Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 5 Oct 2011

Vol. 210 No. 10

Presidential Elections: Motion (Resumed)

Debate resumed on the following motion which was moved by Senator David Cullinane on Wednesday, 5 October 2011:

That Seanad Éireann:

recognises the need to enhance the democratic process on this island;

recognised the desire to enable Northern participation in the political life of the nation, as an important part of the Irish peace process and a natural outworking of the Good Friday Agreement;

affirms the democratic values of citizenship and equality that define our nation and people;

supports the extension of voting rights to all Irish citizens in the Six Counties as well as citizens living and working abroad, subject to conditions set out in law, in presidential elections;

calls for a thorough review and reform of the nomination process for presidential elections; and

urges that all these matters be addressed and technical issues resolved by the forthcoming Constitutional Convention.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

Ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an rún atá os ár gcomhair. Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire. Bhí mé ag déanamh amach an tseachtain seo caite go raibh imní orm nach raibh sé feicthe agam le tamall ach is breá an rud é a fheiceáil sa Teach arís. Cuirim céad fáilte roimhe, go háirithe go bhfuil sé anseo chun an cheist fíor-thábhachtach seo a phlé.

Is ceist í an náisiúnacht a théann go croí agus tá sé an-ghar do mo chroí féin. Is duine mise a rugadh agus a tógadh i Sasana, ach níor bhreathnaigh mise orm féin ariamh mar Shasanach. Tháinig ár gclann abhaile, beirt thuismitheoirí as Éirinn. D'fhan beirt den cheathrar clainne anseo in Éirinn agus d'imigh beirt anonn. Ní fhéadfainn-se a rá go bhfuil mise níos Éireannaí ná níos gaelaí ná an bheirt deartháireacha liom atá ina gcónaí i Londain. An fhadhb atá ann ná go bhfuil cead agamsa vótáil le haghaidh Uachtarán na hÉireann ach níl aon chead acu siúd. Tá sé sin go hiomlán mícheart agus mí-chóir.

Tá ceisteanna pearsanta mar sin ag go leor daoine ar an oileán seo agus thar lear. Táimid ag iarraidh aitheantas a thabhairt dóibh siúd ins an díospóireacht inniu. Táimid ag súil go mbeidh an Teach sásta tacú lenár rún.

In 1990, President Mary Robinson lit a candle in the window of Áras an Uachtaráin to light the way home for the hundreds and thousands of Irish citizens abroad, many of whom had left during the economic crises of the 1980s. It was a wonderful gesture, simple yet poignant, extending a hand from the State to reach out to our people everywhere. Consider how much the Irish abroad, many of whom have left during our contemporary economic crisis, would be brought closer to home by giving them a vote for the presidency.

The crucial aspect of the motion is that we are proposing to extend the franchise to Irish citizens living abroad. Consider that point. We are not merely talking about Irish people but Irish citizens who are entitled to expect legal protection and support from the State. This begs the question of why they should not be allowed to vote. It is a logic correlative of citizenship.

It is entirely reasonable to allow our Irish citizens abroad to vote in presidential elections. We should take the opportunity of a constitutional convention to explore such issues. This is not a divisive or controversial proposal, as such an idea has elicited the broad support of many commentators, representatives of most shades of political opinion in Ireland and most political parties represented in the Oireachtas.

Fine Gael's New Politics document states, "We also propose that Irish citizens living abroad should be allowed to vote in presidential elections, subject to certain conditions". I have heard Fine Gael representatives, such as the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, speaking on this topic and I commend Fine Gael's position in this regard.

Likewise, the Labour Party has regularly committed itself to supporting voting rights for those Irish citizens who are living and working abroad. Former Labour Party Deputy and entrant to the presidential election, Michael D. Higgins, spoke with passion and vigour on this issue at a recent conference in London, and proposed the extension of voting rights. Other Labour Party representatives have spoken in support of the idea. Deputy Ciarán Lynch stated:

People who have been forced to leave this country in search of work are justifiably angry and should not be denied the chance to vote on how their country is run. Currently, the only people entitled to an absentee vote are civil servants and military personnel who are working out of the country. We want this to be extended to all emigrants, at least during their first five years out of the country.

While the Green Party is no longer with us in this Chamber, I recall that its members were of a similar view to mine, the Labour Party and Fine Gael. Former Deputy Ciarán Cuffe stated that many people leaving today did not intend the move to be long-term or permanent. He said he believed that all Irish citizens who had contributed so much to the State and wished to have a genuine stake in the future political direction of the country should not automatically lose their right to vote once they left the country.

Ógra Fianna Fáil, the youth wing of Fianna Fáil, in common with the Sinn Féin youth wing, has campaigned in the past for all-Ireland voting rights, to which voting rights for the Diaspora would be a logical correlation. A campaign was launched in November 2010 when Senator Byrne was, I think, an honorary chairman of Ógra Fianna Fáil. I welcome this opportunity to hear, in a concrete way, Fianna Fáil's position on this important issue. I hope for Fianna Fáil Senators' support for the Sinn Féin motion.

The youth wing of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, SDLP, has also campaigned to extend the franchise to citizens living beyond our territory. Margaret Ritchie, leader of the SDLP, has signalled her support for the idea. She said, "The call for residents of the North to be given the same voting rights as people in the South has been a long-standing policy of the SDLP and is in line with our commitment to uniting people on the island."

To the list of supporters of this cause I add Dublin City Council, which unanimously passed a motion to support the extension of the franchise to those living in the North in 2003, along with Newry and Mourne District Council. An Oireachtas committee also added its support. After the Good Friday Agreement, the then Taoiseach, former Deputy Bertie Ahern, instructed the all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution to consider how the people of the Six Counties might play "a more active part in national political life." The committee recognised, in its recommendations, that the most obvious and immediately inclusive area would be in extending voting rights in presidential elections to all Irish citizens living on the island of Ireland in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Good Friday Agreement as contained in the amended Article 2 of the Constitution. Regrettably, it is nine years and two Dáileanna since that was proposed, yet we have seen no action on the part of the Government.

Last but not least, there is support for the proposal among Irish citizens living in the North and abroad. Some Senators will have heard the presentation by One Vote One Voice yesterday, as mentioned by Senator Cullinane, and I am aware that there is great enthusiasm for this among Irish citizens in the North, in Irish centres abroad and in Irish homes from Cricklewood to Boston and Perth, and very likely in Beijing and New Delhi. There is certainly support for it from my two brothers. Therefore, this is a popular idea, which has support from right across the political spectrum, and why would that not be?

Consider the case of the emigrant. Indeed, consider my own case. People leaving Ireland today do not intend it to be a permanent move. The economic downturn has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people leaving Ireland on a scale not seen for a generation, perhaps longer. However, like my parents, they share a common desire to return home again once economic and employment conditions improve. Surely these citizens, who very often include some of our brightest and best and who have contributed so much to Ireland and its people, have a stake in the running of the country and should have a say. They should not lose their right to vote or to contribute to the Irish polity as soon as they leave these shores, especially as, given the current economic difficulties, they are unlikely to be leaving entirely of their own volition.

This is not a difficult or problematic proposal, nor is it a pie in the sky idea. A good illustration was offered in recent weeks in Dromalane Hill in Newry. The honorary Latvian consulate there was visited by hundreds of Latvian citizens to vote in their national election, yet they live and work with Irish citizens living in Ireland who simply cannot vote. This is an example that we can follow.

Táimid ag cur an rúin seo chun cinn agus táimid ag súil go mbeidh tacaíocht aige ó na páirtithe ar fad atá anseo. Mar atá léirithe ag na ráitis atá déanta ag gach páirtí, tá sé curtha in iúl cheana féin ag na páirtithe uilig gurb é seo a bpolasaí. Beimid ag súil lena dtacaíocht don rún.

Senator Cáit Keane

I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after "That" and substitute the following:

"Seanad Éireann

recognises the importance of full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement in strengthening North-South co-operation and encouraging lasting reconciliation;

recognises the Government's commitment to constitutional reform as set out in the programme for Government and as demonstrated in the arrangements made within seven months of taking office to hold two constitutional referendums;

looks forward to the establishment of a constitutional convention to consider further constitutional reform as promised in the programme for Government including reducing the presidential term to five years, aligning it with local and European elections".

Ba mhaith liom fíor fháilte a chur roimh ár gcuairteoirí and I welcome this important debate. All parties recognise its importance. Tá sé an-tábhachtach cearta a thabhairt dár ngaolta agus do gach Éireannach atá thar lear, ach b'fhéidir nach í seo an chaoi chun an dlí a athrú. This is very important issue but we must evaluate the ways we amend our laws and the Constitution.

The 2004 report on Seanad reform recommended that Northern Ireland have representation in Seanad Éireann. This is a very good recommendation and one that the House could take up. The review could be facilitated by the North-South implementation bodies which came into existence through the Good Friday Agreement. Waterways Ireland, the Food Safety Promotion Board, the Trade and Business Development Body, the Special EU Programmes Body, the North-South Language Body and the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission are currently accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as the North-South Ministerial Council.

I welcome Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to the Seanad for this important debate. Many potential benefits are to be found, in political, economic and social spheres, in the work of the North-South co-operation process. I will deal later with the important issue of constitutional and voting rights. There is no formal mechanism by which the work of the bodies I have mentioned can be evaluated. The report on reform of the Seanad stated that representatives from Northern Ireland could make a valuable contribution to Seanad proceedings. This could be valuable in the context of a review of and role for the Seanad.

The Government has stated many times that it recognises the importance of full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement through North-South co-operation, thus encouraging lasting reconciliation. Article 1, section 6 of the agreement, with which I am sure everyone is familiar, refers to the "birthright" of all people of Northern Ireland "to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British citizens, or both" and [the important bit] "as they may so choose" and accordingly to confirm that right to hold British and Irish citizenship is accepted. However, citizenship and voting rights are different, a point I will address later. It also states that Governments would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland and deals with an extension to the right of citizenship, an issue which we must look at now.

I have heard the Minister speak on this issue. I also heard the Taoiseach's response in the Dáil on the issue of citizenship and voting rights. The constitutional review group has been established and will examine all of these issues. The Sinn Féin motion before us today pre-empts any decision which the constitutional review group may be charged to take. I do not believe that the role of the Seanad at this point is to pre-empt any decisions of that body before it commences its work. I will not do so. The Government must table an amendment to the motion if we are to take the constitutional review group seriously.

The limitations and connotations that may be extended were this right extended remain to be worked out. There are so many questions to be answered. I do not have time in the six minutes speaking time allocated to me to go into all of the details that need to be looked at. That is the work of the constitutional review group. We all know what we have to do at this point in time. It is hard enough to keep an eye on an electoral register and to ensure that everyone who is registered to vote is who they say they are. Many permutations and connotations have to be examined.

Formation of the North-South parliamentary forum and North-South consultative forum remains outstanding. I anticipate that this will be a positive development in furthering North-South relations. I thank the Minister, whom I forgot to welcome to the House earlier, for gracing us with his presence here so often, which we appreciate. I ask that he consider, with the North-South consultative forum, the formation of a consultative body at local authority level, for example, a North-South consultative body of councillors. Senator Walsh and I were members of the North-South body of the Confederation of European Councillors, which lasted for about five years and had the support of the Peace II programme. I ask the Minister to consider putting that issue back on the agenda. We are talking here about North-South relations and where better to start than from the ground up, namely, local authority level up?

The Government is committed to political reform, as outlined in the programme for Government. Consideration will also be given to a reduction from seven to five years in the term of office of the President. The convention is also set to examine the possibility of amending the clause in respect of women in the home. Three or four issues will be examined in that context. There is broad consensus in the House that change needs to happen. However, we need to ensure that in bringing about that change we do not try do so in six minutes or by way of a debate. We must ensure everything is considered. I look forward to the review in that regard.

The Taoiseach has confirmed that the constitutional convention will take place following the presidential election, which will be in the not too distant future. The Government is also committed to holding two referenda, one in respect of the abolition of the Seanad, which is an issue for another date and the other on children's rights. Tá i bhfad níos mó le rá agam, ach níl an t-am agam. Tabharfaidh mé seans labhartha do dhuine éigin eile.

Senator Thomas Byrne

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan, to the House. Like the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan and Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, he is a frequent visitor to this House, for which he deserves praise in comparison with some of his more recalcitrant colleagues.

Molaim Sinn Féin as an rún seo a ardú sa Seanad inniu. Tá áthas orm go bhfuil an rún seo á phlé againn, ach ag an am céanna tá díomá orm go bhfuil Fine Gael ag tarraingt siar ó pholasaí a bhí acu roimh an toghchán. Nil sin ceart. Tacaíonn Fianna Fáil leis an rún go mbronnfar cearta vótála ar shaoránaigh atá ina gcónaí i dTuaisceart na hÉireann agus ar shaoránaigh atá ina gcónaí ar fud an domhain. Tacaíonn Fianna fáil freisin leis an bpróiseas ainmniúcháin don toghchán úachtaránachta a oscailt ionas go mbeidh tuilleadh iarrthóirí ar an bpáipéar ballóide.

Ba é an vóta ar Chonradh Aoine an Chéasta an chéad vóta tras-Teorann, uile-oileáin a bhí againn anseo ón bhliain 1920. Tosaíodh comhlachtaí agus eagrais feidhmiúcháin tras-Teorann ansin, eagrais ar nós Comhairle na nAirí Thuaidh-Theas, a chothaíonn comhoibriú idir Airí ar obair mar iompar, oideachas, sláinte, an comhshaol agus talmhaíocht. Tá roinnt eagrais tras-Teorann ann freisin. Tá cairt cearta d'oileán na hÉireann ann, fóram cathrach againn agus fóram parlaiminteach. Tá neart dul chun cinn déanta ó bhí an vóta againn i 1998, vóta ina raibh gach duine ar an oileán seo páirteach. Tacaíonn Fianna Fáil le dul chun cinn na n-eagras sin agus le leanúint ar aghaidh leis an teagmháil tras-Teorann atá agus a bheidh ar siúl go deo.

Caithfimid tógáil ar an dul chun cinn a tharla ó Chonradh Aoine an Chéasta anuas chun saol na tíre agus an oileáin seo a chur chun cinn. Is ceann de na tréithe den saol daonlathach ná go mbíonn ceart vótála ag na saoránaigh. Glacann na daoine gur stát daonlathach neamhspleách í Éire. Mar sin, táimid ag iarraidh go mbeidh cearta vótála ag saoránaigh i dTuaisceart na hÉireann agus ag saoránaigh na hÉireann ar fud an domhain sa toghchán uachtaránachta. Tá díomá orainn nach bhfuil aon dul chun cinn gur féidir linne a fheiceáil déanta sa treo seo ag an Rialtas. Tá an Rialtas ag tarraingt siar ó na bearta a chuir siad os comhair vótálaithe roimh an toghchán. Tá tuairim agus 3.1 milliún saoránaigh Éireannacha scaipthe ar fud an domhain, ina measc 800,000 a rugadh in Éirinn. Tugann tíortha ar nós an Ghearmáin, an Spáinn agus an Astráil vótaí dá shaoránaigh. I gcás na hAstráile, cuirtear iachall ar shaoránaigh na tíre sin atá ina gcónaí thar lear vótáil ina chuid toghcháin agus feiceann muid na daoine ag feitheamh taobh amuigh den ambasáid chun sin a dhéanamh.

Caithfidh muidne an rud chéanna a dhéanamh, ar a laghad le haghaidh an toghchán uactaránachta. Mar sin, ní bheidh Fianna Fáil ag tacú le leasú an Rialtais. Ní réitíonn sé an fhadhb seo ar chor ar bith. Níl an teachtaireacht a sheolann an leasú ar fud an domhain dearfach ar chor ar bith. Beidh díomá ar ár saoránaigh atá ina gcónaí sa Bhreatain Mhór, i Meiriceá, i Deilí agus i mBéising nach bhfuil an Rialtas seo dearfach i dtaobh na ndaoine sin ná dáiríre faoi chur chun cinn a gcearta. De bharr sin, nílimid ag tacú le leasú an Rialtais.

Senator John Gilroy

I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. We appreciate that he is a frequent visitor.

I will take the opportunity to second and discuss the Government amendment. Given the Sinn Féin motion and the Fianna Fáil amendment, it is interesting that two parties representing strands of Nationalist and republican opinion find it difficult to agree on the nature of Nationalism and republicanism. Neither party holds a monopoly on the views expressed by republicanism.

At first glance, the motion appears simple and abbreviated. It seems to call for an extension of voting rights in the presidential election and a review of the nomination process. If we deconstruct the motion, all sorts of problems arise. They do not relate to the motion itself, but to its construction and the underlying assumptions. I agree with Senator Keane, in that we will only have time to touch on one or two issues, something that the motion's proposers have overlooked.

The proposal that Seanad Éireann "recognises the need to enhance the democratic process on this island" is not contentious. Rather, it and its universal application everywhere else in the world are welcome.

The proposal that the House "recognises the desire to enable northern participation in the political life of the nation, as an important part of the Irish peace process and a natural outworking of the Good Friday Agreement" is vague. The use of the word "nation" makes me suspect that there is more going on with the motion than I can see. Deliberate or not, the vagueness allows for a range of interpretation, as the very idea of what constitutes the nation is contested. One part of Northern Ireland's population regards itself as British and as being of the social, cultural and political fabric of the United Kingdom while another part considers itself Irish. The motion fails to clarify what it is we are discussing when referring to the nation. Even the name is contested, for example, the Six Counties, Ulster, Northern Ireland and the North. The name each speaker uses reveals his or her notions of nationhood.

The third part of the motion "affirms the democratic values of citizenship and equality" and is universally applicable and welcome. The fourth part, which calls for an "extension of voting rights to all Irish citizens in the Six Counties as well as citizens living and working abroad", may not be appropriate for discussion in the House at this time. I say this for several reasons. First, someone who is of a more suspicious or cynical nature than I am might be tempted to view the motion as being politically motivated and as an attempt to use the House's procedures to gain political currency for a particular candidate in a presidential election. I believe it is a happy coincidence that the motion is before the House at this time. However, the cynic might claim that the credentials of the proposers would be more credible were this proposal withheld until after a presidential campaign instead of appearing in the middle of one.

Senator David Cullinane

The Senator should not worry about the cynics. Ignore them.

Senator John Gilroy

Yes. Second, whoever wrote the motion might not be fully familiar with the terms and conditions set out in the Good Friday Agreement. On closer inspection, it appears that whoever wrote the motion has not read the Agreement at all. The principles underlying the Agreement are those of reconciliation, trust and mutual tolerance without an agreed idea of what the nation is. The motion fails to address this concept. Instead of supporting the terms of the Agreement, the motion might even undermine it. Section 5 of the declaration of support states that its signatories will "strive in every practical way towards reconciliation and rapprochement within the framework of democratic and agreed arrangements". For this to happen, it seems odd that a motion proposing changes to a constitutional position should be tabled in the House before being referred to any of the bodies established under the framework of the Agreement to consider and deal with such constitutional issues.

Strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement addresses the establishment of relationships and bringing together those with executive responsibilities in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government. Under part 5 of strand 2, signatories are to use their best endeavours to reach agreement on the adoption of common policies in areas where there is a mutual cross-Border and all-island benefit. The proposal in the motion would benefit from being referred to the forum for discussion before being returned to the House for further consideration.

Given the precedent set by other countries, there is merit in proposing that Irish citizens living abroad be entitled to vote in presidential elections, but our unique experience of our recently troubled past makes this proposal more complicated than it might otherwise prove to be, a fact the motion fails to recognise.

In the programme for Government, the Government has proposed the establishment of a constitutional convention, which will take submissions and consider the ongoing reform of political systems. A review of the process surrounding presidential elections will form part of the latter. As evidence of our commitment to political reform, we can point to the two upcoming constitutional referenda. More locally, I am glad that our commitment extends to allowing Sinn Féin Private Members' time in the House. In previous Seanaid, it would not have been allowed.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

The Senator is gracious.

Senator John Gilroy

It is good for Senator Ó Clochartaigh to be gracious.

I happily second the Government amendment. I am favourably disposed towards the motion in general, but I am unable to support it in its current form. Its full implications have not been fully thought out by the proposers, but I look forward to hearing more during the debate.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. Is mian liom freisin fáilte a chur roimh na hionadaithe atá anseo ón Tuaisceart. Tá seo stairiúil agus ar shlí díríonn sin díreach ar an bpointe cad é atá i gceist sa rún seo. Molaim Sinn Féin freisin toisc an rún a chur os ár gcomhair agus an machnamh agus an taighde atá déanta ag an pháirtí.

Tá seanfhocal ann, ní neart go cur le chéile, agus táimse den tuairim go gcabhródh an rún seo leis an neart sin ar son an náisiúin. Is cuma cá bhfuil na Gaeil bailithe le chéile — sa Tuaisceart, sa Deisceart nó thar lear — is cuid den náisiún iad agus tá sé tábhachtach dúinn a bheith flaithiúil agus praiticiúil. Tá sé tráthúil anois bheith praiticiúil agus flaithiúil leis na daoine seo a raibh neamhaird déanta orthu le blianta fada anuas. Ní féidir linn leanúint ar aghaidh ar an mbóthar sin agus bheadh an-áthas orm dá mbeadh ar ár gcumas inniu aontas a thaispeáint leis an rún agus é a ghlacadh gan aon deighilt nó aon bhriseadh. Táim cinnte go gcuirfeadh sé sin an teachtaireacht cheart amach i measc an phobail.

Tá súil agam, nuair a bheidh an díospóireacht ar siúl againn, go mbeidh seans againn féachaint ar na céimeanna atá tábhachtach chun an sprioc seo a bhaint amach chomh tapaidh agus is féidir. Tá sé tábhachtach gan ligean don ábhar seo dul le sruth, caithfimid díriú air go práinneach agus tá seans ag an Seanad ár neart agus an tábhacht a bhaineann leis an Teach seo a thaispeáint. Bheadh an-díoma orm go pearsanta dá mba rud é nár ghlac muid leis an seans seo chun sin a dhéanamh agus an stair féin a aithint agus a chothú anseo inniu. Sin an chúis go bhfuilimid anseo mar Sheanadóirí.

The motion is not overly prescriptive and is more of a roadmap, but it includes the essence of what we should all be practising. We are all pleased with and proud of the Good Friday Agreement. We have seen what it has done for all people on this island. We have also seen what it has done for the Irish Diaspora. Those of us who have been fortunate enough to travel have had an opportunity to get a sense of Irishness among the Diaspora at first hand, be it in the Bronx, Boston, New York, Chicago, Camden town, Liverpool or elsewhere. This motion refers to the elements of the diaspora with citizenship. They have never lost contact with the homeland. They availed of every opportunity that came their way to promote Ireland and its prosperity and welfare. No one in the House can genuinely believe that President Obama came to Ireland for any reason other than to acknowledge, and benefit from, the Irish constituency in the United States. Nobody can genuinely believe we would have made all the progress we did with the Good Friday Agreement without President Bill Clinton reflecting the Irishness in his country and having hands-on involvement with the Agreement.

For decades through my association with Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann I have had an opportunity to become keenly aware of the manner in which we have treated those who have helped our country at every opportunity, whether in the North or abroad. However, we never availed of opportunities to acknowledge them except in a cosmetic way on St. Patrick's Day. Comhaltas is an all-Ireland movement and it does not matter whether the people in it are from Tyrone or Tralee, they are all Irish. Comhaltas is also organised in 15 countries on four continents, and wherever one goes and meets Irish people, one realises that spiritually and otherwise they are part of the nation. Perhaps we need to make a slight distinction between the nation and the State. The Irish nation is wherever Irish people foregather in the name of Ireland.

We have an opportunity today to acknowledge the manner in which we ignored our people practically and basically in the past. It gives us an opportunity to show a new-found confidence and to underline and strengthen our sovereignty, which is very much in danger. I would like to think that we, like every nation must do, will recognise there is a time in the life of a nation when cohesion, unity and generosity of spirit are essential. This is such a time. It is not a time for partisan politics or for scoring points. It is a time for recognising the antiquity of the nation.

This is also an opportunity to see the progress we have made as a state and once again to tell our young people that in spite of whatever challenges come our way, whether they be economic or human rights issues, we still have the potential to achieve the greatness of those who have sacrificed themselves in the past on our behalf and whom it is hoped we will commemorate rightly and generously in 2016. Young people will look at the deliberations in this House today, and the Seanad as a House of Parliament has an opportunity to show its relevance, its independence and, above all, its non-partisan approach on important issues such as the one before the House today.

Visualise what it would mean to us at the end of the day to have a President elected by all the citizens of Ireland, whatever part of the island they are on and whatever part of the world they are in. We owe it to all these people to do the right thing today. It can do nothing but good for Ireland at home and abroad. I hope, even at this last minute, there is an opportunity to unanimously accept the motion before the House.

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan)

I welcome the debate allowed by the motion tabled by Sinn Féin. Senator Cullinane argued on behalf of Sinn Féin for change in the political system and all its various facets but then advocated no change in the Dáil, not putting to the people a referendum on the Seanad, and no change in local government structures, although much is happening with regard to local government in the North of Ireland where Sinn Féin is in government.

Senator David Cullinane

We do not support the Minister's change. We have proposals of our own.

Deputy Phil Hogan

With regard to local authorities——

Senator David Cullinane

Be factually correct at least.

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister to continue, without interruption.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I think the Senator's party has reduced many local authorities in Northern Ireland.

Senator David Cullinane

No.

Deputy Phil Hogan

I think it has. Check it out.

Senator David Cullinane

We will reduce some here as well.

Deputy Phil Hogan

The subject of today's debate is broad reaching, while focusing on our intentions for constitutional reform in the electoral area. Before addressing this I will make some remarks on the Good Friday Agreement. The Government fully recognises the importance of full implementation of the Agreement in strengthening North-South co-operation and encouraging lasting reconciliation on the island of Ireland. The Agreement sets out a basis for a lasting peace. An important element is the right to self-determination by the citizens of Northern Ireland.

The Agreement does not in itself confer Irish citizenship upon any person. Rather, it binds the Governments to continue to recognise the British and Irish citizenship entitlements of the people of Northern Ireland and, further, to continue to recognise dual citizenship for such persons. Beyond that, domestic Irish law, rather than the Agreement, governs the entitlement to Irish citizenship. Citizenship, however, does not automatically grant voting rights. This is an important clarification in the context of today's debate.

There are areas where further work is required to bring about the full potential of the Good Friday Agreement. One of these is the formation of a North-South parliamentary forum, where representatives of both parliaments North and South can come together to discuss issues of mutual interest. The Ceann Comhairle and the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly, along with the working groups, have already carried out valuable work in this regard, and the conference last year was a step forward. It is important that the North-South parliamentary forum be kept to the fore in any discussion regarding the Agreement. A North-South consultative forum also remains outstanding.

The constitutional convention should examine the local government structures as outlined by Senator Keane on an all-island basis and deepen the relationships between all of the people at local political level across all traditions on the island.

The practical benefits to this island which could be achieved through North-South co-operation are limitless. There are potential benefits to be found in the political, economic and social spheres. The St. Andrew's review of North-South co-operation promises to examine the facets of co-operation as it is and identify new ways forward. It is essential that all stakeholders on both sides of the Border work together to facilitate the review.

Likewise, any review of the Constitution requires the input of many stakeholders. As well as recognising the Government's commitment to constitutional reform, it is important to acknowledge that the Constitution has served all of the people and parties well down the years. However, no Constitution could have anticipated the full extent of the political, economic and social changes that would take place in this country over the more than 70 years since it was framed. For this reason, the reform and renewal of the Constitution is an ongoing process.

The programme for Government commits the Government to introducing specific constitutional reforms during the lifetime of the Government. We have prioritised two referendums — to be voted on later this month — to copperfasten the inherent right of the Oireachtas to inquire into matters of public importance and to ensure that it is permissible to reduce judicial salaries proportionately with salaries elsewhere in the public service. We plan to put other constitutional amendments to the people next year, including the proposed amendment on children's rights.

Various models for reviewing the Constitution have been used here in Ireland and abroad. In Ireland, for example, expert committees have been set up, comprising eminent individuals who used their knowledge and experience to examine various aspects of the Constitution and recommend change. There have also been political fora, through formal Oireachtas joint committees and informal all-party committees, to examine both general constitutional reform and specific issues in a non-partisan way and to bring forward appropriate proposals for change.

Other countries, such as Canada and Iceland, have used citizens' assemblies as a forum for considering constitutional change. Here in Ireland, the Government has given a commitment in the programme for Government to establish a constitutional convention. This will examine the Dáil electoral system; a provision for same-sex marriage; amending the clause on the role of women in the home and encouraging greater participation of women in public life; removing blasphemy from the Constitution; and the possible reduction of the voting age to 17 years.

The convention will also be asked to examine reducing the presidential term to five years and aligning it with the local and European elections. The question of how the convention will be set up and how it will operate is being considered. The Government will be bringing forward proposals on its terms of reference, composition and structure after the forthcoming referenda and the presidential election. As the motion suggests, I do not wish to pre-empt the work of the constitutional convention but I will make some remarks on two topical issues that may come to be considered by the convention which are the presidential election nomination process and the voting rights of citizens.

During the nomination period for the 2011 presidential election there was discussion about the need to reform the process. However, constructive and meaningful alternatives have not been proposed. One suggestion was a type of citizen petition process whereby a candidate would have to collect 10,000 or more citizens' signatures. The practicalities of verifying thousands of signatures to ensure the validity of such a process does not seem to have been given any serious thought. Neither does any consideration seem to have been given as to how the number of candidates might be limited in some way so as to guard against an unmanageable election process. I understand that Finland and Portugal have systems in place and these might serve as useful models for comparison.

By contrast, some have argued that the existing process has worked well in 2011. There has been much increased activity in city and county councils compared with previous nomination processes. Many councils listened to presentations from several people seeking nominations other than those whose names are now on the ballot paper. In considering any alternative to the current nomination process, it would be important to give careful consideration to any suggestion that this important constitutional role be taken away from elected members of city and county councils.

The presidential nomination process was considered in the 1996 report of the Constitution review group and also by the all-party Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Constitution. In its third progress report that committee recommended that provision should be made for popular nomination in addition to nomination by elected members. In making that recommendation the committee believed that while the nomination procedure would involve practical difficulties and extra expense, it would be feasible. Reform of the presidential election nomination process would require constitutional amendment. In the event that a constitutional convention is tasked with considering the nomination provisions, I look forward to the outcome of those deliberations.

The question of voting by Irish citizens other than those resident in a constituency is not new. It has been the subject of much consideration and deliberation over the years. Senators will be aware that in order to vote, a person's name must be entered in the register of electors for a constituency in the State in which a person ordinarily resides; citizenship alone does not confer voting rights. The extending of voting rights would, therefore, require careful consideration of a range of complex matters of principle and practicality. These include a decision on which citizens should be entitled to vote from abroad. The Diaspora is extensive. Consideration would need to be given to the potential impact of many thousands of voters living outside the jurisdiction on the outcome of elections and referenda. More practical concerns about the costs of implementation and the integrity and security of the ballot would also need to be examined to ensure that decisions on change are fully informed.

I appreciate that the immediate concern of some Senators is to extend the franchise in presidential elections. Article 12.2.20o of the Constitution links the right to vote at presidential elections to the right to vote at Dáil elections. If a separate regime is to be considered for presidential elections then perhaps the question of extending the franchise at presidential elections should also be considered by the constitutional convention. As I have outlined and as is stated in the Government motion before the House today, the Government is committed to reform.

The programme for Government outlined an ambitious programme for constitutional, political and electoral reform. The Government has committed to a radical overhaul of the way Irish politics and Government work. Already we have cut the pay of the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and Ministers, halved the cost of ministerial transport, outlined the provisions in new legislation being drafted that will effectively ban corporate political donations, and promised new legislation to cut the number of Deputies at the next election. We have promised to hold a referendum on the future of the Seanad and we want to ensure greater female participation in politics. We have cut the number of Dáil committees. We have restructured local government and given certainty and a time limit of six months on the holding of by-elections.

A number of the wide-ranging commitments are within my areas of responsibility as Minister and some have been implemented. I am committed to continuing to work with my Government colleagues and all Oireachtas Members to realise our ambitious electoral reform programme. As regards this motion, I would have hoped that we could agree to examine all the issues in respect of the Constitution and the most appropriate way to deal with these issues is by means of the constitutional convention where all the complex issues could be teased out in an open and inclusive manner by all stakeholders.

Senator John Crown

I have held the view since before I had the privilege of entering this House that the Constitution is badly broken and that it needs fixing. It is broken at a number of levels. As I said in my election literature, I believe the Seanad, as currently constituted, is an affront to democracy. I also believe there are significant problems in respect of the other House, the Dáil, which is composed largely of people who deal exclusively with local concerns, laying a heavy emphasis on parochialism, as opposed to people who can give serious consideration to questions of national interest. I mean no disrespect to the Minister or to any Ministers who have visited this House, when I say that certainly at least in theory, the talent pool from which ministerial rank is chosen, is greatly compromised by limiting it to people whose primary qualification is the ability to negotiate constituency organisations and to get their names on the ballot papers to represent the major parties.

The presidential election process, as we have seen amply demonstrated for several months, is in urgent need of reform. The policy statements from various members of the Government in advance of constitutional fora, make the argument that the Seanad should be abolished and the Dáil should be reduced in size. Such actions would fix none of the major problems and would instead cause additional problems. The Seanad needs to be reformed, not abolished and merely reducing the size of the Dáil will have the effect of making even smaller and shallower the talent pool available from which to choose the people who run the country. I do not see the logic of this argument.

The problem is exemplified in the response to this good Sinn Féin motion and a Fianna Fáil amendment which adds to the strength of the spirit of the motion which is that we cannot fix anything until we fix everything, that this issue cannot be addressed until all the constitutional issues are addressed at once.

I have worked in the health service and I have heard this one trotted out time after time, "We have a committee dealing with this"; "There will be a forum dealing with this"; "There will be a new entity dealing with this"; "There will be a new agency dealing with it". The result is complete administrative paralysis when it comes to fixing things. I hope that in the term of this Seanad and once the health service is reformed — constitutional reform is the second biggest item on my agenda — I hope we can grapple with serious issues of constitutional reform and leave Oireachtas Éireann in better shape than when we found it when we were elected to office in 2011. However, I am not overly confident that the wheels of government will move sufficiently quickly to have this happening in real time. Does this mean we cannot consider reasonable motions and amendments that may fix problems one problem at a time? The answer is "No".

I am in an intermediate position. In my heart I am a little nervous about people who do not have a full stake in our society and committed to living in our society having the same say in the governance of the society as people who live here but I acknowledge the peculiarities both in terms of the cross-Border nature of our society and the divided loyalties which exist. In my heart I believe these two loyalties to be entirely morally neutral. There is not one scrap of moral superiority for the notion of Nationalism over Unionism or for Unionism over Nationalism as they are two separate identities which happen to co-inhabit the same island. Acknowledging the real limitations of the role of the President I think it would provide symbolism for the greater Irish nation for us to extend the franchise. We tend to think of Northern Nationalists in this regard but I would hope that Northern Unionists would take part in the process of voting in the presidential election. I hope that in doing so they would not have to renounce any Britishness they feel nor that they would have to take out Irish passports in order to do so, that they would have the same rights as anyone born in this island. For that reason, with no disrespect to my Sinn Féin colleagues who have tabled a good motion, it has been enhanced by the Fianna Fáil amendment. I urge support for the motion and the amendment. I thank those who tabled both.

Senator Pat O’Neill

I welcome the Minister to the House. I will focus on similar points to Senator Crown with regard to the rights of Northern citizens to vote in the Republic. While the reform of the presidential nomination system is a welcome suggestion and I support the full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I wish to focus on the idea of extending voting rights to the Six Counties and Irish citizens living abroad. Currently 115 countries have systems in place to allow emigrants to vote. Ireland is somewhat of an anomaly in this regard but there are reasons.

The hopes of a lasting reconciliation in the North could be disrupted by any attempt to draw its citizens into the political process of the Republic. Northern Ireland has been a powder keg until quite recently — too recently, in fact. Only last Friday, a live bomb had to be disarmed in the centre of Belfast in an area populated with bars and restaurants. In April, dissident republicans sank so low as to force the town of Omagh to revisit the horrors of the Troubles with the murder of Constable Ronan Kerr. The two communities which still dominate in Northern Ireland society do not represent views conducive to our system of governance here in the South.

Republicans from Northern Ireland would be likely to vote in line with those candidates who promise a 32-county Republic. Loyalists and Unionists would feel threatened by the idea of a 32-county Republic and the government that runs it and might disrupt the political process.

Rather than further the realisation of the Good Friday Agreement, this proposal has the potential to damage it beyond repair, by reigniting old worries of loyalists and Unionists in the North. Would it not be seen as a stepping stone towards a united Ireland if Northern citizens elected representatives for the South? The proposal threatens to derail both the peace process and cross-Border relations on this island.

While Irish people outside the Republic of Ireland read and hear about the political system in Ireland, Irish residents live with it. Let us not underestimate the difference between our political focus and the focus of residents in Northern Ireland. Economic recovery is a primary focus of the Republic of Ireland. The decisions about our leadership should be made by the people for whom the difficulties of our economic situation are a daily reality, namely the residents of the Republic of Ireland.

Another major factor is that Irish governance is based on local representation and the constituency is, for better or worse, an important part of our system. An elected Irish official would have no power over the jurisdiction in which the people of Northern Ireland live. Therefore, their voting in the Republic does not make sense.

I look forward to the establishment of a constitutional convention as promised in the programme for Government and the fundamental reformation of the presidential nomination process. However, the extension of voting rights to the citizens of Northern Ireland is not the way to go. While the idea may be to create further unity on the island, the reality is it will only make old divisions more entrenched. I support the Government amendment to the motion.

Senator Jim Walsh

Aontaím leis na Seanadóirí eile a mhol Sinn Féin as an rún seo a ardú. Díospóireacht an-tábhachtach í seo ach cé go bhfuilimid ag cuidiú leis an rún, ní aontaím le gach rud atá ann.

I note in particular that reform of the nomination process is part of the Sinn Féin motion and also part of the Fianna Fáil amendment. There is nothing wrong with the nomination process. One candidate who is a Member of this House only sought a nomination a week before the deadline and got the nomination. What has happened is that the media has generated the notion about the difficulty with the process because its favoured candidate had great difficulty — for good reason — getting nominated. We should have some scrutiny within the system and it should not be open to everybody to put his or her name forward to be president. There should be some evaluation of the candidates and that was done and done well by both the Members of this House and those in the local government system.

I am reminded of the tyranny of political correctness, which is often driven by the 94th estate. It moved from the Fourth Estate to the 94th estate by the manner in which it deals with issues of significant national importance. Politicians are generally too afraid to say this because of fear of criticism. Unfortunately, it brings everything to far too low a common denominator.

The Minister made a good point about the number of candidates. In the debates we have had to date, due to the fact there are seven candidates there has been insufficient scrutiny for people to evaluate the candidates. Evaluation of the candidates is important because the Presidency is an important position. In other countries where there is a large number of candidates, there is a run-off and the stronger candidates then end up more in the public spotlight for the final debates and election process. Perhaps we should consider that suggestion.

Commitment to constitutional reform is part of the Government amendment, but I have seen no evidence of it. All I have seen is a populist and superficial approach, based on numerical changes. The Presidency is a role that should be strengthened. Currently it is very much a ceremonial role and an important ambassadorial role in representing the country abroad. There is a need for whoever is in the position today to be an inspiration for the people at home because of the personal difficulties people are encountering. It should go even further than that. The role is currently very constrained. Why does the President not have the power to nominate two or three Ministers? That happens in Georgia, where the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs are nominated by the president, while the head of government selects the rest. There is no reason suggestions like this should not be considered.

I have been struck since the economic crisis emerged in 2008 that we have been crying out for some form of national government to give leadership and consensus in steering us through our difficulties. Why has this not happened? It has not happened because of the political perception on both the Government and the Opposition side. They avoided what was a perceived political advantage. There is no reason the President would not be in a position in a time of national emergency to ensure a national government was formed and that he or she would have a role to play in that regard. However, politicians are slow to pass such powers.

I have criticised the Government for its superficial approach to reform. The announcement made with regard to the abolition of this House was a clear example of populist politics at its worst. The announcement was made at a party dinner when stuck for something better to grab the headlines. The abolition of the Seanad seemed a good choice at the time, although no research or evaluation had been done. If the economic crisis has taught us anything, it has surely taught us that instead of less scrutiny of Government policy, we need to be more diligent in the manner in which we scrutinise the Executive. I will return to this issue shortly.

I agree with the all-island approach to the Presidency. It should start with the Seanad. Senator Cáit Keane mentioned the Confederation of European Councillors, which we established in 2000 having been working on it throughout the 1990s. Many Unionist politicians participated in it and they would gladly have been prepared to be members and debate in this House on an all-island basis but only on the basis that there would be sufficient numbers of them that they would not be picked off within their communities as a consequence of doing this. That would enhance the peace process and bring greater harmony and cohesiveness to the evolution of policy in the interests of all people on this island. We have a significant common purpose in that regard.

I am sorry the Minister is not here to hear what I have to say. All we have heard to date with regard to local government reform is the rationalisation of some city councils. I understand it is the Minister's intention to abolish town councils but that has not been said. All the amendment deals with is government. Why are we not talking about the devolution of powers, which could be done more cost effectively and more efficiently at local government level? Why are we not rebalancing powers between the Executive and the elected Members who have the responsibility and the mandate from the public? Why are we not looking at the more independent financial streams and getting the structures and resources to back the councils?

Why is there no talk of Dáil reform? The only reform proposal we have had from the Government is to reduce by six or a few more the number of seats. There has been nothing about the fact that 15 people out of 226 within the membership of these Houses dictate the business of the Houses and dictate all decisions and outcomes. As a consequence, there is a failure to have clear, independent, impartial debate of public policy to ensure we have the balance and scrutiny which should exist in any democratic process. That is missing from the framework and there is little to advance it.

This is the type of debate we need to have on a continuing basis. However, we should not just focus on the Presidency but on all the institutions of State, in particular the Houses of the Oireachtas, in order that we have a more robust and effective forum at which all policies can be measured in order that they benefit and enhance decisions. The people of this island are looking to us for that kind of leadership, but I do not see it coming from the Government. I will welcome and acknowledge the day I recognise it is moving in that direction.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, but I am sorry the Minister, Deputy Hogan, has left the House. He made a valuable contribution. I agree with the Government amendment. As someone who lives in and was brought up in a Border county, I find it partitionist of Sinn Féin to say it wants votes to run the South. I live in Donegal and the decisions made in Derry and Belfast are relevant to Donegal, such as the decision by Stormont to close the rail line that ran from Derry to Belfast. People in Donegal should have the right to be involved in such decisions. Sinn Féin has never said that Donegal citizens should have a right to vote in local elections in Derry and in Northern Ireland Assembly and Westminster elections. Those decisions are very relevant. In the election month, it is very easy to say that Sinn Féin wants people from Northern Ireland to vote in the presidential election——

Senator David Cullinane

The point is that it is their right. Is the Senator saying that it is not their right? He is talking nonsense.

Senator Jimmy Harte

If the Senator will allow me to finish, I will give him a point of information on Martin McGuinness, who does not stand in his own city for election to Westminster because he has been defeated three times. He has moved out and he does not give the people of Derry city the right to vote for him. They have a right to vote for himbut he does not stand in his own city. There is no point in saying that the people ofNorthern Ireland cannot vote for him in this election. The people of the Bogside cannot vote for him.

Senator Rónán Mullen

They gave him a good send-off.

Senator Jimmy Harte

The Nationalist population of Derry and all shades of opinion in Derry rejected the politics of Sinn Féin when it came to——

Senator David Cullinane

Over 60% of the Nationalist people of the North voted for Sinn Féin in the last Assembly elections. They gave Martin McGuinness their endorsement; therefore, the Senator should not give us any nonsense about elections. If we are going to listen to nonsense, I must respond to it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator will have time to sum up his arguments. Senator Harte to continue, without interruption.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I am not talking nonsense, I am talking facts.

Senator David Cullinane

The Senator is not talking facts.

Senator Jimmy Harte

Is it correct that Martin McGuinness does not stand for election in Derry?

Senator David Cullinane

That is not an issue. Martin McGuinness chose to stand and was elected in Mid-Ulster.

Senator Jimmy Harte

It is a fact and we can move on from the issue but I wanted to point it out.

On the question of extending the Irish presidential franchise throughout the world, I do not know how many potential Irish citizens are across the globe. In America, some 30 million people claim Irish descent. Extending it throughout the world might amount to 60 million people. No one living in Ireland would have a hope in hell of getting elected as President if some lobby group in the US decided to stand a candidate. They could raise 1 million or 2 million votes for the candidate and it is potentially dangerous.

The motion does not consider the many thousands of people who pay tax and are living in this country but who are not Irish citizens. They are from European countries and they have a bigger role in the future of Ireland than some guy living in California or the Bronx, who might have no interest in Ireland apart from running around on St. Patrick's Day with a hat on.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

But the Senator would let them play for the Irish football team.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I am sure they would play if they were good enough. I have no problem extending the vote for the presidential election across the Border but we must decide on the new nation in this country, which is not just pure Irish. Many of them have come here to live and many of them are married to Irish people with Irish children who were born here. They are told they are only allowed to vote in local elections, not in general elections or presidential elections. They are contributing to the economy. They have come here of their own free will and they are paying tax here. Their future is here and to tell them that we do not want them to vote but we want someone living in Sydney, whose grandfather was Irish, to have a say in our future is not correct.

The system of presidential nomination is not flawed. The only two bodies that are disappointed they could not nominate a presidential candidate are RTE and the Sunday Independent. Both organisations felt they had the right to do so. This system might not be perfect but the alternative might be far worse. Anyone who was serious about standing for presidential election was allowed to do it. A few people were sending e-mails around but I had never heard of them and I do not think they were serious. Anyone who made a serious pitch to be a presidential candidate is now on the ballot paper. That is democracy in action. If we let everyone run, it would be a total mess. I welcome this motion, even though I am not sure how it would pan out in the future. I would like to see citizens throughout the country having their say in the presidential elections. In addition, people in Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan and perhaps Louth should have a say in what happens in Northern Ireland. I have been at cross-Border meetings where, when it came to voting, my colleagues on Donegal County Council lined up as Derry versus Donegal. There was no other agenda, as other Members have seen.

Senator David Cullinane

In a united Ireland, we will all be able to vote in one Parliament.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I welcome the debate but I will support the Government amendment.

Senator Rónán Mullen

Tréaslaím le mo chomhghleacaithe ó Shinn Féin as an rún seo a chur faoinár mbráid inniu. Tá sé tábhachtach plé a dhéanamh ar na ceisteanna tábhachtacha seo ag an bpointe seo. I congratulate my colleagues from the Sinn Féin Party for putting this matter forward for discussion. I had some conversations with the party yesterday and, the more I read it, the more I feel it is not what we require. In saying that, I am not particularly impressed with the amendments from the Government or the Fianna Fáil Party. I will vote to leave matters as they are but perhaps we can have further discussion, taking into account other matters that have been ignored.

I want to focus on two points in the Sinn Féin motion, the first of which is that Seanad Éireann "affirms the democratic values of citizenship and equality that define our nation and people". At first blush, it seems reasonable but on further analysis it is a narrow view of what defines us. The preamble to the Constitution refers to we, the people of Éire, "seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations".

Without prudence, justice and charity, notions such as citizenship and equality are empty and indeterminate values. They can as easily justify Leninism as they can various forms of democracy, by which I mean liberal democracy, social democracy and Christian democracy. The Constitution, with its invocation of the dignity of the individual, has proved to be an enormously progressive and positive influence on many other constitutions and other human rights manifestoes. Human equality as a notion makes no rational sense unless one accepts the dignity of each and every human being. Human dignity and the inalienable and imprescriptable natural rights acknowledged by the Constitution owe their ultimate source in the Constitution, as the preamble testifies, to our divine origin and end. We need to find some way going forward, to use that awful phrase, to think about how we can maintain those deep values in the changed society that is Ireland, without losing the profound basis for the values the Constitution recognises and guarantees.

The proposal that Seanad Éireann "calls for a thorough review and reform of the nomination process for presidential elections" has naturally attracted much comment here today. What is the reason for this measure? Is it simply about good PR or unprincipled populism or is there a genuine political reason for wanting to reform the nomination process? As a matter of principle, there must be some such process in place; otherwise, an unlimited number of persons may run for the office without any test as to their suitability to run. Clearly, no one wishes to see the spectacle of hundreds of names on the ballot paper but neither should we be unconcerned about the calibre of the persons eligible or deemed to be eligible to run for the highest, most esteemed and most symbolic office in the land. All presidential candidates should meet some prior criteria. This is precisely what the present constitutional arrangement prescribes. Implicit in the most common argument against our current procedures, the argument that we should let the people decide, is the view that there should be no prior criteria met before a person can run for the highest office. I do not think it is possible to justify such an assumption rationally.

I am open to the possibility that, accepting there must be a nominating process to determine the suitability of prospective candidates, our current arrangement is not the optimal solution but this case must be made with argument and evidence. I find it difficult to accept that democratically elected Members of the Oireachtas should have no role in such a process. Assuming they are not to have a role in the future, how would we determine suitability? Should it be done by payment? That is outrageous. Should we use opinion polls? The Sunday Independent and other campaigning media outlets would love that but transitory, and often poorly conducted, opinion polling is a poor basis upon which to form a key political decision. What about a petition of 10,000 signatures? Aside from it being clearly open to widespread abuse, there is some plausibility to the proposal but only as an aspect of the process and not as the sum total of the process. If all that was required was that a prospective candidate gained, say, 10,000 signatures, that would open up the possibility of bribery rather than an assessment of genuine suitability. However, if the petition system was to be combined with the current system, it might work. Without 10,000 signatures, a prospective candidate would be required to obtain 20 Oireachtas signatures or four council nominations, but perhaps with 10,000 signatures, a prospective candidate would be required to obtain a lower number of nominations, perhaps from 15 Oireachtas Members or two councils. There is a similar system in Slovakia, where a prospective candidate requires either the signatures of 15 MPs or a certain amount of signatures from a petitions committee.

This is all speculative. I maintain that the current provision which requires candidates to obtain either Oireachtas signatures or council majorities is reasonable. Both of these groups are democratically elected, after all, and despite their flaws they represent their constituencies and communities. Even if one thinks there is a certain Oireachtas elitism or that Members are out of touch with ordinary citizens, it is harder to lay such a criticism at the door of councillors, whose primary work involves them in the community for the common good.

We have all seen how things have evolved so far and received many e-mails and messages, mainly polite, encouraging us to let the people decide. However, we should be slow to abandon the role the Constitution has entrusted to us, which is to make a judgment on whether we would like or be happy to see a particular person as President. Unless we can say one or the other, we should be slow to nominate a candidate.

We are now experimenting with a new kind of presidential election, with seven people on the ballot paper. It is showing itself to be not entirely unproblematic. Not least in terms of the media coverage, the number of people involved has its unsatisfactory dimension as well as its apparent inclusiveness. It may well be that we will consider in the future that two or three is the right number of candidates. Alternatively, we may have to consider a run-off system in which we have a first-round election followed by a run-off between the top two candidates. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.

Senator Mary M. White

I welcome my friend Caitríona Ruane, a former Minister for Education in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and acknowledge her serious contribution to the peace process on this island. I compliment Sinn Féin on its timely tabling of this important motion and I am pleased that my party, Fianna Fáil, is supporting it.

The Good Friday Agreement was driven by the Fianna Fáil Party. I was privileged to be on the Fianna Fáil national executive when Albert Reynolds started to engage seriously with the different groups in the North, inviting those involved in the strife on both sides to come on board and work towards a peaceful solution.

As my colleagues Senator Mullen and Senator Walsh said, this presidential election is being driven by the media. Whoever they want to have running for the Áras is more important than what the people want. They are calling the shots. The media are driving the agenda for this presidential election. They have their pets whom they want elected, but they have issues with people such as Martin McGuinness. They do not want him and will not acknowledge his contribution to the peace process on the island. Many of them have never spent a day in the North. They have no feeling or empathy for the lives of the people in the republican and Nationalist communities. They have absolutely no understanding of what the people in the North went through.

President Mary McAleese is a woman from the North and we have Martin McGuinness as a candidate from the North. I cannot see why the people of Northern Ireland, who are allowed under the Good Friday Agreement to hold Irish passports — under the Agreement, each person has the choice of being a British or an Irish citizen — cannot vote in the presidential election. I always found it extraordinary that President McAleese could not vote for herself in previous elections.

I admire the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, who is a good person and has integrity, but I have a problem with some parts of his speech, which were written by a technocrat. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to the words I am using. He stated that new legislation would cut the number of Deputies at the next election and that the Government would hold a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad and cut the number of Dáil committees. I do not want to hear about the abolition of the Seanad any more. I know my colleagues in Fine Gael, who were in opposition at the time, were shocked when Deputy Enda Kenny proposed that he would abolish the Seanad in government. They were as shocked as we were. Senator Keane might not like to hear me say that, but it is a fact. They were shocked that Deputy Kenny opportunistically raised it. How dare somebody use——

An Cathaoirleach

I ask the Senator to refer to him as the Taoiseach.

Senator Mary M. White

It is insulting to everybody here. We are not worth anything. A technocrat talks about "abolition of the Seanad". We all want reform of the Seanad, for which we have called for many years.

I am privileged to be on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement and the 1916 commemoration committee. On the latter committee, we will be working with people in the North, including Unionists and loyalists, to commemorate their events. Under the Good Friday Agreement, I was asked by President McAleese to include Northern Ireland in the Gaisce award process and, against all the odds, I drove that. I would have walked barefoot to achieve it. The Nationalists and republicans who did not want to participate in the Duke of Edinburgh Award were eventually, due to my initiative and work on the ground, able to participate in the Gaisce award. President McAleese was able to come to Northern Ireland and award the Irish President's award to Nationalists and republicans. I was able to do that under the Good Friday Agreement.

On my own initiative, I then set up an all-Ireland inspirational life award for older people. I initiated this two years ago, and many people from the North have been thrilled to come to Leinster House to receive my award and acknowledge our participation. One man from Derry has a picture on his bedroom wall of his meeting in Leinster House. The man, who is a republican and a Nationalist, was so moved. These people, if I can say it again, look to us as their legitimate Government. This is their home. Unfortunately, we have turned our backs on them for too long.

I see this as a good idea. Politics should be about vision and changing society, not boring, slow movement only when it is appropriate. I will take the opportunity to say again that Albert Reynolds had the courage to put the screws on the British Government and he was fully supported by President Clinton. If Albert Reynolds had not driven it, we would not have had a peace process.

Senator Martin Conway

It is useful to have a debate on political reform because we must always ask ourselves how we can do our business better. I have to agree with previous speakers that politics in this country has not worked in the past ten years. I agree with the suggestion that we are over-represented. I know people do not like to hear that, but I do believe that 166 Deputies are too many for a country our size. I commend the Minister for at least having made a start on political reform within months of entering office.

The Good Friday Agreement is an important document that was passed almost unanimously by the people, I believe the "Yes" vote was over 85% of those who voted. It set an important framework for progress and we have seen the benefits of it.

In terms of where we go from here, what the Government is proposing in its amendment is very prudent. The constitutional convention — the first such body to be established in a long time — will examine our electoral system in a root and branch fashion. If the debate on the abolition of the Seanad does nothing other than encourage discussion, it will have done enough. We are all in agreement that the Seanad has not worked in recent years. A former Senator, Leader of the House and Leader of the Opposition, now President of the Human Rights Commission, Dr. Maurice Manning, offered an interesting critique in the Chamber last week of the history of the House, dating back to the 1922 Seanad. The latter epitomised everything that was good about an Upper House in terms of the individuals concerned, the broad spectrum of opinion and the various interests represented.

The 1937 Constitution created the House we have today. As Dr. Manning observed, fantastic people have served on all sides of the House through the years, including such illustrious individuals as the late Gordon Wilson. However, the reality for this country today is that we are no longer in control of our financial sovereignty. As such, we are obliged to examine every form and aspect of society to see where savings can be made and how every element of the State can work better. It is possible to have a political and administrative system which is more efficient and less costly for citizens.

The constitutional convention will create a national conversation in which people from all walks of life can engage. Let the report be a framework for progress that will assist in dealing with the problems our country faces. We must also seek to make politics more relevant, particularly for younger people. Unfortunately, my generation and those which follow are extremely apathetic. The percentage of young people who turn out to vote is a cause of great concern. These are the future leaders of our society. I would favour an examination by the constitutional convention of all aspects of our political system, including not only the system of Seanad elections, but also the system of proportional representation using the single transferable vote, PR-STV, for Dáil elections. As part of this we should examine best international practice and look to what our European colleagues are doing.

I am confident the Government will not allow another report on reform to gather dust. The Government has already proved from the initiatives it has taken since taking office that when a report is produced, its recommendations will be implemented. We are at a crucial time in our history and entering a crucial time in our politics. The constitutional convention will frame politics for the next 100 years. We must get it right by ensuring there is full inclusiveness, with people from all aspects of society involved in the process. Let the national conversation begin with a view to attaining better politics and a far better country.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I welcome the imminent constitutional convention. It is gratifying to see the extent of the restoration of democracy at Stormont. During a recent visit there, I listened to the Minister for Education, Mr. John O'Dowd, answering questions in the Chamber. It recalled for me the hope expressed by George Mitchell that he would one day bring his son to the Visitors Gallery in Stormont and hear parliamentarians discussing not Northern Ireland's constitutional position, but education and health issues. How well that Parliament is working is a credit to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. It has opened up possibilities of further developments, as in the constitutional convention.

The constituency I represent, the University of Dublin, includes a substantial number of Northern Ireland voters who identify themselves as citizens of the United Kingdom but who nevertheless are happy to vote in the Seanad election because of the historical connection between this House and Trinity College. The Irish rugby team is another institution which is able to command dual loyalty from people who are Unionist in their day-to-day lives but staunch Ireland supporters at the weekend. We must develop more institutions where that dual loyalty is possible and encouraged. We all admire the Irish Rugby Football Union for the way in which it has managed to achieve this through all the difficulties we have had in this country. I would like to see Trinity College, as an institution which commands strong loyalty from both communities on this island, to do more in this regard. We have let some of that slip in recent times.

Dublin Castle is another valuable institution in the loyalties of the Unionist community. For the leaders of the Unionist community who attended the recent reception for the Queen in that building, it was a reminder of a different type of Ireland which they may perhaps have realised was available under the fifth Home Rule Bill but which they decided not to accept. There are many people of the Unionist tradition who are as strongly of the view as their republican counterparts that the partition of this island was a disaster for their respective communities. The constitutional convention should seek a substantial membership from within the Unionist community and from the Alliance Party. These are the people with whom we must engage if we are to redefine relationships between both of the traditions on this island.

It is a contradiction we must live with that there are people who are simultaneously proud to be Irish and have a loyalty to the United Kingdom. We must devise political institutions which reflect that. The motion put forward by Senators Reilly, Cullinane and Ó Clochartaigh would be improved by proposing that eligibility to vote in presidential elections be extended not only to Irish citizens in Northern Ireland but also to members of the Unionist community who might like to have a say in who is the next President of Ireland. The reference to "Irish citizens" might present a difficulty, although many Unionists I have encountered seem willing to overcome concerns in this regard when it comes to voting in the University of Dublin Seanad constituency. However, there are some who would be somewhat reluctant to sign up to documents which would be based in the State. Nevertheless, the success of Northern Ireland's restored Parliament is most encouraging as we look to devise new forms of governance. It may be that as we evolve such forms of governance for the entire island, representation in the Seanad for those who might not yet be attracted to the Dáil will become a possibility. The great Gordon Wilson comes to mind in this regard.

I commend the motion before the House. It is up to all Members, and to our colleagues in Stormont, to work out new constitutional arrangements for the island of Ireland and to build on the progress of recent years. It is a tragedy that after 1922, it was not until the 1960s that people like Whitaker and Lemass began to question why the two parts of Ireland did not talk to each other. This was in contrast with how quickly the European Union began to mend fences in Europe after the Second World War. We ignored each other for too long. Bringing people together, as this motion proposes and as the Minister intends, is the way forward. The momentum has to be maintained and should be on the agenda, as the motion suggests, for the forthcoming constitutional convention.

Senator Paschal Mooney

For all of the speakers on both sides this is an important debate and I applaud Sinn Féin for having tabled the motion. The current debate on the Presidency is timely in that the addition of a Sinn Féin candidate has opened up the entire debate and reopened the debate on Northern Ireland. Those of us who live in the South, and particularly those who live in the Border counties, held the view that their were three different strands of opinion on the approach to Northern Ireland. One was the obvious reaction and response of those who lived within the Six Counties, depending on which side of the tribal divide shaped one's opinions and influences and, perhaps, one's prejudices. Then there were those of us along the Border counties who regularly traversed North-South, such as my own family who have family connections in County Fermanagh. The same would be true of a large majority of people across the six southern Border counties. We were constantly travelling over and back and much dialogue took place at that time. Our perceptions were shaped by that experience. The rest of Ireland, to a large extent, appears to have effectively ignored Northern Ireland. During the period of the Troubles from 1969 onwards there were references to the effect that one could be towed out to the North Sea and dumped and forgotten about. There was a very strong partitionist view which had been shaped by successive Administrations, which had consolidated what had happened post-treaty, the late Seán Healy used to refer to them as verbal republicans, they paid lip-service to and spoke about a united Ireland and the restoration of the fourth green field. Within Fianna Fáil itself, a view was often expressed that Eamon de Valera, despite his rhetoric, through legislation, consolidated the situation, in other words, "We have what we hold or we hold what we have", while at the same time hoping that something positive would develop. This did not happen until the Lemass years. Senator Barrett is absolutely correct. If we have learned anything from the peace process it is the re-establishment of dialogue between both sides. I do not want to use up my time going into history but I must highlight what appears to be a revisionist approach to the recent history of Northern Ireland and the troubled history of relations between Unionists and Nationalists and between North and South.

This morning I listened to two journalists both from Northern Ireland and obviously from the Nationalist tradition, Martina Devlin and Justine McCarthy. Both said that Martin McGuinness of Sinn Féin had brought peace to Northern Ireland. I have not heard any public references to the role that John Hume, Seamus Mallon and the SDLP have played.

Senator Cáit Keane

Hear, hear.

Senator John Gilroy

Hear, hear.

Senator Paschal Mooney

All we have heard is the particular narrative that the war was justified because of discrimination, that there was no alternative for the Nationalist people of Northern Ireland but to take up the gun. Where does that leave those who pursued the constitutional Nationalist narrrative? Are they to be consigned to the dustbin of history as if they do not count and that in the new Ireland, Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams were solely responsible for taking Northern Nationalists out of squalor, prejudice, discrimination and so on? I have a real difficulty about that. I am sad — Senator Conway referred to his generation — that the generation before him, the younger people, seem to have no understanding and are accepting this particular historical narrative. I do not wish to be critical of the role or the contribution that Sinn Féin has made and continues to make to the peace process. Sinn Féin is working it, for which we applaud it.

There is also a view of the enormous economic damage the IRA campaign did not only to this island but also to the perception abroad that we were nothing more than a bunch of people who like fighting among each other. It did enormous damage to job creation, tourism and the widespread perception which is not talked about. When people like me make these comments we are immediately accused of looking backwards as, after all, history starts from now and, therefore, we should only think forward, and also that there are former terrorists who became leaders — one can quote them from all over the world.

That is not the point I am making. I applaud and welcome the fact that my party was directly involved in trying to encourage the men of violence to come into the political mainstream.

Senator David Cullinane

Of course, we were founded by people who were a minority who engaged in——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Mooney to continue, without interruption.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I wish to devote some of my time to the War of Independence. Constant comparisons are being made to the War of Independence. The War of Independence——

Senator David Cullinane

The 1916 Rising.

An Cathaoirleach

Please, Senator Cullinane.

Senator Paschal Mooney

——was supported by the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland. The war in the North, as the Senator calls it, was not supported by the overwhelming majority of the Nationalist population in Northern Ireland. That is the simple historical fact and the Senator can change it any way he wishes.

Senator John Gilroy

Hear, hear.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I wish to record——

Senator David Cullinane

That was the 1916 Rising. There was no support for it.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I accept that.

Senator David Cullinane

That is great. That was the comparison. The mandate that Sinn Féin has now is very——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Cullinane——

Senator Paschal Mooney

I am not going to take a lecture on history.

Senator David Cullinane

The Senator is rewriting history from his own perspective.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I am not rewriting history.

Senator David Cullinane

And the 1916 Rising——

An Cathaoirleach

I ask Senator Mooney to conclude without interruption.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Considering that the party of which Senator Cullinane is a member is a past master at rewriting history I am not taking a lecture from him.

An Cathaoirleach

Senator Mooney to continue, without interruption, please.

Senator Paschal Mooney

Let us be fair about this. All I am saying is that the references to Michael Collins, Eamon de Valera and others who fought in the War of Independence——

An Cathaoirleach

Senator, please.

Senator Paschal Mooney

It is very important in light of this motion and the constitutional convention that an immediate and fast-track approach is taken to including the Irish Diaspora in the presidential vote, not only because traditionally the many Irish who had to emigrate have had a continuing and abiding interest in Irish affairs. Given that we have seen a newer and younger generation of highly skilled and highly educated people with a deep interest in Ireland and who would wish to be here, it would be an important link if they were permitted to vote in the presidential election. As Senator Barrett said, the motion refers to Irish citizens. That could be a real difficulty. I suggest when this discussion is taken to another stage that all those resident on the island of Ireland should be entitled to vote. It should then be a matter for them voluntarily to decide whether they wish to register.

Senator David Cullinane

I wish to respond to a number of points and to make a few of my own. In the last Northern Assembly elections, more than 63% of the Nationalist community voted for Sinn Féin——

Senator John Gilroy

A minority——

Senator David Cullinane

——and endorsed what we stood for and the record of Martin McGuinness and all those mentioned by Senator Mooney. Today's motion is not about Sinn Féin or any political party, whether Fianna Fáil or any of the Government parties. There is an attempt to overcomplicate the logic or the thrust of this motion. This motion is about extending voting rights to citizens in the North and to extending voting rights to citizens across the globe. Senator Ó Murchú spoke passionately about the nation and the concept of the Irish nation. Some Senators referred to a potential danger in the wording of the Sinn Féin motion which speaks about the Irish nation.

We make no apologies for believing, as of right, that the Irish nation involves people who live on the island of Ireland and Irish citizens who happen to live abroad. That is what the Irish nation is. Article 2 of the Constitution reads: "It is entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation." Some members of the Labour Party forget what the 1916 Proclamation stood for and some members of those parties who have come into the House today with partitionist viewpoints forget that the 1916 Proclamation promised all the children of the nation a right to be part of the Irish nation and to be treated equally. That is what the 1916 Proclamation was about.

Senator Cáit Keane

Let the people of the North choose.

Senator John Gilroy

I suggest the Senator has not read it.

Senator David Cullinane

It is quite interesting that several Taoisigh and the President have, on occasion, shook the hands of the captains of all-Ireland teams from counties Tyrone, Armagh, Down and Derry and congratulated them on winning the all-Ireland final, because they are part of the Irish nation, yet those very same people are not entitled to vote for the President who shakes their hand. That is the point. Political parties can overly complicate what we are proposing. A reference by some Senators and the Minister was to the effect that the Sinn Féin motion was pre-empting the constitutional convention. That is interesting because, on the other hand, the Minister said we were not being prescriptive enough on some of the proposals in respect of changing the nomination process. If we speak of pre-emption, it was the Government party, particularly the Taoiseach, who spoke about abolishing the Seanad. Was that not pre-emptive? The Government talks about reducing the number of Deputies, is that not pre-emptive? The Government talks also about abolishing some town councils and merging local authorities, is that not pre-emptive? For Senator Keane to suggest that this House or the Oireachtas should not set the parameters or the broad principles upon which the constitutional convention should discuss issues——

Senator Cáit Keane

There is a difference between doing that and carrying out the act.

Senator David Cullinane

It is the people who are elected who should decide what any convention should look at, not people who happen to sit on that convention. We are the people who are elected and especially those Members in the Dáil who should make those choices. The choice open to us is that we can continue to pay lip-service to the notion that people who live on the island of Ireland are Irish and are part of the Irish nation and we can pay lip-service to all of those who have emigrated. I have heard on many occasions people in this House talk about the forgotten Irish who live in different parts of the globe, in England, America, Australia and who left for many reasons. Some left because they were persecuted or for other reasons, but they are Irish citizens and they have every right to be part of the Irish nation.

The Constitution defines the nation and the constitution talks about all the people who live on the island of Ireland as being part of that nation. The Good Friday Agreement defined citizenship and made it absolutely and explicitly clear that one can be Irish and British if one lives in the North. I fully accept that. If we voted for the Agreement and accepted it, then why are we not allowing those very same people who voted by a majority for the Agreement to vote in a presidential election? We do not have the courage of our convictions as politicians to follow that through.

Some Senators asked why the motion is being moved now? This is the first opportunity we have been given to do so. We do not have Private Members' time. This is the only opportunity that we have been given so far and we could have put down motions on the economy, social issues, but instead we tabled a motion that we believed would get support because of the stated commitment of all political parties to the ideals which were behind the motion. All the political parties, including the Labour Party and Fine Gael, say they support voting rights for citizens in the North and abroad, but when it comes to supporting this motion, they cannot simply bring themselves to do it. There is a partitionist mindset at play. Members are unable to accept that people who are born in the North of Ireland are part of the Irish nation because they see the nation stopping at the Border in Dundalk or Drogheda or elsewhere, whereas I see the nation as encompassing all the people of Ireland. If we want to continue to pay lip-service that is fine, but there are many across this island involved in sport, business, politics and across the spectrum who agree with this motion. I mentioned the One Voice One Vote campaign. Mark Durkan and Margaret Ritchie, former leaders of the SDLP, signed the petition. Many people signed the petition——

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator is over his time

Senator David Cullinane

——because they are demanding a simple right to be able to vote for their President. What the Government parties are doing here today is voting down a motion that simply gives expression to that right, which tells me that they are not interested in including the citizens of the North in the life of this nation, which I believe is a mistake on their part.

Senators

Hear, Hear.

Senator Jimmy Harte

Does it relate to republicans going over the Border?

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 14.

Tá

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Brennan, Terry.
• Burke, Colm.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Comiskey, Michael.
• Conway, Martin.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• D’Arcy, Jim.
• Gilroy, John.
• Harte, Jimmy.
• Healy Eames, Fidelma.
• Henry, Imelda.
• Higgins, Lorraine.
• Keane, Cáit.
• Kelly, John.
• Landy, Denis.
• Moloney, Marie.
• Moran, Mary.
• Mullins, Michael.
• O’Neill, Pat.
• Sheahan, Tom.
• Whelan, John.

Níl

• Barrett, Sean D.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Crown, John.
• Cullinane, David.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullen, Rónán.
• Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
• Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
• O’Brien, Darragh.
• O'Donovan, Denis.
• O'Sullivan, Ned.
• Power, Averil.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.

Amendment declared carried.

An Cathaoirleach

As amendment No. 1 has been agreed to, amendment No. 2 cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 2 not moved.

Question put: "That the motion, as amended, be agreed to."

The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 14.

Tá

• Bacik, Ivana.
• Brennan, Terry.
• Burke, Colm.
• Coghlan, Paul.
• Comiskey, Michael.
• Conway, Martin.
• Cummins, Maurice.
• D’Arcy, Jim.
• Gilroy, John.
• Harte, Jimmy.
• Healy Eames, Fidelma.
• Henry, Imelda.
• Higgins, Lorraine.
• Keane, Cáit.
• Kelly, John.
• Landy, Denis.
• Moloney, Marie.
• Moran, Mary.
• Mullins, Michael.
• O’Brien, Mary Ann.
• O’Neill, Pat.
• Sheahan, Tom.
• Whelan, John.

Níl

• Barrett, Sean D.
• Byrne, Thomas.
• Crown, John.
• Cullinane, David.
• Mooney, Paschal.
• Mullen, Rónán.
• Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.
• Ó Murchú, Labhrás.
• O’Brien, Darragh.
• O'Donovan, Denis.
• O'Sullivan, Ned.
• Power, Averil.
• White, Mary M.
• Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Paul Coghlan; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.

Question declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 2.15 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.