Michelle Mulherin (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to debate the proposition that the franchise be extended to those aged 16 years. I was a member of the Constitutional convention when this issue was debated and we heard evidence from experts and so on. Anyone, like me, who has dealings with young people in visiting schools to talk in CSPE classes, dealing with members of Young Fine Gael and seeing Dáil na nÓg in action could only but be impressed by them and think there is a great future for the country; they just have to be captured, cultivated, supported, nurtured and encouraged. Nowadays there is no point in telling a young person, "This is it." More dialogue and conversation is required. In many respects, it is more empowering for young people and puts us so-called adults on our toes more. It is a different dynamic and very much part of our times. Parents, teachers and youth workers, in particular, know this. However, I do not agree with the proposal and I will tell the House why.

We are all entitled to our views, but I have a concern. I have worked with young people and do not wish to diminish any young person, his or her potential or capacity. At the end of the day, however, are we way too much in a hurry to make a young person an adult or an older person? This would expand the age of voting to include younger people who are becoming sexualised at an earlier age and so on. Our job as adults is to protect, nurture and cultivate young people. They will come to a point which in many societies is called a rite of passage. In this country the age of majority is 18 years. To my mind, in general, this is the point at which one passes into adulthood.

We know that there are young people who are very clued into politics. I am speaking about people younger than 18 years who cannot vote. I do not seek to diminish their interest, but I was a member of the Constitutional Convention when this topic was debated and it struck me that reducing the age per sewould not be an assurance of participation. This is also shown in the research. For ourselves and young people who will come after us, we must encourage people to be more aware in a constructive fashion. In this time and era we are very concerned about individuals having their rights. We speak about the rights of the individual daily in this House, but we are connected to a community. There is a civic connection that sometimes involves the horrible term "self-sacrifice", which is part of what parents do for their children. It is about giving. We pay our taxes, although we may debate how they are spent, in order that we will have services. This is tied intrinsically to the age of majority. Young people work and pay taxes but, equally, we have regulations that protect them and give them special treatment when they are working. They are not treated in the same way as adults in that regard.

On the age of criminal responsibility, a person under 18 years is a minor and treated differently from someone older. The juvenile system focuses on the rehabilitation of young people who commit even serious crimes as opposed to the full thrust and implications of the criminal justice system. One has to be 18 years of age to get married. There are exceptions, but an application has to be made to the Circuit Court or the High Court. In December 2015 the Government announced that it was looking to do away with this exception and that everyone would have to be 18 years of age to marry. In the area of social services the State is responsible for the welfare of a minor until he or she reaches 18 years of age. It can be argued that historically this has not been done very well in many cases, especially in cases involving those with disabilities which have come to light in recent times. Nonetheless, that is the law.

There are restrictions on enforcing contracts with minors. The most clear-cut case of a contract that is enforceable against a minor is a contract for necessaries, that is, something a minor actually needs. If a minor, that is, someone under 18 years, gives a gift, it can be taken back while he or she is still a minor or he or she can have a change of heart on reaching the age of majority. If a minor signs something related to a land transaction, it can be voided within a reasonable period once he or she reaches the age of majority. In tort, the civil side to wrongdoing, minors have protections in their actions and activities.

Until the 1980s - I forget the year - the age of majority was 21 years. The Law Reform Commission examined what this meant and why it should be reduced. I agree that there is room for further debate. This issue is bigger than any political party. However, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging a young person's interest but noting that, for various reasons, he or she is still not an adult. I am sure Senator Lynn Ruane and others might query why the age is 18 years. However, what is wrong with telling young people that they have to wait until they reach 17 or 18 years of age? We can hope that at that point people will be sufficiently engaged. There is much more scope to expand the abilities of all young people to engage in a meaningful way and realise the power of their vote.The concept of one person, one vote is the most powerful thing. Those who do not vote give their power to those who do, which is the ultimate proposition.

It is fair to say that every Senator values and upholds our democracy and the power of the vote. It is an equaliser. Whether I am President, a teacher or a person voting for the first time at 18 years of age, my vote has the exact same value. It is a very beautiful concept.

We are pushing people towards becoming adults earlier and earlier. We should be nurturing young people and encouraging talent, interest and participation. I am not convinced that equates to extending the franchise to a 16 year old. I have an open mind, notwithstanding what I have said. They are my general sentiments.