Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State and thank the Senators for proposing this legislation for our consideration. I am probably in a speaking minority in this debate because I am opposed to the principle of the Bill. I will explain why, if I may. The Leader of the House intends to postpone consideration of the Bill via an amendment. So be it, but the issues are important and need to be teased out. I wish to express some views of my own on the matter.

The age of majority comes into question in this regard. People under the age of 18 years are not entitled to gamble, smoke or drink. They would not even be entitled to buy vapes under the latest proposals from the citizens’ assembly. Apparently, they will not be allowed to smoke recreational drugs when those proposals come into effect. They are not bound by contract. For legal purposes, including the purposes of criminal law, they are considered to be children. For asylum seeking purposes, we speak about 17-year-olds coming to this country as unaccompanied children. Up to the age of 18 years, they are considered to be unaccompanied children.

The issue that arises for me is much broader and is about whether we are guilty of double standards when it comes to the age of majority. If someone is incapable of going into a pub or off-licence and buying a can of beer or of going into a shop and buying a lottery ticket because he or she is regarded by law as being vulnerable and someone who should not be permitted to do that, why do we say that his or her judgment as to who should be on the local council or in the European Parliament is to be accorded the same status as anyone else’s judgment? It is part of a broader movement to sweep away the concept of childhood and the protection of younger people. I am in favour of protecting young people. They deserve special status under the Intoxicating Liquor Acts, the Misuse of Drugs Acts, when they are amended, the provisions on who can drive e-scooters and so forth, and they are entitled to protection. Unaccompanied minors coming to this country seeking recognition as refugees are entitled to special consideration. However, I do not accept that we can simply dine àla cartewhen it comes to the distinction between childhood and majority and say that, for some purposes, we accord full rights to an individual but, for other purposes, we take those rights away.I also make the point that no matter what is said in favour of this legislation, local authority elections take place every five years and European elections take place on the same timeframe. Therefore, even if this were to become the law, 80% of people would be unaffected by it because they would not be in the right time slot, so to speak, to be affected by the matter. Let us be clear about this; this is not all that is being claimed for it. Some 80% of younger people would never get to vote under the age of 18 in a local or European election if this were to take place. Senator Byrne talks about the idea that people under the age of 18 should have been allowed to vote in the Brexit referendum and says the result might have been the other way around. Maybe he is right. The result might have been different but that is not an argument for deciding that 14-year-olds should not be allowed vote but 16- or 17-year-olds should. Why say to a 15-year-old that suddenly something is going to happen at the age of 16 and they are going to be endowed with a much greater understanding of the political system or the needs of their society?

I stand against the degradation of the status of childhood. I do not believe we can dine à la carteand say to people they cannot buy a lottery ticket because they are too immature but they can determine who will make decisions on their local authority's housing policy. That does not make sense. I know I am probably in a minority and very few people would have the courage to stand up here and say what I am saying. However, let us remember that this legislation will probably be deferred because of the Government amendment but even then, and even if it were carried into law, the outcome would only affect 20% of young people. There is one last thing I should say. The citizens' assembly came up with the daft idea that presidents should be electable at the age of 21. The people took a look at that suggestion and on the same day as they voted in favour of some other proposition, 75% said "No" to that. Gimmickry is a dangerous thing and citizens' assemblies are not always as wise as sometimes they can be.