Diarmuid Wilson (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, to the House. The reason we want to facilitate what Senator Norris and his colleagues are proposing is to afford Fine Gael the opportunity of having a President some day whom it can claim.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this motion. I commend Senator Norris and his colleagues for bringing the matter before the House. Fianna Fáil supports the motion. The Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution discussed 19 issues relating to the President, including the executive power of the President regarding external relations, whether there should be direct elections, whether the powers of the President should be extended, the viability of introducing and honour system, and the minimum age of eligibility for election to the office of President. It also made a number of recommendations on the nomination process for presidential candidates, mainly where the process is too restrictive.

Article 12.4.2° requires that all new candidates be nominated by at least 20 Oireachtas Members or by four county or borough councils. A former or retiring President may nominate himself or herself. The committee made a number of recommendations for indirect nominations, including lowering the minimum number of Oireachtas Members' signatures required for nomination from 20 to ten. My party and I very much agree with that.

The committee also examined systems from other countries. Senator Keane alluded to Finland and elsewhere in respect of popular nomination processes that give the people the opportunity to nominate candidates directly, having provided proof of identity to their local authority offices. The discussion contained in the committee's report on nomination procedures makes very interesting reading. Given the practical challenges any new system would pose and the fact that any change in the method of nomination of a candidate for election as President would, in all likelihood, require constitutional amendment. I am sure that all colleagues, including the Acting Chairman, would agree that this topic would benefit from further discussion. Therefore, neither my party nor I can understand why this issue was not one of those selected for discussion by the constitutional convention. Instead, it will consider cosmetic changes such as reducing the presidential term.

The Government is undermining the process of the convention by ploughing ahead with plans to abolish the Seanad and refusing to allow the matter to be discussed by the convention even though this House passed a resolution calling for such a discussion. I was disappointed that, in answer to the Leader today, the Taoiseach confirmed that the Seanad would not form part of the convention and that he was pressing ahead with a referendum to abolish it. The people will decide, and they will reject the Government's proposal.

Instead of a wide-ranging meaningful discussion, the Government has set out a pre-ordained list of issues in keeping with its limited agenda instead of making a sincere effort to debate on changing the role of local government, the relationship between the Executive and the Legislature and Seanad reform.

According to the news yesterday, changes to Article 26 regarding the President's power to refer articles to the Supreme Court were touted by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, as a possibility. Surely this would have been another topic that would have benefitted from further scrutiny by the constitutional convention.