Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

I congratulate Deputy Catherine Murphy on putting this important proposed legislation before the Dáil today. I compliment the Members on the constructive comments that most of them have made. I will put to one side the parts that were political because this is a serious debate about the Office of President and how we should elect that person.

This Bill deals with the Office of President and constitutional change. It comes at a time when memories of the recent presidential election are still fresh in our minds. In one way, that is good because we are all the more familiar with the issues presented to us for consideration in the Bill. We can readily recall the concerns sometimes expressed in the run-up to the election that the current nomination process might somehow conspire to leave potentially good candidates out of the race. On the other hand, we are not expecting to be seeking to fill the Office of President again until 2018. I am sure I speak for all when I take this opportunity, as other Members have already, to extend best wishes to the new President and to wish him well in the important role he has undertaken. As we would not expect an election again until 2018, this gives us ample time to reflect on the proposals in the Bill - time, which I will argue, we should take rather than rushing ahead at this stage.

In the Bill significant changes to our Constitution are proposed. Before commenting on the specific proposals, I want to make some general remarks about the importance of constitutional amendments. I also want to outline the general approach being taken by Government in this area in order to put my subsequent comments in context.

The Constitution is at the core of our democracy and changes to it need careful consideration. It has served us well down the years. However, the authors of the Constitution and the voters who originally approved it could not have anticipated the full extent of the political, economic and social changes that have taken place in the country over the past 75 years. For this reason, the reform and renewal of the Constitution is an important process to which this Government is fully committed.

The Bill provides for seven amendments to Article 12. These deal with the election of the President and related issues. Most of the amendments proposed in the Bill reflect recommendations in the May 1996 Report of the Constitution Review Group and the first and third reports of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution in 1997 and 1998, respectively.

Of the seven amendments proposed in the Bill, five echo recommendations to be found in these reports. However, neither the Constitutional Review Group nor the all-party committee recommended any change to the presidential term of seven years - a period of five years is proposed in the Bill. In the case of the proposal in the Bill to reduce, from 35 to 18, the age limit for eligibility for election and appointment, the Constitution Review Group and the All-Party Committee on the Constitution took differing views, with the former recommending no change, or only a minor reduction in the 35 year age limit. There is, therefore, a degree of convergence between what is proposed in the Bill and the recommendations of these earlier reports, but only that. There is not consensus.

One can have little argument with the first amendment proposed in the Bill, that is, that the Constitution should be amended to delete the reference to the system of proportional representation in Article 12.2.3°. As Members will be aware, the term "proportional representation" means the filling of a number of seats by different candidates at an election in proportion to the votes they receive. It cannot refer to the filling of a single seat and, therefore, it is not relevant when there is an election to the Office of President. Both the Constitution Review Group and the all-party committee came to the same conclusion, that inclusion of the reference to "proportional representation" in Article 12.2.3° is superfluous. This amendment, therefore, might be viewed as a reasonable technical proposal, although it should be noted that amending the Constitution in this way would make no practical difference.

The second amendment proposed - reducing the presidential term from seven to five years - is among the issues specified in the programme for Government for consideration in the proposed constitutional convention. It will be interesting to see what emerges from the convention on this proposal as both the Constitution Review Group and the all-party committee came to the view that the seven year term should continue to apply. On the other hand, a five year term might be considered more appropriate, perhaps in the context of Presidents taking up a second term. There is no consensus, therefore, on the proposal to reduce the presidential term and the sensible approach in these circumstances is to see what emerges from the convention.

There is a similar lack of consensus in regard to the third amendment - lowering the age at which someone can be eligible for election to the Office of President from 35 to 18 years. Within the Constitution Review Group there was some sympathy for the idea that the minimum age for taking up the office of President should be in line with the 21 years threshold that applies for Dáil membership. However, the majority favoured no change, or only a minor reduction, in the age limit. There was a sense that the office of the President called for special qualities, which are more likely to materialise over a longer span of years than 18 or 21.

The all-party committee, for its part, rejected this view. It felt that there was no logical reason for distinguishing between the age at which one becomes eligible to vote and the age at which one could be elected to the Office of President. On this basis, it felt that anyone who had reached the age of 18 should be entitled to stand for the Office of President and anyone of that age who managed to secure a nomination would, in the committee's own words "be an exceptional and worthy candidate". These diverging views only serve to underline again my point that the issues involved need careful consideration. It would be wise to reflect again on the proposal to reduce the age for eligibility in the light of whatever emerges from the Constitutional Convention.

The next two amendments proposed in the Bill relate to the nomination process for the Office of President. The current provisions are that nominations can be made by 20 members of the Oireachtas or for city or county councils. Former or retiring Presidents may become candidates on their own nomination. The Bill proposes two changes to these arrangements.

The first is to reduce the number of Oireachtas signatures required to make a nomination from 20 to ten. Once again, this issue was considered by the Constitution Review Group and the all-party committee, with the latter recommending the reduction to ten in the number of Oireachtas signatures required. Clearly, if the number was reduced from 20 to ten, it would be easier to secure nomination by members of the Oireachtas. At the same time, we need to be conscious that the Office of President is a national office of the highest standing in the country. It would be important to ensure that nominees have a broad based support. We need to reflect on what level of signatures would be appropriate to achieve that objective and if they are to be reduced from 20, what that level should be.

The second suggestion in the Bill is that a candidate for selection to the Office of President can be nominated by 10,000 citizens. While this is a proposal that has a certain appeal, it gives rise to some practical considerations that would also need to be borne in mind. In recommending this proposal at the time, the all-party committee considered that, while such a nomination procedure would involve practical difficulties and extra expense, it would be feasible. It would, for example, be necessary to have an adequate validation system for the signatory process. Safeguards would be required to ensure that citizens exercised their nomination only once. It might also open the debate about whether or not citizens should be resident in Ireland at the time of nomination.

Some concerns were aired in the run-up to the October presidential election that the nomination process was too restrictive. It was suggested that some potential candidates might not make it on to the ballot paper. In addition to voices of support for particular potential candidates there were parallel but different voices. These were voices of concern to ensure that candidates of real possibility would not fall short of the nomination process requirements.

Popular nomination could be seen to imply a greater degree of direct democracy in the nomination process. It might also further facilitate the nomination of candidates from outside of the party political system. Systems for popular nomination of presidential candidates operate in a number of European countries such as Austria, Finland and Portugal. However, the all-party committee drew attention to some possible difficulties with popular nomination, commenting that it left open the possibility that the office of President could be demeaned by the nomination of frivolous candidates or endangered by the nomination of inadequately qualified ones. Others might argue that the President should not represent any particular group or interest but should represent all the people - the election of a single-issue candidate, for example, could militate against this requirement. These are issues that could be teased out in greater detail in the proposed convention.

The sixth amendment proposed - providing that the President should not hold any other post inconsistent with the office of President - may well better reflect the intention of the drafters of the Constitution than the current wording on this point. It echoes a similar change proposed by the all-party committee but, again, the amendment would involve little practical difference.

The seventh and final amendment proposed is to allow an incoming president to omit religious references from the oath of office - or "declaration" as it is referred to in the Constitution. This is a matter that could be considered in further detail in the Constitutional Convention.

Without taking in any way from the proposals put forward in the Bill, I was surprised at the timing of its introduction, so early in the cycle. We have just had a presidential election and, in the normal course, a further election would not be expected until 2018. I can understand that there may be a concern to bring up these issues while a presidential election and campaign is still relatively fresh in the memory but I do not consider that would be sufficient justification to press ahead with a referendum on these amendments at this stage. The key point is that the proposed Constitutional Convention provides an opportunity to reflect on the constitutional provisions relating to the nomination process etc., for the Office of President. Whatever views emerge from the convention will be available to inform and influence the type of amendments to the Constitution that might be made in advance of the next election for the Office of President.

The programme for Government outlines an ambitious programme of constitutional reform. In addition to the two referendums already held, the priorities include a referendum on children and a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad. The programme also provides for the establishment of the Constitutional Convention, which will be asked, among other things, to consider and report on the question of reducing the term of office to five years and any other relevant constitutional amendments that might be recommended by the convention.

Taking into consideration the Government's programme for constitutional reform, noting the commitment in the programme for Government to set up a constitutional convention and taking into account that we would not expect an election to the Office of President again until 2018, the Government opposes the Bill. However, we welcome and will listen to the comments made by all speakers. We believe the convention is the place where all these issues can be debated and fully discussed.

See this speech in context