Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail)

Citizens want real political reform and want the Dáil and Seanad to deal with issues that will change society for the better. They are fed up with all this naval gazing.

When Bunreacht na hÉireann was written in 1937, it was ahead of its time as few things have shaped and controlled Irish political and legal culture since then as decisively as it has. Critical and essential features of the State are mandated by the Constitution, including our systems of election, Presidency, judicial reviews of legislation and, most importantly of all, the fundamental rights provision. When we debated the Lisbon treaty a few years back there was a good deal of debate about the Charter of Fundamental Rights for all European citizens, yet in Ireland these are laid down since 1937. A legal expert, Colm O Cinneide, when comparing the Constitution with the European Convention of Human Rights, wrote:

There is no doubt the ECHR is a more limited system of rights protection than that provided for in the Bunreacht. The rights protected in Irish law are more extensive and further reaching that those embedded in the ECHR text.

It is most important that this House acknowledges the progressiveness and foresight that was shown in 1937 when de Valera was Taoiseach. It has become too easy and very popular to criticise the Constitution as having been allegedly over influenced by the Catholic Church. Anyone who is familiar with the history of how the Constitution was written would know this is far from the truth. Article 44o outlines: "Every religious denomination shall have the right to manage its own affairs, own, acquire and administer property... and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes." It was so ahead of its time that when I read through it again recently, I was interested to note the foresight of it having an article that states "Legislation providing State aid for schools shall not discriminate between schools under the management of different religious dominations", yetif one was to examine the Government's policy on education funding in recent times, it seems to be determined to do the exact opposite. This was highlighted last week in the Seanad by the leader of the Orange Order, Mr Drew Nelson, when he called on the Oireachtas to continue to support Protestant schools in Ireland, as communities in Border counties live in fear for their continued survival, in the face of cuts to the Church of Ireland and other Protestant schools.

This convention will not address any of these fears or policy decisions in education. Unfortunately, we seem only to debate issues from the Constitution at times of contentious debates such as those around Articles 2o and 3o as well as divorce and the abortion issue. We rarely debate Article 42o which outlines that "The State shall provide free primary education ". The most urgent issue in our country is the challenge of returning to growth and job creation. With the Government increasingly showing that it has little energy or initiative in this area, a credible Opposition is badly needed and that is what Fianna Fáil is providing. However, the proposed reforms in the convention do not go far enough. Real reform is essential in the process of building a lasting recovery - it is an essential part of the agenda, not an optional extra.

There is no doubt that the political system failed in recent years. No part of the system predicted what happened to our economy and most parts of the system actively pushed policies which caused the crisis. Government was not subject to enough scrutiny and did not draw on a diverse enough range of expertise. As for the Oireachtas, in the decade before the crisis it showed no interest in economic fundamentals and did not debate the financial system until it was close to collapse. There were no calls, for example, to increase financial regulation in this House.

The Government, when elected, despite promises of massive reform, made matters worse in terms of the reform of the committee system. A second set of proposals had to be brought forward to undo the wieldy system of committees that was initially set up and one has to wait to see whether the reformed committee system will be any more effective. The Taoiseach has halved the number of times he attends the Dáil for questions. In fairness, we have had for the first time Friday sittings, but we can only discuss Private Members' Bills and broad-based debates do not take place.

It is mind-boggling that the Government is refusing to let a convention on the constitutional future of the country even discuss whether we should have a second Chamber in Parliament. What this reflects is that the Government wants to have a convention which cannot touch the fundamental issues of how the Oireachtas and the Government work. Of the issues being discussed, only one represents an area where radical political reform could be possible - the nature of our voting system. Our current system has one great strength, namely, it ensures that all Deputies remain in close contact with the people who elected them. However, the level of constituency work required makes a huge impact on the ability of some Deputies to carry out all their work as legislators. At the time of the last election Fianna Fáil proposed a mixed system of constituencies and a national or regional list system. This operates in many European countries and appears to have worked. I suggest that it at least deserves to be addressed in the convention.

The constitutional article against blasphemy is to be discussed. Ireland has a long-earned reputation as a country which respects the freedom of expression. However, this has and should have limits. The question is where to draw the line.

It is also proposed to discuss the relevant article concerning women in the home. This was originally proposed as a progressive measure setting out an objective of not forcing women out to work. It now reads as a very outdated provision which has not had any real legal impact. Many constitutions around the world retain anachronistic language without anybody being too bothered about it, but if we are to discuss the Constitution and this particular issue, we should examine the spirit in which it was drafted to see if there is some way to retain it. Article 41o states: "The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home." One would obviously like to see that particular article broadened and changed. De Valera, when discussing this article, referred to it as protecting women and said that women should not be obliged or prevented from working outside the home. He wanted to mention this so that women's role would be recognised and that our social system would value the role of women whether in the home or elsewhere.

See this speech in context