I am happy to support the thrust of the Bill proposed by Deputy O'Keeffe. Like others who have spoken in this debate I wish to pay tribute to the former President, Mary Robinson. It is no exaggeration to say that Mary Robinson transformed the Office of President. In doing so she became the symbol of much that is positive in Ireland. She reflected and articulated the aspirations of our people in a way that was challenging and provocative. Mary Robinson said more than once during her tenure that her capacity to do that job derived in no small measure from the mandate she obtained from the people.
There is no doubt in my mind but that the democratic legitimacy of the office is greatly enhanced by the fact that the people or a majority of them have the opportunity to contribute to the election of the Head of State. That democratic legitimacy is circumscribed currently by a nomination procedure which is seriously restrictive. The bald fact is that not everyone can become President. Until this year it had been, in effect, necessary for any prospective President to obtain the support of one of the three biggest political parties in the State. As a result no previous election had more than three candidates and several had only two. The candidates in contested elections were almost always party politicians, and they were invariably men.
The Robinson presidency has put an end to all that. It is clear that many people want to look beyond the political parties to find suitable candidates. This is an entirely good thing. There are many people in public life outside of party politics who possess all the qualities needed to make a good Head of State. It is perfectly possible that such a person might obtain a nomination from the political parties. My own party made it clear from an early stage that we would support the candidature of any suitable person who shared our beliefs and values. The House will forgive me for saying that we have done well to secure the candidacy of an exceptional person. That said, it would be invidious and unacceptable if individuals were denied a nomination as a result of the nomination procedure which currently applies. There is a powerful argument for extending the nomination capacity. The Bill in the name of Deputy O'Keeffe is a worthwhile contribution to that debate.
I wish to refer in passing to the contribution to the Bill by my colleague, Deputy Howlin. Deputy Howlin dealt with most of the Bill, but there is one technical point that he did not get the opportunity to deal with, the amendment which deals with the supplemental list of electors. The current position is that that list is closed when the order for a particular poll is taken. However, a crazy situation can arise where two polls are held on the same day but the order is made on different days. Exactly that situation arises at the end of this month when the presidential election and the referendum on Cabinet confidentiality are held on the same day. The order for the referendum was made just yesterday, while the order for the presidential election was made some time ago. It is possible that certain individuals may be entitled to vote in one poll and not in the other, despite the fact that the two polls are being held on the same day. Deputy Howlin's amendment seeks to cure this anomaly by providing that such people be entitled to vote in both polls. This is a relatively minor matter, and I ask the Minister to see whether anything can be done in the short term.
The Minister of State announced yesterday evening that the Government intends to re-establish the all-party committee on the Constitution. I was a member of that committee in the last Dáil, and I wish to comment on the way it did or did not work. Since I have very little time available I will have to be blunt. The committee should not be re-established unless its terms of reference are radically changed. There is simply no point in the committee and its members thrashing about in all measure of intellectually stimulating debate if there is no realistic chance that its recommendations will be put to the people. Two things at least must be done. The Government, and this House, must decide whether to put a new constitution to the people or to engage in what the previous committee described as a rolling series of amendments. The previous committee wrestled long and hard with this issue, and I am not entirely convinced that we took the right decision. I do not think that the political will exists to put a series of omnibus amendments to the people. In that context there is, sadly, every likelihood that the committee's work, and the work done previously by the constitutional review group, will simply gather dust on the shelf.
The practise and tradition in this House is that we amend the Constitution only when we have to. If this Government is of a different mind, or if this House is of a different mind, we should say so explicitly and change the terms of reference appropriately. The Government must cease the practice whereby issues which may well be the subject of referenda are explicitly excluded from the terms of reference. It is especially daft that the previous committee was entitled to debate and make recommendations on every issue under the sun except those which were most likely to be put to the people. I am thinking, for example, of the issue of Cabinet confidentiality. One could be forgiven for thinking that it suits governments of every hue to have a committee available to them which they can use as something of a constitutional dustbin. That is a temptation we should encourage this Government to avoid.
It simply is not good enough that the fine work done by the constitutional review group should come to naught. In the first instance, it is a matter for Government and the House to decide in what way the work can be brought to fruition. Unless this is done the all-party committee will be working in a vacuum; it is little short of a waste of time, albeit an intellectually stimulating one. In short, we have to decide whether we are serious about constitutional amendment. If we are, then an all-party committee is a reasonable and sensible way to proceed; to seek consensus in this House, whether it is available or not, is a good thing on such an important issue. However, if we are not, we should not delude ourselves and the public and say that we simply are not serious.