Caít Keane (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit inniu. It would be appropriate after the death of the Minister of State's mother to sympathise with him now and I have not met him since. They say behind every good man there is a good woman but the Minister of State has a good wife as well. Having lost his mother this week, I extend my condolences to him.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House to debate the proposal to amend the Constitution to reduce the age of eligibility for the election to presidential office from 35 years down to 21 years. As he has said, there will be two referendas on 28 May or whatever. Two referendas on the same day are enough because there has been confusion, at referenda, when too many questions are put on the table at the same time. Two referenda will be held on the same day. Again, the proposal came not from this House or Houses but from the members of the Constitutional Convention that was established by both Houses in July to consider a list of matters. Obviously this is only one of the matters it has considered and there are others to be actioned later on. To action all together would be confusing.

The Minister of State has mentioned that 17 years ago the Oireachtas committee discussed age limits. It recommended at the time that the age to qualify for election to the Office of President be reduced to 18 years. Things have moved on and one can see how youth is viewed now versus 17 years ago. There was a recommendation 17 years ago to reduce the age of eligibility for election to the Presidency to 18 years so a proposal for 21 years seems worthy of recommendation and that is why I support it here today. Years ago it was said that youth are to be seen and not heard. I believe what the youth of today have to say must be listened to. I support both findings, the one put forward years ago by an Oireachtas commission but particularly the more recent one by the Constitutional Convention.

The political scientist, Professor Melanie Scully, has found that most European countries have a relatively high age threshold for the presidency role. At the same time, she pointed out that a high age requirement does seem and might seem increasingly anachronistic in the context of lowering the age. Capacity and ability to deal with the issue should be most important, rather than a focus on ageism in terms of youth or the elderly. While it is the norm, in the European Parliament, where 19 democracies have higher age limits some European states have a must lower age. France, in particular, reduced its age limit of 23 years to 18 years in 2011; it had a much lower age threshold than we had. When one compares the powers of the president in France with the powers of the President here one discovers they are much more onerous. A French president has much more power yet the age in France has been set at 18 years. We do not have anything to fear by agreeing with the Constitutional Convention that the age of eligibility to be elected President here should be reduced from 35 years down to 21 years.

On the nomination process, let us first look at the presidential candidates heretofore. The Minister of State mentioned that the oldest candidate we have ever had was 78 years and he was Dr. Dubhghlas de hÍde. His name is still remembered so that proves age is valuable as well. The youngest Presidents we have ever had in this country were two women. What does that say about us? Does it mean that women are better than men because they can get elected President when younger? The two women were 46 years old when they were inaugurated but most of the men were older. President Michael D. Higgins was 70 when he was inaugurated in 2011. The youngest candidate in the last presidential election was Seán Gallagher who was 46 years old. On that occasion the electorate had the choice of a younger or older President. The electorate chose the best candidate and did not opt for age, which is the right way to do things. I think it will be the same in future, people's ability will get across to people.

Arguments have been advanced in favour of a lower age threshold which will generate a greater diversity of political candidates. Diversity is important. There is a diversity of minds when one opens the presidential election up to a further age group. The measure would provide a greater choice. The electorate can be trusted to judge the suitability of the candidates, regardless of their age. The ability to do the job should not and need not be age-related. I agree that young people now are better educated and informed.

As the Minister of State has said, lowering the age threshold might encourage more young people to participate in the political process. Somebody said to me that if one opens the Presidency to people who are 21 years then somebody from One Direction or whoever could be elected on popularity grounds. That opinion has been expressed before. Irish people are well informed enough to be judgmental and to select the best candidate rather than a popular one. Given the intense focus on candidates during election times, particularly for presidential election campaigns where there are television debates, radio and social media, it is unlikely that a candidate who does not possess the experience and qualities needed to undertake the duties of presidential office - earlier the Minister of State outlined the duties of the presidential office - would be selected in the first instance or elected if they were selected by the people.

The political scientist, Professor Robert Elgie, has noted that while there may have been unpresidential candidates or unsuitable candidates in America, with a lower age threshold, none of the ones deemed unsuitable would be elected. He was not referring to Ireland or the European states. Analysis of the 2011 presidential election in Ireland shows that candidates were persistently criticised for being ill-informed about specific responsibilities and powers of the role. There is good critical analysis and critical critique of the suitability of the candidate for the role which has shone through in each presidential election.

One interesting feature of the Constitution as it stands, and the Minister of State referred to it earlier, was that the Irish and English versions differ. A person reaches his or her 35th year at his or her 34th birthday and the Irish version would have a person elected a year earlier than the older version, "[g]ach saoránach ag a bhfuil cúig bliana tríochad slán". The Irish version means people would have to be older and have completed their 35th year. The Minister of State stated earlier that the terminology will be corrected by the translation service.

The legislation is based on the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention which is comprised of 66 ordinary citizens of this country. There were also 30 politicians but they were not in the majority and there was an independent representative from Northern Ireland. There was a broad range of people involved. We are always talking about inclusive and participative democracy and the convention is an example of that at work. Citizens of the country recommended that something should be done, the Government has acted upon that and it is now up to the wider cohort of the population to vote on this proposal and take a deliberative decision on same.

We should have no fear at all that reducing the age will lead to unqualified candidates. The selection process for selecting the candidate to go forward for President is quite restrictive and onerous. A candidate needs the nomination of four county councils or 20 Oireachtas Members. The selection process is on the agenda as well.