Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)

I am not directing my comments at any Senator. I am addressing the general arguments of some. While Senator Norris would not hold this view, some may. I appreciate that such a suggestion is not in the 1998 report of the all-party Oireachtas committee of which I was a member, but I wanted to make the point in the context of this discussion.

Some concerns were aired in the run up to the 2011 election to the effect that the nomination process was too restrictive. There were voices of concern about the possibility that candidates of real potential would fail at the first hurdle. None did. The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, in its third progress report, addressed 19 issues relating to the Presidency, including the question of whether the procedure for nominating a presidential candidate was too restrictive. The committee was of the view that the constitutional requirements for nominating a presidential candidate were too restrictive and in need of democratisation. Before I briefly explore the recommendations of the committee, I would point out that we made those recommendations 14 years ago and without the experiences of the 2011 presidential election.

In the 1998 report, the committee, which was chaired by the late Brian Lenihan, recommended two measures to "loosen" the nomination procedure. One recommendation was to alter the provisions for indirect nominations so that ten rather than 20 would be the minimum number of Members of the Oireachtas required for nomination. The other recommendation was that provision should be made for popular nomination in addition to nomination by elected members. In making this recommendation, the committee believed that, while the nomination procedure would involve practical difficulties and extra expense, it would be feasible.

The committee recommendation was to provide for popular nomination whereby 10,000 citizens entitled to vote in a presidential election could nominate a candidate. The committee, noting that a popular nomination could leave open the possibility that the office of President could be demeaned by the nomination of frivolous candidates or endangered by the nomination of inadequately qualified ones, listed a number of matters that would need to be included in the law providing for the validation of such popular nominations. For example, it would be necessary to have an adequate validation system for the signatory process. Safeguards would be required to ensure that citizens nominated only one person. As the committee noted, all of this would involve extra expense. In these difficult economic times, we need to tread warily where a measure involves extra expense. We need to consider carefully whether the measure is necessary to achieve our objectives.

Popular nomination could be seen to imply a greater degree of direct democracy in the nomination process. The engagement of the majority of city and county councils in the nomination process in 2011 was very good for democracy. All council members are elected. Drama was added to the occasion when some candidates were nominated at the last possible opportunity. It was the focus of attention in every news bulletin. The candidates were not refused their nominations. The council selection procedure implied that one needed a degree of appeal over and above the appeal of others to gain a nomination.

Systems for popular nomination of presidential candidates operate in Austria, Finland and Portugal. As such, there are models for examination. On the other hand, there are countries that do not provide for such popular nomination and where arrangements are similar to those in Ireland.

Two of the constitutional provisions relating to the election of the President are prioritised in the programme for Government. These will be considered by the convention on the Constitution. Last week in the Houses, resolutions were passed approving the calling of the convention. The convention will consider the following matters, make such recommendations as it sees fit and report on them to the Houses - reducing the presidential term of office to five years and aligning it with the local and European elections; reducing the voting age to 17 years; review of the Dáil electoral system; giving citizens resident outside the State the right to vote in presidential elections at Irish Embassies or otherwise; 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; increasing the participation of women in politics; and removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. Following completion of the above reports, the convention may report to the Oireachtas on such other relevant constitutional amendments that may be recommended by it.

As the Taoiseach made clear in the Dáil last week, the Government is prepared to consider calls for an even more comprehensive work programme for the convention. He stated:

... we are prepared to consider whether other topics could be considered at a later date. We will review this in the light of experience and the Tánaiste and I will consult with Opposition representatives and the chairperson of the convention at the appropriate time.

The Taoiseach remarked that the inclusion of additional topics could have implications for the timeframe within which the convention must complete its work. He noted that concerns had already been expressed that it would have insufficient time to complete the work programme outlined.

The Government is of the view that the timeframe proposed in the resolution is appropriate, given the current work programme. However, the Government is prepared to review the timeframe in the light of experience and any future change to the work programme. This review will be undertaken in consultation with representatives of the Opposition parties. It is clear that the convention has a full programme of work, but the option of reporting on other relevant constitutional amendments is open to it. The Government does not propose at this early stage to add the presidential nomination process to the list of items to be considered and recommended upon by the convention. However, it could be considered by the convention in due course or by the Government alongside any recommendation relating to the election of the President that might be made by the convention. Let us wait and see therefore what emerges from the work of the convention. I wish members of the convention well in their deliberations and look forward to receiving their reports.