Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The convention was established in 2012, which seems a lifetime ago, to discuss amendments to the Constitution. It met on 1 December 2012 and sat until 31 March 2014, which also seems a lifetime ago. It was a great undertaking and I acknowledge and commend the work of the convention's chairs, its secretariat, the expert advisers and panels and, in particular, the citizens who participated in the exercise.

There was an element of scepticism and criticism - some of it worthy - when the convention was first established. This was an experimental approach that drew on a representative group of citizens to participate with politicians in considering an eclectic and Government-selected range of topics. It never went as far as we in Sinn Féin would have liked. We had our criticisms. Nonetheless, we played our full part in all of its deliberations and our party attended all of its sessions. We were fully committed to making it work well.

Overall, the convention was a worthwhile exercise. In some cases, it dealt with serious constitutional changes, albeit in a piecemeal way. It is good and healthy for any democracy to give citizens an opportunity to play their part in a process that could decide groundbreaking constitutional changes and take a country in a new direction politically. Involving citizens made democracy more inclusive and representative. They took their participation seriously and there was a high standard of debate at every session. People were passionate and idealistic and argued their points with thought and obvious commitment. It was refreshing for politicians and citizens to interact in that manner. Too often is it the case that citizens across the State feel excluded from and irrelevant to the democratic process. The convention process was a deliberative one, which made it all the more interesting, as citizens and political representatives were challenged to consider, reconsider, reach a position, revise it and draw a conclusion.

Let us consider our current position. It is almost two years since the convention concluded its deliberations and nine reports have been issued. In a statement to the Dáil in July 2012 on the convention's establishment, the Taoiseach stated how important it was to have a timely response to its recommendations. He stated: "The Government recognises that unless the reports the convention produces are responded to quickly, the convention and, indeed, the very process on which we have embarked will be called into question." Here we sit in what my colleague called the twilight hours of this Dáil. By the Government's inaction, it has essentially called into question the efficacy of the process from start to finish. Sinn Féin, the other parties and the citizens who gave of their time certainly played their parts. What is in question is the Government's lack of engagement and its neglect. This seems a deliberate ignoring of the convention's recommendations and reports. No one signed up to this process to be ignored, sidelined, second-guessed or patronised. An inordinate Government delay is disrespectful to those who gave of their time and it is disrespectful to the citizens in question that we are only dealing with these reports in a rushed and restricted way when they should have been addressed separately and through proper debate. That was the least that was required.

Given the political scandals that have plagued domestic politics for decades, who can blame the public for their cynicism towards high-level politics and politicians? It is not only incumbent on everyone elected to public office to adhere to high ethical standards, although that is crucial, but to demonstrate to our citizens that politicians are not just here for self-aggrandizement or selfish gain or to pursue our own agendas at the expense of ordinary persons. The Constitutional Convention enabled the inclusion of ordinary citizens and helped to give them ownership of the democratic and political processes through a partnership. Some of the cynicism that people felt towards the political process could have been alleviated. How disappointed and let down must they feel after so much dithering? We have waited almost two years for movement from the Government. What there has been has effectively been non-movement. We acknowledge the convention's great success that was the passing of the referendum on marriage equality. Besides this one blip on the radar, though, there is an obvious Government disinterest in and detachment from the process, which confirms the worst fears of a disillusioned public that a convention touted by the Government as a central plank of its proposed political reform agenda was, in the Government's mind, really a talking shop.

This confirms the worst fear of a disillusioned public, namely, that the convention, touted by the Government as a central plank of its proposed political reform agenda, was simply a talking shop in the mind of the Government. I suspect that were it not for the imminent election, we might never have heard again about the Constitutional Convention. More than likely, the reports and consideration would have been consigned to some dark cabinet to gather dust.

A great deal of goodwill was invested in this work, the deliberations and consideration. Therefore, I do not make criticisms lightly at this juncture. One should remember that when this process started, the Government gave the appearance of being fully committed and engaged therein. The convention, with a very modest and limited budget and few resources, met its deadlines. In the end, it produced 38 recommendations, including significant proposals for reform. The Government committed to responding to each report, within four months of publication, in a full debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas and to establishing a timeframe for the holding of referendums. One can almost hear the wind whistling and see the tumbleweed rolling by waiting for this to happen.

I want to address what I believe to be a worrying aspect of the responses the Government has given, such as they are. In the first instance, I wish to address the statement made by Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, on votes in presidential elections for citizens resident outside the State. It is self-evident that such a departure carries with it complexities, as she put it, and issues of principle and policy. I do not thank the Minister of State for coming into the Chamber and making such an obvious statement. That said, these issues need to be teased out. The convention, in deliberating on these matters, hearing from expert witnesses and debating the various topics, considered very many of the complexities. It took a decision that the matter of voting rights merited the making of a proposition to the people by way of a referendum. It now seems the Government is rejecting that decision of the convention. It states these issues must be considered time and again. Inadvertently, it seems anxious about the electorate in the North of Ireland. I wonder why that might be.

Having committed to the convention and seen how right it was on the issue of marriage equality — an issue that was complex and potentially controversial in and of itself — the Government should not be overriding the decision and recommendation of the convention. It would be a different matter if there had been a split vote or a decision on the margins. This issue, however, commanded overwhelming support and it must be put to the people. The Government's foot-dragging on the matter is wholly unacceptable.

I am very concerned about the Government's response on economic, social and cultural rights. The Government knows that we signed up to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as long ago as 1973, and we ratified it in 1989. Therefore, we have accepted these rights in principle. Clearly, it seems we are in favour of them. The next logical step is to enshrine the framework and entitlements in our basic law and constitutional text.

I recognise that there are real issues to be weighed up and considered, as with any form of constitutional change, but I am most alarmed by the very predictable response of the Government to the effect that it does not wish the Judiciary to intrude on matters that properly belong to the Government and to have an undue influence in respect of the use of the resources of the State. I do not accept that the resources are limited, as stated by Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

See this speech in context