recent election campaign, in the county of Limerick, Fianna Fáil was down 3,000 votes and Fine Gael was down 2,000 votes. There was a displacement of 8,000 votes but out of those 8,000, only 4,500 gave me the votes. That means 4,000 people at the previous election did not vote. There is a pattern. They do not believe any more that there is democracy in this country. That is shown today by this motion and what the Government has done. In terms of what it is trying to achieve, it forgot the grassroots. It will be reminded of that shortly.

Thomas Gould (Cork North-Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Democracy is at its best when it is robust and transparent. I understand that there in awful lot of anger at the process certain parties took during the nomination process for presidential candidates. This has to be looked at. Looking back, the majority of people agree on that.

I sat on the housing committee during the establishment of the Electoral Commission. Now is the time to commence the review of presidential elections. We have seven years to get this done. We can work together. This is something the vast majority if not all of the Dáil agrees with. The process should start as soon as possible. This must be the last election where the voting rights of our comrades and fellow Irish citizens in the Six Counties and around the world are blocked. I have friends in America, Canada, Australia and England who are as Irish as me. I have friends in the Six Counties who are even more Irish. I only have cúpla focal as Gaeilge. I have friends in the North who are fluent Irish speakers. Their family are also fluent Irish speakers. They feel it more and they are denied that right. We will work with the Minister and with everyone to make sure this is the last time they are excluded. "Vote Connolly ... cause we can't." Those are words of Kneecap, the Irish language activists and musicians who will not be able to vote in the presidential election on Friday. That is not because they do not love this island, do not champion the cause of Ireland or are not Irish citizens. It is not because of where they were born or the language they speak or because of a sport or their passports. It is because they live on the opposite side of an imaginary boundary line that means they cannot vote.

How can that be right? How can people who live on this island and who are Irish citizens be denied a vote by a line that is only imaginary? Young people across the island have been really inspired by this presidential campaign. I know some people are angry and disillusioned, but the young people I talk to have a vision for the President they want to see. When I cast my vote on Friday, I will be casting it for the likes of Mo Chara, the president of GAA, Jarlath Burns, and all of the people I know in the Six Counties and across the world who are Irish citizens who cannot vote. How can it be right that Irish citizens are not allowed to vote? It is not right. It is as simple as that. When I vote on Friday, I will raise my voice for all of them.

Presidential voting rights are a symbol of a united Ireland. That should unite us, all traditions and all people. The Ballymena actor James Nesbitt comes from a unionist background, but that does not stop him from identifying as an Irishman. He cannot vote for a person seeking to become the President of Ireland. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have failed to act, which means that people from the unionist tradition are being treated like second-class citizens. We do not want that for anyone, whether unionist, nationalist, republican, dissenter or none of the aforementioned. Legislation to extend presidential voting rights was introduced in 2014. It actually exists. It is a tangible thing. Why is the Government letting it gather dust? We have an opportunity here.

I will leave the Minister with this. I was sent a message after the last time I spoke. This person said that they are as Irish as the rest of the land and that, whether we are from Cork or Belfast, we were not just born in Ireland, Ireland was born in us.

Rose Conway-Walsh (Mayo, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This gruelling presidential campaign will result in an Irish President representing all of the people living on this island and the global family of Irish citizens. She will endeavour to make us all proud, no matter where we live, yet the electorate is confined to Irish citizens living in the Twenty-six Counties. Even that franchise is restricted because many students will not be able to make it home in time to vote, there are workers living too far away from their designated polling booths and there are people who will be on holiday or working abroad on polling day. Postal voting or proxy voting must be extended to make it possible for those citizens to vote.

Turning to the North, the question must be asked; what does Irish citizenship mean? In 2013, the Convention on the Constitution voted overwhelmingly in favour of extending the presidential franchise to Northern citizens and Irish citizens living abroad. That question was settled. Let us ask ourselves today what it means to be a citizen. Over 700,000 people in the North of Ireland now hold Irish passports. This number has grown significantly since Brexit. They carry that passport not simply as a travel document, but as a declaration of belonging, of national identity and of faith in the Republic they believe represents them. Being an Irish citizen must mean more than the possession of a passport. The true and practical expression of citizenship is the right to participate in democracy, the right to vote to shape the leadership and direction of your nation. That right, the right to choose the President of Ireland, the head of State for all of our people, has been denied to citizens resident in the North of Ireland and to our citizens abroad for far too long. The President of Ireland represents not just the Twenty-six Counties of this Republic, but the nation, the Thirty-two Counties of Ireland and the ever-expanding Irish family across the world.

It is frankly reprehensible that our Government continues to turn its face against extending this basic democratic right to the very people who embody that national identity. In these 12 long years, what has been the Government's response? The Minister's response earlier was that the Government is reflecting. There has been 12 years of reflection. That must be a world record for reflecting. In Global Ireland: Ireland's Diaspora Strategy 2020-2025, the Government committed to holding a referendum on this issue but here we are, almost at the end of 2025, and another presidential election will come and go while Irish citizens in the North remain voiceless in the choice of their Head of State. Where is the referendum? Where is the courage to act? There is no place left for this Government to hide in relation to presidential voting rights. This has to be put right now. We must correct it in the first two years of this Presidency. It is plainly unacceptable and morally wrong that the Government has failed to act on this promise.

Ireland is now an outlier in the democratic world. Over 150 countries already grant their citizens abroad the right to vote in their national elections. Thousands of people living on this island, citizens of other countries, can vote for the president of their country of origin. Why not Ireland? What is the Government afraid of? Let us be honest here; this is not about logistics, complexity or cost but about a political choice to deny Irish citizens the right to vote for their President, a choice made by Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, which fear that extending the vote would expose their lack of representation in the North and remind the diaspora of the economic policies that forced them to leave our shores. My deepest hope is that this next President will be the last Head of State on this partitioned island.

Ruairí Ó Murchú (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very glad to have an opportunity to speak on this motion. It is straightforward. We all know that we need to facilitate far more people in the democratic process. Anybody who has been involved in elections over many years will know the issues that exist when somebody has to go on holiday and the difficulty of getting a postal vote. It is one of those things that is a lot easier to get in the North. We need to look at the whole issue of proxy voting. The electoral register is a complete mess. At least we have a fully functioning Electoral Commission at this point. I have no difficulty with the commission looking at the means by which people get on the presidential ballot. We probably need to look at how people get onto ballots in general. In Louth, we had almost 25 candidates at one stage. That make voting difficult for people. I accept that it cannot be made too easy but we need to facilitate as many people as possible. We have the means and time to do so. We can look at best practice across the world.

If we are going to talk about presidential elections, we must talk about the major failure that people are going out to vote for the President of Ireland while those in the North, whether in Newry, Crossmaglen, Culloville, Jonesborough, Dromintee, Cullyhanna, Silverbridge or one of the other places in the vicinity of where I live or whether in Belfast, Derry or even Cullybackey and Ballymena, are removed from the process. Responsibility for that lies with Government. It should not be a major shock. Fine Gael still presents itself as the united Ireland party and, while I will admit that it has had a number of spokespersons in the last while who have done some heavy lifting in this regard, I have not seen it at governmental level. I do not know how Fianna Fáil can stand over calling itself the republican party as Deputy Micheál Martin shushes us and tells us that now is not the time.

Many of us here would have been at the launch of former unionist Ben Collins's book, The Irish Unity Dividend, across the road. We all realise there is a financial dividend to be had from Irish unity. The scaremongering has been blown out of the water by the likes of John Doyle, Ulster University and DCU in one of many reports on the cost of Irish unity. Meeting that cost is well doable and will lead to economic gains for both North and South. It also presents an opportunity to deliver on a better Ireland but we have seen no element of planning. When asked about Deputy Martin's position, Ben Collins said that, if everyone says we have to wait until everyone gets on and every other issue is sorted, there will never be unity.

Those who are against it will just say we have not agreed. There is no conciliation and there is no reconciliation. It is an absolute failure of an argument. We need to deliver on Irish unity; it is as straight as that, but presidential voting rights for those in the North would be a first step.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Presidential voting rights need to be extended to all Irish citizens living in the Thirty-two Counties. It is also important these voting rights are extended to Irish citizens abroad. Last week I hosted Ciaran Staunton of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform and Karen McHugh of Safe Home Ireland who gave a presentation at a cross-party briefing on issues affecting returning Irish citizens. Many issues they face came up and one of the key ones was voting rights for the Irish living abroad. Former Taoiseach Enda Kenny promised presidential voting rights to the Irish in America during his 2016 St. Patrick’s Day visit to the United States, but no progress has been made on that commitment. After being forced out of the country due to the high cost of living, housing, etc., many Irish citizens feel they should at least have the right to vote in elections, especially the presidential election. In 2013 the constitutional convention recommended extending votes in presidential elections to citizens living outside the Republic of Ireland, a position officially supported by the Government of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. We tabled legislation to give effect to this recommendation in 2014 and the Bill passed First and Second Stages. We have retabled the Bill in every Dáil since.

Sinn Féin is the largest party in the Thirty-two Counties. People in the North have always felt abandoned by the Government in the South. Denying them the right to vote in presidential elections has been another right denied. These citizens are as Irish as you or me. They live on the island yet cannot vote in presidential elections despite being eligible to stand in them, should they receive a nomination. In 2019 the Government set a referendum on extending voting rights to Irish citizens living abroad and in the North, but it was later delayed. Last May in the Assembly a Sinn Féin motion calling for Irish citizens in the North to have the right to vote in presidential elections in the Republic was carried 46 to 25. With so many Irish citizens in the North and all over the world wishing they could vote in the Irish presidential election and Aontú putting on the front it is fighting for people’s right to vote, you would imagine it would encourage people to vote in the upcoming election. Instead Deputy Tóibín has said on the Plinth he may not vote. It sounds a bit hypocritical to me and as usual the party remains on the fence. It is no wonder it is better known as "Abstaintú". Many people died for the right to vote and their sacrifice should never be forgotten.

We acknowledge there are flaws in the electoral process but perhaps the Electoral Commission should be tasked with examining the nomination system in future. In 2011 Sinn Féin did not have enough Members to get Martin McGuinness on the ballot, but we worked with a number of Oireachtas Members to get him nominated. Many people who failed to get on the ballot this time did not even contact the same Oireachtas Members and local authorities they were seeking support from, but when you get bad advice this is what happens. Lots of people around here are saying that if Deputy Tóibín and Aontú were not so close to their candidate-----

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is amazing he is attacking Aontú rather than the Government.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----and had distanced themselves from her she would have had a far better chance-----

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was nobody from Sinn Féin here at the start of this motion.

Johnny Guirke (Meath West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----of getting on the ballot and would probably be on it.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Fr. Stone of politics.

Ann Graves (Dublin Fingal East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In just two days some Irish citizens will exercise their right to vote and I strongly encourage people to come out in large numbers to exercise that right. Unfortunately the right is not universal. The right of Irish citizens to vote on Friday stops an hour up the road. Citizens in the North can win an All-Ireland, play for Ireland, stand in a presidential election and even be elected to the office but unfortunately they cannot vote in this election. The election on Friday must be the last presidential election where citizens in the North cannot vote. As an Irish republican my hope for the next presidential election will be that it is held in a united Ireland free from partition and outside interference.

The President of Ireland, Uachtarán na hÉireann, is a President for the whole of Ireland. The role of the Irish President does not exclude people in the North. We have seen the President play a very positive role in reaching out to those citizens living in the North and indeed to the unionist community. Irish unity is firmly on the agenda and the debate has started. Despite the best efforts of some people in government, the public, the media, cultural groups, businesses and ordinary people are discussing what a new and united Ireland would look like. Part of the process of dismantling partition must include extending voting rights to Irish citizens on this island. This is about equality, recognition and democratic participation.

Sinn Féin fully supports the holding of a referendum to extend voting rights to Irish citizens living in the North. We have introduced motions in the Dáil looking to extend voting rights to all Irish citizens in the previous three Dáileanna and in this one earlier this year. Momentum for this constitutional change is growing. In June Sinn Féin tabled a Private Members’ Bill calling on the Dáil to implement the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution and to extend voting rights in presidential elections to Irish citizens on the island of Ireland. The Bill also called on the Dáil to progress proposals that would extend voting rights in presidential elections to the diaspora. In May the Assembly the voted for the extension of voting rights to Irish citizens in the North of Ireland. This was a very strong cross-party message affirming the principles of the Good Friday Agreement.

Some 12 years have passed since the constitutional convention voted overwhelmingly in support of extending voting rights to Irish citizens living in the North and abroad. The Government is clearly behind the curve on this and is indeed the main barrier to this. Fianna Fáil dropped its commitment to extend voting rights to all Irish citizens from its election manifesto. It has rapidly moved from being Fianna Fáil: the Republican Party to Fianna Fáil: the partitionist party. It continues to abandon those who have been forced to live under British rule 90 miles up the road. Sinn Féin spelt it out in black and white in our recent manifesto. We promised to "Hold a referendum within the lifetime of the next Dáil for a referendum on voting rights in Presidential elections for the people of the North and of the diaspora". It is a matter of injustice and a violation of democracy that Irish people in the Six Counties are excluded from voting for their Uachtarán. Whatever the outcome of Friday’s election we must ensure this is the last time Irish citizens anywhere are excluded from this democratic process. I hope people vote with their feet on Friday and come out in large numbers to make their voices heard.

Ciarán Ahern (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

My thanks to Aontú for bringing forward this timely motion. The role of the President has of course changed somewhat in recent decades. The President has essential constitutional duties to fulfil but there is a wider significance to the Head of State's role that is not set out in Bunreacht na hÉireann, although it has nonetheless come to be a central aspect of it. I am referring to the role of acting as a first citizen, of unifying and representing the Irish people at home and abroad and of the role of being a voice for the Irish people. That aspect has grown in significance through the active presidencies of Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese and Michael D. Higgins, all of whom carried out their role with distinction. It is correct, therefore, we pause from time to time to take stock of how best our electoral system can function in support of a Presidency which itself has evolved and will continue to evolve with our society and with our politics. I appreciate this motion is prompting us to do so and there are elements of it I agree with and others I do not.

I will begin with the elements I agree with. Most pertinent is the extension of the franchise in presidential elections to Irish citizens in the North. We debated this issue not too long ago and my position has not changed in the intervening few months. The motion references the Convention on the Constitution. The convention was established by the Labour Party when we were in government and its fifth report, which was published in November 2013, recommended Irish citizens resident outside the State should have the right to vote in presidential elections. This would of course include those citizens born and living in the North. Many of the recommendations arising out of that convention have been acted on 12 years later, but this issue remains outstanding despite several commitments from different Governments since then. The Fine Gael Government of 2016 to 2020, which was supported by Fianna Fáil, committed to holding a referendum on extending the franchise for presidential elections to citizens living abroad. The then Taoiseach Enda Kenny reaffirmed that commitment on a St. Patrick’s Day trip to the US in 2017. Leo Varadkar announced in 2019 he was postponing such a referendum at the upcoming local and European elections until later in the year, but it was never taken up again. It is quite incredible that in the 12 years since the Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution virtually nothing has been done to advance this really key recommendation. Labour supports the holding of a referendum on extending the franchise to citizens in the North and further afield.

However, when we debated this issue back in June, I made the point that an extensive amount of preparatory work needed to be done in advance, such as arranging for voter registration for citizens in the North, working out the voting method and the costs and resources required, ensuring the security of the ballot and so on. None of this is straightforward. We need to take lessons from the recent referenda with regard to preparation and groundwork ahead of holding any referendum like this.

Other issues that need to be addressed in advance include whether the right to vote should be restricted to those born on the island of Ireland, those with citizenship or simply passport holders. The Labour Party supports citizenship as the condition for eligibility. As I said previously, establishing a special Oireachtas committee would be a good first step in addressing those questions and others. It could tease out these issues, get into the nuts and bolts of how voting would work, provide a roadmap for implementation and make substantive recommendations. The committee hearings would also play an important role in informing the public debate, as we saw during the repeal referendum. Rushing the constitutional amendment through without carrying out substantial work on the wording or heeding the recommendations of such an Oireachtas committee, should it be set up, is exactly what happened last year with the failed referendums. We risk setting a referendum up for failure if we do not take these preparatory steps. The Labour Party supports holding a referendum to extend the franchise in presidential elections to citizens in the North, but I also warn against going into it without having done the extensive and detailed planning work required.

A separate issue in the motion concerns a loosening of the nomination requirements to get on the ballot paper for our presidential election. We cannot ignore the fact that many people in this country feel they are not represented by either candidate in the ongoing presidential campaign. That is a legitimate position to hold. It is an issue coming up on the doors as I have been canvassing in recent weeks. We can all agree with the sentiment outlined in the motion that a competition of diverse values and ideas is good for democracy. Indeed, healthy and good-spirited debate is the very essence of our democracy.

With that being said, however, one issue I have with the motion is the line that states, "the Constitution and the law set out the nomination process by Oireachtas members, County Councils, and the nomination by an incumbent, and these rules make it difficult for a prospective candidate to get onto the ballot paper". We need to remember that we are talking about the highest office in the land. From my perspective, it should not be easy to get on the ballot paper. It should not be the case that a person simply decides to run for the Presidency one day and he or she can expect that to be facilitated with no questions asked. No one is entitled to receive a nomination. People should be required to do the hard yards. Whatever people’s thoughts are on either candidate left in the presidential race, there can be little doubt that both of them have dedicated years of their lives to public service. I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea that someone should be entitled to get on the ballot paper on the basis of their celebrity, online following or personal wealth, which would allow them to put a large amount of money behind a campaign. The requirements for getting on the ballot in a presidential election, particularly the nomination by 20 Oireachtas Members, have been the case since our Constitution was written and enacted in 1937. Leaving aside the 1938 presidential election in which Douglas Hyde was elected unopposed, given the ever-increasing number of Members in this House, in terms of the percentage of Members’ nominations required, it has actually become easier to get on the ballot paper.

I am open to the conversation around reforming the nomination process. As I said, we must acknowledge those who feel unrepresented by having only two candidates in this race. Equally, however, we must maintain high standards and a high bar for those seeking a nomination. The Office of the President deserves that level of respect. It is not something we should treat lightly. These issues around the nomination process and voting rights might be best served by a short, time-limited citizens’ assembly.

I also have some difficulty with the suggestion that an incumbent should be able to nominate a candidate because it risks politicising the Office of the President. If someone could not get a nomination through one of the existing avenues, pressure could then be put on the President to nominate. For example, would a Fianna Fáil President be under pressure to nominate Billy Kelleher, or would a Labour Party President be under pressure to nominate a Labour candidate in circumstances where we did not have the required 20 Oireachtas signatures?

The Labour Party will not be supporting the motion on the basis of those aspects that I have outlined, but we do not oppose the essence of the motion, which seeks to extend the voting franchise to citizens in the North and look at ways to ensure a diversity of candidates. That is something we should all be able to agree on. I thank Deputies Tóibín and Lawless for giving us the opportunity to reflect on our electoral system this week and renew our commitment to bringing forward a referendum. Citizens in the North have now waited 12 years and counting since the Convention on the Constitution's recommendation to allow them a franchise. It is time to deliver for them. It is vital we continue to value the Office of Uachtarán na hÉireann. I hope everyone, despite any misgivings about the process or the choice of candidates on the ballot this week, comes out to exercise their franchise, raise their voice and vote on Friday in this pivotal presidential election.

Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Aontú and others for bringing forward the motion today. It is an important discussion about how we choose our President, the processes set out for that and who is eligible to vote. The Social Democrats are open to engaging in a cross-party discussion about the processes in place to elect a President. Uachtarán na hÉireann, as has been set out, is the highest office in the land. It is a position that sets out the vision for Ireland and one that everyone in this country holds dear. That is why we have seen such strength of feeling around this presidential election from different perspectives. In many ways, people want to see a President who not only represents them, but also is a part of them.

Over time, we have seen the nature of the Presidency change, even within the structures and restrictions of the Constitution. We have increasingly seen Presidents, within the bounds of the Presidency, engage in the discussion and debate about what type of country we have. That is important. What we need is a critical, embracing discussion of everyone about the type of country we have. We only have to look at the record levels of homelessness and the way in which we have a generation who are locked out of a home. Indeed, I encourage everyone to read the article written in her.ie by Kat O’Connor about her generation being forced to accept a housing crisis. She is 31 and has reached a point of hopelessness when it comes to owning a home in Ireland. A total of 70% of 25-year olds still live at home. Why is this relevant to this debate? It is relevant because our President encapsulates and has a role in guiding us as a country around the values, nature and purpose of our country and what we are achieving. In that regard, people respect and hold the absolute centrality of the Presidency.

We are in favour of engaging with reforms, particularly around citizens in the North of Ireland being able to vote in the presidential election.

When it comes to the process, we need to think this through because we want someone holding that position who can represent us all in dignity. The President is our Head of State who will have that position for seven years. It is not a decision that should be taken lightly. Indeed, it is one of the reasons I am deeply frustrated and critical of the idea of people spoiling their votes in a presidential election. People fought and died for this vote. We will see millions of people coming out to vote on Friday in this presidential election, including old people who may have not been able to leave their homes for a long time, people who are ill, disabled people and young people. We will see them coming out to exercise their franchise because they hold dear and understand the importance of the Presidency. That is why I am deeply critical of the idea of spoiling votes.

We need to see changes, however. People feel excluded and we can see that. We can see what happened in Citywest, which was absolutely disgraceful. I call on politicians in this House to be careful with their language. Unfortunately, we saw it yesterday. There was no leadership but rather the fanning of flames of hate.

Aidan Farrelly (Kildare North, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies Tóibín and Lawless for bringing the motion forward this morning. It is always meritable to have a conversation, not only about the processes for nomination but, ultimately, as we are hearing from many contributors this morning, the merits and importance of the office itself.

Notwithstanding the context, which is important in terms of when we are having this debate, it is no way to legislate to try to change the rules to reduce the thresholds because the rules did not help us get our nomination onto the ballot paper. There needs to be an evidence-informed approach to that. That is what I would be calling for today. As my colleague Deputy Rory Hearne has said, we in the Social Democrats are certainly open to a conversation because we, too, are hearing in the campaign that there is that sense of exclusion, certainly, when there is a small number of candidates on a ballot paper, but we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. The legislation has in many ways worked for many successful presidential elections we have had and the irony of Aontú calling for diversity is not lost on me. We have had a diverse range of candidates in successful presidential elections.

This election was seven years in the running. Parties' candidates had a long time to prepare their candidacies and for a diverse set of reasons, we have ended up with two candidates. What we are hearing on the doors is clear. We have seen the young people of Ireland motivated by one candidacy. We have seen a mobilisation and a movement towards one candidate that, I believe, has been inspirational, so to those who portray it as no candidate is speaking to a huge cohort, if they do their research and look up who the different candidates are, they will find something motivational, certainly about one of the candidates.

I will use the opportunity with the 30 seconds I have left to speak, once again, about what I believe is the most significant electoral reform that we should be talking about in this Dáil, that is, my Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Reduction of Voting Age to Sixteen Years) Bill 2025. It is before the House currently. In the UK, we will see young people aged 16 and upwards given the opportunity to vote in their next general election. We have a Bill before this House. I would urge the Government, again, to bring that before us to continue to move it forward. It will require a referendum and a national conversation about youth participation and about young people's voices, opinions and, ultimately, right to engage in the most civic action. We met hundreds of young people who wished they could vote on Friday and we are also hearing the dichotomy of that where so many people are planning to not use their votes. I would encourage everyone to use their vote on Friday.

Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Aontú for bringing forward the motion today. Listening in to this morning's proceedings, it has been quite an interesting discussion.

The motion includes some worthy measures. I fully stand over extending the voting rights to Irish citizens in the North of Ireland and even having a discussion about how nominations happen is something that we should do consistently but I cannot separate that from the fact that the reason we are discussing this today - it hangs like a spectre over the discussion - is ostensibly because a small number of essentially privileged people did not get to run in the race and, because the system did not work for them, they are now demanding that we change it. We had the best part of 70 years in this country where it was only ever going to be two conservative politicians who would run for President, potentially, one from Fianna Fáil and one from Fine Gael, up until that was broken by Mary Robinson. Now we have a situation where there is a slightly different hue and, because privilege did not get its way, privilege now wants to deconstruct the system.

I listened to Deputy Tóibín's contribution when he was introducing the motion. There were a lot of worthy aspects to the contribution but then it descended into how only Aontú was not part of the establishment. Surely we are better than that. Politics, at present, is quite disillusioning. We have seen that with Fine Gael debasing itself over the weekend. Now we see it here and we are told that only one small party is somehow not part of the establishment. Why exactly is that? Is that because the rest of us got out there early, found a candidate we supported, bought into a vision, and acknowledged that not all of us supported 100% of every ideal that person held but understood the difference between a person who spoke something authentic and somebody who just offered platitudes whereas others simply try to erode trust in the system because they themselves did not benefit from it and then present the fact that opinion polls have shown that 49% of people do not have confidence in either of the candidates reaches the point where some other wealthy people are encouraging others to spoil their votes? The only outcome of that is the spoilt people themselves, who are predominantly privileged, who get to step back and tell us to look at what they did to undermine democratic norms in this country.

We are where we are at this point. I would encourage those of us around the Chamber who, for example, believe in the Irish language, say they speak for social justice and have spoken about Ireland's place in the world as being one of peace to get over themselves for this moment, come out and show a bit of leadership, stand for something that is more than moaning and undermining, and demonstrate the courage of their convictions to stand for something that is beyond the 100% of their own beliefs. That would steer us well.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move:

To insert the following after "or an incumbent to nominate a presidential candidate": "; and

— amend the law to allow a petition signed by a minimum of 35,000 people who are eligible to vote in a presidential election to nominate a presidential candidate.".

Before I start on the topic, I seek a little leeway, given the events that have happened in Saggart over the last number of days, to express my utter horror, condemnation and disgust at the alleged sexual assault of a ten-year-old girl. My heart goes out to her and to her family. It is obviously beyond every family's worst nightmare. From what we know so far, it seems that there is a failure by the State here of a vulnerable girl who, though in State care, ended up in a situation where she could be sexually assaulted in this way. It is utterly horrific.

People are right to be angry about this situation but some people's anger is being abused by those who want to cause violence, those who want to spread division and those who want to spread hate, and last night's violence at Citywest Hotel will do nothing for the victim of sexual assault. The man who allegedly did it has been arrested for it and was not even living in Citywest Hotel at the time. I am sure the people living there were horrified. They were in fear last night. The children living there were in fear about what would happen if the crowd succeeded in breaking through. Instead of division and violence, we need to stand together with the victim, with the family and against the repeated failures of the State.

On this motion, the simplest and very easy part, which, in theory, I think every party in this House agrees with but some parties are not going to do anything about because it does not suit them politically, is that Irish citizens living in the North should be entitled to a vote in presidential elections. That is obvious. It is an opinion that is held by the vast majority of people. It is an easy problem to fix and it should be fixed with a referendum as soon as possible, and we all know the cynical reason that it is not.

The more complex and in a way more interesting area is the question of the nomination process for president, which has obviously come into focus. It is undemocratic. I agree with a lot of the criticisms that are made, such as about why we are discussing this now, but it is overly restrictive. It suits Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They are the ones who made the rules. They told their councillors not to nominate anyone other than Jim Gavin and Heather Humphreys. However, there is quite a gulf between the rhetoric of Aontú on this issue and the actual proposal. I listened to Peadar Tóibín's speech earlier and it was about "Let the people pick" and stop the political establishment curating the process, but the proposals from Aontú do not let the people pick. They keep the political establishment curating the process. Aontú's proposals just create a slightly lower bar for the curation of the process to ensure that, if these rules had been in place, Maria Steen would have been selected. They reduce, for example, the number of TDs from 20 to 14. The motion also allows for a candidate to be nominated by 110 councillors - that is a new development to say councillors as individuals can nominate - or three councils. I agree with all of those proposals in the sense that they lower the barrier slightly but we should not pretend that this allows the people to pick. Fast-forward seven years and, let us say, there is a highly conservative candidate who gets 13 TDs, and I presume we will have exactly the same discussion where we will be told it is an overly restrictive process.

That is assuming this motion passes, we actually have a referendum and so on. What is proposed by Aontú does not get to the nub of the issue in terms of letting the people pick candidates.

Let us be real, as everyone here must be, in acknowledging we cannot have a system wherein anybody can nominate himself or herself for President. On a practical level, there must be some barrier to standing for President. It is just not feasible to allow thousands of people to stand. It would not be a democratic process, there could not be an informed debate and there is the question of how a ballot paper could have thousands of names. We need some kinds of barriers to entry as a presidential candidate. The question is what those barriers should be. That is really what the discussion is about.

Our amendment puts forward that we need a new direct democratic process by which the people actually get to decide. It would be a process whereby a set number of people can nominate a candidate. We chose 35,000 because it is approximately 1% of the electoral register for presidential elections. A candidate would need signatures from 35,000 people to be nominated without the need for any votes from TDs, Senators or councillors. I hope the parties and Independent Members will support our amendment. It would lead to a real and radical democratisation of the nomination process, which is not provided for in Aontú's motion.

The only objection I have heard is a practical objection as to how our proposal would work. This is a process that works in many other countries. I just spoke briefly to my partner, who was involved in socialist politics in America. On multiple occasions, she collected signatures for ballot initiatives - in effect, referendums - and nominations for candidates. A name, address and contact details had to be provided for each person, which were then checked. That answers the objection as to what is to stop somebody from just listing and signing for 1,000 people from the electoral register. The nominee details are physically checked. In America, this is very common in lots of states, with different states having different requirements. In Florida, 145,000 signatures are required, while in Michigan, the requirement is 12,000. Requirements are different from state to state but the process is very common. There is also something similar in the European Union. Citizens' petition initiatives require 10,000 signatures from Ireland. A process exists in Switzerland. It absolutely can be done.

Calls for people to spoil their vote on Friday are pitched as an anti-establishment campaign. That is what we are meant to think the calls are about. However, it is very revealing to look at where these calls are coming from and who stands to benefit from them. Leading the Spoil the Vote campaign, from his Downton Abbey-style mansion, is multimillionaire businessman Declan Ganley. He said he was going to write "No. 1 - Maria Steen" on his ballot paper. He and Maria Steen have a lot in common. They are filthy-rich, anti-choice Catholic fundamentalists. Anyone who can afford to pay more than €20,000 for a handbag or to live somewhere called "Moyne Park Mansion" is, by definition, not anti-establishment.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should not make reference to individuals who cannot defend themselves.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Okay. The people who are driving this Spoiled the Vote process are part of the elite. They are not anti-establishment at all. They are a different, more socially conservative part of the elite than Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. They are the Opus Dei wing of the establishment - wealthy fundamentalist Catholics who want to drag us back to the Ireland of the Magdalen laundries, the mother and baby homes and the industrial schools. They want to make divorce and contraception illegal again. They want to abolish choice and bodily autonomy and force women back into the home.

People have the right to spoil their vote; there is no question about that. However, if they do so, they will be being taken for fools, like the millions of working-class Americans who voted for billionaire businessman Donald Trump because they thought he was anti-establishment. That is the reality. People who spoil their vote are offering to be the dupes of the Irish millionaires. They should not be under any illusion that Micheál Martin, Simon Harris or Heather Humphreys will be upset. They will not be upset. All the spoiled votes will go into one big pile in the count centre. People in Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will not care what people write on their ballot papers. The only thing they care about is that the more spoiled votes there are from people who are rightly angry with and alienated from the political establishment, the fewer votes there will be for the candidate who is not their candidate and the less embarrassing a defeat it will be for them and the establishment.

If people want to strike a blow against the political establishment, against Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, on Friday, they should not spoil their votes. There are two candidates, one of whom will win. One is the Government candidate and the other is an Independent candidate backed by the Opposition. One of them, like most ordinary Irish people, voted "No" in the first Nice and Lisbon treaty referendums.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should not get into the actions of individuals.

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I did not mention anyone. It is for people to assume which of the candidates is which. One of the candidates is someone who defends freedom of speech and ordinary people's right to criticise the European Union, wants to protect neutrality, condemns the genocide in Gaza and all who have supported it, stands with carers and disabled people and voted again and again to ban evictions. People have a choice. One of the candidates is going to win.

Gillian Toole (Meath East, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will keep my commentary simple and straightforward. I missed the other contributions as I was at a committee. I wish the best of luck to both candidates on Friday. More importantly, I wish them a good recovery next week when the adrenaline and cortisol levels start to subside. I hope they avoid any illness.

It is fair to say that a percentage of the population is disenfranchised facing into this election. What that signposts us to do is take on board the recommendations in the 1998 Oireachtas review. It is common knowledge that the Constitution of 1937 is not contemporaneous. We have had referendums to try to bring the contemporaneous element to it. We must have a process that starts at the level of the 31 local authorities and interfaces with the public. We must look to a possible filtration process of candidates through the councils. Perhaps it will be found that a hybrid retaining elements of the current structure of votes from 20 Oireachtas Members or four local authorities is the solution. Whatever the outcome might be, discussions must commence imminently to review the process and plan ahead for the future. We have a considerable amount of time to do that. I do not know whether a new joint Oireachtas committee needs to be formed or if this is something that can come under the remit of the Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen. There are others more knowledgeable than I on this matter and I hope a solution can be found.

In the meantime, nothing will change the prospects of this Friday's election. As I said at the outset, I wish both candidates well.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this debate. Something has to change. I wish all the candidates on the ballot paper the very best. Like a lot of others, I am of the view that the chance to run for President must be opened up to many more people. The current system is very confined and, as we have seen, it is determined by a few people as to who can run. The local authorities were to have an opportunity to endorse people but members were restricted by their party hierarchies to ensure they could not vote for Independent and other candidates.

I do not like naming names but many people regret that the likes of Bertie Ahern, who we spoke about here last night regarding his role-----

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should not mention names in the course of this debate.

Danny Healy-Rae (Kerry, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is all right, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I will not name names but many people feel a certain other lady should have had a chance to run. I regret, as others do, that certain people did not get a chance. The likes of the man I mentioned did so much to secure the Good Friday Agreement and for the well-being of our country.

It is regrettable that he did not get a chance. He would have been a sound operator on the worldwide stage. We must do something different the next time. I know it is seven years away but we need to start planning now. I ask that the Government do that and take note of the fact we need to change how this is done to make the Presidency more relevant and get a larger number of people interested. It has been said that turnout in all the constituencies is expected to be very low. That shows that people are not interested. We must get people interested in and appreciative of the Presidency, give the President a good role and ensure that he or she plays an important part in the political well-being of the country.

Kieran O'Donnell (Limerick City, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for raising these important issues. As the Minister, Deputy Browne, stated, I confirm the Government is not proposing to oppose this motion. As we can all agree, the Office of the President is a key part of our democratic institutions and it is important that our Head of State is representative of all Irish citizens, irrespective of where they may reside.

I reiterate that to extend voting rights at presidential elections to Irish citizens in Northern Ireland, or more generally to other jurisdictions, would require the holding of a referendum to amend the Constitution. On this matter, Sinn Féin tabled a motion for debate in the Dáil during Private Members' time on Tuesday, 24 June 2025, which called on Dáil Éireann to:

- implement the recommendations of the Fifth Report of the Convention on the Constitution, and to extend voting rights in Presidential elections to all Irish citizens on the island of Ireland; and

- progress proposals that would extend the right to vote in Presidential elections to the diaspora.

The Government did not oppose the motion and it was noted during the debate that the Government continued to reflect on this matter. On Tuesday, 17 June, Aontú introduced the Forty-first Amendment of the Constitution (Voting Rights in Presidential Elections) Bill 2025, which seeks to extend voting rights in presidential elections to all citizens on the island of Ireland.

The Government, like previous governments, is supportive of the work previously undertaken by the Convention on the Constitution on the matter of extending voting rights in presidential elections. However, there are a number of factors that need to be considered and addressed prior to the holding of a referendum. An amendment to our Constitution is clearly required but, from a practical perspective, a system would need to be put in place to allow for the registration of electors from Northern Ireland. Another issue is how such electors would vote, for example, if it would be postal or otherwise. I note that An Coimisiún Toghcháin, as part of its research programme, is examining the issue of extending postal voting in our elections. Separately, a reserve constituency will need to be provided to facilitate the return and count of the ballot papers from citizens exercising their right to vote.

On freedom of information, section 42(h) of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 provides that the Act does not apply to a record relating to the President. Policy responsibility for the freedom of information framework rests with the Minister for Public Expenditure, Infrastructure, Public Service Reform and Digitalisation. The Office of the President is already subject to a separate and discrete Vote of its own, which covers all that office’s expenditure, in agreement with the Oireachtas. In addition, that Vote is subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and its expenditure is subject to examination by the public accounts committee. While amendments to the Freedom of Information Act are more appropriate to the relevant Minister, as I already indicated, I note that, as the Minister, Deputy Browne, already stated, the perceived gains of subjecting the Office of the President to freedom of information do not appear to outweigh the potential risk of disturbing the independence or the apolitical nature of the Presidency.

In respect of the annual report, I also understand that the annual accounting and financial reporting arrangements for the Office of the President are managed in the same way as the expenditure arrangements for other public service Votes. Again, the question arises as to whether there is any particular added value in the preparation and publication of an annual report by the Office of the President in respect of financial accounting and reporting over and above the scrutiny provided by the Oireachtas and in the audit reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General.

In respect of the candidate nomination process, Article 12.4.2° of the Constitution explicitly provides that:

Every candidate for election, not a former or retiring President, must be nominated either by

i. not less than twenty persons, each of whom is at the time a member of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas, or

ii. by the Councils of not less than four administrative Counties (including County Boroughs) as defined by law.

To alter the candidate nomination process for the presidential election would require an amendment to the Constitution. As the Minister outlined, if such a referendum were successful, it would be necessary for the Minister responsible for electoral legislation to bring forward appropriate amendments to the Presidential Elections Act 1993, as amended, to give practical effect to the constitutional change. On this matter, it is worth noting that we now have an independent statutory electoral commission, An Coimisiún Toghcháin, Ireland’s independent Electoral Commission. Its advisory and public information functions enable it to carry out research on electoral policy and procedure. Furthermore, an coimisiún is also empowered to advise and make recommendations to the Minister and Government in respect of any proposals for legislative change or any policy matters concerning electoral legislation and proposals.

I confirm the Minister's position, as stated, that the Government does not propose to oppose this motion or the amendment. Again, I thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate and look forward to continued engagement on these important matters.

Paul Gogarty (Dublin Mid West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this debate on expanding the geographical area covered by the presidential election and amending the requirements to run for President to make it easier to do so.

To start with the issue of the diaspora, we know the constitutional convention was not limited to the Northern Irish state but also dealt with the diaspora around the world. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, our Irish citizens in Northern Ireland are in another jurisdiction, so they would have to be treated as the diaspora for the purposes of any election. We could not just go into Northern Ireland and start setting up polling stations. I do not think the British Government would facilitate that. We would have to set up a copper-fastened, ring-fenced voting system through postal votes, with some form of identification in one envelope and the ballot in a second envelope. The mechanisms need to be worked out but I absolutely believe it can and should be done. We have so many citizens around the world who want to have their input and the presidential election is an ideal opportunity for them to do so, as it would be for the Irish citizens in Northern Ireland. I would add that if we get to have a constitutional referendum on that issue, it should include Seanad reform providing that Senators be directly elected by the diaspora. We have not grasped that bull by the horns for some time.

On the wider issue, as per the motion today, we need to make it easier for someone to run for the Presidency. Obviously the voters of Ireland said a couple of years back - I think it was 2015 - that they do not believe a person under the age of 35 should be able to run for President. That needs to be revisited in any referendum that we put to the people, as would another constitutional recommendation about lowering the voting age to 16, maybe starting off with presidential elections.

I wholeheartedly support the proposal that 100 or 110 members of local authorities should be able to nominate someone to run for President, as should a lower number of Oireachtas Members - 14 is a good suggestion. I am someone who tried to facilitate someone in that process. Regardless of whether I would vote for the person, we need to make it easier. Obviously, there has to be a threshold. There are some nefarious individuals whom I do not think should be let run a sweet shop, let alone be President, but ultimately the voters have to decide, and there needs to be a threshold.

I note that People Before Profit has suggested 35,000 signatures. I am not caught up on signatures. It could be 100,000 or it could be less, but we need to work out the mechanisms of how we validate that. Would it be with PPS numbers and people having to publicly declare that they want a person to run so that there is absolute transparency? I definitely think there should be a direct democracy input as well so that the general public can nominate people directly.

I also believe that in terms of local authorities, three is a better number than four, which is the situation as it stands. To be honest, one local authority should be able to make a nomination for whatever reasons, on the basis of a majority vote or a two thirds majority vote. It makes a lot of sense.

In the remaining minute, I want to talk about the broader issue and address why we need to have more variety. Obviously, we have had different presidential elections over the years - I am not referencing any one presidential election - but in some cases there have been claims that the number of candidates running limits the voice of the people and the ability to have their voice heard. Even if it is for a candidate who may not ultimately get across the threshold, they want that person to be able to articulate their vision of what Ireland should be, conveyed through the Presidency. They are absolutely right. Future turnouts will show, as they did in the past, what the level of interest is in the Presidency and what the level of spoiled votes will be. It would be educational if we were to have this debate again one week from now.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank everybody who made a contribution to this important debate. There were some very interesting contributions and a fairly philosophical understanding of what is involved. This is one of the most important electoral reform motions that has come before this Chamber in a long time.

I want to address the contributions of a couple of speakers. I was disappointed by Deputy Guirke who spent his time attacking his constituency competitor for petty reasons. This issue is bigger than Peadar Tóibín or Johnny Guirke. The idea that we would not spend our time trying to fight for this and instead fight with each other is absolutely silly.

Deputy Aidan Farrelly attacked Aontú on the basis of diversity. That attack shows a lack of self-awareness. The political establishment in this country dresses up in the colours of diversity and welcomes everybody's opinion as long as it agrees with theirs. Deputy Farrelly and Deputy Gannon probably do not recognise it, but their politics is in the ascendancy in the country. Their politics is the establishment in this country. For at least the last decade, this House and this country have become a cold house for diversity of thought. There has been an oppressive uniformity in the political system that has shut down voices. If people do not recognise that, it is because their voice has not been shut down. Other people's voices have been shut down and they have been pushed out of the political debate. There is a growing section of Irish society that no longer believe in their types of politics. There is a growing section of young people especially who believe in science and facts and want a common-sense future. Aontú is wholeheartedly at the cutting edge of that particular movement.

I was disappointed with Deputy Paul Murphy bringing up people's faith in this debate. We live in a country where there is freedom of religion. Discrimination on the basis of faith is wrong. If Deputy Murphy used any religion other than Catholic in those sentences, people in this Chamber would have been absolutely disgusted by it. If the Deputy can be inspired by Marx, as he is entitled to be, surely other politicians and other individuals can be informed by their faith?

Paul Murphy (Dublin South West, Solidarity)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, absolutely, and people will vote on that basis.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

People Before Profit says that Aontú's motion is too restrictive. The Labour Party says it was not restrictive enough. In reality, I have no problem with Deputy Paul Murphy's amendment. We are happy to support it. My concern is just to make sure the signatures could be verified.

Deputy Hearne said people died for the right to vote. They did not die for the right to vote; they died for the right to vote in a representative democracy. People in China have the right to vote. A democracy without half the people is no democracy at all. That is what we are looking at here. The fact that so many political parties have their head down in their own political campaign now and are not recognising the democratic deficit that exists in this country is a major problem. It is a significant problem, not just a theoretical one, but one that is leading to a polarisation of Irish society. If the Government parties are telling half the people in this country that they do not really care if they are not involved in this election or they do not have a horse in this field, that is fine but that is a bad message to send out. It is a message that is leading to a lack of democratic instincts among a small minority. That is dangerous for this country and for this democracy.

Some people say that the right to vote should be afforded to Irish citizens living elsewhere in the world. I have no problem with that, but that is a different question. The right of a person to vote in Enniskillen, Newry or Derry is a different question to an Irish citizen voting in Shanghai, Johannesburg or San Francisco. These are Irish citizens living in Ireland and they should have a right to vote as a result. This has to be the last presidential election where Irish citizens in the North are excluded. It has to be the end of a two-tiered citizenship in this country. We must not have a situation where one section of Irish citizens is more equal than others. This has to be the last presidential election where candidates are blocked by the political establishment. It has to be the end of a curated ballot that is controlled by a handful of establishment parties. We cannot let the political establishment engineer elections that exclude voters and then come back into the system and say it is shocking that half the people have not voted. No one should be entitled to get on the ballot. We fully agree with that, but the threshold needs to be reduced.

I welcome that the Government is not opposing this motion, but it now has a democratic onus to implement it. We cannot have a situation where this Chamber votes to support the motion and it is ignored by the Government for the next ten years. I often say the best way for the Government to say "No" is to actually say "Yes". Every day, we see TDs from the Government parties going out to the gates and putting their arms around people involved in different campaigns, getting into photographs with them, telling them "Yes" and then coming in here and either voting against their interests or just ignoring the issue altogether. The Minister, Deputy James Browne, mentioned a number of difficult steps that might be taken.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputy.

Peadar Tóibín (Meath West, Aontú)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I feel sometimes that the Government's attitude is, Lord make me good, but just not yet. Let us implement these reforms and let us make it happen so we do not have another presidential election like this one.