Micheál Martin (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

When the convention was established in 2012, we said at the time it was too general, it involved many non-urgent issues, it was unfocused and some of those issues should have been dealt with upfront at the time rather than being put to a constitutional convention. It is important, as the Taoiseach has noted, that recommendations that have yet to be voted on in this Dáil include popular nomination for the presidency, a full franchise for 16 year olds, gender neutral terminology in the Constitution, presidential votes for emigrants, decriminalisation of blasphemy and inclusion of justiciable economic and social rights. The hype with which the convention was established was always going to end with recommendations gathering dust in Government Buildings and relatively minor amendments to the Constitution.

In the case of marriage equality, it is arguable that the convention was a means of delaying the proposal for two years because all political parties bar the Taoiseach's had two years earlier committed to holding such a referendum. What, if anything, will be done on recommendations to which there has been no proper response and for which there is no clear public demand, for example, the extension of voting in presidential election to Irish citizens abroad? Every party in the previous Dáil supported this. Prior to the general election in October 2015, former Minister of State, Senator Paudie Coffey, informed the House that work was under way on designing a proposal that could be brought to the House. Where has that gone? The former Minister of State indicated that a great deal of work was being done to design such a proposal. The next presidential election will take place in less than two years. If the complex job of creating an electoral register and a polling scheme is to be completed, work needs to begin soon. Is it the Taoiseach's intention to fulfil the promise of an emigrant vote for the 2018 presidential election or is that too close for anything realistically to be done? What is the Government's exact position on that specific proposal and the other issues I have raised?

My second question in this group is quite separate in a way but I accept it has to be taken because it is in the context of the convention. It relates to justiciable economic and social rights. The convention recommended that these be inserted in the Constitution but be subject to a resources limit. That would be the only example of such an approach in a common law system if that was enacted. The Government put this on the agenda first when it referred these issues to the convention and now it is quietly running away from that particular idea. A demand for justiciable rights in the Constitution is commonly heard but the work has not been done on what it would mean in practice. The recommendation includes a provision that would set a limit on available resources. What that would mean in practice is unclear. What work has been done on defining the impact of this proposal?

As we have witnessed frequently in past referenda, failing to produce detailed studies of the consequences of a proposal can cause a destructive and negative debate during the ensuing campaign. Will the Taoiseach outline what provision has been made for holding referenda in the next 12 months given all these recommendations? Since the budget has been published, any referendum would surely be included in the Estimates. What is the up-to-date estimate of the cost of a referendum? Does the Taoiseach have plans for one over the next 12 months? Everybody is in favour of justiciable economic rights on the one hand but, on the other, no one has gone through the detail of it. I recently highlighted the EPSEN Act in the House. This Act gives legislative rights to children with special needs. Despite that being passed into law in 2005, the sections of that Act that confer rights on children with disabilities have never been commenced. There is always a challenge and a balance between having the language right and having the various provisions meet all the idealistic viewpoints and perspectives of people but when it comes to the practical implementation on the ground of issues that make a difference to those who are very often the subject of the proposals, very little gets done. The debate is between pragmatists and those who want to implement on the ground versus those who are happy once the conventions are signed, ratified and inserted in the Constitution. If they are never enacted, it does not seem bother some people. That might be a bit unfair but that tends to be what happens. I recall the debate on the special needs rights strongly. More than a decade has passed and key sections of that Act have not been commenced. It is arguable that, as a result, the child is no longer at the centre of advocacy within our schools in terms of special needs and so on. The NCSE has had to work away as best it can in the absence of such a legislative framework.

I ask these questions in good faith. What work is being done on defining the impact of the proposal to insert economic and social rights in the Constitution, be they related to housing or health? I have an open mind on health, for example, but we need the preparatory work and the ground work to be done and the detail to be outlined for a proper debate.

See this speech in context