Catherine Murphy (Kildare North, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am underwhelmed by the proposal that is to be put before the people, not because there is no need for change in the role of the Presidency and how we elect the President, but because of how tame this is compared with what is required.

I was a member of the Constitutional Convention and diligently went along to all but one of the sessions, the one on blasphemy. I remember the debate we had on this topic because I had brought forward a Bill in December 2011, which was debated in this Chamber on a Friday. I was told that I would have to wait until the Constitutional Convention had completed its deliberations and could put forward a list of well thought out proposals. My Bill was not very different from the proposals made by the all-party review committee on the Constitution which had deliberated in 1998, following which former Minister Jim O'Keeffe also brought forward a Bill similar to the one I proposed not long after the current President was elected.

Of all the issues on which the Constitutional Convention focused, the one which attracted the most attention was a proposal to widen the process by which people nominated candidates to stand for the office in order that they would not be a hostage to the political parties. It advocated greater engagement along the lines of what was envisaged in the all-party report which suggested 10,000 citizens nominate a candidate to stand. It was not proposed in order that we would have a very long ballot paper but rather to provide for greater choice. The President should be above party politics, but this Bill does not address that issue. It tinkers with something in a way that amounts to housekeeping rather than bringing about fundamental change in respect of the office of President.

I predict that we will see a lack of activity on the Government side today and that the only ones who will make a contribution will be those on the Opposition side. The Government side knows that it is a tame measure and that it is difficult to come into the House and be positive about a Bill that is so limited. My Bill of 2011 sought to broaden the nominating role. In 1997 local authorities took on a nominating role for the first time and that energised the campaign, something which has been a feature of campaigns since. There have been six occasions on which the people have been denied by the fact that the parties agreed among themselves not to put forward a candidate to stand against an incumbent, leading to a 14-year gap until they were given the right to elect a President to represent them.

As I said, this Bill is underwhelming and I fear that there will be loads of unmarked ballot papers in the ballot box. There is a huge lack of ambition and so much more could have been done. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Constitutional Convention was held when so little attention has been paid to it. Its report mentioned a prominent theme to emerge from the deliberations of smaller groups. That was whether the nominating rules should be amended to give a greater role to citizens in nominating candidates for the Presidency. That is what really grabbed people's attention when we were debating the issues, but it has been ignored.

One of the things about which I have a regret is signing a letter asking the President to intervene in the water charge legislation as this indicated that the President had powers over and above those he has. I regret that this brought the President into a row into which he should not have been brought.

See this speech in context