John Gilroy (Labour)

I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber. I have given this Private Members' motion a great deal of thought. It is fair to try to discern the intentions of the Senator in the motion and I welcome the opportunity to do just that. Having carefully examined the motion, I find that, in principle, there is nothing in it with which I cannot agree. However, we are constrained to consider the words of the motion before us, as opposed to the intention that lies behind it. The motion makes some fairly sweeping statements, particularly the second paragraph which states that public support for the move proposed in the motion has been clearly demonstrated. I am fairly certain that Senator Norris might be in a position to make such a claim, following his candidature in the recent presidential election. I have to add that he conducted himself with honour and grace throughout his campaign. I am not so certain, however, that this claim can be universally and objectively verified.

The motion's assertion that there is unanimous support among professional commentators and constitutional experts, which was expressed during the 2011 presidential campaign, cannot be universally accepted either. I admit there is much support for what is contained in the motion but it perhaps overstates the level of that support. It is entirely uncharacteristic of Senator Norris to overstate any position.

Likewise, the motion states that the presidential term of office is of less significance than the nomination process. I am not sure that I can agree with this. Far be it from me to be even mildly critical of the esteemed Senator, but it seems that in this motion the Senator is attempting to have his cake and eat it also. In the first instance it calls for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to bring the recommendations contained in the 1998 report - which I see the Minister co-authored - to Government for immediate implementation. Failing this, it calls for the recommendations to be brought before the constitutional convention. I do not think the Senator can have it both ways.

I have read the report and agree that it makes some interesting observations about the nomination process. I would find it hard to disagree with many of the recommendations. The comparisons with other jurisdictions make for interesting reading as well.

I note that Finland and Portugal have in place a nomination process similar to the one proposed in the motion. There is some merit in exploring this, but the motion seems to be pointing to the fact that it is difficult to secure a nomination. While it is undoubtedly difficult for Independent candidates to secure such a nomination, it is not impossible. The fact that there were seven candidates in the most recent election, gives the lie to this claim. I would argue that the nomination process - as the Minister of State and others have said - adds to the level of engagement among the public and the electorate in the democratic process. Anything that increases democratic involvement and engagement is to be welcomed.

This proposal is something that on another occasion I might well be minded to support. However, I feel that the motion is poorly constructed. It is also ambiguous and, unfortunately, untimely. The parameters of the constitutional convention have been established and interference with those terms at this stage will be the cause of unnecessary confusion and a deflection from the primary aims of the constitutional convention as envisaged. The terms of the constitutional convention have long been signalled and the Senator has probably missed the boat on this occasion. It seems to me also that for the Government to embrace the motion outside the terms of the constitutional convention would be akin to the Government considering other important constitutional issues outside of the convention also, which is something with which I have great difficulty. If it is too late to change the terms of the constitutional convention then the motion on this occasion must fail. Perhaps the Senator could attempt to have the matter contained in the motion included in a further phase of the convention, as the Taoiseach outlined in the Dáil last week that other work may be assigned to it. Of course the Senator would have to improve the construction of the motion. Unfortunately on this occasion I will be unable to support it.