Jim O'Keeffe
Question:7 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to amend the Constitution which he intends to introduce during the present term of Government; and the proposed timing of any referendum.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - General Review of the Constitution.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:8 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of the fact that it is almost 60 years since the Constitution was drawn up and in view of the political and social changes since then, he will give the plans, if any, he has for a comprehensive review of the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 8 together.
I have no plans for a general review of the Constitution. The Government is committed to holding a referendum on divorce, as indicated in the Programme for a Partnership Government. The proposal in that regard is being prepared by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform.
It was also indicated in the programme that the referendum would be taken by 1994, as the culmination of a major programme of family law reform. We are on target to achieve that aim.
Will the Taoiseach accept that the Constitution is well over 50 years old and that there is a strong case for modernising it? Will he also accept that his reply suggests he has a closed mind in regard to modernising the Constitution? Does he see any merit in an examination by an Oireachtas committee of specific issues such as bail, the problem in relation to Cabinet confidentiality as it arose in the tribunal or other such issues or, alternatively, an Oireachtas committee reviewing the Constitution? Does he see any merit in that approach or can he not see further than the divorce referendum?
As I said, I have no plans for a general review of the Constitution as suggested by Deputy O'Keeffe. The Constitution reflects many deeply held values and views of society and has stood the test of time. There have been many new departures and decisions have been interpreted by the Supreme Court and the High Court. Specific aspects of the Constitution are reviewed and new provisions proposed as the need arises. As I said, we will have a constitutional referendum on divorce, I hope in the autumn of 1994, but I have no other proposals at present for any changes.
I am calling Deputy De Rossa whose Question No. 8 refers.
Surely, given that the Oireachtas in 1968 saw fit to review the Constitution and, indeed, made recommendations with regard to Article 2 specifically, 25 years later it would be in order to have a further review of the Constitution, particularly in view of the many court decisions with regard to abortion, the confidentiality of Cabinet discussions and the increasing problems in relation to property, etc? It is time that the fundamental values, to which the Taoiseach referred, were reviewed in the light of a modern understanding of those values it would be appropriate for an Oireachtas Committee to undertake that review. Will he confirm that he gave this House a commitment last week to propose a change in Articles 2 and 3 in the context of an agreement in relation to Northern Ireland? I presume that commitment stands as well as the commitment in regard to divorce.
Any commitment I gave in this House stands. I have no plans for a general review of the Constitution, as suggested by Deputy De Rossa.
Will the Taoiseach give a list of the items of family law legislation which the Government wishes to put through this House before the referendum on divorce?
I will be glad to oblige.
Does the Taoiseach not know the aspects of family law that have to be dealt with before the divorce referendum?
That is a separate question. If the Deputy puts down a question I will provide the information. I have already said to the Deputy that I will give him the full details of all the legislation proposed and when it is intended to have it implemented. If the Deputy does not want to accept that from me then he can put down a question.
Does the Taoiseach recollect he said in his reply that the Government had proposals on family law reform which it wished to bring in before the divorce referendum? He introduced this subject. I am simply asking him to say what they are since he raised the matter, given that there is considerable difficulty in ascertaining the Government's programme and, therefore, considerable difficulty in knowing when the Government will be ready to take the substantive divorce question.
The question refers to possible constitutional changes.
Yes.
I suggest that the Deputy raise this as a separate question, as it is worthy of a separate answer.
Does the Taoiseach agree he indicated that he wanted to deal with certain items of family law reform before he dealt with this constitutional matter? There seems to be a doubt about the Government's intentions in this regard.
A Cheann Comhairle, it is, of course, a separate question as you rightly say. If the Deputy was seriously concerned about the matter he would have tabled a question to the Minister for Equality and Law Reform. He would recollect also that the programme for legislation published a few days ago lists the Bills that will be brought forward.
That lists the Bills that will be brought forward before Christmas.
Does the Taoiseach agree that nothing is set in tablets of stone and that, while the Constitution may have served us well, a full and proper review is now due? As so many aspects of it are out of date and redundant does he agree that it would be a healthy process if an all party committee reviewed all aspects of the Constitution as current issues may more properly be dealt with in that context rather than in isolation? Will he also agree that we should proceed along that route rather than dealing with separate issues as they arise?
I have nothing to add to the answers I have already given and I have no such plans.
Will the Taoiseach state his views and those of his Government on the recommendation in the Second Commission on the Status of Women that an equality clause should be inserted in the Constitution, which would bring the position of women in Irish society into line with other modern democracies?
I do not know where that fits in. However, if the Deputy wants to take the matter up with the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, who has responsibility for making recommendations to Government in that regard, I am sure he would be glad to respond to her.
I asked for the Taoiseach's views on the recommendation.
By way of explanation, the Taoiseach may be aware that many people believe there should be explicit recognition in the Constitution of everybody's rights, irrespective of sex. I would have thought the Taoiseach was aware of that. On the question of reform of the Constitution, is it the position that there will be no general reform or all party committee? Will a referendum on divorce be held next year and a referendum on amending Articles 2 and 3 in the event of a settlement of the Northern Ireland problem? A number of people feel there should be a further amendment to the Constitution on the question of abortion but is the Taoiseach effectively ruling out any such proposal emanating from the Government?
I have nothing to add to the answers I have given already. I have no plans for a general review and other issues will arise from time to time.
Sir, may I press the Taoiseach to give a specific answer to my question? I asked if the Constitution will be amended to deal with the question of abortion. Is the Taoiseach telling us specifically that there will be no such amendment?
Repetition is a luxury we cannot afford at Question Time.
I agree, that is why I am asking the Taoiseach to answer yes or no.
I am calling Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy Proinsias De Rossa.
Do I take it that I will not get a specific answer?
The Deputy should read the Programme for Government.
The Taoiseach does not know.
The Taoiseach does not have his autocue.
Deputy Dukes is lucky he is not in my job. He can argue but he will never serve in that position so there is no need for him to try to make an impression.
Proinsias De Rossa
Question:9 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach if, in view of his address to the meeting of the European Democratic Alliance in Killarney, County Kerry, on 9 September 1993, in which he expressed opposition to suggestions that EC structures should be changed to diminish the role of smaller states, he will outline the steps, if any, he has taken to convey these views to other member states, and in particular to Germany; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
The Deputy can be assured that I have taken the opportunity as appropriate in bilateral discussions with EC Heads of Government to articulate the views on this matter as set out in my speech of 9 September last. In addition I arranged to have copies of my speech in Killarney on 9 September last circulated to embassies of all EC member states. It received prominent coverage in the Brussels-based media that specialise in EC affairs and which have a wide, high-level circulation in EC capitals.
The conclusions of the Lisbon European Council in June 1992 stated that the prospective enlargement of the Community to include EFTA countries was possible on the basis of the existing institutional arrangements. This was confirmed by the Copenhagen European Council last June. Ireland adheres firmly to the Lisbon and Copenhagen conclusions. It is our view that the current institutional structures can be modified as necessary to take account of the increase in numbers arising from enlargement and of the need to maintain efficiency in Community procedures.
Arising from bilateral discussions which I had at the recent Council of Europe Summit in Vienna, I am confident that the Special European Council likely to be held in Brussels on 29 October will confirm the agreement reached in Lisbon and reiterated in Copenhagen that the enlargement now being negotiated can take place on the basis of the existing institutional arrangements in the Community.
Does the Taoiseach agree that any move in the direction of having permanent places for the larger countries and rotational places for the smaller countries would create a two tier European Community and effectively relegate smaller countries, like Ireland, to the status of a satellite of the larger countries? Will he undertake to oppose any such change in direction at the special European Council Summit on 29 October?
I fully agree with Deputy De Rossa in this regard and I signalled my opposition quite clearly in my speech in Killarney. Last weekend I took the opportunity to talk to the majority of EC Heads of State on this point. I said this suggestion ran counter to the Lisbon and Copenhagen conclusions and on 29 October I will be calling for the upholding of these decisions. Second, I discussed with the Heads of State the unfortunate debate that started at a time when other countries are struggling with the problems of trying to have referenda passed to allow them to join the Community. The Community is showing bad example by trying to change the rules after the countries started the process of negotiations. These countries applied for membership on the basis of the existing rules and were told clearly in Lisbon and in Copenhagen that these rules applied but now there are suggestions that they should be changed. I said that I totally reject that approach. I expect we will dispose of that matter at the Summit on 29 October and that decisions already taken will be upheld as we believe there can be institutional changes to reflect the increasing number and that the workings of the Community can be carried out efficiently and effectively by the institutions.
I must apologise to the House for devoting too much time to the Taoiseach's questions as we should now be dealing with priority questions.
I must bring to the notice of the House the fact that by a resolution of the House of 7 April 1993 a new Standing Order, that is Standing Order 35 (1) was adopted whereby it was provided that the Taoiseach's Parliamentary Questions on Tuesdays shall not exceed 30 minutes. We have gone somewhat over time, but it is my fault and I accept responsibility.
On a point of information, the Taoiseach asked that questions due to be taken tomorrow would be taken today as I understand he will not be here tomorrow. Is that right?
The Deputy knows as well as I do——
The Taoiseach may go where he likes as far as I am concerned.
——that the Whip's office has agreed to this. The Deputy will notice that I have not objected in the past 20 minutes to taking questions.
As long as the Taoiseach stays in proper quality hotel accommodation, I do not mind.
Preferably Irish.
I do not want to see the Taoiseach slumming.
In view of the fact that we agreed to take all questions to the Taoiseach today could we proceed, with the agreement of the House until 3.30 p.m., when priority questions start in the normal way?
The Chair is bound by an order of the House and it is my duty to comply with it——
If the Taoiseach is prepared to go on to 3.30——
It is the prerogative of the Government to decide the alteration.
The Taoiseach is prepared to go on until 3.30.
It is a matter for the House. I know Deputy Dukes will say that I am not answering any questions but I have been here for 20 minutes.
The Taoiseach uses a lot of words but he still does not answer the question.
Does the Taoiseach have any relatives in the US?