Mr. Tom Arnold:

It is a great honour to address Seanad Éireann as part of its programme for more active engagement with civil society. This is a very welcome initiative. I will use the opportunity to speak on the Convention of the Constitution and will not only update Members on our work but also offer some reflections on what we have learned in the past year, lessons which may have some relevance for our wider democracy.

The first formal meeting of the Convention on the Constitution took place in Dublin Castle on 1 December 2012. Resolutions in the Houses of the Oireachtas in July 2012 had defined our task as follows: to examine and make recommendations on eight specific aspects of the Constitution and, having completed these eight issues, "such other relevant constitutional amendments that the Convention might recommend". The presence of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and the leaders of all political parties and groupings, as well as the location, lent a sense of history to our first meeting. For convention members, it represented the start of an uncertain journey, but there was also a quiet awareness that, potentially, our work could be historic. In my opening address I stated, "We owe it to the current generation, and our children's generation, to have a Constitution which reflects the values and aspirations of the Irish people, and to which they are prepared to vote allegiance." As citizens and convention members, we would have the rare privilege of helping to shape the Constitution and, thereby, the future of the country.

I was conscious that the convention was not the first body tasked with recommending changes to the Constitution. I acknowledged the work of the Oireachtas committee chaired by George Colley in the late 1960s, the Constitution review group chaired by Dr. T.K. Whitaker in the mid-1990s and the all-party Oireachtas committee on the Constitution which was chaired by the Leas-Chathaoirleach and produced 11 reports from 1997 to 2006. I committed that the recommendations and insights from that earlier work would be taken into account during our deliberations.

The Government's decision to establish a convention of this kind was an innovative approach to constitutional reform. It represented a leap of faith that 100 citizens, 66 chosen as representative of the electoral register, 33 from politics and an independent chairman, could make informed recommendations about what was best for the country and its future.

The invitation to the political parties in Northern Ireland to participate in the convention reflected the new political reality on the island, shaped by the Good Friday Agreement and the St. Andrew's Agreement and the political structures and possibilities which have emerged from these Agreements. It was gratifying that four of the Northern parties, the Alliance Party, the Green Party, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, accepted the invitation to participate.

Whatever about the positive feeling at our opening meeting, it is fair to say we set about our task against the background of scepticism from a number of politicians and commentators. There was scepticism about the agenda of issues we had been given, judged by some to be too narrow. Others questioned if this model of deliberative democracy, involving citizens and politicians, would work at all. There were very few examples of similar initiatives internationally and, therefore, we would be working through uncharted territory. Other voices questioned whether the Government would take the exercise seriously, notwithstanding the fact that the Oireachtas resolutions contained the clear commitment that, within four months of the convention producing a report on an issue, "the Government would provide a response to each recommendation of the Convention and, if accepting the recommendation, will indicate the timeframe it envisages for the holding of any related referendum". Today is an opportunity to update Members on our work thus far and how we have gone about it and to reflect on some of the lessons we can draw from this experience. I will start with what we have done and the response of the Oireachtas and the Government to our reports.

We started in January 2013 and held seven formal meetings of the convention during 2013. Over these seven meetings we dealt with the eight specific issues set out in the Oireachtas resolutions. We have produced five reports which cover seven of the eight issues and a sixth report dealing with the eighth issue, blasphemy, will issue shortly. Arising from the first five reports we made 22 recommendations, some of which would require constitutional change and, therefore, referendums, but others could be implemented through legislation. In order to efficiently use my time today and in the interests of the Seanad and the public record, I have a complete listing of the convention's recommendations and the Government's response to them in an annexe to my speech. In summary, the first three of our reports have already been debated in the Dáil. Members of the Dáil, particularly those who participated in the work of the convention, have, in general, been positive about the process. The Government has committed to holding three referendums on the voting age, the age of candidacy for presidential candidates and same sex marriage. A number of the convention's recommendations have been referred to the relevant Oireachtas committees or task forces for further consideration.

The remaining issue in our terms of reference, "such other relevant constitutional amendments that the Convention might recommend", evoked considerable interest among many citizens and civil society groups. We received over 700 submissions giving views on what should be covered under this element of our work programme. Because of this interest, we held nine meetings around the country during October and November which were attended by about 1,000 people. Having read the submissions and listened to what had been said at the public meetings, the convention members voted to select two issues to be dealt with in the remaining two plenary meetings to be held in February. These issues are Dáil reform and economic, social and cultural rights.

I have given Members the main facts about our work and the output arising from it; however I will use my remaining time to talk about how we did our work. This could be of relevance for any future convention which may be established.

At the first working meeting of the convention in January 2013 I proposed five operational principles which should underpin our work. I would like to reflect both on these principles and how they were operated in practice.

The first principle was openness: that the convention would operate with complete transparency, with all plenary sessions being broadcast live on our website and all documentation being freely available. We would be open to hearing from all sections of society on any issue. All sections of society took us at our word. We received 2,500 submissions. There were 350,000 visits to our website from 144 countries. There was 100 hours of televised live streaming of the seven meetings held.

In September, when we discussed possible voting rights in presidential elections for citizens living outside the State, we hosted a global conversation involving representatives of Irish communities in Australia, Germany, France, the UK, the US and Canada. We made a conscious effort to reach out not only to Irish citizens living on this island but to the global Irish wherever they were.

The second principle was fairness, as it was important that the full spectrum of views was heard on every issue and that the briefing materials for convention members were of the highest quality. For each of our seven meetings, we were fortunate to have access to the best minds and most eminent experts in the country. Our academic and legal team, led by Professor David Farrell of UCD, played a critical role working with these experts to deliver the highest quality impartial material to our members. We were asked to deal with a number of sensitive and complex issues such as same-sex marriage and blasphemy. We tried very hard to ensure both sides of the argument were fairly represented to the convention members through our choice of independent experts who provided briefings and through the various advocacy groups who presented to the convention.

The third principle was equality of voice. There were some initial concerns that politicians, with their greater expertise in public affairs and public speaking than most of the citizen members, would dominate proceedings. Therefore, the principle that there should be equality of voice among all convention members, including citizens, Oireachtas Members and members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, was of critical importance. As it turned out, this was not a problem. The citizen members proved more than capable of holding their own in the discussions and the interaction between citizens and politicians has been a particular highlight of the way in which debates have been conducted.

The fourth principle was efficiency. Our meetings took place at weekends over a day and a half, during which expert presentations were made, advocacy groups were listened to and convention members engaged in round-table discussions. People absorbed a lot of information, weighed up arguments and eventually made up their minds to vote on an issue at the end of Sunday morning. This all required detailed planning of the agenda for meetings. We made effective use of a steering group of citizens and politicians in planning agendas and agreeing on experts and advocacy groups. This involved tight timekeeping, strict chairing, and convention members being disciplined in their interventions.

The final principle was collegiality. It was clear from the beginning that if our group of 100 people was to succeed in its task we would have to operate in a spirit of collegiality, friendship and common purpose. We worked hard to create a warm and cheerful atmosphere and an environment where we could consider sensitive issues in a respectful manner. Many close friendships were formed over these weekends and, for quite a few members, the experience of being part of the convention has been an immensely enriching personal experience. This has all contributed to the commitment and seriousness of purpose with which the citizen and politician members of the convention have carried out their work.

I must also pay tribute to the convention secretariat, who are here with us today, who have provided tremendous service to the convention members and made all the practical arrangements for the working of the convention with great efficiency. Richard Holland, Nason Fallon and Amy Brennan have each contributed substantially to the work of the convention. The secretariat has been led with imagination and effectiveness by Art O'Leary, who has been a tremendous support to me in my role as chairman and who is one of the finest public servants with whom I have ever worked.

The facilities provided by the manager and staff of the Grand Hotel in Malahide played their part in creating a good work environment for the convention. Pi Communications did an exceptional job broadcasting our sessions and the Escher Group provided us with an outstanding website, both of which helped the convention communicate our message and our work.

As we come close to the conclusion of our work, what lessons do I draw from the work of the convention over the past year? As chairman of the convention I venture these views to the Members of the Seanad as initial reflections rather than hard-formed conclusions. It will be for others to make a rounded judgement on the value of the convention, on whether this model of deliberative democracy, or a variant of it, is worth trying again, and, more generally, on what role citizen participation models should play in our democracy. My initial reflection is that the convention model we have operated has been perceived as a success. We have secured a significant level of public engagement, as evidenced by the number of submissions, the number of people who followed our proceedings and the range of individuals and civil society groups who wished to engage with the convention.

The fact that citizens and politicians were involved in the process has been positive. Over our year's work, the level of mutual respect between the two groups clearly increased. A major benefit of the engagement of politicians in the process is that they contribute to the recommendations the convention makes and, in consequence, are more likely to be supportive of these recommendations when the convention reports are debated in the Oireachtas. The lack of political involvement has been highlighted as a disadvantage in other countries which attempted to deliver other models of citizens' assembly.

One area which may require some further thought if a future convention is established is that the timeframe of debating an issue and arriving at conclusions and recommendations over a weekend may be too ambitious for certain complex issues. We must remember that many of these issues are new to citizen members and we must allow them develop a sufficient depth of knowledge on the subject matter and a period of reflection to consider the implications of constitutional change.

My second comment relates to the role the convention plays in the broader task of constitutional reform. Its role, as assigned, was to examine issues and make recommendations. It is the first link in a chain between the recommendations of the convention and a decision by the sovereign people to change our Constitution. The convention has done what it was asked to do and we have made our recommendations through our reports. The Dáil has debated three reports and the Government has responded through a set of decisions either to bring issues to a referendum or to assign them for further work to relevant committees or task forces. I believe the Government and the Houses of the Oireachtas have treated the convention's work with seriousness and respect.

The last link in the decision chain will be to bring a number of different issues to decision by the people through referendum, and it is here that there will be a real challenge. In recent referendums many of the voting public did not engage adequately with the issue before them, with the result that turnout was low. If the solemn process of constitutional reform is to be carried out, our political system, in association with our wider society, will to have to find improvements in the way we organise referendums.

My final comment relates to what I have learned from the people who have engaged with the convention over the past year. These people value and care for their Constitution. Many people would like various changes and are willing to advocate for change. It is clear people want to see political reform. When the convention discussed Dáil electoral reform in May and June, it voted to retain the electoral system we have but recommended a series of other reforms which would facilitate greater political engagement and other measures to improve voter turnout.

In my opening address to the convention in Dublin Castle I noted that

[T]rust in the political system has diminished. In some of our public discourse, there is a cynicism and a sense of alienation which is unhealthy for our society and, ultimately, dangerous for our democracy.

As we approach the end of the convention, I am heartened by the fact that, notwithstanding this cynicism, many people still care deeply about what is written in our Constitution, about political values and standards, and about investing in the health of our democracy as a means of creating a better future for this country. It is been a real privilege to have played a part in starting this important public conversation about our Constitution and its role in an evolving Irish society.