Mr. Tom Arnold:

I thank Senators for their wide-ranging comments and compliments. I will start, naturally enough, with the common theme.

I thank Senators for their kind remarks about the manner in which the convention was run and my colleagues in the secretariat, which are absolutely deserved. Senator Averil Power made an important comment on the role of facilitators, as they have been completely indispensable in how we have worked. There is a process by which they assist in capturing the essence of the conversations that take place in the round-table discussions and feeding it back to the plenary sessions. That has been very worthwhile. From an organisation management perspective, what we have achieved in getting through work efficiently and arriving at conclusions within the available timeframes has been useful, if we are to consider this maturely.

Senator Susan O'Keeffe asked whether the papers had been overly academic. We gave instructions from the very beginning to all of the academics that they had to present their material in clear language and concepts. They largely succeeded in doing this, with much owed to the leadership of the academic and legal team. Some of them have been mentioned, but I will name some of those who have not, including Dr. Clodagh Harris of University College, Cork, and Dr. Eoin O'Malley from Dublin City University, in addition to Dr. Jane Suiter, Ms Lia O'Hegarty and Mr. David Farrell. They have played a very important role. There were other perspectives needed in addition to academic viewpoints. This is where some of the advocacy groups came in with passion and arguments; they have been an equally indispensable part of the process.

Senator David Norris made a comment that the agenda had been set. That was done by the Government following discussion with Opposition parties and the process of setting the agenda started some time in February 2012. There were at least two formal interactions with Opposition parties and it was the outcome of these discussions that led to what was put before the Oireachtas and agreed to by resolution in July 2012.

While it is debatable whether those issues were substantive or important enough to form part of the agenda, even the issues that might have appeared not to be as substantial as some people felt were quite substantive when we got down to discussing them. We were not asked to debate any frivolous matters.

What was also built in, if one likes, was an item relating to any other business. It was No. 9 on the agenda. It is remarkable the level of seriousness with which that was taken by civil society groups and individuals. When we went around the country we found that 100 people often showed up and in one case there were 200 people. They really advocated for their issues. It showed that there was a degree of flexibility in the basic agenda that was set and a degree of freedom for the convention itself to make choices. Those choices are made in favour of Dáil reform and economic, social and cultural rights. I am happy to acknowledge that the issue that ran Dáil reform a very close second for consideration by the convention was Seanad reform. Dáil reform was ahead of Seanad reform by a very small margin. We discussed the matter at a meeting of the steering committee last evening.

A question arises in terms of all of those issues. It is not just Seanad reform but issues such as the environment, the family and other issues of morality, church and State. The point is that the convention will not have the opportunity to deal with them because we will have run out of time. The question arises whether there should be or will be an extension of the convention. That is not for me to pronounce on. In so far as there are opinions on the matter, we will discuss it during the last two meetings of the convention on the first and third weekends in February. It might well be that the convention will arrive at a view on the matter and might wish to offer an opinion on it. At the end of the day I would say it would be for the Government plus the Opposition to talk about the following: whether another convention should be established; if it should be broadly similar to the one we have; what sort of agenda it should have; whether it should be three years down the road as Senator Noone suggested or if it should be sooner than that; or if it should happen at all. That is not an issue on which I would feel competent to pronounce at the moment.

In response to the question on the longer term significance of the convention - Senator Zappone raised the matter in a very good way - I refer to how I concluded my speech. I said it has been a privilege to have played a part in starting an important public conversation about the Constitution and its role in evolving Irish society. Leaving aside all the issues we were asked to deal with, which we have dealt with, that has been part of our contribution.

Senator Bacik also spoke about the appropriateness of such a process 75 years on from the introduction of the 1937 Constitution and asked what should be the nature of a constitution in the early part of the 21st century. We have started that conversation and I expect it will continue.

Senator Keane raised the nomination process for presidential elections. That has been referred to the Oireachtas committee.