asked the Taoiseach the plans that are in hand for the holding of a referendum or referenda on possible amendments to the Constitution; and when it is proposed to put such issues, if any, to the people.
4.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Constitution Referendum Plans.
3.
andMr. Allen asked the Taoiseach if he considers that Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution should be removed or alternatively retained.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.
I would refer the Deputies to the reply which was given to a similar question by Deputy Moore on the 30th November last. This still applies. In relation to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, I would prefer to await the outcome of the all-party committee.
Will the Taoiseach make a more direct statement in relation to the statement made recently by a member of his Cabinet who directly committed the Government to a referendum if returned to power?
The Minister did not directly commit the Government. He expressed his own views on the matter. He said what he would like——
Is he a dissident?
No. He never tried illegally to import arms. He never tried that.
He tried in some other place——
Order.
The Minister is a stimulating debater.
Does the Taoiseach accept that it is the responsibility of the Government who provide the chairman of the committee to ensure that the committee reconvenes? Would he not accept that the next business is the proposals on education which have not been promoted by the Government in the meantime? Further, would he not accept that if a member of the committee uses insulting and misrepresenting phrases such as were used by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in respect of any party to that committee that far from seeking the common ground the Taoiseach asked us to achieve he is doing the opposite by design and intention?
We are getting away completely from the question.
I do not accept the Deputy's assertions on this matter. A committee of this kind can only function if there is a preparedness on all sides to work towards the objective which was initially taken by the late Mr. Lemass when he was Taoiseach. We participated in that committee at that time bona fide but there has been a tremendous dragging of feet since then.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that it becomes impossible for a committee to work with any kind of understanding if a member refers to others, as the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has done, as imbeciles, decadent and creating the environment for gunmen to operate? Does the Taoiseach not accept that that is totally inconsistent with the obligations which he imposed on each of us to achieve common ground? If so, will he ensure that no member, particularly a Government Minister, is allowed to use that kind of expression to create divisions where the Taoiseach has asked the members to seek common ground?
Within the law free speech is allowed.
There is privilege attaching to this House which means that certain things can be said here——
Has the Deputy a question to put?
Does the Taoiseach think it consistent with the kind of responsibility a Minister of the Government should have that he should arouse or attempt to arouse that kind of reaction by intemperate language which is not suited to a member of any government?
The Deputy will appreciate that there has been a distinct difference in the approach of his party to this committee now compared with the time when the late Deputy Lemass established it. We were not responsible for that. This, like everything else, is a two-way process. We went into this committee originally bona fide accepting the invitation of the then Taoiseach, who expressed the view broadly that the time had come to review and change the existing Constitution or introduce a new Constitution. Of course, a great deal of water has flowed under the bridge since then, but there certainly appears to be a tremendous reluctance on the part of the party he represented at that time to accord with those views.
Deputy Allen.
Would the Taoiseach accept that there are many aspects to be considered under the terms of reference: legal, economic, social and political?
I have called on Deputy Allen.
In view of the responsibility thrust upon members of the Government and the serious consequences of any member making statements, would the Taoiseach say if the removal of Articles 2 and 3 was discussed at any stage by the Cabinet?
Cabinet discussions are confidential.
Would the Taoiseach be more explicit in relation to the stimulant we have got, as he put it, and will he say there is no such intention and that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs was talking entirely off the top of his head and without any approval by his own colleagues?
What the Minister suggested was a debate on this matter.
He did not.
As the Deputy is well aware, before any amendment of the Constitution can take place, there has to be the introduction of a Bill, that Bill has to be discussed through all Stages to its final enactment and the matter has to be put to the people in that form. So far as the Minister is concerned, he is obviously stimulating the Opposition.
Will there be a Bill?
(Interruptions.)
Order.
Do I not always facilitate the Opposition with debate?
The matter is a bit too serious for flippancy.
The person who first suggested we should look at the Constitution was the late Seán Lemass. Do not forget that. It was he started the process and the trouble now is the present Fianna Fáil Party want to drag their feet.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
I want to put one question. Will the Taoiseach not agree that the terms of reference of the two committees about which he is talking are totally different, the terms of reference in relation to the committee which is, though still existant, almost defunct and the previous committee which dealt entirely with the Constitution?
There are marginal differences. Of course, there is no compulsion. When a Member goes into a committee like that he can discuss anything.