John Lyons (Dublin North West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to speak on the Constitutional Convention. As we are running ahead of time and I got a telephone call to say we were a few hours early with this debate, I have five pages of notes in front of me and I do not have the exact points to hand. I hope I will be able to cover them in the time available.

What is the Constitutional Convention? My understanding of why the convention was set up was to address the fact that we live in a society that is different from the one that existed when the Constitution was introduced. The type of society in which the young people in the Visitors Gallery live is very different from the one in which young people in the 1930s grew up. Most of the young people alive today finish secondary school and, one hopes, many of them go on to third level. They have a different role in society. My understanding is that the convention has been set up to reflect the fact that Ireland has changed and that we need to look at some items within the Constitution that will help us reflect the change that has taken place.

I do not like political slapping but I am disappointed that Deputy Cowen is not here because he mentioned very little about the convention and made snide remarks about how the convention was denied the big issues, the Government was looking for quick and easy headlines and we were tinkering around the edges of or mutilating the Constitution. This debate is concerned with the first report of the convention but let us look at the argument around same-sex marriage everyone has mentioned. I know we will deal with that in the next term. If we were to reference the issue of same-sex marriage that was discussed at the April meeting and equate it to the comments Deputy Cowen made about mutilating the Constitution, one would be deeply insulted to think that giving equality of access rights to individuals who are denied their rights is mutilating the Constitution. I am very disappointed and think it hypocritical of Deputy Cowen to come in here when he did not attend any of the meetings of the convention. I am not saying that anyone who speaks here today should have attended the convention - far from it - but it is a bit frustrating to see someone come in with those sweeping statements when they did not see what it was like to be part of the convention.

I will move away from that topic and return to what we are here to discuss today. My experience of the convention has been exceptionally positive and I think anyone who has been a member of the convention and who will speak today will probably say the same. Thinking back to our first meeting in Dublin Castle, there was a bit of an "us and them" scenario, with "us and them" being citizens and politicians. I can remember one particular citizen standing up and asking attendees not to let the politicians do all the talking. I thought, "Oh God, here we go, this is going to be a disaster of nine months if this is the attitude", but the ice was broken in Dublin Castle that day. Anyone who is a regular attendee of the convention at the weekends has seen that friendships have developed at each and every table across all parties, sexes and ages. Even though there is plenty of work to be done on the convention, and there has been a very legitimate reason to consider whether we should continue with it - we should continue with it because there is a place in modern society for some role for the convention - there will be many people, be they politicians or citizens, who will be very disappointed when the convention finishes because friendships have been developed and there has been a greater understanding of the role of politicians, as Deputy Catherine Murphy said earlier on. Equally, there has been an important reality check for politicians, including myself, that things are not as one sees them at times. I hate the fact that we have a partitionist description of citizens and politicians because we are all people at the end of day.

One of the best things about the convention has been the transparency. My first experience when we were dealing with what the report concerns was the issue of reducing the voting age and the presidential term. I found the experience of the convention over that weekend to be exceptionally transparent. It was democracy in action. Everyone had an equal voice and everyone was heard and listened to equally. There were note takers and facilitators, who worked in a voluntary capacity over the weekend as far as I know, who listened to our views. There were balanced arguments and experts from both sides of the discussion. We got to hear both sides of the argument, which is so important because no one has a monopoly on the truth. That balance of information gave us an opportunity to challenge our own positions, discuss it in the smaller groups and reflect it back to the plenary sessions. The experience of the convention has been exceptionally transparent.

We can talk about whether the issues have been sexy enough but they are genuine issues. Some may see some of them as being more important than others, but they are all constitutional issues that must be addressed. There are other issues that we must deal with at a later date and, like a number of speakers, I believe we must look at seeing what sort of place a constitutional convention can have in the future because if nothing else, it is a great engagement with the public in a very fair and balanced way. We might have differences of opinion because there are 33 politicians and 66 citizens but, by and large, it gives one a realistic sense of what the public might be saying about the issues we are discussing.

In respect of fairness and balance, everyone got an opportunity to hear both sides of the argument. Although one might like a particular outcome to a particular argument, which is only natural, what I have learned from the first constitutional convention meeting which dealt with voting age and the presidential term is that one does not always get what one wants. There is a learning process in that. It is fair to say that no rigging takes place at the convention. It is a very fair and balanced form of democracy in action. In particular, the first meeting where we looked at the voting age was an example of that. I am all for looking at the voting age. I am not sure whether 16 or 17 is the right age but what the convention has done is allow a space to be created to discuss this in the future in the public realm based on a detailed discussion that took place at the convention.

In respect of the future of the convention, I acknowledge that we are dealing with the first report issued in March within the four month period. It is time for us to take the debate on voting age and the presidential term to the people at some stage because it is important. That is what the convention was set up for, namely, to start the discussion in a fair and balanced way in order that we can have a discussion at national level and create a national conversation. Tom Arnold from the convention, who is here today, has said in any of his press releases that it is important that people get engaged in the convention. People should feel free to make a submission if they feel they have an opinion on an issue being dealt with in the convention. They should not wait until the end. It has been very helpful for establishing a general conversation around some issues.

The discussion of same-sex marriage was the highlight of the convention for me. I know today's debate focuses on the first report of the convention but that discussion was an example of how passionate people on all sides of a debate can be while at the same time remaining respectful. The convention was a safe environment that provided that space.

Before the convention finishes what it was set up to do, we need genuinely to ask ourselves whether there is a place to carry on the process of engagement between citizens and the Parliament that the convention began. I believe there is and that we need to have a discussion around that to see what place the convention can have in dealing with what is often a very big gap between the Houses of the Oireachtas and the public. I commend Tom Arnold and Art O'Leary and all their team. They have been professional in their delivery of the convention.

They have also made it exceptionally enjoyable for everybody there, and I smile because I genuinely mean it. Not a member of the convention it is not enjoying it, by which I mean really getting into it and getting something out of it. Everybody who turns up at the convention, although it can be tough to attend on a full day on Saturday having worked for a week and then going again on Sunday morning, has created a space which is positive, transparent and enjoyable and I thank them for it.

See this speech in context