Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State back to the House. Clearly, this debate is linked with the earlier one on the motion that was passed. The Labour Party opposes this legislation for the same reasons that it opposed the motion to establish the citizens' assembly. We are concerned that the mechanism of the assembly will be used to delay the holding of a referendum to repeal the eighth amendment, a referendum that my party has committed to holding.As I said earlier, we cannot see why the new model of the citizens' assembly is being put forward when we had a tried and tested model with the Constitutional Convention - Senator Buttimer has acknowledged that. All of us who were part of the convention had positive experiences of it.

I am conscious that the Electoral (Amendment) Bill under discussion now is similar to that passed in 2012 to facilitate the holding of the Constitutional Convention. However, as I said earlier, there are three key differences between this model of the citizens' assembly and the model of the Constitutional Convention some years ago. First, the citizens' assembly will be made up of 100 citizens, with 99 to be chosen from the electoral register as well as one chairperson whereas there were 66 citizens and 33 politicians in the earlier model. The earlier model had a tighter timeframe. In his response to me earlier, the Minister of State said the timeframe had not been adhered to in respect of the first two matters the Constitutional Convention dealt with. Senator Buttimer was right to say that the real problem with delay was the Government's responses to the recommendations of the convention. Again, there is a difference. The terms of reference for this model do not have the same tight timeframe provided for the Government response that we had for the Constitutional Convention. Even then, there was slippage - I acknowledge that - but the Constitutional Convention worked in a timely and efficient way. I wish to pay tribute to Tom Arnold, the chairperson, as well as Art O'Leary and the secretariat, who were so efficient in running the convention and in the respectful way they dealt with it.

Senator McDowell raised issues about the cost of the convention. Those in the secretariat were in the habit of telling us that it was being run on a shoestring of €5. Clearly, that was a joke but it was run in a cost-efficient manner. We might be pleasantly surprised to look back at how little it cost in the broader scheme of things. The hotel in Malahide has been mentioned. There was a tender process and hotels were invited to tender. The convention was run at a time that facilitated people's working lives and home commitments. There were a number of differences but now that the motion has been passed, I hope we will see the citizens' assembly operate in a similarly efficient and timely manner. Unfortunately, the amendment to prescribe a tighter timeframe was defeated but I hope the Government will take on board the concern expressed, as well as the fact that the focus was so narrow, with a view to ensuring that the first issue to be dealt with, that of the eighth amendment, is dealt with in a timely fashion and that we see a recommendation being brought forward swiftly.

This brings me to the third difference with the citizens' assembly. It deals specifically, among other issues, with the eighth amendment. That this issue is the first issue to be considered is of particular concern to most of us. This issue will be similar to the marriage equality issue dealt with by the Constitutional Convention. When the convention was being set up, the then Labour Party leader, Eamon Gilmore, referred to marriage equality as the civil liberties issue of that generation. Clearly, the eighth amendment and its repeal is the civil liberties issue of this generation and of my daughter's generation, those who are now coming up and who may not yet be able to vote, just as I and others were unable to vote in 1983 and yet we have lived with it all our lives.

As I said earlier, this issue should need no further deliberation by an assembly, a judge-led convention or any other mechanism of that sort. It is time for us as legislators to debate the necessity of holding a referendum. This is something the Labour Party has led on. In particular, Labour Party women have led on this by bringing forward a draft of the legislation we would like to see replace any text in the Constitution on this matter.

At the time of the convention, there was some debate about which aspect of the electoral register would be used. Ultimately, it was decided that only those on the electoral register eligible to vote in referendums and presidential elections, that is, Irish citizens, would be included, rather than those on the broader register for local elections. I presume that model will be used in this case too.

We were provided with an interesting breakdown of the way citizens were chosen in terms of their reflection of the overall demographic make-up of the Irish population. Of the 66 citizen members of the convention, 33 were male and 33 were female. There were six men under 24 years of age from the eastern region and so on. There was geographical and class breakdown as well as gender and age breakdown.

We are opposing this Bill because we believe in the need for the holding of a referendum without further delay on the repeal of the eighth amendment. However, now that the creation of the assembly has been passed by motion, we are keen to see it working effectively and efficiently to deliver a recommendation for the repeal of the eighth amendment and we hope to see that referendum being brought forward without further delay.