Rónán Mullen (Independent)

-----to constitutional reform. I am one of those who believes our Constitution is excellent and I favour the approach of an item by item analysis and that we should have stand-alone referenda from time to time, as painful as this might be for the Government to contemplate. Although I am grateful for the certain degree of consultation that has gone on between the Government and the various political groupings in the House, I have reservations about the structure of the constitutional convention and the idea of randomly picking people from the electoral register. I presume some people will say they are not interested. There is also the issue of the inter-meshing of elected representatives and members of the public. Dr. O'Mahony rightly identifies that what happened in 1996 was a far superior approach whereby people with expertise and a track record made very considered recommendations, only one or two of which were ever brought forward in referenda. He rightly states it is strange to expect anything better would come from this. It seems to be a process that was driven by the desire of one party in government to make its mark on history but without thinking through what constitutional change actually requires. I would welcome a debate on this in the House very soon so we can discuss some of these issues. It was often stated that at the time of the Second Vatican Council the various bishops who arrived immediately threw out the agenda prepared for them by the Curia. If the constitutional convention does meet, it might be a good thing if the first thing it did was to state it would not deal with the set menu as prescribed by the Government but consider what issues should first get its attention.