Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Jul 2012

Vol. 772 No. 2

Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012: Second Stage

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Electoral (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2012 is a short but important Bill to enable the electoral register to be used for selecting citizen members of the constitutional convention. When consideration was being given to the establishment of the constitutional convention, the Government decided there should be 100 members, of which 66 would be ordinary citizens. As set out in the resolution made in this House yesterday, membership of the convention will consist of "66 citizens entitled to vote at a referendum, randomly selected so as to be broadly representative of Irish society".

Section 13A of the Electoral Act 1992, inserted by section 4 of the Electoral (Amendment) Act 2001, provides that it is an offence to use information in the register other than for electoral or other statutory purposes. Such a statutory purpose is provided for example in the Juries Act for the selection of members of juries.

There is in place an edited register which may be used for any purpose. That register includes about 300,000 voters who have opted to have their names included on it. That is a relatively small percentage of the total electorate, which stood at 3.144 million for the referendum in May. Clearly, therefore, the edited register would not be adequate for our purpose.

The constitutional convention is not established by statute and it is necessary, therefore, to provide in the Electoral Acts for the use of information in the register in the selection of citizen members of the convention. As the Taoiseach has informed the House, a polling company will be engaged to select 66 people on the electoral register who are representative of the population generally in terms of gender, age, social class and region. The selection process will be overseen by the independent chairperson of the convention.

Section 1 of the Bill amends Section 13A of the Electoral Act 1992 by inserting a new subsection. This will provide that information in the electoral register may be used for the purpose of selecting citizens of Ireland to participate in the convention. Section 2 of the Bill contains standard provisions dealing with the Title, citation and construction of the Bill.

The sole purpose of this Bill is to provide in statute for the use of the electoral register in the selection of citizen members of the convention. It is a Bill to facilitate an important operational aspect of setting up the convention. I commend it to the House.

I am speaking on behalf of our environment and local government spokesperson, Deputy Niall Collins, who is unable to attend due to the death of his grandmother, Ms Rose Desmond. I convey my sympathy to Deputy Collins and his mother, Marion, at this time.

I wish to be associated with those words of condolence to Deputy Collins.

We support the Bill. It is a good idea and will be of value to the process. However, the matters that the convention will be given to consider are of equal importance. Given the discussions inside and outside the House and at the Committee of Public Accounts and in light of the Government's consideration of a banking inquiry, it is appropriate to say that the convention's work will be important. It should consider the administration of the country and the workings of this House as priorities.

In compiling the report on a banking inquiry, the Committee of Public Accounts was conscious of the significant legal difficulties facing any Dáil inquiry. The referendum was informative in this regard and suggested that sufficient information was not put before the electorate. Greater in-depth consideration is necessary ahead of similar referendums. The convention will help in this regard. The inclusion of citizens in the convention is a welcome example of the involvement of people in the democratic process.

A banking inquiry is essential. It must have a broader base than that discussed this morning, namely, to fill an information gap. It is important that we protect the integrity of the Committee of Public Accounts, its members and the work it has done since its foundation, in particular its investigations into DIRT, the Arms Trial, spending and so on. It is regrettable that the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, in particular decided to focus on the committee's Chairman and the Fianna Fáil Party. The committee has a record of conducting excellent inquiries and has always been chaired by Opposition parties. The Minister should focus on the task in hand rather than the personalities involved. In terms of the convention and the work of the Government, broadening the committee's powers and shoring up its work are necessary. Dumbing it down in any way is unacceptable, yet that appears to be under way. Nor are the Minister's comments acceptable. The first task of any convention should be to consider the committee's powers, its standing within the House, its reputation and the respect in which it is held by the public. A debate on this subject and any referendum that might be required to enhance the committee's powers should be held sooner rather than later.

As we head into discussions on a banking inquiry, the Government will find it necessary to introduce legislation regardless of who conducts the inquiry. Needless to say, the all-party Committee of Public Accounts believes that examining the €64 billion of taxpayers' money spent by the Government on the banks is a natural progression of its work. Some of the paperwork now available shows that ten days prior to the night of the bank guarantee, the banks were talking up their positions and the economy. They were bust ten days later. It is critical that the truth be told and examined by those who were central to the decision, be they politicians, bankers or civil servants. We have been told that little paperwork from the time of the decision exists. Therefore, we need to hear directly from the people involved. If this necessitates providing the committee with the power of compellability or making Cabinet papers available, which has been suggested in the report, it should be done sooner rather than later. We need to hear from those who were involved during the night of the guarantee. The Taoiseach's suggestion that the inquiry would be limited to this is not good enough. The inquiry should have a much broader base.

The Committee of Public Accounts has set out a roadmap by which this can be achieved and has been supported by a senior counsel's opinion. Learning from what we described as the first pillar of the inquiry, we should move on to events in the banks. For example, what were the internal audit committees doing and how were the economists describing and forecasting the economy to the banks? We need to examine what the auditors were doing and what their audits told them. These aspects are essential to any inquiry.

Informed by pillar 1 and having dealt with the banks, the committee could move on to pillar 3. As suggested in the report, we could consider the regulatory system, the Department of Finance, various other agencies and anyone who was involved. Even if they are now retired, they could be brought back to explain what occurred. It is my belief and that of the Committee of Public Accounts that, unless we pursue this type of inquiry and have appropriate powers provided to us through legislation, we will not get to the truth of the matter. The public would like to see that truth being told in a way that states the case clearly in terms of how the decisions were taken, the Merrill Lynch opinion and what other opinions were available, including what outside sources advised the former Government.

Any convention needs to be informed about the background to these issues so that it can reach an appropriate conclusion. This is essential to the democratic process and the workings of the House. While the Bill is short and will be handled quickly, the all-party Committee of Public Accounts has called for a full Dáil debate on the report. This is essential in moving the situation forward.

Although it may be a separate issue, I urge the Government via the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, to consider the report before making further comment on it. The relevance and importance of the Committee of Public Accounts should not be diminished in any way. If anything, they should be enhanced. Any effort to reduce its powers, the scope of its inquiries or its position within the House should be resisted by the Government and Members of this Parliament.

Sinn Féin believes that there is a clear need for radical and far-reaching reform of the Constitution. We are committed to working towards an entirely new constitution as the cornerstone of a new republic. If approached in the right way, the constitutional reform project could inspire people, revive their hopes for a positive future and become a catalyst for change and national unity.

We welcome the Government's proposal on establishing a constitutional convention that would undertake "comprehensive constitutional reform". Like some other promises, however, the proposal has fallen far short. The Bill is a blunt tool for engagement and will restrict the ability to consult the Irish people. The consultation process will only be focused on one small part of a bigger picture.

The Government's proposal outlines the issues for consideration by the convention. These include giving citizens living overseas the right to vote at Irish embassies in presidential elections, the provision for same-sex marriages and reducing the voting age to 17 years.

We welcome that, but perhaps the Minister could clarify what would happen to Irish citizens in the North, where there is no embassy. We are not proposing that we establish an embassy in the North.

I was wondering.

We were getting worried.

We can make arrangements for that on Sevastopol Street or somewhere like that. Perhaps the Minister might outline his thoughts on the issue.

By restricting the consultation process to those on the voter register, the Government cannot achieve a true reflection of opinion on these issues. By its nature, the voter register excludes those in the Six Counties, the Irish diaspora and those under 18. It does not allow us to identify people in some communities, such as the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community.

In our submission we outlined how this aspect of consultation should take place. We indicated that "the Central Statistics Office should be charged with responsibility for random citizen selection within the demographic categories, as it has the public trust in the gathering of demographic data on behalf of the Irish people". It is not an appropriate task for private polling companies, as the Minister mentioned. The electoral register is not a sufficient tool as it will automatically exclude young people from participation. It is ironic that there was a suggestion that they be included but the process seems to exclude that cohort. The electoral register will not adequately represent people living in marginalised communities, many of whom are not on the register.

Sinn Féin believes the constitutional convention should be fully inclusive in composition and use a participatory process, actively involving the economically disadvantaged, the socially marginalised, citizens from all 32 counties of Ireland, Unionists and their official representatives, citizens in the diaspora and our newest citizens. That is in addition to the political parties, civil society representatives and those with relevant academic and legal expertise. We must also ensure equal representation of women on the convention, which should hold its hearings throughout the island to get a geographical spread of views. This would have provided the basis for a real conversation about the future of Ireland and its people.

The convention must consider the broadest possible scope of matters, including guarantees of economic and social rights, the extension of voting rights for northern citizens and citizens in the diaspora and the architecture necessary to establish a more robustly inclusive, fully representative and accountable democracy with mechanisms for direct participation. Sinn Féin wants to see a rights-based society. The new constitution arising from a process of consultation must include maximum human rights guarantees, and it must contain all the modern equality and human rights protections that meet our international obligations. Sinn Féin wants to see a constitution that is seen as a benchmark for the international community. The new constitution arising from this process should not only be exemplary, but also be durable, justifying the investment of resources, time and effort that will go into it. To do this, the process must be realistically framed and not rushed by an inappropriate deadline of 12 months. This will only lead to accusations that the process is rushed and tokenistic. Judging by what is on offer tonight, that accusation may prove correct.

Sinn Féin supports bringing proposals for a refreshed constitution before the people in a referendum in 2016. That would truly be an honourable way of marking the 100th anniversary of the 1916 Rising. We can generally agree that the topics listed in the Government's position paper should be considered by the convention but we do not agree that "other matters" are simply an afterthought. We believe in comprehensive reform of our political institutions at all levels, including the Oireachtas, local government, regional government and all-Ireland co-operation and governance mechanisms, including an all-Ireland council of Ministers, the all-Ireland parliamentary forum and the all-Ireland consultative civic forum. There should also be electoral reform in its widest sense and the introduction of mechanisms for participatory democracy at all levels of governance so that resulting constitutional provisions or amendments will be coherent and holistic.

We fully agree that fundamental Seanad reform is necessary but we do not agree that Seanad reform should be outside the scope of consideration by the convention. The public should not be asked to vote on Seanad reform separately. To reduce Seanad reform to a question of whether to abolish it is too simple. Large numbers of people see the need for a second House and a second tier in our democracy. Asking the people if they are for or against the abolition does not leave room for discussion about reform, so the Government is going at the problem the wrong way.

The cost of running the Seanad must be reduced and as it stands, it cannot be defended. I would not try to do so and most Members would not even try to do so. Nevertheless, the issue cannot be boiled down to a simple "Yes"or ""No" question on retaining the House. The constitutional convention provides an opportunity for us to debate the matter, and some of the members of the Minister's party would agree with me on it.

Senator Coghlan.

We are a broad church.

For the same reasons we cannot agree that Dáil electoral reform should be an issue taken in isolation, as the Government proposes.

Last night, we proposed an amendment to the motion but, unfortunately, we lost the vote. That is the way things go. Our own preference would be for a true "people's process", involving extensive public consultation, with participation and full transparency at every stage. We certainly want constructive engagement at this juncture. We are unable to support the Bill in front of us as it falls too short of what is needed-----

It could not be a shorter Bill.

-----to properly review the 1937 Constitution. It is a long time since 1937 but this falls short in grappling what needs to be done to the Constitution. What is in front of us is another missed opportunity and, unfortunately, we will vote against it.

I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to this new Bill, the Electoral (Amendment)(No. 2) Bill 2012, which deals with selecting citizen members of the constitutional convention. At first I was excited about any proposal that would bring real change and reform to politics in Ireland. Sadly, on considering the details, it appears to lack real teeth and seems to be running away from many serious issues. For this to be meaningful and a success, we need the participation of all citizens around the country, and not just from a small selection of society.

It is important to highlight that the constitutional convention is a significant and worthy endeavour which, if thoughtfully executed, would provide an opportunity to address those areas of the Irish Constitution which have, over the past 75 years, been identified as in need for fine-tuning. A delicate balance must be struck between the meaningful reform of the weaker elements of Bunreacht na hÉireann and the protection of those portions of the Constitution that have provided a solid foundation for the realisation of the democratic, free and sovereign State that is the Republic of Ireland.

Any constitutional convention established must in its structures respect the essential balance between the imperative to reform and evolve in the document, provide the opportunity for the people to have direct input to such reform and recognise the areas in which the true strengths of Bunreacht na hÉireann lie. At the time of its drafting, enactment and implementation, this cornerstone of the Irish legal system was a revolutionary document that aspired to the development of a society based on the principles of social justice, equality and freedom. This was at a time when the dominant regimes of Europe were evolving into ever more oppressive states whose systematic curtailment of civil liberties and disregard for democratic principles ultimately led to the outbreak of the Second World War.

As imperfect as many elements are, Bunreacht na hÉireann embodies the spirit of independence and courageous, meaningful change, which must be honoured in any attempt to fundamentally reform it. One cannot throw out the baby with the bath water. Any proposed convention, if lacking ambition in its objectives and nuance in its approach to addressing the weaker elements of the Constitution, runs the grave risk of joining all previous constitutional reform committees and bodies in seeing its reports lie idle on the shelves of the State's libraries while once again reform takes a back seat to more politically desirable issues. These are important statements to make on the convention.

It is hugely disappointing that the remit of the convention is to be limited to the topics set out in the programme for Government. While this disappointment is not to be misconstrued as disagreement with the need to reform the areas for review set out by the Government in its proposals, the piecemeal and compartmentalised approach to be taken to the areas the convention will be mandated to explore indicates that the recommendations made are likely to be incomplete and ineffective due to the limited scope of the convention. When one looks at the detail of the remit of the convention, it deals with a review of Dáil electoral strategy, reducing the Presidential term to five years in line with local and European elections, giving citizens the right to vote in Presidential elections at Irish embassies, increasing the participation of women in politics and reducing the voting age to 17. The Dáil, Seanad, Presidential and local electoral systems do not exist in a political vacuum but rather comprise the unit under which occurs the democratic engagement between the people of Ireland and the local administration system and the Executive and Legislature organs of the State.

I agree with my colleague, Deputy Brian Stanley, with regard to the North. We must have a debate about the division of the country and a reasonable and calm debate about the conflict on the island. We must also have a reasonable debate on why the country is divided and why there is no need for it to be divided. We need to start to bring our people together. This is very important, which is why I am disappointed that Northern voters are constantly excluded from democratic positions on the island. If one speaks about a democratic republic, we must respect all traditions, Catholic, Protestant and dissenter.

I strongly believe the Seanad must be reformed but I am against its abolition. We can reform it and make it more democratic, but I like the idea of having a second Chamber with regard to democratic politics in the country. I accept the point about cost but with flexibility, vision, courage and the powerful energy of reform, we can do this and serve our country well.

Amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life needs to be examined very closely. The reference to blasphemy in the Constitution should be removed. The proposals to amend the provisions on blasphemy and the role of women in the home in the interests of encouraging greater participation of women in public life, while seemingly separate, in fact highlight the very weakness of the compartmentalised vision for change presented in the Government's proposals for the convention. The sheer unsuitability of such provisions and their inconsistency with the manner in which Irish society has developed and arguably existed until the 1930s, considering the significant contribution made by women to the revolutionary movements through which the State was born, derives specifically from the very narrow temporary religiously-focused nature of their content. I wish for this to be debated in very clear terms.

I strongly support those who advocate the need for a strong, participative convention. The Government should foster national ownership from the outset by establishing it through an open, participative, inclusive and transparent process, and it is very important to include these words. Of course resources must be made available to facilitate widespread and meaningful consultation. We must also deal with education and participation by members of the public, civil society and other interested stakeholders. We also need an open and transparent appointments process to ensure membership of the convention is balanced, representative and facilitates meaningful input by civil society organisations and those on the margins of society. I emphasise the need for those who are excluded to be included. An inclusive convention is something to which we should look forward.

A range of civic education measures should be undertaken to inform members of the public about the role, scope and potential outcome of the constitutional convention. We must also work closely with local and national media. Facilitating meaningful input by civil society organisations through this process must be a priority for the convention and we must examine this. We need a meaningful constitutional convention.

Knowledge and experience would benefit the convention in its deliberations and should be drawn from as wide a pool of experts as possible, including legal, political and community sectors. I come from the community sector. I do not want the convention to be taken over by academics and I warn against this. They have a contribution to make but I want to know what our citizens want and I want to ensure they are part of the movement for change in the country.

The list of topics presented by the Government should be expanded. The opportunity afforded by the convention to explore other potential issues for reform with regard to the Constitution should not be lost, including issues of electoral reform, equality, the family, economic, social and cultural rights and Irish unity. Members of the public should be provided with an opportunity to consider the recommendations of the convention and provide feedback.

I welcome the overall debate on this issue. There is a need for dramatic changes, but I wish to ensure the convention is as inclusive as possible. For me, the jury is out with regard to the involvement of politicians. I would love a people's convention to see what they feel, without the 33 politicians who will be directly involved. However, I do not like to exclude people, particularly people who represent the Unionist and Nationalist traditions in the North and I believe they will have two delegates. We must ensure the constitutional convention is participative, inclusive and meaningful.

I remind speakers the scope of the Bill is limited to the use of the electoral register for selecting members of the constitutional convention.

It is a bit late now.

I ask Members to keep the debate relevant to this.

The Electoral Amendment (No. 2) Bill before us intends to allow citizens to be chosen from the electoral register to participate in the proposed constitutional convention. To my mind it will not have the capability to reflect society as a whole with only 66 people, and even with 200 people it would be difficult for it to do so. There is a democratic deficit within the convention. It is broken down by age and region, but it does not have the capability to reflect society as a whole. Therefore, it is fundamentally flawed.

The convention's remit is not broad enough and I believe it is a sham. The decision to act upon recommendations arising from discussions or consultations will be in the hands of the Government. The convention will not make any decisions, so its outcome will be determined by the Government and not by the citizens who will participate in it. Therefore, the process of including citizens is inconsequential. The remit of the convention has been decided by the Government and is very restrictive, including only civil and political issues. The concept of looking through the register is good but it does not go far enough and it cannot do what is necessary, which was Deputy Finian McGrath's point on the necessity of a people's convention.

I fully support the right to same-sex marriage, full equality for women, removing blasphemy from the Constitution and the reduction in the voting age, all issues which are to be discussed by the proposed convention. I favour the abolition of the Presidency and of the Seanad, which are both toothless, expensive, ceremonial institutions intended only to conceal the centralisation of power in the hands of the Government.

Equally important rights, more so in a time of economic crisis, are the rights to work, to equal pay for work of equal value, to a minimum standard of living, to universal access to health care and housing, to universal access to education, including educational services appropriate to needs, particularly for the 650 students with disability who want to return to education next year with access to SNAs, and the right of autistic children to services appropriate to their needs. These are rights many people would prefer to debate if they got the opportunity and were selected from the electoral register. Another issue that should be taken up by the convention is the issue of the separation of church and State. This issue has not been discussed and should be raised.

These socio-economic issues affect many people and public representatives try to help citizens with them on a daily basis, but they are not up for discussion at all by the convention. In my opinion, these issues are excluded from the discussion because the Government is implementing policies that deny many citizens such socio-economic rights, in particular, those on average and low incomes, because it does not want discussions that would expose or challenge the policies being pursued by the Government.

There is no proposal for the consideration of human rights by the convention or for the composition of the convention to reflect human rights provisions which might be incorporated into the Constitution. The failure to include these is occurring despite the fact that previous constitutional reviews, most recently in 1996, identified Articles 40 and 44 of the Constitution as being flawed with regard to current international standards on human rights. Groups that have played a key role in fighting for those rights are not being included in the convention.

Citizens selected to take part in the convention are invited to participate at weekends, rather than being facilitated to participate during working time, as is the norm with jury service. They are being asked to give up their time, under the guidance of experts selected by the Government, to participate in a process where the outcome will be decided by the Government. The process also excludes issues which many civil society groups say should be included in any consideration of constitutional reform.

I will vote against this Bill for the reasons I have stated and because both the remit of the proposed constitutional convention and any amendments to reform the Constitution will be decided by the Government. I do not believe the amendment proposed in this Bill will facilitate the broader issues that need to be discussed by society.

I, too, am delighted to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. This is a short and simple Bill at first glance and concerns the enablement of the constitutional convention. The Bill enables people to be selected from the electoral register to take part in the convention.

I have many concerns with regard to the proposed convention and see it as merely window dressing to try to fulfil some of the promises made in the programme for Government or during the election. The Government has failed miserably to deliver on any of its promises, but it seems it is taking this proposal as the easy option and is rushing the Bill through the House in order to set up the convention. However, the Government remains in charge and will select 66 people to take part. I am one of the members of the Technical Group who volunteered to take part in the convention, but I strenuously object to the fact that it is being convened in Dublin, that it will be convened at weekends and that it will be guided by a so-called expert group selected by the Government. That to me implies it will be guided by either paid special advisers or civil servants.

We have got to a pretty sad state in this country and this convention is just more of the same. The Government wants to retain a grip on everything and to hold onto everything it has and it is just tokenism to propose selecting 66 people from the electoral register. How are these people to be picked? In my county recently a deceased 99 year old woman was called for jury duty. How will such incidents be avoided? We have been told a polling company will make the selection, but the work of some such companies is quite shoddy. I have never employed any of them, but I have not been impressed by any I ever had any contact with. I do not wish to be ageist, but how can people over a certain age be selected from the register for jury duty? When a complaint was made regarding the selection of the deceased woman, the person making the complaint had the head eaten off her by an official. She got on to me about it and when I inquired about it, I got the head eaten off me by a very hostile public official. I had to get her supervisor to come back and apologise to me for her behaviour. In fairness, the supervisor addressed my issues and also telephoned the family of the dead woman and apologised. I understand these things can happen through human error, but how will we avoid such things happening in selecting people for the convention if the electoral register is to be used to select them? Some of the 66 people selected may have emigrated or be deceased.. We need to be careful about how this is done.

This is a simple Bill in comparison to some of the Bills and outrageous suggestions made by the Minister since he came into government. The Minister has become known as Phil the enforcer, but following this Bill he may be known as Phil the enabler. However, the Bill does not really enable anybody to do anything. The convention should not be held in Dublin. I am not anti Dublin, but the convention should move around the country to facilitate people from other parts of the country. Not everything happens in Dublin and finishes at Newlands Cross. What is wrong with this country is that people running the Government think everything finishes at Newlands Cross and that rural people do not matter. The same occurred with regard to wastewater, with the Minister vindictively penalising rural people. The fact is that most pollution is caused by urban areas and cities. I look forward to that decision being challenged in the courts, because it is wrong. It is time we shouted "Stop" and gave ordinary people their rights and listened to them.

I hope that despite its shortcomings there will be strong participation in the convention from the 66 citizen members. The rest will comprise politicians and representatives, both from the North and South. However, the convention will not be representative of the whole country if there are only 66 citizens on it. These should be people who want to participate honestly and openly and be without a hidden agenda. Like others, I do not want to see too many academics on this convention nor to see it being hived off to them. My concern is that the same will happen here as happens with other Bills, the Gaeltacht Bill being a case in point. That Bill, which is being discussed this week, does away with democracy. It is abolishing the elections for Údarás na Gaeltacht and instead we will have seven members appointed by the Government to the údarás and five members appointed by county councils and Gaeltacht areas. These councils have strong government majorities, so we will end up with 12 government members on the board of the údarás. I do not think that is fair or transparent.

I understand that Seanad reform is not included in the remit of the convention. Reform of the Seanad is the Taoiseach's pet project and he wants to keep that for himself. I do not understand why it could not be included in the remit of the convention, because it should be discussed and we should get the people's views. I know there is open warfare going on within the Fine Gael Party, the Labour Party and, indeed, all parties in this regard. I am not in favour of abolishing the Seanad, but I am in favour of reform. Abolishing the Seanad is just another grandiose idea and I do not believe it will ever happen. If the Taoiseach is interested in reforming the Seanad, the issue should be put before the convention for discussion.

It will be able to discuss the voting age and many other issues but not real reform of the electoral system, and the Seanad and the Government will have the final say. I want a proper discussion on civil and political issues. It will depend on the members but I do not want the neo-liberals to take it over and get us everything from same-sex marriage, to which I am fundamentally opposed, to God knows what.

We must also discuss social and economic policies and the policies the Government is implementing. As I informed the troika last week, it was elected on a particular mandate but it has done the exact opposite. It was going to burn the bondholders and God knows what else but it has introduced austerity measure after austerity measure. We have seen from different reports, including one from the Economic and Social Research Institute which was suppressed, that people do not have spending money.

I hope there will be a fund available to the people involved in the convention and that they will get enough to cover their expenses when they have to travel to Dublin. They will not have Michael Fingleton to give them big loans, which the Minister could get. That is what is wrong with this country. People in high places are getting away with so much. The finger was pointed at Fianna Fáil and the last Government but now we see what is happening here. The Minister for Health will make a statement tonight but no questions will be asked about a nursing home in my constituency. These are the connections these people have despite transparency and openness and their promises, which is all waffle. It is okay for us and the ordinary people but it is not good enough for the Minister, Deputy Hogan, or the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly. They will do what they want and talk down to the people, dismiss them with arrogance, admonish them and say: "Peasants get lost and croppies lie down." The old blue shirt regime is up and running.

I look forward to the convention, meagre as it will be, and I will participate if I can. If it is sham, I will call it one. I will not participate in any sham to suit the Minister or this Government.

I would say to Deputy Mattie McGrath that he should repeat what he said in regard to my personal matters outside the House.

This is an historic first to have the public involved in reviewing the Constitution. It has happened in other jurisdictions but it has never happened here. What we are doing here is facilitating that process. I know it is only 66 people but, as Deputy Finian McGrath said, we do not want all of academia involved in this process, and he was right. Ordinary people will have an opportunity to contribute.

Members of the public will be selected at random. They will be generally representative of society as regards age, gender, region and social class. There will be 33 males and 33 females in the public membership. Members will, in the first instance, be identified via an independent polling company using professional sampling techniques. The electoral register will then be used to verify that they can vote in referendums and therefore confirm their membership of the convention. I assure Deputy Mattie McGrath that only those people who are alive and answer the telephone or respond to the letter will be able to confirm their participation in the convention. The procedure to select the public members will be overseen by the chair of the convention.

I thank Deputies for their contributions and I hope the process by which we are getting the public involved will be seen as an historic first and that they will have an input into reviewing our Constitution, the document of which we are all proud. Obviously, at this moment in time, the Government has decided it needs to be reviewed and it is engaging with the public in that process.

Question put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 111; Níl, 20.

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barry, Tom.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Butler, Ray.
  • Buttimer, Jerry.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Byrne, Eric.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Cannon, Ciarán.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coffey, Paudie.
  • Conaghan, Michael.
  • Conlan, Seán.
  • Connaughton, Paul J.
  • Conway, Ciara.
  • Coonan, Noel.
  • Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Cowen, Barry.
  • Daly, Jim.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Deering, Pat.
  • Doherty, Regina.
  • Donnelly, Stephen S.
  • Donohoe, Paschal.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Dowds, Robert.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Farrell, Alan.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Anne.
  • Fitzgerald, Frances.
  • Fitzpatrick, Peter.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Halligan, John.
  • Harrington, Noel.
  • Harris, Simon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Healy-Rae, Michael.
  • Heydon, Martin.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Humphreys, Heather.
  • Humphreys, Kevin.
  • Keating, Derek.
  • Keaveney, Colm.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Kelleher, Billy.
  • Kelly, Alan.
  • Kenny, Seán.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Michael P.
  • Kyne, Seán.
  • Lawlor, Anthony.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • Lyons, John.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McConalogue, Charlie.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McFadden, Nicky.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • McLoughlin, Tony.
  • McNamara, Michael.
  • Maloney, Eamonn.
  • Mathews, Peter.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Murphy, Catherine.
  • Murphy, Dara.
  • Murphy, Eoghan.
  • Nash, Gerald.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Nolan, Derek.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • Nulty, Patrick.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Donovan, Patrick.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Reilly, Joe.
  • O’Sullivan, Maureen.
  • Perry, John.
  • Phelan, Ann.
  • Phelan, John Paul.
  • Pringle, Thomas.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Spring, Arthur.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Troy, Robert.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Wall, Jack.
  • Walsh, Brian.
  • White, Alex.

Níl

  • Adams, Gerry.
  • Collins, Joan.
  • Colreavy, Michael.
  • Crowe, Seán.
  • Daly, Clare.
  • Doherty, Pearse.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.
  • Fleming, Tom.
  • Healy, Seamus.
  • Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
  • McDonald, Mary Lou.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McLellan, Sandra.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
  • O’Brien, Jonathan.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Stanley, Brian.
  • Wallace, Mick.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Brian Stanley and Jonathan O’Brien.
Question declared carried.
Top
Share