Barry Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy for introducing this Bill. It is a very reasonable measure which would move forward a piece of political reform which has been talked about for some time but has not been acted upon. This is a very appropriate time to begin the process of reforming the constitutional provisions for Uachtarán na hÉireann, given, as we have just been through an election, that public interest in and knowledge of the presidency is very high.

The Fianna Fáil Party will support this Bill on Second Stage and push for it to be allowed to proceed to enactment, subject to public consultation and a more detailed consideration of some aspects of it. It is a good Bill which accurately reflects past all-party agreements and provides a solid basis for moving forward to address clear issues with the procedures by which we elect our Head of State.

We are very lucky that the position of President has earned the respect and admiration of the people since it was created in 1938. It has always been held by men and women of the highest calibre and each of our Presidents has brought distinction to the office. Though they have all had some political connections in their careers, they have ensured that it is seen as a position above party politics. In this they have ensured that the presidency has fulfilled its single most important function in our democracy - it is a source of unity.

Our President has very few strong powers when compared with other directly-elected Heads of State. In our system, Article 28.2 of the Constitution confers executive power on the Government. Yet, it would be wrong to dismiss the presidency as merely a ceremonial office. In the debate in this House on Bunreacht na hÉireann, de Valera explained that the Constitution conferred on the President six substantial powers exercisable on the President's own initiative, independent of the Government, with which the President would protect and safeguard the people's interests. A number of these powers were clearly contingency powers and they have, thankfully, never had to be used. In this respect, I refer to powers such as those conferred on the President in Articles 24.1, 22.2 and 27 where the President might conceivably intervene as a form of "medium" in a dispute between both Houses of the Oireachtas.

The presidential power most frequently used is Article 26, which is a significant power that allows the President, following consultation with the Council of State, to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court for a decision on whether a Bill is repugnant to the Constitution. This is an important power and places the President in the position of upholding the Constitution and defending the people's rights. It is a power that successive Presidents have exercised independently. By transcending partisan divisions, our presidency has served as a reminder of our shared support for the core institutions of the State.

Our Presidents have also represented the State with great dignity and to great effect. While dramatically limited in their freedom to espouse policies, our Presidents have nonetheless been able to forcefully represent the ideal of Ireland seeking strong co-operation and engagement with other states. Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh said that, under our Constitution, Presidents do not have policies but they have themes. Mary McAleese's theme was building bridges and her work for reconciliation will forever earn her the gratitude of the people. The diaspora was a theme of Mary Robinson's and other Presidents, going right back to Douglas Hyde, who made our national language an integral part of his presidency, have pursued themes that have benefited our country and its people.

We have a presidential tradition of which we can be proud and which we should protect. The public support and legitimacy it enjoys should not be tampered with and the Fianna Fáil Party believes there is no need for a fundamental re-evaluation of the powers of the President. However, we support the idea that there are specific reforms concerning the process for nominating and electing the President which should be addressed and would not damage the current successful model for the presidency. We also believe that now is the best time to take up them up.

This year's election campaign was high profile and public understanding of the role of the President has increased significantly. In addition, any change should take place as early as possible in our new President's term in order that there is no risk of issues being mixed with the early stages of the next campaign. During the past decade, all parties contributed to detailed discussions about the constitutional provisions relating to the presidency. It was agreed that change was required and specific proposals were outlined. It would be unreasonable to hold this Oireachtas to the decisions of a former committee. However, its agenda was a sensible one and there is no reason to go back to the beginning of the process. That would be a recipe for doing nothing.

We also oppose the idea that this matter should be sent to the constitutional convention. The convention, which has been delayed from the timetable outlined in March, has a broad agenda. The Government has separately decreed that the abolition of the Seanad, which is a more controversial matter, will not be referred to the convention. There is no in-principle reason that other constitutional reforms should be delayed for at least a year before they can be taken up in this House. Last Tuesday, the Taoiseach was asked about various referenda during Question Time and he sounded almost as if he was scared to run a referendum on anything. The Government's arrogance and haste led to the defeat of the Oireachtas inquiries proposal. The legitimate response to this should not be to suspend all referenda but to change the way they are handled before they are put to the people.

If Second Stage is agreed and the Bill referred to a committee, as it should be given the previous positions of every party represented here, it should not be rushed through. The committee should call witnesses, invite public submissions and then have a credible debate on amendments. Following its passage, a lengthy period should be given to the Referendum Commission to prepare materials for the referendum. In this way, we would have a well considered proposal, which would incorporate public views, and it would not just land on the public with little notice and reflection.

The Bill proposes to reduce the age of eligibility to stand for the office of President from 35 to 18 and we strongly support this proposal. With limited exceptions concerning the holders of certain public offices, every person entitled to vote in an election should also be entitled to stand. If a young person is capable of persuading the people of his or her vision for the presidency, then so be it. An artificial higher age is unnecessary and should be removed for the presidency and all other electoral offices.

The legislation also proposes to reduce the President's term from seven to five years. While the current term has not led to major problems, we support this, in principle, because of the views of many candidates and holders of the office. However, we would like the reduction in the term to be qualified to ensure the presidency does not become just another election. Specifically, we believe there should be a prohibition on the holding of any other election or referendum within a month of a presidential election. In the past, this has been contentious. In 1945, the Government was criticised for holding the presidential election on the same day as the local elections. In 1966, the Government was criticised for not holding the local elections at the same time as the presidential election. In 1959, there was controversy about holding a referendum to abolish proportional representation on the same day as the presidential election. I do not want to go over old ground but we can learn from these controversies of the past and forge a consensus.

In future, especially if we reduce the cycle for presidential elections from seven years to five, we should agree that the presidency is kept separate from all other electoral contests. Presidential elections should not be thrown in with local and European elections or a general election. In a presidential election, we are choosing our Head of State and it is important that the people can reflect on this and that it does not become embroiled in other issues.

The evidence of the 1997 and 2011 elections is that the current unwieldy nominations process is still capable of delivering a diverse set of candidates. Simply increasing the number of candidates would add nothing to the quality of the elections. The evidence of the most recent campaign is that a large field can make much of the election superficial. There is no such thing as an in depth debate between seven people. What is of concern is that it is clearly possible that a person with widespread public support could be blocked by parties seeking to protect their own interest. The most recent case of electing a President without a contest was not the result of candidates being blocked. President Hillery's election in 1976 and re-election in 1983 reflected the public mood that there should not be a contest and the only candidate nominated had not just the support of the parties but the overwhelming goodwill of the people. He did a splendid job and brought stability and dignity to the office of President.

Internationally, the role of national and local representatives in the nominating process is not unusual. In both the previous two contested elections, all significant candidates were able to secure a nomination but the efforts involved became ridiculous. We need a nomination process that does not become too prohibitive for candidates. However, nobody wants a scenario that invites joke or spurious candidates to put themselves forward for Head of State and get on the ballot paper. This is an area we would like to go into in greater detail on Committee Stage, but we would like to consider a hybrid system of reducing the number of councils or Oireachtas Members required and combining this with the introduction of a popular nomination, for example, ten Oireachtas Members and 10,000 citizens.

The timing of the nomination is more important than the method of nomination. Every democrat should be concerned by how the recent election developed and the comments of one broadcaster that "the media won the election". He claimed that the media had picked up the candidates and, in turn, thrown them about the place before moving on to the next one. This was a product of a short campaign with seven candidates whom the public had little time to get to know. This gave an advantage to those willing to caricature the records of individual candidates while denying them the right to legitimately respond. This would be less of an issue if there was a much greater period between the end of nominations and polling. A minimum gap of ten weeks would give more than enough time for both scrutiny and perspective.

More than any Dáil since independence, we were elected to deliver a programme of substantive political reform. Part of this was to comprise a new respect for the Dáil and a willingness to loosen the grip of the Government on everything we do. In reality, nothing has changed. This is the third time we have had a Friday sitting and so far the Government has been unwilling to allow an Opposition proposal to move forward. Two weeks ago, a Government elected on the solemn promise that it would quickly ban corporate donations voted down a ban on corporate donations for the second time in nine months.

There has been an absolutely consistent approach of supporting the principle of Opposition measures and of blocking them in practice. Deputy O'Dea's Bill to reinstate protections for the many thousands of workers formerly covered by JLCs was allowed to proceed beyond Second Stage because the Labour Party was concerned about its backbenchers. That measure had previously been blocked for months. Equally, the Bill brought forward by Deputy McConalogue in respect of an amendment to the Constitution in respect of children's rights has been left in procedural limbo. Day after day, measures are being given cursory consideration in the House and are then guillotined. In addition, Ministers are failing to engage properly with the Opposition. The Taoiseach has reduced his exposure in the Chamber to answering questions. Increasingly, he refuses to provide any information during his time here.

If the fine words of Ministers with regard to empowering the Oireachtas are to have any substance, the Government must allow Bills such as that before the House to proceed beyond Second Stage. This legislation is not a national priority but it is important. It will assist in providing further protection for a successful institution which has given our State great service for almost 75 years. The Bill, the principles of which are sound, could be improved by a lengthy and inclusive consideration on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context