Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of Members of the Seanad, I welcome Mr. Tom Arnold, chairperson of the Convention on the Constitution. The Seanad is determined to modernise its procedures and actively engage with civic society. To begin this process, we have changed Standing Orders to allow persons and representatives in public and civic life to address Seanad Éireann. As we strive to reform our procedures to make this House more accessible, it is appropriate that we should hear from Mr. Arnold in his role as chairperson of the Convention on the Constitution which, essentially, is a forum in which Irish citizens can have a say on possible changes to the Constitution and how we could adapt and develop it to make it more relevant to the Ireland of the 21st century. It is fair to describe the convention as a new venture in participative democracy in Ireland.

As Members are aware, the Convention on the Constitution is a forum of 100 people representative of Irish society and parliamentarians from the island of Ireland. It was established to consider and make recommendations on a number of matters, including the reduction of the presidential term of office to five years and its alignment with local and European elections; the reduction of the voting age to 17 years; a review of the Dáil electoral system; Irish citizens' right to vote at Irish embassies in presidential elections; provisions for same sex marriage; an amendment to the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging the greater participation of women in public life and politics; and the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution.

It is just over one year since the convention held its first meeting. Therefore, it is fitting that we get Mr. Arnold's perspective on the work of the convention to date and how he sees our political, administrative and social structures adapting and changing in the modern world. Before he became chairperson of the convention, he had extensive experience of chairing and serving in governmental and non-governmental boards in Ireland and internationally. He worked as chief executive of Concern worldwide from October 2001, prior to which he worked as assistant Secretary General in the then Department of Agriculture and Food. He worked as chief economist with ACOT, the farm advisory and training body, and the European Commission.

We thank Mr. Arnold for agreeing to appear before the Seanad and welcome him to the Chamber. Given his track record with the Convention on the Constitution and governmental and NGO bodies, we look forward to his presentation and the positive and enlightening discussion that will then ensue.

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.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind the principal speakers that they have five minutes each. Perhaps they feel it is not enough but it is how the debate has been structured. Other Senators also wish to speak and we want Mr. Arnold to have time to respond. I will be fairly strict with regard to the five minutes.

Catherine Noone (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Arnold, who, it is widely agreed, has been an excellent chair of the Constitutional Convention.

It is not an easy job to keep everything on time. I was very impressed with that. The debates can cover so many issues under any heading and he showed a great ability to keep matters under control. As a member of the Constitutional Convention I have been present during the consideration of areas that have come before it and these have been important issues, many of which Mr. Arnold has referred to.

The issues considered include the reduction of the presidential term of office to five years and the alignment with local and European elections; reduction of the voting age to 16; review of the Dáil electoral system; Irish citizens' right to vote at Irish embassies in presidential elections; provisions for same-sex marriage; amendment to the clause on the role of women in the home; encouraging greater participation of women in public life; increasing women's participation in politics; and the removal of the offence of blasphemy from the Constitution. This is the sixth report, now in draft and awaiting publication.

These matters were all worth considering and debating. While I and others would not necessarily have fully agreed with the results and recommendations on all issues, for example I did not fully agree with the reduction of the voting age to 16, the debates on all these issues were extremely worthwhile. I join with Mr. Arnold's comments on the scepticism and cynicism that existed in advance. Long before I knew I would be appointed to it, I was somewhat sceptical of the creation of such a convention. It has been widely accepted, as Mr. Arnold said, that is has been a great success. Even journalists who attended the convention and who had been cynical or sceptical about its creation have accepted it has been a worthwhile pursuit.

From the outside I was curious about how such a citizens' assembly would work, having seen the We the Citizens initiative come before and the Canadian citizens' assembly. In both cases politicians did not have such a direct role. The make-up of the convention, with two thirds randomly selected citizens and one third parliamentarians, proved to be one of its greatest strengths. It opened up real debate and allowed the politicians to explain the practicalities of certain ideas from a legislative perspective without being too imposing or steering the convention too much. That was a fear at the beginning. In the first few meetings the politicians spoke more than the lay members. As Mr. Arnold said, many of the citizens showed themselves well capable of voicing their views and opinions throughout the process. I greatly agree with the inclusion of the Northern Ireland members. I thought that was very positive and the certainly added to the debate.

As Mr. Arnold said, the convention has published five reports with the sixth due shortly, and the Dáil has already debated three of them. The Government has committed to holding referenda in 2015 on same-sex marriage, a reduction in the voting age and the need to amend the language in Article 41.2 on the role of women in the in home. Although there has been much talk about referendum fatigue, I hope we will address this during this Government. There were many interesting debates. One of particular interest to many of us women was on female participation in politics. We heard that Ireland has one of the lowest levels of female representation in the EU with just 15% of Dáil Deputies being female. Almost 50% of the members of the Constitutional Convention were female. During a discussion I said at times I felt there was an inherent sexism in politics and remarked on the comments that are regularly made that many men do not even realise are inherently sexist. While this fight will have to be fought for many years, the debate was very useful and sparked a wider debate in the public that is welcome and needs to be discussed.

The Constitutional Convention was a major success and I hope to see it repeated in years to come. Holding it every three years would be a practical timeframe and that should be considered. I thank Mr. Arnold for his confident stewardship as he chaired the convention and to the Oireachtas Members who participated and the members of the public, who were tremendously engaged throughout the process. As Mr. Arnold said, the engagement from the public at large was excellent and social media and the website facilitated this. I commend Mr. Arnold, Mr. Art O'Leary and the rest of the team on their work. As well as everything else they were extremely nice and courteous to work with.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be a good omen for the role of women in the Constitution that six of our seven first speakers are all ladies. That might be a good start.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Women, not ladies.

Averil Power (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I, too, welcome Mr. Arnold and his officials to the House. As a member of the Constitutional Convention I have been very impressed by how Mr. Arnold has chaired it and the efficient way his team organised all our meetings, communicating with us before the event, ensuring things worked well on the day, as has been mentioned ensuring everybody got an opportunity to speak. The role of the facilitators at each table has been crucial. If people, particularly some of the citizens at our first meeting, were a little nervous about speaking up the facilitators reached out, asked people if they wanted to add anything, whether they agreed, and ensured everybody was heard and that conversations were not dominated by politicians or by the more vocal citizens. They ensured everybody had an equal say. That has been crucial.

As has already been stated, the Constitutional Convention has been a new venture in this country and is not a common way of deliberating on political issues internationally. It has been tried only in a couple of countries. There was a lot of cynicism at the beginning. As Senator Noone mentioned, there was cynicism from some of the members about whether it would work and from the media that it would be dominated by politicians and people pushing particular agendas. There was a debate on marriage equality, which is a sensitive issue and which in media debates often just results in people shouting each other down, not often in the most sensible articulation of the issues. More journalists attended that session because it is such a politically hot topic and several of them said at the end that they were incredibly impressed by how it worked and that that debate alone had got rid of any cynicism they had about the process.

Overall the Constitutional Convention has worked extremely well. The expert presentations ensured the members were well-informed and that we heard from both sides of the debate. The engagement, particularly from citizen members, has been very impressive. We debated a number of issues including the voting age, length of the presidential term, women's role in the home, participation of women in politics, marriage equality, the Dáil electoral system, votes for Irish citizens abroad and whether the offence of blasphemy should be removed from the Constitution. On each of these we have seen real engagement, not just with the specific questions the Government put to us but also willingness by members to go beyond that.

At our first meeting we discussed the voting age and the presidential term and within ten minutes most members had decided they were not particularly interested in the length of the presidential term. Probably only one person in the country cares a lot about the length of the term, whether it is five or seven years - maybe two people, maybe the President's wife - but there was great engagement around the nomination process in particular, reflecting the controversy that took place during the last presidential election and the difficulty some candidates had.

I am sure Senator Norris will refer in his contribution to the problems that non-party candidates face in getting onto the presidential ballot.  He spoke strongly about it at the meeting.  In respect of the electoral system for the Dáil, the issues arising in changing the system were considered and people also wanted us to investigate how the Houses of the Oireachtas operate.  It was suggested that elections may not be as key as a properly functioning Parliament which prevents excessive Executive control.  It is heartening that the Government has accepted most of the convention's recommendations.  We are still awaiting a response on some of our reports, however.

We had a particularly positive debate on the issue of marriage equality.  Once citizens and members of the convention had heard both sides of the debate, there was overwhelming support - 80% - for equality not only for same-sex couples but also for their families.  I welcome the fact that the Government is committed to holding a referendum on this issue and it is sensible to deal with some of the family issues first given that they do not require constitutional change.  It is essential that the legislation is not delayed, however.  The family relationship and children Bill is on the A list for the Minister for Justice and Equality but we need to bring it through the Houses at the earliest opportunity so that we can then prepare for a referendum.  Concern has been expressed by some civil society groups that there may be delays and that the referendum will not be held next year as promised.  That is an issue I will continue to press.

It is essential that the Government does more than accept recommendations on matters it had intended to address in any event. It must also consider those with which it is not comfortable.  The recommendation on the presidential nomination process was kicked to a committee for consideration.  I hope it has not been sent there to die.  The same applies to other recommendations with which the Government does not agree.  It is only when these recommendations have been taken seriously and put to the people that the convention will regarded as a truly worthwhile exercise.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to welcome Mr. Tom Arnold to the House in his capacity as chairperson of the Constitutional Convention.  Many of us had asked for the opportunity to invite him to address us, and this is a good moment to do so as the convention moves to the final stage of its deliberations.  It has completed the original tasks set for it with two sessions still to be held.

I am privileged to be the leader of the Labour Party delegation at the convention and have actively engaged with its work.  I join other speakers in paying tribute to the excellent chairing by Mr. Arnold and the work of the secretariat, led by the highly effective Mr. Art O'Leary, Mr. Richard Holland, Mr. Nason Fallon and Ms Amy Brennan, along with the experts, Professor David Farrell, Dr. Jane Suiter and Ms Lia O'Hegarty, and the facilitators and note takers. This has been a positive experience for most of us, whether political or citizen members.  Several citizen members have told me how much they will personally miss the experience of partaking in such an important task in a collegiate and positive atmosphere in the Grand Hotel.  The round-table discussions have been instructive and stimulating for all of us, and it was all done on what Mr. O'Leary memorably described as a very low budget of "about a fiver".

The first of two personal highlights for me was the result on the vote on marriage equality, with a majority of 79% voting in favour of a referendum to allow the definition of marriage to be opened to include gay couples as well as straight couples. This had an enormous impact on civil society and provided a boost to LGBT groups around Ireland.  The second highlight was a moving moment at the convention when we were debating voting rights for citizens residing outside this jurisdiction. We had a video link-up with citizens resident in other countries, who spoke powerfully about their attachment to Ireland and their desire to continue engaging with the Irish State through voting rights.

It would be useful to use the short time available to us to reflect on the work of the convention and its potential for future work.  A book edited by Theo Dorgan, Foundation Stone: Notes towards a Constitution for a 21st Century Republic, was prompted by the work of the convention.  I must point out that I am a contributor to that book.  Many of the articles in the book reflect on the convention, while recognising that there will be time for further reflection once its work is complete.

The establishment of the convention shortly after the celebration of the 75th birthday of Bunreacht na hÉireann in 1937 is timely.  At the time of the 75th anniversary, many of us on the academic legal side were engaged in an assessment of its current status and future direction.  There was a strongly held academic view that the Constitution did not need substantial change and that it remained an adequate reflection of the core principles of our nation's governance.  An alternative view, which I shared, was that the Constitution required radical amendment on a number of grounds.  The convention has contributed to these radical amendments in a positive way.  The Constitution is outdated in a number of ways.  While I agree that it has served us very well as a foundational document, in terms of the governance of the State we need to re-examine the provisions on political structures.  An obvious point that the convention has not addressed - perhaps it is not appropriate for it to do so - is that the word "republic" is not used in the text of the Constitution.  Our legal status as a Republic is not recognised constitutionally.  More substantively, there is a major need for Dáil reform.  I am glad we will be assessing this on 1 February.

Issues arise in respect of the theocratic nature of the Irish State in the past.  While this longer holds for the State, it is reflected in the text of the Constitution.  We have made a number of recommendations to change that, including, notably, the recommendation on changing the definition of marriage to ensure equality for gay couples and the recommendation on the role of women, which reflects the reality of Ireland today.  There should be a gender-neutral provision recognising the role of carers and we should eliminate any specific reference to women's role in the home.  I am glad we have made a recommendation on the removal of blasphemy as an offence under the Constitution.  That will provide us with an opportunity to fundamentally alter the theocratic or religious aspects of the text.  I would like a future convention to investigate other Articles in more depth, such as the religious oath and the preamble, and to consider removing religious references more completely.  That may be work for a future convention.  We have seen immense passion from the hundreds of people who made submissions and attended our public meetings.  Many of them hoped that a future convention would examine other issues in more depth.

We also need to revise the Constitution to ensure the Articles on our fundamental rights reflect a communitarian ethos.  They currently reflect the civil-political approach of liberal philosophy.  For this reason, I welcome the fact that the second issue we will be considering at our final meeting of 22 February will be economic, social and cultural rights.  Whatever recommendations we make in this regard, I hope we recommend the inclusion of these as enforceable rights in the Constitution.  That would represent a move for the Constitution away from the ideologies of the 1930s and towards a more communitarian and pluralist vision of a Republic for the 21st century.

Katherine Zappone (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senator. I call the odd man out, Senator Norris.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The very fact that I am an odd man means I fit in very well with the company of women. I regard myself as an honorary gender-neutral person here.

I echo the compliments paid to Mr. Arnold, who has been a friend of mine for many years. I have always greatly admired his work on behalf of international charities, particularly Concern. He has always been a gentlemanly, affable and generally fair-minded chairman of the convention.

So far we have had almost unalloyed emollients in the speeches. I intend to break the pattern as there are a number of elephants in the room. First, if we wish to carry out the business of a Constitutional Convention again we must make sure it is much more democratic. The current convention was not fully democratic because the Government had us hog-tied from the beginning. It set the terms of reference so that there was no room to manoeuvre and no possibility for us, as a democratic assembly, to attempt to set elements of our own interests and so on.

There is no point in avoiding the fact that while some of the issues addressed were highly significant and important, others were utterly trivial. The Government stacked it up and managed, at one remove, to micro-manage the convention extremely efficiently in its own interest and not necessarily in the interest of the participation of people. I was one of those who were a little cynical. I was not sure what kinds of contribution we would receive from the other members at the table - the randomly selected people. However, I was vastly impressed by the interest they took in the Constitution, by their devotion and the time they dedicated to thinking about it and by the quality of their contributions. That, to me, was the single most inspiring thing about the entire convention.

I was prevented from attending the meeting on same-sex marriage. On reflection, I am very glad I was because it cannot be said that I used rhetoric to sway views. It was the people who spoke. I gather that one of my colleagues spoke very strongly against the matter, yet the people in their wisdom were supportive. Sometimes the people have a hell of a lot more sense than the Government or either House of the Oireachtas.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An example is the blasphemy business, which was complete nonsense. I remember saying, when the Bill on blasphemy was debated in the House, that within a matter of weeks some of the Muslim countries would point to Ireland as an example. Within a month Pakistan did so, but both Houses pushed the legislation through on the instruction of the Government. That is another example of why we should not have democratic institutions micro-managed by the Government.

Mr. Arnold, in a very good and wide-ranging report and speech, said that the convention examined various matters, including the reports prepared by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, which produced 11 reports from 1997 to 2006. I did my best to open up the convention to things such as Seanad reform, but that was prevented. Before the convention got wise to my ways, however, I managed to raise the question of the Presidency - in a real way, not fluting around on the margins, which is basically what we did. Nobody gives much of a damn about the term of office of the President. However, I raised the matter at the convention because the chairman kindly allowed me to do so and gave latitude for it. There was a discussion on it. As many as 96% of the people - by far the largest vote ever in the convention - voted in favour of the role being opened up to citizen nomination. Where is that stated in the report and recommendations that will be considered by the Government? The one thing on which there was almost 100% agreement has been omitted. It is not only that. I have in my hand a Bill that was produced by the present Government parties in 1997 in which they suggested, among other things, that 20,000 citizens should be able to nominate. Where is that stated in the report?

With regard to Seanad reform - I know I am going over old ground - we were very timid and the people were intimidated, quite deliberately in my opinion, because it was said from the platform that if we dared to write a letter to the Taoiseach, the whole convention would collapse. That was the amount of pressure that was applied to prevent the discussion of the single most important change in the Constitution, but the people decided, thank God, at the last moment, when it ceased being a vanity competition, although we all managed to get involved in it. We won, and we changed the result from 60:40 in favour of the Government in just ten days. I received correspondence just yesterday asking what had happened to the issue of presidential nominations. We are lucky to have an excellent President who was elected through a situation that should be addressed in other ways.

Well done, and I extend that to the distinguished visitors from the administration, although sometimes they were too close to the Government position. It is an experiment well worth repeating but there should be provision, if we are going to be really democratic, for the citizens to have some role in selecting the items and in setting the agenda. When the brief is determined by a Government with specific aims, it will make damn sure that is all that is considered. The two items, including the question of the Seanad, are a blot. The other blot is that the matter that got the most overwhelming support has been effectively buried, as is the constitutional habit of most Governments. I would like Mr. Arnold to refer to that and see if we can advance it. I intend to reintroduce the Government's Bill and see if we can do it through Parliament. I would have liked it to be taken more seriously through the convention but I congratulate all those involved.

I express particular gratitude that we had such wonderful participation from the people of Ireland. I was cynical about it and thought they would not perform but they performed better than the politicians.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From the odd man out to the baby of the Seanad, I call Senator Kathryn Reilly.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

From sexism to ageism.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next generation.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Arnold to the Chamber and I commend the work of the Constitutional Convention. It was a breath of fresh air for the democratic process. It has been such a success that there should be another convention with an extended remit to consider the myriad of constitutional matters that require consideration and reform. I was privileged to have attended some of the meetings and in years to come I will look back at a historic shift in the deliberative democratic process that started with the convention. I will be proud that I was part of it.

What struck me about the proceedings was the respectful way convention members - citizens and elected representatives - engaged with each other. Concerns regarding a vast range of issues were listened to and discussed. In many instances, real anxieties were dispelled and put to rest. The convention was successful because of the professional, calm and efficient way in which the work was carried out. I lend my support and thanks to the secretariat that undertook this work in an innovative way. The engagement of citizen members and political leaders under the chairmanship of Mr. Arnold contributed to the efficient work and everyone acknowledges that the balance of speakers and presentations and the time allocated for each aspect of the topic ensured a wide spectrum of views were heard.

The Government is responding to each of the recommendations within three months but the next step is to follow through on actions. As chairman of this historical and important group, how does Mr. Arnold feel about the action following the recommendations? Are the actions moving quickly enough? With regard to recommendations on the clause on the role of women, the greater participation by women in public life and the increase in the participation of women in politics, the Minister for Justice and Equality has established a task force to investigate the issues further with the response expected by October 2014. That is included in the annexe. Is there a need for another expert group to consider the matter given that much work has been done on these issues? What is Mr. Arnold's opinion on that, especially in terms of the convention's work on thrashing out previous reports on the issue and expert opinion? Is there a need for this task force report?

Given the breath of issues that arose during the Constitutional Convention, the vast array of subjects listed in the section on any other amendments and the powerful lobbying by citizens, NGOs and groups across the island and abroad, does Mr. Arnold think a fresh mandate is required for the convention? As part of that, will Mr. Arnold have talks with the Taoiseach on how he feels any new convention may be shaped or managed and on the terms of reference required for it?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senators may ask questions for one minute before we put them all to Mr. Arnold. We have all welcomed Mr. Arnold and I do not want statements. Senators should be specific in their questions and we may elicit a more appropriate response from Mr. Arnold.

Aideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask for a minor indulgence as I must make a statement in order to ask a question. I would also like to welcome Mr. Arnold and his team and I thank them for the work they have done. I am proud of the fact that the convention started as a Labour Party initiative arising from the speech of the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, to the Labour Party conference in 2010. It was then adopted in the programme for Government and it is important to recognise the contribution of the Labour Party.

I am also proud to be a member elected by the parliamentary Labour Party to the convention. I enjoyed it. I would like to pay tribute to members of civil society who have engaged with convention. They deserve a special mention.

The Constitution has been a living document and in previous decades it was down to the Supreme Court to push the envelope in establishing rights under the Constitution. I was most struck at the Constitutional Convention by the extent to which Irish people have moved beyond where they were. As an example, the proposal was to reduce the voting age to 17 and the convention went further and said it should be 16. Excellent debate took place on the role of women, the importance of gender neutrality, the importance of wider society and the role of carers. My question arises from the significant issues that arose. The most exciting work of the convention is still to come and I am excited by the idea of the economic, social and cultural rights. In various aspects of debate, the role of the family in modern day Irish society arose and how we must go beyond the traditional definition of family. A number of matters were put to us and we had to vote on which matters should go forward. Arising from the debate, it is difficult to see how we could not have a debate on the definition of the family in the Constitution. Does Mr. Arnold favour extending the terms of the convention to discuss all matters that came through, including the role of the family, the issue of church and state as referred to by Senator Bacik and wider discussion on the environment? Does Mr. Arnold favour extending the convention to focus on those issues that arose through the convention's discussions and in respect of which it might be possible to say we could not holistically look at the convention's work without discussing?

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Arnold, who has such a distinguished record in agriculture, public service, research and media in The Irish Times. His humanitarian record is celebrated in the Ellis Island medal for humanitarian activities. Mr. Horace Plunkett was the person I had in mind as a former Member of the House. Mr. Arnold comes here in his tradition. I was interested in 66 members of the public. When Senator Quinn and I went to see the Taoiseach at his request, we asked how someone from Belmullet could get to the convention and suggested it would be all people from Dublin 4 and Dublin 6. That is why we suggested the use of the electoral register. Part of the response was that one person lived up the mountain, had not been for years and would not go to a meeting on the constitution in Malahide. How far beyond 66 people did the convention have to go to get 66 members? We hoped the kind of excellent results our colleagues reported would happen.

Some of the Northern Ireland parties participated. Before Mr. Arnold finishes his term as chairman, I suggest he holds a meeting in Enniskillen or Belfast. I am 90% of the way through Mr. Mark Carruthers book on Ulster identity which includes a large number of interviews. No one in Northern Ireland regards themselves as British; they regard themselves as Irish or Northern Irish, and that includes people of a strong Unionist background.

In the Trinity College Dublin constituency, in particular, there are people with Irish passports who support the Irish rugby team and are very loyal to the college. A new definition of Irishness is needed by people in Northern Ireland. NI21 represents such ideas. The Alliance Party appeared to do some work in that regard, too. I suggest a Constitution which reflects this.

A third point relates to economic, social and cultural rights. I will speak briefly about the economic element. Since 2008, in particular, this country has needed protection for citizens' property rights. We have been bankrupted by banks, insurance companies, credit unions, accountants and the water industry and because of medical negligence. Do we need a part in the Constitution to insure society and protect it from rapacious conduct such as this which has brought us to bankruptcy? The Comptroller and Auditor General is an officer under the Constitution and I wonder if he should consider such issues. There should be economic rights to protect us from what happened in the past few years.

I see a new Northern Ireland evolving very rapidly. After the Seanad referendum, the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party asked me at Dublin Castle why County Donegal had voted "No". I believe a large number of people from the Unionist community got their friends in County Donegal to vote in that way. They value their participation under the Constitution and in the two university constituencies.

I thank Mr. Arnold.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Arnold and compliment him on the work he has done in the citizens' assembly, or rather the Constitutional Convention. I mentioned "citizens' assembly" inadvertently as I knew it was a term used in the Fine Gael document. I do not think any party had a monopoly in the setting up of the convention, but in our manifesto before the last election there was a recommendation that a citizens' assembly be established along the lines of what was evident in the Netherlands. I compliment Mr. Arnold for chairing the body.

I will follow up Senator David Norris's comments on the three recommendations concerning the presidency. The first is that there be no change in the term, while the second is-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Extending the nomination.

Caít Keane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----nomination be extended to the people. My recollection is that the Government decided to send this issue to an Oireachtas committee for recommendation. I know the Senator was very exercised because this was missing; it is not but rather has been referred to an Oireachtas committee. Can there be clarification in that regard?

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Arnold; it is good to have him here. I was honoured to be at the convention and there were moments when I pinched myself and had to think it was really happening and that I was part of it. Much of the collegiality about which Mr. Arnold spoke was cemented by cake and there were many good cakes. That is important, as sometimes we forget about the small things. There was a sense that it was not just about sitting down and talking about very tricky things; we acknowledged that people needed to be fed in more ways than one.

I have a number of questions.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does the Senator think her place is in the kitchen?

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Were omelettes served?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Please allow Senator Susan O'Keeffe to ask her question without being interrupted.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We can allow frivolous moments.

The role of women in public life and same sex marriage were highlights in the very important matters of our time that were discussed. The subjects were pretty tough and the discussions timely, but are there as many again that could be discussed? We could go on and several of my colleagues suggested many topics that were of importance. Was the Constitutional Convention valuable because we considered there was a limit to it, with less being more, and if we had continued sitting ad infinitum, would it have lost its impact? Does Mr. Arnold have an observation in that regard?

I support Senator Sean D. Barrett's observation about the possibility of hosting an event or reaching out to people in Northern Ireland for the reasons he very adequately outlined. Some of the flaws in citizens' assemblies in other countries have been noted, but now that we have had a very well run constitutional convention over a number of months, is there something from other countries that could have been pondered? Did we miss anything?

Information was provided in a timely way and in as balanced a manner as possible. Was the process at times overly academic and was the balance between academics and non-academics right? That is not an observation on the value of the advice given, as it was superb, given the time constraints on the people giving it. Given that citizens were coming to it for the very first time, did this sometimes block the collective capability to reach into subjects because it might have felt academic?

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Arnold can-----

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us nominate him.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am glad I almost promoted - or perhaps demoted - Mr. Arnold.

Mr. Tom Arnold:

We should not anticipate anything.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I cannot participate in the debate, although I am itchy in one sense to do so because of a previous role I played. Referendums may often be used as a whip with which to beat the Government rather than having a genuine purpose.

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.

David Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Arnold know which Oireachtas committee?

Mr. Tom Arnold:

I am not exactly sure which one. It is whichever one is the relevant one.

Ivana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the Joint Committee on the Environment, Community and Local Government.

Mr. Tom Arnold:

I thank the Senator for the clarification. In response to Senator Barrett’s question on how many people it took to get the 66 representatives, I am told that it took about 3,000. This happened through a polling company. It was given four criteria to find a representative group and it had to find people who were representative. When asked if one would be willing to give up eight weekends for nothing in the coming year, quite a few people might have felt they did not want to do that. Out of the 66 who agreed – there was a substitute list as well of another 66 who could come in where necessary. To the best of my knowledge all of those people are very happy they said "Yes". I think they feel they have really been part of something special and important.

It was a wise and appropriate idea that there should be participation by people from Northern Ireland. If one were to attempt to have something substantial in Northern Ireland it could raise significant political sensitivities for a constitutional body in the Republic of Ireland to have meetings there. I am not certain about that. What we have tried to do is to ensure that, where possible, there has been significant outreach to Northern Ireland. For example, when we discussed the possibility of citizens having votes in presidential elections we had a specific substantial part of our debate on that dealing with people from Northern Ireland. We had representatives from the Assembly in Northern Ireland. In addition, in June of last year I went up at the request of one of the Northern Ireland members of the convention to speak at an event in Stormont, to talk about the possibility of whether something analogous to the organisational form of the Constitutional Convention might have some relevance in Northern Ireland in terms of community engagement.

I am probably coming to the end of the questions that have been raised. I hope I have not forgotten anything. The comment by Senator O’Keeffe on the importance of cake is a profound one. It connects back to the issue of collegiality. First, we recognised the importance of the matter. In any group of people if one is to achieve anything, good personal relations must be at the basis of it. I can see some evidence of that in the House today. I refer to the importance of meeting on the Friday evenings in advance of the meetings and of the dinner on the Saturday evening. Such things oil the wheels of relationships and ultimately help to have respectful conversations and to reach agreement about particular issues.

On the question of whether the process has relevance to other countries or what we learned from other countries, I do not think we in the convention can take any credit for that. In advance of the construction of the convention some account was taken of experiences in other countries. I refer to such places as Canada and the Netherlands among others.

On the critical issue of whether it should be just a citizens' assembly or an assembly of citizens and politicians, it was a profoundly correct decision to have both citizens and politicians involved in the process. The main lesson from a substantial exercise in British Colombia was that after a lot of very good work by citizens' assemblies, following their conclusions, which on the face of it sounded sensible and well reasoned but because the politicians had not been involved in the process, it made it very difficult for the recommendations to be taken with the level of seriousness they perhaps otherwise would have been. I hope I have covered everything that has been raised. I thank the House for the honour of being present and for the chance to have the dialogue with Senators.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Barrett wish to clarify an issue? I do not wish to allow speakers to make further comments.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the economic rights meeting that will take place next month include some of the factors to which reference was made in the House?

Will it refer to the duties, obligations and role of the Comptroller and Auditor General in the context of a country which has suffered so badly and been bankrupted? Are there constitutional possibilities to protect us?

Mr. Tom Arnold:

I imagine that issue will inevitably arise. We have not started to construct the agenda for that meeting yet, but it is an issue in which there is huge interest among quite a number of civil society groups. We will need to ensure that on this issue, as with other issues, we get both sides of the argument. It may be difficult to find people who will argue against this proposition, yet there are issues in regard to cost and feasibility, etc. which must be factored in. We will do our best to ensure we have as full and positive a discussion as possible. I believe the issue the Senator has raised will inevitably arise during that conversation.

Sean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Arnold.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Arnold for what has been a wonderful engagement which I thoroughly enjoyed from this position. I would have loved to have participated from the floor, but my duty as Leas-Chathaoirleach prevented me from doing so. I call on the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, to propose a vote of thanks and say a few words in conclusion.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Arnold for honouring us with his presence and making a very interesting speech. We have had a good exchange of views and it was like holding the Constitutional Convention here. It was wonderful to have that exchange. I wish Mr. Arnold well with the remainder of the work of the Constitutional Convention-----

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Without the bit of cake, however.

Maurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I missed the cake and could do without it. I sincerely thank Mr. Arnold for coming to the Seanad. It was a wonderful exchange of views and we wish him well for the future.

Denis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also welcome Mr. Art O'Leary and his officials. It is almost a decade since the experienced, able and capable Mr. O'Leary held my hand during a difficult committee regarding the removal of a judge back in 2004. It is hard to believe ten years have passed since, but he kept me on the straight and narrow. He is probably super efficient at this stage. I thank him for attending.