Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

I thank Senator Mullen for teeing up my views on this matter. I agree with his request for a debate on the constitutional convention. While I am sure my views as to where it should go and what issues should be prioritised would differ from those of Senator Norris, it is urgent that we have a debate not only on the make up of the convention, but also on its purpose. I will repeat what I have stated previously. This House has 60 elected Members and the Dáil has 166 elected Members. Within this body of men and women we have every possible proponent of every possible idea with regard to constitutional change. Virtually every one of the so-called weighty matters to come before the constitutional convention has already been investigated or dissected by the Law Reform Commission or various other reports or agencies. The Members of both Houses should be leading the debate on any possible constitutional change. The constitutional convention sounds an attractive body but what the country needs is not the politics of soundbite but the politics of substance. We need weighty debate on the Constitution and the constitutional convention prior to its establishment. We have seen the list of so-called prioritised questions to put before it. One does not need to be a genius in any respect, political or otherwise, to know what its deliberations will be on the idea of reducing the voting age to 17. One does not need to be a prophet to know what it will say with regard to the term of office of the President. However there are issues which need to be debated but this debate should begin and end in the Houses of the Oireachtas. For better or worse we are the elected people and we should be the constitutional convention. It is a proposal of the Government so let us debate here the merits of the constitutional convention and let us tease it out.

These are questions that need to be raised. There are constitutional provisions which need to be changed but we in this House in conjunction with the Lower House have the capacity to be the leaders of that debate. A constitutional convention would simply rehearse debates that have already occurred. The article I read today referred to the 1996 work. All of this has been investigated and written up by many bodies. We, the politicians, must now lead. And as a start we should debate here the merits or otherwise of the constitutional convention. The debate on changing our Constitution is a serious matter and should be done with great care and not as some sort of political sideshow.