Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)

The Electoral Amendment (No. 2) Bill before us intends to allow citizens to be chosen from the electoral register to participate in the proposed constitutional convention. To my mind it will not have the capability to reflect society as a whole with only 66 people, and even with 200 people it would be difficult for it to do so. There is a democratic deficit within the convention. It is broken down by age and region, but it does not have the capability to reflect society as a whole. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed.

The convention's remit is not broad enough and I believe it is a sham. The decision to act upon recommendations arising from discussions or consultations will be in the hands of the Government. The convention will not make any decisions, so its outcome will be determined by the Government and not by the citizens who will participate in it. Therefore, the process of including citizens is inconsequential. The remit of the convention has been decided by the Government and is very restrictive, including only civil and political issues. The concept of looking through the register is good but it does not go far enough and it cannot do what is necessary, which was Deputy Finian McGrath's point on the necessity of a people's convention.

I fully support the right to same-sex marriage, full equality for women, removing blasphemy from the Constitution and the reduction in the voting age, all issues which are to be discussed by the proposed convention. I favour the abolition of the Presidency and of the Seanad, which are both toothless, expensive, ceremonial institutions intended only to conceal the centralisation of power in the hands of the Government.

Equally important rights, more so in a time of economic crisis, are the rights to work, to equal pay for work of equal value, to a minimum standard of living, to universal access to health care and housing, to universal access to education, including educational services appropriate to needs, particularly for the 650 students with disability who want to return to education next year with access to SNAs, and the right of autistic children to services appropriate to their needs. These are rights many people would prefer to debate if they got the opportunity and were selected from the electoral register. Another issue that should be taken up by the convention is the issue of the separation of church and State. This issue has not been discussed and should be raised.

These socio-economic issues affect many people and public representatives try to help citizens with them on a daily basis, but they are not up for discussion at all by the convention. In my opinion, these issues are excluded from the discussion because the Government is implementing policies that deny many citizens such socio-economic rights, in particular, those on average and low incomes, because it does not want discussions that would expose or challenge the policies being pursued by the Government.

There is no proposal for the consideration of human rights by the convention or for the composition of the convention to reflect human rights provisions which might be incorporated into the Constitution. The failure to include these is occurring despite the fact that previous constitutional reviews, most recently in 1996, identified Articles 40 and 44 of the Constitution as being flawed with regard to current international standards on human rights. Groups that have played a key role in fighting for those rights are not being included in the convention.

Citizens selected to take part in the convention are invited to participate at weekends, rather than being facilitated to participate during working time, as is the norm with jury service. They are being asked to give up their time, under the guidance of experts selected by the Government, to participate in a process where the outcome will be decided by the Government. The process also excludes issues which many civil society groups say should be included in any consideration of constitutional reform.

I will vote against this Bill for the reasons I have stated and because both the remit of the proposed constitutional convention and any amendments to reform the Constitution will be decided by the Government. I do not believe the amendment proposed in this Bill will facilitate the broader issues that need to be discussed by society.

See this speech in context