Fidelma Healy Eames (Fine Gael)

I welcome this useful Bill. Contrary to what others believe, I like to see the public engaged in discussions on electoral reform and that a random panel of 66 citizens will participate in the constitutional convention. It is a historic development, as well as a good one for Irish democracy. I respect we have a parliamentary democracy, but given the fact parliamentary representatives will be on the convention, it is useful to have a public panel too.

I also endorse Senator Bradford's earlier comments that if we are to be truly transparent and ensure this is a new departure, then the Oireachtas Members should be selected at random too. Although the people usually decide on constitutional change through a referendum, this has taken that process to a new and historic level by giving a representative group of the people a high level of input into constitutional reform. It is important when the ESRI draws up its random sample that it is based on gender, age, social class and geography to ensure it is truly representative of the wider population. We become systemised, whether we like it, once we are elected to the Oireachtas. We become political animals. That is why I am happy to see a random sample of the public.

I have some questions about this initiative. Will there be oversight of those chosen for the convention? Will some members of the convention be in authority over others? Will any training or introductory courses be provided for the selected group in advance? Without such, it will be rubbish. It is critical this exercise is not mere window dressing. Unless, there are training and introductory courses for the random sample, they will come in, comparatively speaking, at a lower order of thinking than a Member who has been in these Houses for a while. The fact the Bill does not contain an opt-out clause for members of the public selected is also a problem. Can this be changed? If a person is unable or unwilling to take part, they should be able to opt out. Is there a mechanism in the convention to allow people to opt out? For example, in the past, teachers were trained to be relationships and sexuality education counsellors. Some were totally unsuitable for this and could never or did not want to teach it. People should not be asked to participate in something in which they do not genuinely want to be involved. In this case, such people will not serve the convention's purpose or democracy well.

The convention is examining serious issues such as the place of women in public life, the reduction of the presidential term, the reduction of the voting age and whether we should have same-sex marriages. The changes listed, however, do not represent comprehensive constitutional reform. It is wrong the issue of the continued existence of the Seanad, for example, is left out of the programme. The convention is the ideal place for a debate on the role of the Seanad. I have no difficulty with a referendum on the future of the Seanad. However, a debate just before the holding of the referendum does not provide adequate time. If we are to consider whether this House has a place in the democratic process, we must find a model such as the convention to give people real engagement on whether the Seanad should be retained. The Seanad is propped up by 33 constitutional articles, so there is much to consider.

The terms of reference of the convention are too tight. Wider terms of reference are needed to take into account general rights to housing, for example, and to health care. In addition, whether a referendum is needed for ratifying EU treaties should also be on the agenda. The convention is the ideal place to ask the people whether a referendum is needed to pass an EU treaty, as such a process involves significant amounts of time and money. We will see several EU treaties coming down the pipeline in the next few years. I believe international treaties as complex as the Lisbon treaty need not always be put to the people.

The Taoiseach has indicated wider terms of reference are possible. Will the Minister consider whether the existence of the Seanad will be studied in the convention or a similar forum? Will he also consider whether the convention should discuss whether a referendum is needed for each EU treaty?