Rónán Mullen (Independent)

Last week, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs delivered an address on the occasion of the publication of a report by Amnesty International on institutional abuse and she used the word "deference" to describe some of the causes of what went on in our institutions and why people and children, in particular, were not protected. She mentioned deference to the authorities running the institutions but it seems the problem of deference continues to this day in another context. It should not take a senior civil servant writing under a nom de plume to tell us that the culture of secrecy is still alive and well in Irish politics and administration but using the name, Slí Eile, we can thank him for reminding us of that fact. Slí Eile in an essay available through TASC entitled, "Changing the Political, Institutional and Legal Framework for a New Civic Republic", criticises the culture of secrecy and says public servants show excessive deference to the political establishment. This holds them back from providing more independent and provocative advice.

When we finger or target deference, it is more widespread than something that went on in the context of institutional abuse and it may be a continuing problem in our political set up. It is interesting that Slí Eile makes the point that Dáil Question Time "shows a marked reluctance to be completely open or to answer directly questions asked" and "Parliamentary questioning is often reduced to a political tennis game where frequently the main issues are avoided and politicians score points before the public and media gallery". That should give us food for thought about the way the Dáil and Seanad operate and, specifically, about the way Government interacts with the Oireachtas. We should debate this.

Perhaps this could be linked to a debate about our Constitution and the proposed constitutional convention. Slí Eile referred to "the Government approaching constitutional change by means of just taking low hanging fruit while shying away from a more fundamental review". I am confused as to whether the debate about the proposed abolition of the Seanad and whatever that morphs into such as reform of the House, will take place as part of the constitutional convention. That would have the effect of slowing down proposed reform. We should not wait for the Government to make announcements about the convention before having a debate about what our Constitution has done for our country and how we think the convention should work. Only yesterday, at the annual mass for the opening of the law year, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin underlined how the Constitution had served people well and said that it should not be presented as a fossilised child of its time. He said, "Within its limitations, Bunreacht na hÉireann has proven to be ably capable of guaranteeing rights and curbing power, including the power of the State". He is right in that. Will the Leader ensure that we do not show undue deference to Government and arrange a debate on our Constitution to include and how the Government interacts with the Oireachtas before announcements are made about the constitutional convention and how it will be established and operate?