Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 1 Oct 1997

Vol. 480 No. 7

Private Members' Business. - An Bille um an Ochtú Leasú Déag ar an mBunreacht, 1997: An Dara Céim (Atogail). Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1997: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an Cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair."
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

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.

I was interested to hear Deputy McDowell discuss the whole question of constitutional reform. The Taoiseach has already said that he views this issue as a priority, that he is impressed by the reports issued to date by the committee established by the last Dáil. I take that as a sign that there is an element of political will in relation to this topic, and I agree that the best method of proceeding is to try to achieve agreement, or the maximum possible agreement, in relation to any possible changes, because the Constitution is our basic charter. It is or should be the statement of first principles in relation to our parliamentary system, our system of Government and the protection of fundamental rights. If it is to be a statement of first principles we must endeavour in this House and elsewhere to achieve the maximum degree of agreement possible. It is sometimes impossible to secure complete agreement on principles.

If I had a comment on the committee established by the last Dáil it is that perhaps we strained too hard to establish maximum agreement on points and did not push forward ideas of our own or have the odd minority or dissenting report on different points. It seems that if one pushes very hard for agreement one ends up, as happens at the marathon council sessions in Brussels, with some very peculiar conclusion that means little to anybody. That is a danger in pursuing consensus and agreement at all costs. I agree with Deputy McDowell also that there is little point in establishing a new committee, although I understand the Taoiseach has indicated it is his wish that a new committee be established, unless there is a clear political will to implement the reports of the committee, especially when they are founded on an agreement between the parties and where the proposal is a rational one.

On the Bill, I must confess to being somewhat surprised at its timing because the chairman of the last all-party committee, when it had completed its second report just before the dissolution of the last Dáil, indicated that the next item of business would be the consideration of the presidency of Ireland. I took it from that comment that there was all-party agreement on this subject that when the committee was re-established after the general election, the all-party committee would look at the presidency and that a political party would not take a unilateral or stroke approach towards this question by introducing a measure in Private Members' time on the subject. I was very surprised to discover that our former chairperson of the committee is the Deputy proposing this Bill to amend the Constitution. I do not know whether that is an indication that he intends to serve on the committee which may be established by agreement in coming weeks——

I would be delighted to serve if asked.

As chairman.

——but I welcome the fact that he has introduced this Bill because it gives us an opportunity to look at this subject which is topical when two candidates have been nominated by county councils for the office of President. The odd attempt was made in the past to secure a nomination but this is the first occasion on which a local authority has nominated a candidate for the office. I welcome this and the fact that the two candidates nominated will have their names submitted to the people. It is welcome that this procedure in the Constitution has been availed of to broaden the choice available to the people. I must confess that it might have been better from the point of view of the Fianna Fáil interest in the last presidential election if more consideration had been given to the utilisation of this procedure. I will not, however, trespass for too long on that ground.

A distinction is drawn in the Constitution — this is an important point and I presume it was very much in the mind of the principal drafter, Mr. de Valera — between what I would call the principles of deliberative and direct democracy. Under the principle of direct democracy the people, as a group, make decisions, in keeping with the old Athenian idea of the city gathering in the close and making a direct decision. Our system is based on the principle of representative democracy. The Constitution tries to strike a balance between these two principles in various ways.

The 1922 Constitution contained a provision for a popular initiative to amend the Constitution. When established in 1926 my party attempted to avail of this procedure but it was eliminated from the Constitution by the predecessor of the party of the Deputies who have introduced this Bill.

For what purpose?

For the purpose of eliminating a certain oath of subjection to His Britannic Majesty as he was then designated in the constitutional documentation. When the present Constitution was drawn up Mr. de Valera was not so bold as to restore the idea of a popular initiative to change the Constitution. He decided that before any proposal to amend the Constitution could be submitted to the people both Houses of the Oireachtas would have to give it a solid bill of health. The principle of deliberative democracy would come into play, an appropriate proposal would have to be formulated which, after due deliberation, would be submitted to the people for their consideration. A group of citizens cannot unilaterally decide to amend the Constitution, although my party when founded thought that was a good idea. It was prevented, in a way the Supreme Court would not allow in modern times——

It was only an empty formula.

The people were deprived of an opportunity of pronouncing on it at the time. I am illustrating the point that there is a distinction between the principles of deliberative and direct democracy.

Under Article 27 of the Constitution a Bill can be submitted to the people for their decision in a referendum but this provision has never been invoked. It would require a majority of Senators and one-third of Deputies to petition the President that the will of the people should be ascertained. Again, the principle of deliberative democracy would come into play. A Bill would have to be formulated and the request would have to come from both Houses of the Oireachtas which would be in conflict before the people would be asked to express their approval or disapproval.

The same principle comes into play in relation to the President. It is provided in the Constitution that the initiative in relation to the choice does not rest with the people but with 20 or more Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas or four county councils or county boroughs. The reason for this is clear in the choice Mr. de Valera proposed, with the agreement of the Opposition parties, in 1938 for the first office of President. Dr. Hyde was agreed as President in 1938 without a vote of the people. It was envisaged when the Constitution was drawn up that if the different political interests could agree on a candidate, that would be an appropriate candidate because he or she commanded overwhelming confidence and respect among the people. The principle of deliberative democracy came into play in the selection of President in restricting the nomination procedure to designated classes so that there would be due deliberation about who should be put forward for the office before the element of popular consultation, through an election, came into play. There can only be popular consultation in relation to the office of President if there is disagreement among the nominators.

I am not saying that this is an ideal scheme but it is clear, if one looks at the Constitution, that it is a consistent scheme; it is a consistent way of balancing the principles of deliberative and direct democracy. The principle of direct democracy only comes into play when it has been decided there should be popular consultation. This strand runs through the Constitution. One of the reasons for this is that democrats in the 1930s — there can be no question but that Mr. de Valera was a firm democrat in the 1930s — were very concerned about the development of autocratic entities in continental Europe, many of which relied on this kind of bogus appeal to direct democracy at the expense of representative institutions. That is one of the reasons the deliberative element is built into the Constitution.

A number of commentators have suggested that there are similarities between the provisions of the 1937 Constitution and the provisions of the Weimar Constitution in Germany after the First World War. It was the late John Kelly who first made the comparison but it has since been taken up by a number of legal commentators and commentators in the popular press. In his rise to power Hitler contested the presidential election in the Weimar Republic against Field Marshal Hindenburg in the 1920s and received an impressive vote although not elected. When they looked again at their basic law after the last war one of the reasons the Germans restricted suffrage to the two Houses of Parliament and stopped a popular election of their president was concern about the potential for abuse in an attempt by some charismatic autocratic figure to impose his will on the populace. The Germans have not alone limited the range of persons who can nominate the president but also the electorate to an electoral college comprising the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament. That remains the electoral college to this day for their office of president which, like the office of President here, is essentially a symbolic one, a symbol of the state, although the President here has, as we are aware, certain real constitutional powers. As one commentator said, he or she is a constitutional lán stop in certain circumstances.

We should look at this Bill with some caution because it does not strike the correct balance between those two competing principles. The proposal is that a group of citizens of not less than 20,000 entitled to vote in a presidential election should be allowed to nominate a candidate. Deputy O'Keeffe made the case that the current constitutional provisions are far too restrictive. The Dáil and the Seanad comprise 226 Members with a potential for 11 nominations, although because of the whip system of party discipline there would probably be three nominations in practice. That has been the case since 1937. I accept that, given the contours of political support in both Houses, it is difficult to get beyond three nominations.

There are 34 county councils and boroughs and, as we have seen in recent days, it is possible for party members on those authorities to permit other members to put forward a candidate, to whom nobody has an objection, by abstaining. That candidate is then deemed to be nominated by that council and the returning officer receives the sealed resolution of the local authority nominating a given candidate. The 34 local authorities thus present the possibility of a further eight nominations, so we arrive at a figure of 11 candidates for the Presidency.

I suggest to Deputy O'Keeffe that if we had 11 candidates running for the office that would be sufficient. To push it beyond that would resemble United States elections where one must vote for every municipal office and where hundreds of names appear on the ballot papers. Eleven candidates offer quite a wide choice for the electorate and our present constitutional arrangements permit that number of candidates.

I agree, however, that the period of time available for local authorities to deliberate on this matter can be somewhat short and that is a problem. The supporters of one candidate referred to 29 September as super Monday in terms similar to the American presidential race. Given the timing and sequence of different local authority meetings it would be optimistic to assume that up to eight nominations would ensue from those deliberations.

In the next presidential election a substantial number of candidates will seek nominations from local authorities, assuming the system has not changed, and is that such a bad thing? Can local authorities not consider the merits of different individuals in a deliberative way? In that case a number of them will be given an opportunity of contesting the highest office in the land.

But the Deputy's party will apply the whip again.

There seems to be much confusion about the party whip, but I do not think the whip has any jurisdiction in relation to councils. That was certainly demonstrated in the case of our party where Clare, that ancient stronghold, gave the lead and allowed Mr. Nally to procure his nomination through the device of abstention.

I see a number of problems relating to the practicalities of allowing 20,000 citizens to name a candidate. One relates to Article 12.4.3 of the Constitution which states:

No person and no such Council shall be entitled to subscribe to the nomination of more than one candidate in respect of the same election.

That principle is worked out through the Presidential Elections Act so that, for example, in the case of the Oireachtas the returning officer checks and verifies that no Deputy's name appears on two different nomination papers. In the case of councils there is a rule that if a council was to submit two nominations, the first nomination lodged is the valid one. Anyone familiar with local authority practice and the frequency of motions at local authorities would understand that is a possibility. However, that is circumvented by the Presidential Elections Act which provides that the first nomination is the valid one for the purposes of the Act and the Constitution.

If you were to extend that principle in this measure you would have to have a provision that no citizen would be entitled to sign more than one candidate's nomination. After all, if Members of the Oireachtas are limited to nominating only one candidate and councils are also restricted to selecting one, it would be only appropriate to restrict the citizen to nominating one candidate. Logically, however, it would be difficult to implement that principle in terms of nominations. The returning officer would have to verify whether 20,000 separate names appearing on a presidential election register did not correspond with the nominations papers of another candidate who had also submitted upwards of 20,000 names. That is only one type of objection the returning officer would have to deal with in ruling on the nomination and it is a measure of how impractical the proposal is if one looks at the present constitutional provisions.

If you allow that principle to operate, and given an electorate well in excess of one million, you are potentially allowing a very big number of candidates to run in a presidential election. While not more than three or four nominations may come from the Houses of the Oireachtas and not more than five or six — let us be optimistic — may stem from local authorities, I have no doubt that if that provision were enacted into law and 20,000 citizens could name a candidate for the office of President, there would be stalls on Dublin's O'Connell Bridge, in Westport, at the bridge of Athlone, in Limerick and in Patrick's Street in Cork as well. We would have a great number of candidates running for the office of President on a single transferable vote system.

Would we?

The Deputy did not hear the debate last night.

We would then have a situation where a President was not just elected on a second or third preference——

——but on a 70th preference. I wonder if that is appropriate? Under the present presidential electoral procedure there is no deposit. The screening procedure in relation to nominations is designed to ensure that a frivolous or vexatious candidate does not go forward. If we are not going to have a deposit, and a deposit seems somewhat inappropriate in a presidential election, why not have some system regarding nominations? That is what the present constitutional arrangements essentially provide for.

I would not like the Deputies opposite to think that I am wholly negative on this topic and do not have a constructive proposal to bring forward.

The Deputy might want to run in seven years.

I thought it would be 14 in the Deputy's case.

He will be 35 then.

The Deputy will be taking two sides of the road.

I accept that the present arrangements are unduly restrictive. There is scope for some additional number of candidates. One way of addressing the problem would be to allow the nominating bodies listed for Seanad elections to have a role in nominating presidential candidates. There is a long list of such nominating bodies for the Seanad which are all reputable vocational bodies. They have a foundation in the Constitution where the qualifications and occupations of different panels are set out in detail. Under statute we already have experience of the Clerk of the Seanad certifying that these bodies are of reputable character, have a defined set of objectives and have a membership.

We could amend the Constitution to provide, for example, that a certain number, say four like the local authorities, of nominating bodies recognised for vocational purposes for Seanad elections would be free to put forward a candidate. That would allow a proper nomination procedure to exist.

These bodies have had little influence on Seanad elections because we know the Seanad electorate is very much a political "selectorate". The nominating bodies occasionally and rather quaintly put forward a candidate who has no connection with party politics but has an obvious qualification for the particular panel. That person then suffers the ignominy of procuring two votes in a Seanad election, although through the accident of Seanad electoral legislation it appears to the outside world as 2,000 votes.

While that procedure has curious effects in the Seanad electoral system, it would not be a bad system for nominating presidential candidates. The objection that is being made to the present nominating procedure is that worthy citizens who have no necessary connection with any party are deprived of the opportunity of having their name put forward for the Office of President. If there was a certification procedure which rested on the vocational bodies organised in the State, it would give persons in different walks of life an opportunity to put forward such a candidate in a Seanad election. I canvass that idea as a way of loosening up the nominating procedure while at the same time safeguarding the procedure against the kind of abuse which would take place if Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's proposal was accepted by the House, such as the collection of signatures and the administrative complications which could arise.

I appreciate Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's point that this procedure has been brought into operation in other jurisdictions and a designated number of citizens can verify a nomination paper. We are one of the most political races in the world and, unlike Slovenia or other jurisdictions referred to by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, there will be abuse in this jurisdiction if it is brought in on such a wide-scale basis.

Is the Deputy suggesting we are more dishonest than other European countries?

No. I am suggesting a citizen will inevitably advise the returning officer that he did not sign the piece of paper he is alleged to have signed and then we will have to find 2001 citizens to sign the ballot paper.

Make sure there are 30,000 people.

The returning officer will have to trawl through numerous pieces of paper. Do we want 70 candidates to run for the office of President?

My alternative proposal is worthy of examination because it is consistent with the spirit of the Constitution in providing for an element of deliberation in the selection of a candidate through these Houses, the councils or the nominating bodies recognised at Seanad elections. If a group of four nominating bodies was free to put forward a candidate for the office, that would considerably broaden the present arrangement. It would allow persons outside party politics to put their names forward for the office.

There is a lot of guff about the fact this is not a political office. It is not a party political office but it is the highest political office in the land. We should recognise that in the next few weeks as we go into the presidential election campaign.

Elect someone with political experience.

That is the first public Fianna Fáil vote. The Deputy's father would be proud of him.

Deputy Lenihan, without interruption.

We must elect someone of substance in relation to the political order.

Other Deputies referred to President Robinson and it would be remiss of me not to praise her for the outstanding work she did. I was concerned as she approached her resignation to notice the number of commentators who suggested that she had not been a politician and that she had been beyond politics. President Robinson was a Member of the Upper House for many years and a radical politician who initiated many changes in the State, although she was not a politician who occupied ministerial office.

This is a political office. We are talking about politics when considering amendments to the Constitution; we are not talking about a competition which resembles a beauty contest. We are talking about an arrangement which should reflect the wish of the people to a broad choice but should, at the same time, acknowledge that politics enters the equation. There is an element of deliberation in deciding who should be President.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with Deputies Ring, Owen and Gilmore.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

(Carlow-Kilkenny): Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo mar tá sé an-áisiúil. Faoi lathair, tá a lán caint i dtaobh an córas chun iarrathóirí a chur ós chomhair na ndaoine agus ba mhaith liom chomh gairdeas a gabhail le mo chomh-dualaithe a thug an Bille seo os ár gcomhair. Beidh deis ag na daoine iarrathóir a mholadh agus má tá an deis sin ann ní bheidh siad ag gearráin as seo amach.

This Bill is topical because people are unhappy that they have no choice in the selection of candidates. I do not agree with that view because, as politicians, we represent the people. The core vote of the two main parties suggests that over half the people have a say, either directly or indirectly, in selecting us. I accept that the present system leaves the choice in the hands of politicians. As Deputy Lenihan said, it is a political post, although some people think it is a beauty contest.

This year county councils have created headlines by exercising their right to nominate candidates. They did so more freely this time because of the absence of any other system. Councillors took this decision seriously because they regarded it as a privilege. Deputy Lenihan said this would result in more candidates putting their names before county councils in the future. However, that would not happen if there was an alternative system. Many councillors felt that if individuals wanted to present themselves as candidates for the presidential election, councils should facilitate them.

This Bill proposes that 20,000 people would be sufficient to nominate a candidate. Deputy McGrath explained how each person could be given a registered number. This would mean people would not have to stand in O'Connell Street or go to Killarney or Tralee to get signatures. If the public demands that a popular candidate should stand before the people, 1,000 people in 20 counties could be asked to sign their nomination papers. This procedure, which would have to be taken seriously, would give the people an opportunity to nominate someone they wanted.

I welcome this Bill and I congratulate Deputy Jim O'Keeffe for his work as chairman of the all-party committee on the Constitution. Deputy Lenihan referred to the Seanad elections. Nominating bodies have the privilege of nominating someone, yet they have no say in the election which is controlled by politicians.

The 1937 Constitution is 60 years old. It had as narrow a victory as Kerry had last Sunday when it was first introduced. It was probably a good Constitution then but time has moved on and we should review it. I welcome this Bill which will ensure people are not deprived of their rights.

I compliment Deputy McGrath and Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on bringing this Bill before the House. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is probably one of the best legal brains in this country. If he was not in politics, he would be a millionaire by now——

(Carlow-Kilkenny): He is.

——because he would be in the courts every day. I hope the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Deputy Dan Wallace, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats will accept this Bill. Recently, we lost probably the greatest President since the foundation of the State, Mrs. Mary Robinson, and people from County Mayo were disappointed that she was not at Croke Park on Sunday last for the All-Ireland football final. There are many who believe Mayo lost the final because the Taoiseach replaced Mrs. Robinson, who could not be present to welcome our team.

As a representative of County Mayo, it would be wrong if I did not congratulate Mary Robinson who was an excellent President, the people's President. Only one of the current candidates could claim that title. I compliment Deputy Lenihan who correctly stated that we require someone with political experience who has served in parliament, be that the Dáil or the European Parliament. Mary Banotti is ably suited and I hope Deputy Lenihan and other members of Fianna Fáil will give her their first preference votes. I believe she will win the election and become the next "people's" President. However, that is another day's work.

I am disappointed with Fianna Fáil and Deputy Lenihan in particular because they do not want to permit the people to select a candidate. I see nothing wrong with having 25 candidates in the field. If a person has £300 he can approach the returning officer and stand for election to the Dáil. I see nothing wrong with the idea of 1,000 people nominating a candidate. Certain political correspondents stated that county councillors would not be able to make a decision to nominate candidates for the presidential election. I compliment the county councillors who nominated two candidates for the election. They have done well and shown a certain maturity. A Whip should not be applied to a county council if it wants to select a candidate to seek election as President. I compliment Mary Banotti because she was one of the few who stated that she had no objection to county councils using their power.

The forthcoming election should be held on a Friday. The recent general election was held on a Friday and the polling booths were open from 8 a.m. until 10 p.m. It worked well because students and people who worked away from home could return to their localities to vote. We have returned to the bad old days. The Government talks about democracy and giving people an opportunity to vote. The Minister of State will indicate the postal vote will suffice. However, the way that system operated last week was a disgrace. Some students only returned to college on Monday and Tuesday of last week and the postal vote closed on Tuesday. That was wrong. People should not be deprived of their votes.

The Government should hold the election on a Friday, even if an Act of the Oireachtas is required to do so. Legislation was hurriedly introduced in the past when banks and Goodman International were in trouble and a Bill should be laid before the House recommending that the election be held on a Friday. It is wrong that individuals should be deprived of the chance to vote on Friday. Even at this late stage the Government should reconsider the matter.

I compliment Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and McGrath on introducing this Bill. There is nothing wrong with individuals putting their names before the people for election. We live in a democracy and people should have the right to vote and to seek election without depending on the political system to gain a nomination. If the people are to have a proper choice, they should have the right to nominate candidates. There is no point in stating the system will be abused. Every person has an RSI number used to facilitate social welfare payments, headage payments, etc. We are in the age of computers and I see nothing wrong with people being registered to vote by means of their RSI numbers. This would be a simple system.

I hope the Government will accept this Bill and permit democracy to live on. I congratulate the candidates for allowing their names to go forward for election as this will ensure we have a contest for the position of President. For many years the Presidency was decided by the political chiefs. It was given to the person to whom they felt they owed most, to people who used Áras an Uachta-ráin as a retirement home and claimed a nice pension. That will no longer be the case. The people will choose from the five excellent candidates in the field. I am confident Mary Banotti will be the next President of Ireland.

There is probable substance in Deputy Ring's theory that the absence of Mrs. Robinson led to Mayo's demise in the All-Ireland football final on Sunday last. It augurs well for Dublin's chances in next year's football championship because I believe the next President will come from Dublin. Perhaps she can also lend support to the Cork team when it plays.

Like other Members, I commend Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and McGrath for the work they have done in introducing this Bill. It is heartening to see the speed with which this legislation was published. That arose from a request made at the Fine Gael parliamentary party meeting at which Mary Banotti sought the party's nomination. It was made clear the selection process for nomination to seek election to the Presidency required amendment. Fine Gael, through Deputies O'Keeffe and McGrath, took up that request and this legislation has been brought forward.

During last night's debate a number of Members asked why the legislation is being introduced at this time. It is being introduced because the presidential election, for which the people are currently nominating candidates, will take place at the end of the month. Some of us may not be in the House in 2003 to share our wisdom regarding how the public responded to the nomination process and how it indicated that it was unhappy with that process. Some of the younger Members may be here at that stage, like myself, however, they will be dependent on the electorate in that regard. It is important that when an anomaly is perceived we should seek to amend it.

I will cite an example where lack of action can cause great problems for people. In 1986, when Fine Gael and Labour were in Government, an amendment to the Nationality and Citizenship Act was introduced to allow people to claim their Irish citizenship under certain conditions. Those people were obliged to lodge their applications by 31 December 1986. No assessment was made of the numbers who intended to make such applications. In the event, thousands of people in America, South Africa, Australia and other parts of the world queued to make their applications which were received but not registered by 31 December, as required by law. In January 1987 the then Government, which was approaching the end of its term of office, was advised that the legislation required a minor amendment to allow the applications to be considered properly. Following the election in February 1987, that amendment was misplaced when the new Government entered office and made plans to implement its own legislative programme. It was many years before the amendment was made. Therefore, people who genuinely wanted to become Irish citizens were denied that right for approximately five years.

I referred to that example because if something needs to be done it should be done when the need for action becomes apparent, not in March or April of 2003 when we will be involved in the maelstrom of another presidential election. At that stage, people will say this matter was discussed seven years ago and ask why something was not done. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, has just come into the House. I hope the Progressive Democrats will convince those on the other side of the House that this Bill is timely and appropriate. It is necessary to prepare for the next presidential election so people will have a genuine chance to have their voices heard.

Deputy Lenihan raised a number of issues about the mechanics of 20,000 electors signing nomination papers and the verification process. Other countries have found a way to do that without difficulty or scandal. I was on holidays in Switzerland last year where the preliminary stages of a referendum were being held. A stall was set up in the marketplace where people could sign the register. In some cantons, if 10,000 signatures are collected, a referendum can be held. Switzerland is a great country for holding referenda on various issues. It is not beyond the wisdom of officials in the Department of the Environment and others to devise a system whereby 20,000 signatures can be collected and verified without any difficulty. In seven years' time, who knows what identification we will be carrying? Perhaps we will have a uniform identity card, which is happening in other European countries.

Deputy Brian Lenihan said there could be many candidates. It is better to have many candidates rather than the situation which pertained in 1938, 1952, 1974, 1976 and 1983. In these years there was no competition in the Presidential election and the one person whose name was put forward was successful. This may seem an easy process. Having helped my sister canvass for the nomination of a parliamentary party, there were moments when I thought it would be easier if she did not have to go through it. However, she went through it, came out the other end and is now a fine candidate for the Presidency. She was probably strengthened by the preliminary competition.

Article 12.4.4 states that "Former or retiring Presidents may become candidates on their own nomination." I assume that in seven years' time, if the new President decides she wants to offer another seven years' service, that Article will allow her to become a candidate without going through the nomination procedures. Our great colleague, John Kelly, in The Irish Constitution says that this Article was interpreted by one President as being an optional facility rather than a direction. I do not know whether that provision will ever be used again.

It is also important to remember some of the roles of the President. When the 1937 Constitution was debated in May and June 1937, the then Opposition was apprehensive that the Presidency, as outlined in the draft Constitution, would evolve into a dictatorship. However, as John Kelly said, the precedence accorded to the President by Article 12.1 is purely a ceremonial one. There is no danger that the President will become a dictator.

The President is the supreme commander of the Defence Forces, which is an important role. I would like the incoming President — and I hope it will be Mary Banotti — to utilise this role to its full potential. The Army has served us well, particularly in recent years as it has expanded its peacekeeping role throughout the world and worked in areas where outside intervention was needed in the holding of elections to enable people to exercise their democratic right.

I wish to pay tribute to the former President, Mary Robinson. It seems strange to use the term "former" as she became so much part of our life in her seven years of office. When I heard someone refer to her as our former President, I realised she was no longer in that position. She has gone on to represent Ireland in Geneva as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and we wish her well.

All our Presidents have served the country well, but in the last seven years we became more engaged in the Presidency. I hope that with the passage of this legislation the people will continue to have faith in, and support, not only the Presidency but also the procedure for the nomination and selection of candidates.

I thank the Fine Gael Deputies for sharing their time with me and I compliment Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on proposing this Bill.

It is seven years since we debated the method of presidential nominations. That debate also coincided with a presidential election. If the Government does not accept this Bill — and I ask them to do so or at least admit it for debate on Committee Stage — it will be another seven years before the issue is debated again, on the eve of another presidential election.

It is 60 years since the rules governing the nomination of the President were established in the 1937 Constitution. That was in a different era, 15 years after the foundation of the State, just over a decade after the end of a bitter civil war. It was a time when the relationship between the public and politics and that between the Houses of the Oireachtas was different from now.

I agree with Deputy Brian Lenihan that the Presidency is a political office and there is a great deal of nonsense spoken about the office being apolitical or not having power. The President has significant powers — for example the power to dissolve this House, a power which we should reflect on, especially when there is, in effect, a minority Government. Although the power was not used during the lifetime of the last presidential incumbent and the last Dáil, the fact that the President had the power and indicated her disposition to use it as well as her discretion in exercising it, helped to create the circumstances which resulted in a change of Government in the life of the last Dáil, without the necessity of a general election.

The Presidency carries considerable power — the power to refer Bills to the Supreme Court, in addition to the many persuasive powers and roles so ably developed by President Robinson. It would be a mistake to think that politics is the exclusive property of the political apparatus. What has developed in the course of the last seven years is the sense that, of all the political offices, the presidency belongs uniquely to the people. The people have a sense of ownership of the presidency because it is the only office which is elected directly by the entire electorate. It is somewhat archaic that a candidate is nominated for the presidency exclusively through the formal representative political process. The time has now come to extend that and allow groups of individual citizens the right to nominate candidates for the presidency directly.

I was quite interested to hear Deputy Lenihan speak of a fear of too many candidates. This has not been a problem, certainly not for the office of President nor, indeed, for any of the other political offices which are elected by the people. If anything, the era in which we are now entering is one in which there is a shortage of candidates of calibre offering for political office. The prospect of there being too many candidates is not one which we ought to fear. We should look at ways and means by which additional candidates can be attracted to stand for the office of President or, indeed, other public offices.

There is an additional reason that the Government should accept this Bill and allow it proceed to Committee Stage, that is, that it will also give an opportunity to debate some other reforms in relation to the conditions surrounding the nomination for the presidency and the presidency itself. First, I fail to understand the reason a candidate must be over 35 years of age. A citizen who is entitled to vote ought to be entitled to be nominated as a candidate for the presidency. That condition ought to be revisited as we enter a new century.

A second provision which should be revisited is the term of office of the presidency. A seven-year term is a long period. It is interesting that President Robinson, who is acknowledged as having done an excellent job, did not serve a full term and she certainly did not offer to serve a second term. Fourteen years, the period of two presidential terms, is an excessive period for somebody to serve as President. Some consideration should be given to reducing the length of the presidential term of office.

I am glad that this Bill is before the House. If, for example, the local authorities had not responded to the requests of Mrs. Scallon and Mr. Nally to consider their candidacies for the presidency, there would now be a serious political issue as between the public who want to see a wider nomination process than is currently afforded by the political system and the limitation of the number of candidates which the political system can offer. As we enter a new century, the time has come to allow the public a right to nominate a candidate directly. The kind of practical difficulties about which Deputy Lenihan spoke are easily addressed, particularly due to the availability of information technology the usage of which will inevitably increase. To some extent the political system has been slow in using the information technology that is available to provide new ways of involving the public in the political process. This is one practical way in which it can be done and I urge the Government to accept the Bill and to allow for a more free, open and democratic method of nominating candidates for the presidency.

Last March, the Progressive Democrats published a Bill to amend the system of nomination for President, in effect to democratise the nomination process for presidential elections. The Fine Gael Bill before us is a virtual replica of that Bill and I congratulate the party on spotting a good legislative proposal from the 27th Dáil. In politics, as in everything else, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Much has changed since we published our Bill last March and since the Progressive Democrats first made this suggestion in 1988. Last March we expressed concern that one route to presidential nomination — that of local government — had never been utilised despite the laudable efforts of the authors of the Constitution to extend the nomination process beyond the Oireachtas. All has changed in the few months since, with first Dana, Rosemary Scallon, and this week Derek Nally, securing the support of four local authorities and thus becoming candidates for the forthcoming presidential election.

Members of local authorities who supported the two nominations should be commended for exercising the powers given to them by the Constitution. We now face the prospect of an intriguing and exciting election campaign with a record number of candidates and I wish them well. I am happy to note that the candidate supported by the two parties in Government, Mary McAleese, is performing well and has wide public support. Anybody who goes forward for election as President needs stamina and courage. Given that the outgoing President made such achievements in office people have a high expectation regarding her successor.

Some might argue that the exercise of this hitherto dormant local authority nomination tool is in itself sufficient to allay the concerns of those of us who have strongly criticised the fact that the selection of candidates has been the preserve of the major political parties for too long. It is a welcome development and we can expect this nomination option to be used more frequently in the future.

I noted with interest the results of an opinion poll published in The Irish Times today. The survey, carried out by MRBI as part of its overall polling on the presidential election, asked respondents whether they favoured any change in the present system of nomination. Some 20 per cent had no opinion, while the remaining 80 per cent divided fairly evenly. The figures show a slight majority opposed to any change, at 42 per cent compared to 38 per cent in favour. However, Deputies will appreciate that a difference of that order is not significant when account is taken of the margin of error in an opinion poll.

A figure of 38 per cent support is not bad.

Indeed. On the basis of these figures, it would be a mistake to assume that public support for a change in the nomination procedure is a foregone conclusion. The public debate on the issue is at an early stage and very little analysis, if any, of the arguments for and against such a change has been teased out in the media. If it is the case that public opinion is evenly balanced on the question at this stage, then it is clear that, if we attempt to change the procedures by way of a referendum on a constitutional amendment, the outcome will depend on how the public reacts to the various arguments which have yet to be put before it. This makes it all the more important that these arguments receive a proper and detailed examination.

The Government will not oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading. In this spirit of co-operation, I ask Deputies O'Keeffe and McGrath to agree to refer the Bill to the all-party committee which is to be re-established. It can then be considered along with other matters concerning the presidency in the Constitution so that we may have a composite set of proposals to consider and eventually put to the people. This would be a preferable approach, especially as there is plenty of time, rather than going to the people on single issues.

There are several other issues relating to the presidency which have also been raised for consideration in recent times, such as the age restriction on candidates, and whether the franchise should be extended to British citizens resident here or to Irish citizens resident abroad. If we have a number of referenda on these and other single issues we might be responsible for voter fatigue with a consequent low turnout for such very important matters as constitutional change. With regard to the proposal in the Bill that 20,000 signatures would be sufficient to nominate a candidate for the office of presidency, I must suggest that the method of verifying such signatures should be given greater consideration. The report of the Constitutional Review Group recognised that "validation of such nominations would be difficult". Contributors to the debate last evening also recognised these difficulties and made some suggestions to overcome them. In fairness to the returning officer who will have responsibility for deciding on the validity of a nomination paper, Members of this House will have to have regard to the realities of life. It is easy to contend that a person should quote his or her number on the register of electors but how many people know their number? How many people know that they have a number on the register of electors? How can abuse of the system be avoided without creating a whole new layer of bureaucracy? In addition there is the timescale involved. It is very easy to argue that computers should be used or that the matter should be "prescribed by law" but its implementation is not so straightforward.

I raise these questions not with any intention of being negative — the Government is very positive with regard to the objective of this Bill, which is to democratise the process for the nominations to the office of presidency — and certainly not to say we shall not legislate because such would be inconvenient for officials, rather to point out that the matter should be thoroughly examined. Since the time is available we should be able to get it right. We politicians, and I include all parties, are often accused of rushing legislation through this House. This is one occasion when time constraints cannot be pleaded as a reason for rushing this Bill through. We are prepared to consider at an early date any recommendations the re-established all-party committee will advance on constitutional matters concerning the presidency.

This debate has been a useful one and, as I explained already, the Government will not oppose the Bill's Second Reading. The all-party committee represents the appropriate mechanism by which to examine the issue in the detail it warrants.

I will respond to the specific inquiries of Deputy Howlin and Deputy McDowell with regard to the two polls and the closing date for supplements to the postal voters' list. Voting by postal voters is an important element in the procedure for the taking of polls. To enable a supplement to the postal voters' list to be prepared which would be used for the two polls regulations have been made which provide inter alia that the date of the order appointing polling day for the referendum, made yesterday, is the last date for applications for entry in the supplement in respect of both the presidential election and the referendum.

The Electoral Act, l992, makes special provisions where two or more polls are held on the same date. Among other things it gives the Minister power, by direction, order or regulation to provide for such matters as he considers necessary whenever two or more polls are held together. Therefore, he may, by direction, order or regulation, effect such modification of the Acts, orders or regulations relating to an election or referendum to enable both polls be taken together.

I congratulate the two Deputies who proposed the Bill and am glad to be able to report that we will not oppose its Second Reading.

The second youngest Member of the House, Deputy Brian Hayes, is anxious to say a few words and I am prepared, with your approval, Sir, to concede some of my time to him.

Mr. Hayes

I congratulate my colleagues, Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Paul McGrath, on the publication of this Bill at an early stage in the life of this Dáil. I welcome the positive comments of the Minister, Deputy O'Donnell. I am glad the Government is not opposing this Bill and is letting it proceed to Committee Stage where its effective implementation will be examined. That is good work on the part of the Minister and I congratulate her for it. I hope it is the spirit which will prevail in this House in the months ahead. I had the privilege of serving as a Senator in the last Seanad and the co-operation between Government and Opposition on Private Members' Bills was exceptionally useful in ensuring Opposition Members felt they had a relevance and a determination in the legislation of the House. This is an important night and I congratulate the Government on its actions.

At a time when involvement in politics is at an all-time low and when it is particularly difficult to get people involved in politics — every party in this House knows this well — we should be doing everything in our power to encourage the participation of ordinary people in political activity. Whether it is signing a candidate's nomination paper, getting involved in a political party or taking to the streets about a certain issue, everything should be done by way of legislation and by way of our Constitution to ensure maximum participation. We should not restrict participation in politics by archaic provisions in the Constitution. That is the central idea behind this Bill. We want to extend the nominating process; we want to get more people involved. The more this is done, the less cynicism there will be about politics and that is surely something every party and all Members of this and the other House would support.

I wish to make two brief points. First, it is archaic that an age bar of 35 should exist for the Presidency and I will say why. On my first day in the Dáil, I technically could have held the position of Ceann Comhairle. When the President resigns or vacates office for some reason, the Ceann Comhairle, the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad and the President of the High Court form a presidential commission whose function it is to take over the role of the Presidency in the interregnum. I could have been elected as Ceann Comhairle at the age of 21 and could have performed the role and function of President, which is contradictory to the constitutional provision barring my standing for the office of President. The provision is unfair. It sends out a negative message to young people and something must be done about it.

Secondly, there was talk about changing the day of the election from Thursday to Friday. I have no great problem with that, but I proposed on another occasion that polling day should be Sunday, as in every other European Union country. We should move speedily towards that.

I congratulate Deputies Jim O'Keeffe and Paul McGrath on excellent work over the past two evenings.

This debate has been good for democracy in the manner in which it has been conducted and its outcome is an addition to the democratic system. I congratulate all those who contributed — my co-sponsor, Deputy McGrath, the Minister of State, Deputy Dan Wallace, Deputies Howlin, McDowell, Lenihan, Browne, Ring, Owen and Gilmore, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, and Deputy Hayes. I acknowledge that the Progressive Democrats, as far back as 1988, were the first to conceive the idea of a people's initiative — they suggested 30,000 electors should be able to nominate a candidate for the presidency. I am glad all parties in the House accept the broad principle that a people's initiative is the right approach — they should have the right to nominate a candidate and that right should not be solely confined to the political or local authority process, the latter of which is dominated by the political process in any event. I am also glad the Bill will not be opposed and will receive a Second Reading.

I have little difficulty with the proposal of the Minister, Deputy O'Donnell, except on a technical point. Procedurally, under Standing Orders, when a Private Members' Bill is accepted it must be referred either to a special committee or a select committee and that is the order the Cheann Comhairle will have to make on the conclusion of these proceedings. I have the greatest respect for the all-party Oireachtas committee on the Constitution — why should I not, since I was privileged to chair it for a year and it produced such excellent results? However, I am not certain whether one can follow that approach procedurally because it is not a select committee within the meaning of Standing Orders. I will be guided by the officials of the House as to the appropriate next step to further process the Bill on Committee Stage and I hope to receive more input from colleagues as to how the Bill might be improved.

Adoption of this measure puts us in line with the other democratic countries of Europe. Last night I mentioned those countries where the people are entitled to nominate a presidential candidate. My colleague, Deputy Owen, referred to the difficulties in the nomination process of Switzerland, a country I had not mentioned. She was not speaking of the nomination of the President of Switzerland but of the many referenda which are a feature of the Swiss democratic system. Those proposing a referendum set up stalls on the street and are armed with the register of electors. This returns us to the point made by Deputy McGrath — by connecting the name of the elector to his or her reference number on the register, the nomination process can be properly validated. There may be other and better ways of doing this but colleagues will have the opportunity on Committee Stage to consider this further. The advice of the able experts in the Department of the Environment will produce a system which will be as effective and good as those which operate in other countries.

Deputy Lenihan always makes interesting and provocative contributions but I cannot accept his view that there is a danger of too many candidates being nominated if — and, I hope, when — this provision becomes part of our Constitution. There is no danger of a surfeit of democracy. Such a concept is a contradiction in terms. Democracy is about having a number of candidates, and what would it matter if we had seven or eight? Democracy should encourage as many people as possible, within reason, to become involved.

I accept that in the presidential election there is no deposit payable. The £300 deposit helps to clear general election lists of frivolous Dáil aspirants. We do not want people like Screaming Lord Sutch, who brings amusement to UK politics, appearing on our presidential ballot paper. However, there are people who feel that their views are representative of a section of the electorate and who may wish to stand but feel blocked because of the existing nomination process. I disagree with the views of those people, but they should be encouraged to put themselves before the electorate if they so choose. This is what democracy is about and it would improve our democratic system.

The same view was brought to the fore in the second report of the All-party Committee on the Constitution in relation to Seanad elections. There should be provision for direct elections to the Seanad and with the approval of my colleagues on the all-party committee I suggested a means of achieving this. The same thinking underlines this current proposal and I am delighted that a major step forward is being taken in accepting this Bill. We will take advice on how to proceed, but we are now over the main hurdle. Deputy McGrath and I will be delighted to listen to suggestions for amendments to the Bill. Thereafter, we hope it will pass through both Houses and subsequently be presented to the people.

We need a programme of constitutional reform to address this and many other issues. It is not wise to have too many proposals thrown at the people at the one time. I accept there is an expense attached to having too many referenda, particularly ones not associated with other voting occasions. In the years ahead I hope to see a group of constitutional amendments being put before the people coinciding with local elections, the next general election, which may be sooner than we think, and the next presidential and European Parliament elections. We should avail of the opportunity of people going to the polls to present to them a limited number of constitutional amendments put through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I thank my colleagues for their reaction to this Bill and in that spirit of co-operation I am sure we will clear the outstanding hurdles and ensure a constitutional referendum is put to the people prior to the next presidential election.

Question put and agreed to.

As this is a Private Members' Bill, in accordance with Standing Order 104, it must be referred to a select or special committee. It is not necessary to take the motion of referral at this stage.

Barr
Roinn