Mary Harney
Question:1 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he has received any progress report or communication from the Constitutional Review Group. [13364/95]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Constitutional Review Group.
I have not received any communication from the review group since its launch on 11 May nor have I communicated with it. As envisaged in my reply to parliamentary questions on 3 May 1995, the group was requested to furnish, by the end of this calendar year, provisional observations on any range of matters which by then will be at an advanced stage of consideration. To comply with that request, the review group is endeavouring to have ready before Christmas provisional observations on a number of Articles. The review group, which was given a year to complete its work, hopes to present its final report by Easter 1996.
I know it has not invited submissions but have the Government parties made a submission to the review group?
There have been no submissions of which I am aware. The parties will primarily make their input at the next stage when the joint committee has been established to process the recommendations of the review group.
Does the Taoiseach envisage that this report will be published?
Yes.
I accept that the group has been working for only four or five months but has the Government referred matters such as bail and reform of the electoral system to it?
Specific matters were not referred to the group which was given a mandate to look at all aspects of the Constitution in its review. However, as the House will remember the Government drew attention in the group's terms of reference to the fact that certain constitutional matters, namely, Articles 2 and 3, divorce, the right to bail, Cabinet confidentiality and votes for emigrants are the subject of separate consideration. While the group is not precluded from considering any of those matters I expect that it will prioritise other matters given that the ones to which I referred are being dealt with separately.
Does the Taoiseach envisage that the second phase of this process, that is involvement by Members of the Oireachtas, will start before the group has furnished its final report? In other words, will the Oireachtas Members begin their involvement as soon as there is something on which to work? Has he been told by the group the Articles on which it is focusing and in respect of which Articles we will get a provisional report before Christmas?
The group operates independently of the Government and, therefore, has not furnished it with any reports on the Articles with which it is dealing or the Articles with which it is not dealing. All I have been informed is that the group is endeavouring to prepare provisional observations on a number of Articles before Christmas. The choice of those is a matter for that group. I hope it will be possible to start Oireachtas committee work early next year before the final report will be received and the committee will be able to study the preliminary report furnished by the group and consider the full report at a later date when it comes to hand.
Will the Taoiseach agree that it would be worth-while to co-ordinate that work because otherwise issues which parties in the House may wish to put to the committee or to be considered on stage 2, particularly electoral reform, may be omitted? Every committee of the House since the foundation of the State which studied the Constitution discussed electoral reform. The Taoiseach did not include it on the list to which he referred. I accept it may not be complete. The Constitutional Review Group should consider the issue of electoral reform.
The list I gave relates to matters that I expect the committee would not deal with as priority because they are being dealt with otherwise. Issues such as electoral reform are not on the list and, if the committee wishes to address it, it will be free to do so. Equally, if the committee does not address a particular matter in its report that will not preclude the Oireachtas committee from analysing that matter subsequently. Nor is any obstacle being placed in the way of any party of the House making a submission to the expert committee if it so wishes. I stress it will be up to the expert committee to make decisions as to what matters it does or does not want to report on. That is the best way to proceed.
Is the committee free to make recommendations on what could be regarded as matters of policy as opposed to technical or legal issues?
The committee is being asked to review the Constitution and in light of that review to establish those areas where constitutional change may be desirable or necessary. The words "desirable" and "necessary" encompass policy and technical and legal questions. The committee is free to address the full range of potential change in the Constitution. That is the situation. Ultimately, it will be up to the people to decide what changes will be made.