Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)

We have said to the Government that the methodology employed for identifying the citizen block certainly deals with geography, age and gender, but we proposed a much more sophisticated tool that could capture a much broader range of people. We went through that in some detail with the Government.

It is worth noting that the programme for Government sets a specific context for reform. The Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party promised to establish a process to ensure that our Constitution meets the challenges of the 21st century. Instead of rising to that challenge, they have half-heartedly engaged in their own process for constitutional reform. The proposal before us lacks ambition and, sadly, like so many of the Government's promises of reform, the Labour and Fine Gael parties have chosen instead to tinker around the edges. This has not gone unnoticed by citizens and feeds into a narrative that not only are all politicians the same, but also all governments are the same. I am disappointed that there is so little ambition or heart in the Government's proposals.

This convention could and should be a significant platform for constitutional reform. There should be a myriad of issues to be debated, including long awaited and fundamental political reform. Instead the convention is in real danger of becoming, as one commentator put it over the weekend, "a purgatory into which a selection of constitutional issues will be parked before being further delayed or diverted when they return to the parliamentary process". Bizarrely, Seanad reform has been excluded from the convention. This is astonishing. We are told the Government intends to hold a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad, yet it is now refusing a full, open and public debate through the vehicle of the convention. It appears to have rushed to judgment on the issue and is making a unilateral decision that the people are either offered abolition or the status quo, when neither of those options is what is needed.

The convention should be tasked with considering whether a one-chamber or two-chamber parliament would best serve the country. Such a debate would enable convention delegates to debate the Seanad's potential, if any, if it were to be fundamentally reformed. Instead of facilitating this debate, the Government has rushed to what it sees as a populist position, instead of addressing a real reform agenda. We all know the Seanad is not working; it is an open secret. It has not worked for some time. Sinn Féin has advocated root and branch reform of the Seanad for over a decade. The Seanad in its current form is undemocratic. Its members are elected by an elite group with little or no regard to real representation of wider societal interests. That is a problem. A reformed Seanad could serve our democracy well and act as an important counter-balance to the political party-dominated Dáil. Ultimately, not only is this a matter for the people to decide, but the people should have an appropriate forum to debate that matter. The constitutional convention should be tasked with instigating and leading this debate.

There is a place for a democratic second chamber in Irish politics but only if its representatives are elected by all citizens, including those in the Six Counties and in the Irish diaspora. It is astonishing for a Government that so regularly looks to the Irish diaspora to assist it in energising and rebuilding the domestic economy to deny that diaspora even the most basic input into the political and democratic life of the State. Progress has been made on enhanced co-operation between the political institutions on the island, but people north of the Border feel there is still no real method by which they can play their part in national politics and democracy.

Senators should represent a wide range of diverse views and the role of community consultation should be increased as legislation is developed. These would be ambitious reforms but they are also achievable. Our democratic structures would be fundamentally enhanced by such ambition. The Seanad should be an elected forum for civic society, particularly for those sectors not adequately represented in the Dáil and, critically, for the more marginalised. The community and voluntary sector should have a direct input into the development of legislation not on the sufferance of Members elected to this Chamber, but as a matter of democratic process. One of the primary functions of a reformed Seanad should be scrutiny. It should scrutinise draft domestic legislation and furnish reports to the Dáil, including specific recommendations for amendment, withdrawal, further consultation, impact assessment and fast-track progress.

We have proposed significant changes to the current legislative process. Prior to consideration by the Dáil, all proposed legislation would first pass scrutiny by the Seanad. This would be known as the Seanad stage and this new stage would include a community consultation process. This is the type of real reform the convention could and should be debating. It is bizarre that the matter of the Seanad's existence or its reform is excluded from the convention. A commitment has been given by the Taoiseach in respect of civic society's engagement with the proposed convention. The Government must be sure to get that right. While citizens who will be drawn to participate and those who are elected to the Dáil and the Seanad will have views and expertise, there is a wealth of experience that must be tapped into to enrich the debate. Civic society could have been given a more pivotal role in this process, and it is a great pity that this is not the case.

As Deputy White mentioned, the Taoiseach has promised that this forum will be innovative, independent and influential. Certainly, under the motion that has been presented I do not believe it is automatic that any of that will be true. It will be a challenge for the Government to ensure, during the process and in dealing with the outcomes from the convention, that such innovation, independence and influence are writ large.

See this speech in context