Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

The subject of today's debate is broad reaching, while focusing on our intentions for constitutional reform in the electoral area. Before addressing this I will make some remarks on the Good Friday Agreement. The Government fully recognises the importance of full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in strengthening North-South co-operation and encouraging lasting reconciliation on the island of Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement sets out a basis for a lasting peace. An important element is the right to self-determination by the citizens of Northern Ireland.

The agreement does not in itself confer Irish citizenship upon any person. Rather, it binds the Governments to continue to recognise the British and Irish citizenship entitlements of the people of Northern Ireland and, further, to continue to recognise dual citizenship for such persons. Beyond that, domestic Irish law, rather than the agreement, governs the entitlement to Irish citizenship. Citizenship, however, does not automatically grant voting rights. This is an important clarification in the context of today's debate.

There are areas where further work is required to bring about the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement. One of these is the formation of a North-South parliamentary forum, where representatives of both parliaments North and South can come together to discuss issues of mutual interest. The Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, along with the working groups, have already carried out valuable work in this regard, and the conference last year was a step forward. It is important that the North-South parliamentary forum be kept to the fore in any discussion regarding the Good Friday Agreement. A North-South consultative forum also remains outstanding.

The constitutional convention should examine the local government structures as outlined by Senator Keane on an all-island basis and deepen the relationships between all of the people at local political level across all traditions on the island.

The practical benefits to this island which could be achieved through North-South co-operation are limitless. There are potential benefits to be found in the political, economic and social spheres. The St. Andrew's review of North-South co-operation promises to examine the facets of co-operation as it is and identify new ways forward. It is essential that all stakeholders on both sides of the Border work together to facilitate the review.

Likewise, any review of our Constitution requires the input of many stakeholders. As well as recognising the Government's commitment to constitutional reform, it is important to acknowledge that our Constitution has served all of the people and parties well down the years. However, no Constitution could have anticipated the full extent of the political, economic and social changes that would take place in this country over the more than 70 years since it was framed. For this reason, the reform and renewal of our Constitution is an ongoing process.

The programme for Government commits the Government to introducing specific constitutional reforms during the lifetime of the Government. We have prioritised two referendums - to be voted on later this month - to copperfasten the inherent right of the Oireachtas to inquire into matters of public importance and to ensure that it is permissible to reduce judicial salaries proportionately with salaries elsewhere in the public service. We plan to put other constitutional amendments to the people next year, including the proposed amendment on children's rights.

Various models for reviewing the Constitution have been used here in Ireland and abroad. In Ireland, for example, expert committees have been set up, comprising eminent individuals who used their knowledge and experience to examine various aspects.of the Constitution and recommend change. There have also been political fora, through formal Oireachtas joint committees and informal all-party committees, to examine both general constitutional reform and specific issues in a non-partisan way and to bring forward appropriate proposals for change.

Other countries, such as Canada and Iceland, have used citizens' assemblies as a forum for considering constitutional change. Here in Ireland, the Government has given a commitment in the programme for Government to establish a constitutional convention. This will examine the Dáil electoral system; a provision for same-sex marriage; amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life; removing blasphemy from our Constitution; and the possible reduction of the voting age to 17.

The convention will also be asked to examine reducing the presidential term to five years and aligning it with the local and European elections. The question of how the convention will be set up and how it will operate is being considered. The Government will be bringing forward proposals on its terms of reference, composition and structure after the forthcoming referenda and the presidential election. As the motion suggests, I do not wish to pre-empt the work of the constitutional convention but I will make some remarks on two topical issues that may come to be considered by the convention which are the presidential election nomination process and the voting rights of citizens.

During the nomination period for the 2011 presidential election there was discussion about the need to reform the process. However, constructive and meaningful alternatives have not been proposed. One suggestion was a type of citizen petition process whereby a candidate would have to collect 10,000 or more citizens' signatures. The practicalities of verifying thousands of signatures to ensure the validity of such a process does not seem to have been given any serious thought. Neither does any consideration seem to have been given as to how the number of candidates might be limited in some way so as to guard against an unmanageable election process. I understand that Finland and Portugal have systems in place and these might serve as useful models for comparison.

By contrast, some have argued that the existing process has worked well in 2011. There has been much increased activity in city and county councils compared with previous nomination processes. Many councils listened to presentations from several people seeking nominations other than those whose names are now on the ballot paper. In considering any alternative to the current nomination process, it would be important to give careful consideration to any suggestion that this important constitutional role be taken away from elected members of city and county councils.

The presidential nomination process was considered in the 1996 report of the Constitution review group and also by the All-Party Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution. In its third progress report that committee recommended that provision should be made for popular nomination in addition to nomination by elected members. In making that recommendation the committee believed that while the nomination procedure would involve practical difficulties and extra expense, it would be feasible. Reform of the presidential election nomination process would require constitutional amendment. In the event that a constitutional convention is tasked with considering the nomination provisions, I look forward to the outcome of those deliberations.

The question of voting by Irish citizens other than those resident in a constituency is not new. It has been the subject of much consideration and deliberation over the years. Senators will be aware that in order to vote, a person's name must be entered in the register of electors for a constituency in the State in which a person ordinarily resides; citizenship alone does not confer voting rights. The extending of voting rights would, therefore, require careful consideration of a range of complex matters of principle and practicality. These include a decision on which citizens should be entitled to vote from abroad. The diaspora is extensive. Consideration would need to be given to the potential impact of many thousands of voters living outside the jurisdiction on the outcome of elections and referenda. More practical concerns about the costs of implementation and the integrity and security of the ballot would also need to be examined to ensure that decisions on change are fully informed.

I appreciate that the immediate concern of some Senators is to extend the franchise in presidential elections. Article 12.2.20 of the Constitution links the right to vote at presidential elections to the right to vote at Dáil elections. If a separate regime is to be considered for presidential elections then perhaps the question of extending the franchise at presidential elections should also be considered by the constitutional convention. As I have outlined and as is stated in the Government motion before the House today, the Government is committed to reform.

The programme for Government outlined an ambitious programme for constitutional, political and electoral reform. The Government has committed to a radical overhaul of the way Irish politics and Government work. Already we have cut the pay of the Taoiseach, Tánaiste and Ministers, halved the cost of ministerial transport, outlined the provisions in new legislation being drafted that will effectively ban corporate political donations, and promised new legislation to cut the number of TDs at the next election. We have promised to hold a referendum on the future of the Seanad and we want to ensure greater female participation in politics. We have cut the number of Dáil committees. We have restructured local government and given certainty and a time limit of six months on the holding of by-elections.

A number of the wide-ranging commitments are within my areas of responsibility as Minister and some have been implemented already. I am committed to continuing to work with my Government colleagues and indeed all Oireachtas Members to realise our ambitious electoral reform programme. As regards this motion, I would have hoped that we could agree to examine all the issues in respect of the Constitution and the most appropriate way to deal with these issues is by means of the constitutional convention where all the complex issues could be teased out in an open and inclusive manner by all stakeholders.