I too welcome this Private Members' Bill put forward by Deputy Farrelly. I look forward to supporting it. The concept of reducing the voting age to include 16 and 17-year-olds is one the Green Party has supported for a long time. When we first used to advocate for this change it was seen as radical, out there and unusual. That is not the case anymore because this movement is happening. It is early in its evolution but it is happening around Europe and the world. If we look around the world 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in as vibrant and large a democracy as Brazil and likewise, Ecuador. When we bring it back to the European continent we see that change having been made in Austria, Malta and thriving European democracies. A number of other member states or component elements of member states have made that change in lower order elections. For example, 16- and 17-year-olds can vote in Estonian local elections. In the Scottish independence referendum the voting age was reduced to 17 and that has been subsequently rolled out for the Scottish parliament elections. Likewise, the voting age for the Senedd in Wales has been reduced. The proposal that has been put in legislative form today by Deputy Farrelly is not something "out there". It is operating well in European countries we travel to. The Minister for housing will meet other Ministers for housing in the days and months ahead at EU Councils who have been elected by 16- and 17-year-olds and that does not cast any judgment, democratic question or any question on the ability on the capacity of those Ministers to engage at any particular formation of the Council. This is not some idea that is "out there". It is an idea that has been building momentum and its time is now. The fact that Keir Starmer would try to grab this as a fig leaf to distract attention from the other difficulties his government is having is so indicative of the fact that this is an idea whose time has come. While I do not have any dispute with the Bill, I have always advocated that we should start with the European and local elections in Ireland. I do that for one reason only, which is that it can be done by legislative change. The referendum that Deputy Farrelly's Bill will entail will be hard to win. I always think back to the referendum on the Thirty-fifth amendment to the Constitution reducing the age at which someone can contest the presidency from 35 to 21. That referendum was held on the same day as the marriage equality referendum and did not really get a look-in during the campaign. Many of us here were out trying to get behind the marriage equality campaign. If someone had come to Ireland and read the papers the day before that referendum, it was as if the question being put to us was, "Will every President of Ireland from now on be 21?" That was the standard of the debate in that campaign. It was completely corrupted. If we go first with a referendum, there would be much more focus on it and we could generate a strong, united campaign but I really worry about where the standard of debate would go for much of the campaign. This works; it is working around the world in the EU, elsewhere in Europe and in parts of the British Isles. The way to convince people that this works is to do it in a sequential way. We should bring it in for local and European elections first and disprove the fear and the rumour-mongers. I received an email yesterday from a known party saying, "Don't support votes at 16. My daughter is 17 and she's not mature enough" - ergo, no one is mature enough. That will be the standard of the debate. We can prove that the worries and the scaremongering are not justified by moving on local and European elections and then driving forward on the proposal that Deputy Farrelly is bringing forward. I look forward to strongly supporting this Bill when we vote on it next week.

Sentiment score: 0.05