Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

It is appropriate that we are engaging in this timely debate halfway through the year and on the final day of the current Dáil session. It is important that we should evaluate the work done to date by the convention. I am pleased the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government will be present for the entire debate.

The convention, of which I am a member, has been a resounding success. It is a novel and, in some ways, experimental venture. It involves detailed round-table debate and deliberation of a type not previously seen in this country. Its membership comprises individuals from all political parties and none and 60 citizens who are broadly representative of society. In the past there have been constitutional review groups and groups within this House which have met and deliberated. As far as taking action was concerned, these groups did not, perhaps, cover themselves in glory or obtain the type of results that were sought at the outset.

Our reform of the Constitution has been both piecemeal in nature and has been more mandated by Europe rather than brought about as a result of objective analysis and subsequent action. Our Constitution very much reflects the Ireland of the 1930s. Those who drafted it borrowed heavily from the prevailing mood of the day and from the bill of rights and constitution of the ill-fated Weimar Republic, which obtained in Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. The nationalist and religious strictures contained in our Constitution are no longer relevant in 21st century Ireland. Some of our people would seek a complete rewrite of our basic law that would contemplate the retention of the fundamental rights of freedom, equality, family, education, children, property and freedom of expression. Despite the criticisms levelled at it, our Constitution has served us very well. We must continue to bear in mind the fact that over the years, 75 laws enacted in this Parliament have been declared repugnant to the Constitution. It is important that the Supreme Court should remain all-powerful in the context of the checks and balances which apply in respect of the Government.

The Constitutional Convention is both innovative and impressive. As Deputy Catherine Murphy and others indicated, citizens are more than anxious to participate in it. As politicians, we are mindful of the status of citizens serving on the convention and their concerns. It was interesting to hear, during informal conversations held on the first day on which the convention met, that the citizens were anxious not to be dominated by the politicians and that their views would not be considered as being inferior to those of politicians. If I might be so bold as to speak for all of the politicians who are members of the convention, I would state that we have been mindful and sensitive about the concerns of the citizens. The results of this approach are beyond doubt. As a member of the largest political group at the convention, I was extremely anxious that the party Whip would be left outside and that we would deliberate and debate in a way that would not be subject to the rigours of party discipline. We have done that very well during the past seven months and I am anxious that we should continue to do it. If applied, the straitjacket of the Whip system would stifle debate and act as a barrier to any meaningful analysis.

Great credit is due to the chairman of the convention, Mr. Tom Arnold, whose independence and impartiality are beyond question. The convention has a committed secretariat, willing experts, excellent moderators and enthusiastic staff, and these all ensure value for money is obtained on each weekend it sits. The constant feedback and continual evaluation are meticulous in both content and detail. The recommendation on reducing the voting age to 16 came as a surprise. The level of turnout among young people at elections is declining. The convention heard evidence from, among others, Professor Theresa Reidy of UCC, to the effect that voting may be habit-based and that people who begin voting at an early age are more likely to continue to vote for their remainder of their lives. Keeping young people outside the political process ensures a disconnection and is demotivating. A recent opinion poll suggests that 30% are in favour of reducing the voting age, that 54% are against doing so and that 14% have no opinion. The clear message is that, regardless of the political hue of those involved, positive and active campaigning will be necessary in respect of the recommendations of the convention.

I accept that the agenda of the convention is somewhat on the light side. The debate on same-sex marriage has been the most controversial to date. Before any referendum is held in that regard, we must ensure our family law code is updated. Such an updating must precede any referendum and there is a need for a national debate on consequential issues such as adoption, parentage, guardianship, custody, access, maintenance, tax and succession. When all of that to which I refer has been done, we will be in a position to put the matter to the people in a referendum and provide them with full information and a wide-ranging debate.

The convention's recommendations are within target and its members expect that the Government will respond to them within target. I am a great believer in the idea that was floated - perhaps there has not been adequate deliberation in respect of it - to the effect that we should hold a constitutional referendum day. If we proceeded with this, we could put five or six questions to the people on the same day. There is every reason to do this. Some 135 Deputies in this Chamber are non-officeholders and it is my view that they have the ability and enthusiasm to take these issues directly to the people. There is a need to establish a powerful constitutional referendum campaign committee in these Houses, the membership of which would be drawn from among the ranks of the political parties and the Independents. If we are serious about constitutional reform, we need to inform and bring the electorate with us.

There are certain aspects of the Supreme Court judgments on the McKenna and Coughlan cases which are ludicrous. These judgments and that relating to the Crotty case have had an extremely adverse impact on our ability to campaign. The requirement laid down in the Coughlan judgment that Government must adhere to a 50-50 broadcast rule represents a subversion of the democratic process. This judgment also undermines the democratic mandate of Deputies. As a result, the view of citizens become confused and unclear. These judgments can only be reversed if a constitutional referendum is held or if they are struck down as a result of a further Supreme Court case. It has been argued that the Coughlan 50-50 broadcast judgment can be overturned by legislation and regulation and that the broadcast rules can be changed without the necessity of holding a referendum. If that is the case, then let us proceed. If what I describe cannot be done, then let us identify the barriers that exist. In any democracy it must be lawful and reasonable for broadcasters to recognise the position of elected public representatives in the allocation of air time. The requirement to distribute air time on a 50-50 basis is simply bizarre. Legislation or a referendum is urgently required in respect of this matter. If legislation is introduced and is the subject of a constitutional challenge, so what? Let us have the challenge and deal with it.

Will the Minister comment on the Referendum Commission and the work it does? I would like the latter to be reconstituted as an electoral commission. In addition, I would like the Constitutional Convention to be given a permanent role. If that is not possible, then it should be given more time to deliberate and its remit should be extended.

A small all-party committee to steer the recommendations in a proactive way is essential.

I agree with much of what Deputy Cowen said about Dáil reform but I certainly do not agree with his sentiments and the phases he used regarding a dark agenda or mutilating the Constitution. I note he has left the Chamber in a rather hurried fashion before listening to the contributions of others.

One issue on which the Constitutional Convention has agreed is the need for improved citizen education and training and that is essential. Looking to the schools, the current CSPE course is haphazard and inadequate. The Oireachtas outreach programme that we have here has been cut. It is no longer functioning adequately. Dáil tours have been curtailed. Some of the €20 million we will save if and when the Seanad is abolished must be funnelled into political education and training.

The Government programme of Dáil reform and of political reform, of which this represents a fundamental part, needs to be accelerated next term, particularly with the likely abolition of the Seanad in the autumn.

See this speech in context