Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I am talking about political reform. The Friday sittings are the greatest farce of all. Backbenchers on the Government side articulate legislation which they say they will bring to the floor of the Dáil. If the Government was real about bringing about the changes articulated by backbenchers, these Deputies would not need to table Bills to be taken during Private Members' business. The Executive has the power to ensure any business it wishes to conduct can be conducted on the floor of the Chamber. It is hardly surprising that the Government has not lived up to its promise to provide for constitutional change. In 2011 the Taoiseach promised a programme to allow a series of constitutional amendments to be decided on Constitution Day within 12 months of the new Government being formed and including a complex question on the abolition of the Seanad. There was a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad and, thankfully, the Government was defeated. What happened to the programme for Government commitment on Constitution Day?

I compliment the citizens who served on the Constitutional Convention on giving of their time to participate in the debates which took place at it. I am sure they are disillusioned and disheartened by the response of the Government to the proposals brought forward. There were proposals to strengthen the economic rights of citizens. A recent report by the Children's Rights Alliance gave the Government an F grade for the manner in which it was dealing with the issue of child poverty. Is it not a priority to ensure the economic rights of children are enshrined in the Constitution? Would it not better to ensure the election of the Ceann Comhairle by secret ballot? The proposal on the abolition of the Seanad, one full arm of the Oireachtas, was put to the people without any reference to the Constitutional Convention.

When one considers the number of people who have been obliged to emigrate from our island to far-flung destinations, one must ask whether we should examine the possibility of extending the franchise in order to allow them to participate in elections at home. Promises were made in respect of all of the issues to which I refer. Those issues could have been addressed on a constitutional referendum day such as that promised not by anybody on this side of the House but by those in government. The latter are in a position to fulfil their promises but as has been the case in so many other instances, those promises have been abandoned.

When I consider the proposal before the House and that relating to reducing the voting age, I come to the conclusion that behind both is a desire to ensure that there will be greater engagement on the part of young people with the political system. We can all agree that this is a priority. Why are people disenfranchised from the political system? They have become disenfranchised as a result of the cynical approach adopted by so many politicians in this Government and those which preceded it. I refer, for example, to the cynical approach taken by the former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn - when he was his party's spokesperson on education in opposition - in the context of solemnly promising young people that there would be no increase in student registration fees. We know what happened to that promise.

See this speech in context