Katherine Zappone (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I join my colleagues in welcoming Mr. Tom Arnold and hail his leadership in the operation of the convention, with the support of his very able right-hand man, Mr. Art O'Leary, and his team. Others have mentioned Professor David Farrell, Dr. Jane Suiter and Lia O'Hegarty. I commend these and all the other experts who support our deliberations. I speak as a Member of the Independent group of Taoiseach's nominees. As all of us wanted to participate, we decided that each of us would bring different topics to the convention. That appears to have worked very well. I have attended only one session but I look forward to attending the meeting on economic, social and cultural rights. I and others in my group were able to engage in the debates even though we did not have the ongoing relationship enjoyed by some of our colleagues who had attended all of the weekends.

In that regard I congratulate Mr. Arnold on behalf of all of my colleagues. I did not attend the first opening.

I compliment Mr. Arnold on his opening statement, particularly the way he outlined the operational principles that provided conceptual and practical leadership. It was important that the five principles of openness, fairness, equality of voice, efficiency and collegiality were outlined, and I now understand why the convention has been such a success. That was my experience of that one weekend, where I saw the principles in operation. It was also the weekend of the recommendation about marriage equality, and I experienced an extraordinarily personal joy in participating. There were great celebrations throughout the country as a result of that particular meeting.

I commend the Government on its establishment and resourcing of the Constitutional Convention. I also commend it on its support for the convention's consideration of the two additional themes. We did not know there would be two themes and presumed there would just be one. The themes came from the people and the politicians. My view is that the original scope of topics was disappointingly narrow. I ask Mr. Arnold to give his analysis of the scope of topics, particularly the significance of adding other topics suggested by citizens and politicians.

I wish to refer to another point that Mr. Arnold mentioned. The convention is, was and continues to be a civic forum and model of deliberative democracy for politicians and citizens. It is deliberative as distinct from participative. Being deliberative makes it more authoritative and means there is more opportunity not just to deeply reflect but also to have a real exchange of views based on the expertise offered prior to and during the event. Other colleagues, as politicians, have commented on the experience. It was an extraordinary experience for me and, initially, I had to make an effort to listen to the citizens. We had to step back, stop speaking and listen, and, through doing so, I imagined myself to be a mutual partner with citizens in the analysis of constitutional change. Mr. Arnold has spoken about and others have mentioned the mix of citizens and politicians and its advantages. I have reflected on the social partnership model and have often thought that one of its great disadvantages was that politicians did not deliberate with citizens or representative groups. A mix has extraordinary advantages but also challenges.

I wish to make a final comment which is also a question for Mr. Arnold. All of us are well aware of the legal theory that the Constitution is a living document and stays alive. That is especially true when citizens, politicians, Government, the courts and the President reinterpret the Constitution from the perspective of the insights and truths that are emerging from our current socioeconomic and ethical contexts. I ask Mr. Arnold to comment on how or if the Constitutional Convention has supported the notion that the Constitution is a living document. Which of the following is the most important? Is it the process of the Constitutional Convention? Is it the ultimate outcomes that put change to the people when recommended or is it maintaining the status quo? Finally, I congratulate Mr. Arnold on his innovative and principled leadership.