Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fáiltím roimh an deis labhairt ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo. I am conscious of the short period of time we have. The amount of time allocated to deal with these outstanding reports is derisory. The time allocated, the fact that we are dealing with the reports in the dying days of this Government and the fact that so many reports remain to be considered are a total affront to those who participated in the Constitutional Convention, in particular to the 66 citizen members who gave so generously of their time, effort and energy and who were filled with enthusiasm for the initiative.

Fine Gael and the Labour Party called for the establishment of the Constitutional Convention as a key aim of the programme for Government. Both parties agreed to put agreed proposals made by the Constitutional Convention to referendum as well as putting all proposals made by the forum before the Dáil within four months. Both of these promises have been broken dramatically. None of the proposals of the final report of the Constitutional Convention has been taken on board, including recommendations on removing blasphemy from the Constitution, strengthening economic, social and cultural rights, reforming political and Dáil procedures and giving citizens overseas a vote. The Government has also not taken the opportunity to propose a slate of minor changes advocated by the Constitutional Convention and has given up on much of its vaunted idea of holding a Constitution day. Instead of letting the people deliberate and decide on these important changes to our Constitution, the Government has made a series of shameful U-turns.

Regardless of the merits of particular reforms, there should be an open public debate on the issues recommended by the convention. The people should have their say on the proposals. Instead, the Government has effectively shut down debate on these issues of political reform, denying citizens the right to make decisions on how we can reform the political system and culture in this country. The debate today is indicative of how little respect the Government has for the process of the Constitutional Convention, with the allocation of a mere two hours for the Dáil to discuss the final five reports of the Constitutional Convention. These are detailed reports to which a massive amount of expertise, deliberation and, not least, the valuable time and energy of the 66 ordinary citizens who participated in the forum were given. It is shameful that the Government thinks that by holding this debate today it is giving due consideration to these reports. Now it believes it is free to shelve them.

I will use the rest of my time to speak about the recommendations contained in the reports on voting rights for citizens abroad, the removal of the blasphemy provisions from the Constitution, Dáil reform, the potential for inclusion of further economic, social and cultural rights in the Constitution and on the recommendations for further constitutional reform that the convention did not discuss.

Fianna Fáil supports the proposals of the Constitutional Convention to extend voting rights to Irish citizens abroad and in Northern Ireland in presidential elections. A clear majority of convention members favoured a change to the Constitution to give citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections, with 78% of members in favour. Ireland is unusual internationally in not allowing citizens resident overseas to vote in any elections. There are two exceptions; members of the armed forces and the diplomatic services are able to vote in Dáil elections, while only NUI and Trinity College graduates can vote in the Seanad. Beyond these exceptions, only those who are ordinarily resident in the State may vote. The Government recently launched its diaspora policy, Global Island, and claims to value the input and contribution of citizens abroad to our public affairs. However, the report cynically casts aside and downplays the genuine desire of citizens abroad to have a role in electing the President. While the Government applauds itself on its diaspora policy, it is yet again ignoring demands from Irish citizens abroad and in the North of Ireland for recognition from the Irish State. The diaspora policy actually confirms that the Government has chosen to ignore the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention that emigrants and residents in Northern Ireland be given the right to vote in presidential elections. The diaspora report is patronising in its tone towards these citizens and dismissive of the Constitutional Convention. It dismisses the demands of citizens abroad for a vote as being "challenging to introduce and to manage". Its calls for yet another consultative report with reference to matters of complexity is utterly disingenuous. It simply fobs off the idea that Irish citizens abroad be given a right to participate in Irish elections. Why do we need another consultative report while the Constitutional Convention has produced such a consultative report which the Minister is simply choosing to ignore?

Another recommendation that the Constitutional Convention made and that the Government has sought to ignore is to hold a referendum on the recommendation to remove the references to blasphemy in the Constitution and replace them with a prohibition on incitement to religious hatred. This is a great pity and a missed opportunity to modernise our constitutional architecture. The current blasphemy provision in Article 40.6 is archaic. Replacing it with a new provision and fresh legislation detailing religious hate crimes would have ensured religious groups were protected from incitement while freedom of speech was not unduly constrained. As a liberal democratic country in western Europe and part of the EU, Ireland has been used by extremist groups and autocratic regimes alike as a pretext for oppressive laws and systematic discrimination, often against Christianity or other religions that do not accord with the majority. There is a moral obligation on Ireland as a democratic nation to stand up for human rights, of which freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental. Ambiguity on the issue undermines Ireland's international standing. The recommendation of the convention struck the delicate balance between freedom of speech, the cornerstone of human dignity, and respect for deeply held religious values. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Any constraints on it must be clear and limited. However this is not the case with blasphemy in Article 40. The blasphemy provision in the Constitution has not been properly defined and has been ineffective in achieving its original aim. Replacing it with a new provision on incitement to religious hatred will protect religious belief, which is most important, from unwarranted inflammatory attacks. A new provision on blasphemy and fresh legislation will protect deeply held religious beliefs more effectively.

The Government has failed to live up to its much vaunted new politics with a botched Seanad abolition referendum. Subsequently, it has abandoned any effort to change how we do politics in this country. The Government promised a democratic revolution and delivered quite the opposite. The history of the Government's measures to date illustrates its failure to grasp the nettle of reform. Instead, it has concentrated power in the hands of the EMC at the expense of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In Dáil Éireann, the Government has completely broken its promises for a new politics in a damning indictment of its commitment to reform. For instance, the Government is systematically breaking its programme for Government pledge not to guillotine Bills, with 63% of legislation being guillotined to date. A fine example is the ramming through of the Irish Water legislation in a single day. In respect of 78% of Bills, the Government has failed to implement its programme for Government commitment to allow two weeks between Stages. The Topical Issues debate is being completely undermined by the failure of relevant Ministers to turn up in over 40% of cases. The Friday sittings farce is mere window dressing to bolster sitting days without any real debate. Only one piece of legislation taken on a Friday, which was Deputy Penrose's Bill Private Members' Bill, has found its way to the Statute Book. The Government continues to engage in cronyism in State board appointments, ignoring the open public process. The recent raft of Dáil measures taken without consultation will, in reality, disempower the Opposition and give more time for Government back slapping by its own backbenchers. The attitude displayed to date by the Government belies the fact that the people have voted for genuine change. Instead, the risk is that it has hardened their centralising agenda to the detriment of pursuing meaningful change.

Fianna Fáil has been committed to finding common ground in developing a consensual approach in reforming the Dáil. Reform must encompass a broader approach to all tiers of the State in order to re-shape the structure of Irish politics to make it fit for purpose. We need a holistic political reform which is critical to genuinely changing how we do politics in Ireland. As the Government has abolished town councils and slashed local democracy, the need for real reform is more apparent than ever. To free up the Oireachtas from Government control and strangulation, a number of key measures could easily have been implemented which still can be. For example, establishing a new office of policy and economic oversight would ensure that Members had access to expertise and sufficient information in the decision-making process. As the Constitutional Convention recommended, the Government could use its current powers under the Constitution and appoint experts via the Seanad as Ministers. We could revamp Standing Orders for the Dáil to strengthen individual Members' roles and create an independent committee system. Finally, we could introduce an independent, properly resourced electoral commission with a wide remit and adequate enforcement powers. It is a grave indictment of the Government's political reform agenda that none of these measures was taken.

The Constitutional Convention also explored what further economic, social and cultural rights could be inserted into the Constitution. A key issue in the debate around whether to enshrine socio-economic rights lies in whether this would mean handing decisions on the allocation of scarce resources away from the Oireachtas and to the Judiciary. In other states where socio-economic rights are enshrined, judiciaries have generally taken a restricted view of their application and avoided wading directly into government decisions. In Ireland, under Article 40.3.1^o, the Judiciary has been empowered to interpret unenumerated rights. This has meant that since the seminal mid 1960s case of Ryan v. the Attorney General, the Supreme Court has used case law to find rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution but drawn from the broader spirit of the document. The Constitutional Review Group report in 1996 advocated amending Article 40.3.1^oto restrict wide ranging judicial interpretation and to list out explicitly the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution. Enshrining socio-economic rights without amending Article 40.3.1^omay lead to a further extension of judicial power as the creative approach to the Constitution enables the Judiciary to widen its influence over areas currently considered the remit of day-to-day politics. Our stance is that Article 40 could be amended so that judicial activism was constrained and a comprehensive but not exhaustive list of rights explicitly stated. This would allow for a judicial discretion to react to social change and avoid rigidity while stating the values and goals of the State through the people's express will. Such new substantive rights, in addition to the right to a primary education, could include a right to housing or shelter or a right to a decent standard of living or income. I see many issues with inserting such explicit substantive rights into the Constitution, not least the unintended consequences it could have on the State finances.

The final report made some valuable further recommendations for constitutional reform. The recommendation to insert a declaration on environmental protection or stewardship has merit as a fundamental constitutional principle. It also recommends local government reform.

4 o’clock

After the abolition of town councils and the other backward steps the Government took in respect of local representation, we need a new vision of local government in order to engage ordinary citizens, strengthen representation and deliver for people on the ground. This must involve a fairer level of representation in towns, the creation of community councils and reforms to executive powers, such as directly elected mayors or new cabinet structures at local authority level, if we are to ensure more genuine powers in terms of enterprise support, planning and recreation for those local authorities.

The Constitutional Convention was a remarkable forum and it was great to be involved but it is a shame that more of its recommendations were neither taken on board by the Government nor allowed be put to the people in referendums. Given the quality of the deliberations that went into the convention's work, it is incumbent on the next Government, whatever its composition, not to shelve these reports but to use them to modernise our Constitution further and reform the political process.

Recently, the Taoiseach proposed the establishment of a people's forum of one sort or another regarding the right to life issue. It is difficult to be wildly enthusiastic about this proposal when one considers the commitment made by people to the Constitutional Convention and the fact that the timescales initially set out for it by the Government were not met in any case. As the Dáil draws to an agonising close, we find no fewer than five of the convention's recommendations being considered in a very short and inadequate timeframe. There is no one sitting on the Government side who participated in the Constitutional Convention and heard the recommendations-----

See this speech in context