Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. On behalf of the Fianna Fáil group of Senators, I express our sincere sympathy on his very sad loss. I have experienced a similar loss - as, I am sure, have other Senators - and know that it is not a pleasant time. Ar dheis Dé go raibh a anam.

While I support the legislation and have no difficulty with someone over the age of 21 years being nominated to contest a presidential election - ultimately, it is the people who will decide whether such an individual is fit to serve - the subject with which we are dealing does not even register on the radar when it comes to the wider context of the economic cycle and the issues which citizens have indicated that the Government should treat as priorities. We suggest what is proposed is somewhat patronising to young people who were promised a much broader slate of political reforms, including a reduction in the voting age to 17 years. We must also remember the many people, a large proportion of whom were young, who left the country during the past six years in the aftermath of the economic crash. The young people who left were denied a franchise.

I hope the Government will make some positive moves towards introducing votes for members of the diaspora. It would be relatively easy to extend the franchise to allow Irish citizens not resident in the country to vote in presidential elections. I see no difficulty in this regard. It would be very easy to draw up a list of the criteria that would obtain were we to take this route. For example, a time limit could be put in place to allow only those who left the country in the past five to ten years to vote and the franchise could be extended to those who hold Irish passports. Those to whom I refer would also be required to register in their country of residence before they could vote. All of these are measures which have been implemented in other countries. I see no threat whatsoever to the Irish political system as a result of an extension of the franchise. However, there would be enormous positives from an international perspective. As a former emigrant, those who have left the country would welcome an extension of the franchise as an acknowledgement of their position. In the main, those who emigrated did so for economic reasons. I fully accept, however, that a considerable cohort of young people leave the country to gain further experience abroad. In any event, a large number of those who have settled abroad still have a very keen interest in Irish affairs. I ask the Minister of State to take note of the fact that there is a significant level of support for extending the franchise to members of the diaspora to allow them to vote in presidential elections.

I do not agree with my colleague, Senator David Norris, and others who propose that the current system of nomination should be dismantled. I came to this view after some reflection. My initial knee-jerk reaction was to ask why the nominating process should not be open to the wider public. I then examined the results of various elections at local level in both this country and on the neighbouring island where the nominating process had been opened up. Senator Denis Landy captured it perfectly when he referred to the Presidency and the fact that it was very special. Following a slow start, it now holds an extremely special place in the affections of the people. The mere thought that it might be abolished - a matter which was a political football for some time a few decades ago - is anathema to citizens in the light of the superb work done by a succession of Presidents, particularly in the modern era. In saying this I intend no reflection on those who went before before. If the nominating process were opened up, it is inevitable that frivolous candidates would be put forward, but the presidency should not be about frivolity.

Under the current system, someone must engage with local councillors in order to seek a nomination. It must be remembered that the people elect councillors to represent them and that the actions they take are taken in the name of the people. If the people do not like the decisions their councillors take, they can turf them out of office at the following election. The position is similar in respect of both the Dáil and the Seanad because the Members of both also represent the people. The way the system has been designed means that there is no elitist closed shop. Senator David Norris was absolutely correct to highlight his own experience and the fact that he had managed to overcome what might have been seen as obstacles to people seeking a nomination to stand in a presidential election. Dana Rosemary Scallon also overcame them. Friends of mine in the Seanad bucked the system and, despite their parties not wanting them to run for election, they managed to encourage other Senators to have their names included in nomination forms. That has happened across all parties. The system, as it now works, can be challenged. This is despite the fact that there are what are perceived to be major obstacles in the way. As stated, Senator David Norris, Dana Rosemary Scallon and a number of other Members of this House are perfect examples of how the system can be challenged.

While I support the view that people from the age of 21 years and upwards should be allowed to be nominated for election to the Office of President, as previous speakers pointed out, it does not necessarily follow that someone aged 21 years is going to be nominated. It is most unlikely that such an individual would be nominated. What is proposed in the Bill will, however, open up an interesting vista for those under the age of 35 years. Senator Jillian van Turnhout highlighted a number of historical figures who would not have been able to stand for election to the Office of President if the existing rules on the age of eligibility had been in place. From that point of view, the legislation is important. In addition and as Senator Denis Landy pointed out, a person can be elected to serve on his or her local council at 18 years of age. I recall a time before the relevant law was changed when a former colleague of ours in this House was elected to fill his father's seat but could not do so because he was between the ages of 18 and 21 years. His uncle was obliged to take the seat until he turned 21 years, which was ludicrous.

Overall, what is proposed in the Bill is positive. However, an interesting question arises as to how the McKenna judgment will be applied. We must consider who is completely opposed to what is being done. I refer to the media, particularly the electronic media.Perhaps this will be clarified by the Minister. My understanding is that the McKenna judgment applies only to RTE. For example, it does not apply to the newspapers but they operate it anyway. They always go searching for the other side.

In this instance, it will be a major problem to find somebody who will state he or she is totally opposed to this in order to provide balance. It again points up the all-embracing nature of that judgment. There was no flexibility built into it. It was either "Yes" or "No". One had to ensure that there was balance. It is ludicrous. The motivation behind it was fine but I question the practice. There is a need for the Government or somebody to look at the McKenna judgment again and go back to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court itself will not reverse its own judgment. It does reverse its judgments but it can only do so if somebody brings the issue before it. In the overall context of this debate, the McKenna judgment will be shown to be ludicrous in this respect.

As everybody here has stated, this is an issue that animates, excites and enthuses the Irish electorate. According to the most recent opinion poll, they would be much more interested in proposals that would put more money in their pockets and more jobs in the economy rather than this sop to the young people of Ireland. In that wider context it is irrelevant.