Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the chairperson of the Constitutional Convention, Mr. Tom Arnold, and Mr. Art O'Leary, with whom I have become very familiar over the last number of months. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan and I represent the Technical Group on the convention and we have been fortunate to have been able to attend each of the sessions in their entirety. That continuity has been very useful.

I regret the tone of the last speaker, even though I agree with some elements of what he said. I was a sceptic about the Constitutional Convention. The Technical Group made a submission in which we sought an opportunity to put different items on the agenda, asking that the Constitutional Convention be able to write its own agenda and a number of other items. I still believe that would be valuable. The subject we are discussing today was the first item on the agenda. The Government said at the time that the convention would deal with one of the less controversial topics first, which would allow the convention to settle down. We said we would engage in an honest way with the agenda that was before us, and that is what we are doing.

I wish to pay tribute to another group in the convention, the citizen members. I have been incredibly impressed by them. They have taken the work of the Constitutional Convention very seriously and, in most cases, have approached it with an open mind. Many of them would say that they consider it a privilege to participate. They do not confine themselves to the narrow agenda. There are a couple of items in the report that were not on the agenda.

The functioning of the convention, with expert opinion on both the pro and anti side of an issue, has worked very well. The steering group has done a great deal of work to ensure there is the right type of balance. Another thing that works well is the practice of reshuffling people at the tables. I found myself at a table with Deputy Charles Flanagan on one day, while for the discussion on marriage equality I was at a table with Senator Rónán Mullen. Given that we were on opposite sides, it was quite an interesting day. I did not feel that people were leading, for what that is worth. It certainly did not happen at my table, and if it did, it certainly was not from my side.

I have some misgivings about 16 being the voting age. There must be political education with that. It is not just an age; there is more to be considered in that regard. However, the type of debate that would be generated by having a referendum would be quite important. What is very interesting is the way the citizen members are capable of giving us an overview of what type of debate would take place if that was put to a referendum. I welcome the fact that the Government is considering reducing the age. Citizens are capable of deciding if somebody is capable of doing the job or not, and I do not believe it should be determined by age. That would be an important change.

The issue that dominated that weekend was the opportunity for citizens to nominate somebody for election. I have debated this previously with the Minister in respect of, for example, the abolition of the Seanad. One of the consequences of that is there will be a change in the number of Oireachtas Members who can nominate a person to run for the presidency. However, it is a pro rata change from 20 to 14. I believe it should have been changed to ten. The Minister said at the time that there were seven people on the ballot paper. Seven is a choice. The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution that deliberated a number of years ago - I cannot recall the exact year so I will not try - said that 10,000 citizens would be capable of nominating somebody to be on the ballot paper. In fact, anybody who has stood for election as an independent and taken the route of getting people's signatures, taking them to a local authority, making sure they have their passport or driving licence and so forth, and given the type of checks and balances that go with that, will be aware that getting 10,000 signatures is a very tall order. People are really saying that they want to take an element of control over those choices. Up to now they have been the preserve of the political parties.

There is also the local authority route. I recall being a member of Kildare County Council on the first occasion the council successfully nominated a candidate. I supported a man called Mr. Derek Nally at the time because only four women had been nominated until then. I believed there should be a gender balance, at the very least. I did not have to agree with the individual being put forward but I believe that when citizens are presented with a choice and with a very robust campaign, they can be trusted. That is an important message. Another important message is the fact that approximately 94% of people at the Constitutional Convention wanted this change. If this convention is going to be a process that will be valued, the litmus test will be that when it takes a position on a matter to that extent, it will be responded to by giving its deliberations serious consideration and putting them to a referendum. I am not quite sure what the Minister was saying on that last item. It is going to a committee. There is no commitment at present to put it to the people in a referendum but perhaps the Minister will tell the House if the converse is the case and if a decision has been made not to do that. I believe it is worthy of more consideration and it should be the subject of a referendum.

Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan spoke about the weekend dealing with marriage equality. The young people who had grown up in families with same-sex parents made an impact. It was wonderful to hear the contributions they made in a very honest way. Even though it was a challenging issue for many people, there was a good balance on either side in the debate. I realise this is not the topic we are dealing with in this debate, but I thought that was a defining point for the Constitutional Convention. When people heard the views from both sides in a very considered way, a large majority were capable of making a decision. The other session which I considered was quite limited, and people strayed beyond it, was the one on electoral reform. It was quite extraordinary how people could see the need to decentralise power and free the Dáil to do the work it is intended to do.

An important and astonishing message which has emanated from the convention is that when 100 people are put in a room together in the expectation that they will engage in a quality debate, they can be trusted to do just that. Such individuals do not have to be members of political parties or formal groups in order to take part in debates of that nature. It is amazing how people can follow a debate or a conversation and reach their own conclusions. It is a privilege to be a member of the convention which, I hope, will be given a much wider remit in the future. The agenda for the final weekend session is much too narrow to facilitate discussion on the range of issues which people - both members of the convention and those intent on making submissions to it - feel are worthy of consideration.

See this speech in context