David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is an important consideration.

The Minister derives all this from the Constitutional Convention and refers to the importance of the convention, the wonderful work it did in bringing forward proposals and so on. However, the Government is highly à la carte about the proposals which it took up from the convention. If one examines the figures pertaining to this particular debate, it was the most narrow of all the debates. It did not even secure a majority but got a plurality of votes, as a majority would have been 51%. Instead, it got a plurality and even that plurality was within the margin of error statistically for an election. That is a rather interesting point. The Minister also made reference to commentary in the media about other recommendations of the convention, to which I will return in a moment. He spoke of people having stated it was not a highly significant amendment and his answer to that was the fairly bland response that all constitutional referendums are important. There is a certain lack of logic there.

Then there is the issue of the difference between the Irish language and English language versions. Instead of including the proposed clause in Irish, "Is intofa chun oifig an Uachtaráin gach saoránach ag a bhfuil bliain agus fiche slán", it strikes me it would have been a far more sensible amendment for the Government to have changed it from "blian agus fiche" to "chúigiú bliain is tríocha". This would make the two versions of the Constitution coincide. I understand that the Irish version takes precedence anyway so presumably, one could run at the age of 34, if one so wished. The Minister of State also mentioned that the late Professor John Kelly referred to this issue in his book, The Irish Constitution, but did not state on which side, if any, Professor Kelly came down.

I mentioned the Government's à la carte approach to this issue and it certainly was. It neatly tailored and micromanaged the convention to make it do what the Government wanted it to do. I was present and saw all this happening before my eyes. Moreover, the staff openly took sides with the Government in this matter.. As for the figure of 47% to 50%, the Minister of State should know I managed to get a motion before the convention. Despite the management of the platform party, I managed to have an amendment recommendation discussed to the effect that the process of nomination to the Presidency should be opened to the citizens of Ireland generally. The nomination process was too difficult and too demanding and it is for this reason that we have never once in the history of this State had an independent President, that is, a President who had a track record that was completely independent of the political parties. They all have been dependent on the political parties and that is because of this difficulty that exists in respect of the process of getting a nomination. However, the proposal before Members received the lowest vote for a proposal that was passed. On my amendment, which proposed opening up the presidential nomination process, we got the highest vote when 96% of the convention voted "Yes". That is 46% more than the 50% who voted for the proposal before Members. It is astonishing that something that was so narrow and so fuzzy has been put forward. Even the language in which it was discussed was fuzzy. No specific age was suggested and no arguments were advanced in its favour.However, arguments were certainly advanced with regard to the opening up of the presidency to the citizens of Ireland. I remind the Minister of State that an all-party constitutional review committee issued a report in 1998 in which it recommended this change, namely, that nominations for the Office of the President be opened up to the citizenry. The Minister of State's party produced detailed legislation in respect of this matter, as did Fianna Fáil. When I raised the issue during Private Members' time, the Government sent the former Minister of State, Deputy Fergus O'Dowd, to the House to indicate that no action was going to be taken on it because such action was not necessary. Deputy Fergus O'Dowd signed the original legislation brought forward in 1998. It was brought forward in his name; therefore, it was quite a volte faceon his part.

It would be much more significant if we were to take measures to open up the Presidency and allow nominations by citizens. That would be much more democratic than this arbitrary and unnecessary reduction in the age of eligibility, particularly when we all know that no one under the age of 35 years is going to be elected President. It would be far more significant were the Government to consider the possibility of opening up the nominating process. It will not do so, however, because since 1998 successive Governments have tumbled on the fact that this is one of the offices over which they have control. Governments are not likely to surrender that power. It is my strong belief there would not have been a presidential election on the most recent occasion had it not been for my intervention. The parties were canoodling with each other to come up with an agreed candidate. Negotiations took place and it was obvious that a fix was being put in place. When I threw my hat into the ring, however, the campaign opened up.

What I have suggested underpins my belief that the nominating process is faulty. There is universal agreement on this matter and the Government is simply reluctant to move on it. Despite the faulty mechanism of nomination, we have had a succession of outstanding Presidents. There was not a dud among them. We should be very proud of all of those who have held the office, from Douglas Hyde through to the current incumbent, President Michael D. Higgins. We have been very well served by our Presidents. That said, the situation would be further improved if the Government opened up the nominating process to citizens country rather than fiddling around with the age of eligibility of candidates.