asked the Taoiseach the number of occasions since his appointment in March, 1973, that he visited Áras an Uachtaráin for the purposes of carrying out his duty under Article 28. 5.2 of the Constitution during the pesidencies of the late Éamon de Valera, the late Erskine H. Childers and Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Áras an Uachtaráin Visits.
1.
Pursuant to Article 28. 5 2 of the Constitution, I visited President de Valera once, President Childers five times and President Ó Dálaigh four times.
Does the Taoiseach consider that that rather scanty number of visits for that purpose suffices to comply with his duty under Article 28. 5. 2 of the Constitution in view of the fact that the period in question was approximately three years and eight months?
As the Deputy will appreciate, there is not any specific requirement in the Constitution obliging visits to the President. The Article states that the Taoiseach shall keep the President generally informed of matters of domestic and international policy. There is not any specific requirement that that has to be done by means of a visit.
Will the Taoiseach tell the House if these visits were specifically for the purpose of complying with his duty under Article 28. 5. 2 or were the visits at least partially for other purposes? For example, were they for the purpose of accompanying judges on their appointment or accompanying ambassadors or for other such reasons?
I excluded all other visits in the reply.
Were these visits specifically for this purpose alone?
They were specifically excluding other purposes.
Will the Taoiseach please explain what that means?
It means what it says.
With the greatest respect to the Taoiseach, it scarcely seems to say anything at all.
As I have told the Deputy, there is no requirement that a visit should be made. The Deputy has introduced visits for other purposes. In fact, on looking back through the visits of my predecessor in the 15 months from 1972 to the first quarter of 1973 he visited the then President on four occasions. There does not appear to be a great variation in the number of visits as distinct from attendance on other occasions such as the appointment of judges and so on.
Where did the Taoiseach get that statistic?
From the records.
I kept no records of my visits.
Apparently the office did.
They did not know of every occasion——
In any event, I am giving consideration to this. The House will appreciate that when this practice was initiated a long time ago the method of informing the President on public matters was very limited compared with what it is nowadays.
It is possible that the idea of visits in the original concept is somewhat out of date.
Did the Taoiseach discuss international and domestic policy with the three Presidents on the occasions of these visits?
I do not propose to disclose what I discussed.
Is it not open to the House, therefore, to come to the conclusion that the Taoiseach did not carry out his duty under Article 28.5.2?
There is no obligation to disclose to the House what I discussed. I am sure that the Deputy on reflection will appreciate that it would be quite wrong for the Taoiseach to give an ex parte version of what was discussed.
I asked the Taoiseach in general terms if he discussed, in the words of the Constitution, matters of domestic and international policy with the three Presidents concerned.
In general terms I complied with the constitutional requirement.
In very general terms indeed.
I am calling Question No. 2.
Would the Taoiseach consider amending the Constitution to abolish the Presidency——
That is a separate question. I have called Question No. 2.
It serves no useful purpose and the expenditure involved could be used to much better advantage.