Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent)

The fact that some of our colleagues can argue against the points made by the group demonstrates this. We can do so without killing each other.

I thank all speakers who contributed to this debate. I refer to the important point made by Deputy Cowen as to the advantage of having this discussion at an early stage in the presidential term. I may disagree with him on the hybrid system of a nomination process he proposed but it is none the less very interesting. This is precisely the type of issue that would have been debated by way of amendment on Committee Stage if the Government had permitted the Bill to proceed.

Sinn Féin Deputies made a strong argument that citizenship does not stop at the Border. This a deep conviction among members of that party and one which was articulated very well in the debate. David McWilliams has put forward the notion of Ireland becoming a mother ship. Given that this is one of the few countries in the world with such potential and strength, I am open to fleshing out the idea in a practical manner.

Deputy Dowds stated the nominating process could change if the Seanad is abolished, for example, in respect of the number of Oireachtas Members required to sign nomination papers.

I do not agree with the Minister of State that the timing of the Bill is surprising. The immediate aftermath of a presidential election is the most appropriate time to propose changes of this nature. The citizens we are supposed to represent believe the current process is extremely flawed. It is wrong to kick a flawed system which could be changed now into a constitutional convention.

I concur with the Minister of State that changes to the highest office in the land must be given careful consideration. A third report which referred to the Presidency was produced in 1998 following deep and long debate and consideration by an all-party Oireachtas committee. The report's recommendations are reflected in many of the proposals in the Bill. The Government's position is that we should repeat the earlier process of review and produce another list of recommendations. If we were to do so, the Government would then argue the list is too long to be put to the electorate in a referendum and the proposals should instead be implemented incrementally. That is not a valid position and it is unacceptable to truncate debate on this legislation by preventing it from proceeding to Committee Stage.

The Government speaks of political reform and trumpets the additional days the House will sit, including Friday sittings. However, Deputies from that side made only a minimal contribution to today's debate. Political reform must be meaningful, which means Opposition legislation must not be kicked off somewhere else. The Government must understand that this legislation has been proposed in a sincere fashion and allow it to proceed to the next Stage. We have made an industry of writing reports, considering this and that and failing to make decisions. Comprehensive reform is required. The Bill would require decisions to be made on the Presidency, rather than kicking the issue into a constitutional convention where it would be considered for an indeterminate period. We do not know when a proposal will be put to citizens who can see the flaws in the current system and know they have been sidelined. It is a disgrace that the Government is refusing to allow the Bill to proceed.

See this speech in context