Dermot Ahern
Question:1 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach when the Government will establish an all-party Dáil Committee to deal with the recommendations from the Constitution Review Group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19400/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Constitution Review Group.
Dermot Ahern
Question:2 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Taoiseach when the Constitution Review Group will make its report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19401/96]
Seamus Brennan
Question:3 Mr. S. Brennan asked the Taoiseach the progress, if any, being made by the Constitution Review Committee. [1091/96]
Mary Harney
Question:4 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if he has considered the interim report of the Constitution Review Group; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1422/96]
Mary Harney
Question:5 Miss Harney asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to publish the interim report of the Constitution Review Group. [1423/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
The Constitution Review Group furnished to me provisional reports, with relevant background material, on a number of constitutional issues on 20 December 1995. The Government has agreed to the publication of the reports and I have arranged to have copies placed in the Oireachtas Library. I will shortly put proposals to the Opposition Leaders on the establishment of an All-Party Oireachtas Committee as envisaged in A Government of Renewal.
The review group has indicated that the provisional reports may be revised in some respects before it submits its final report which is expected by Easter 1996. General comments by the review group are being reserved for the foreword to its final report.
I take this opportunity to thank the group for the work they have undertaken and particularly for meeting the very tight deadline given to them.
I would particularly like to emphasise that. It is fair to say that Dr. Ken Whitaker, as chair of this body, and all the members have shown tremendous dedication in mastering, in a short space of time, a comprehensive mass of material concerning our Constitution.
I join with the Taoiseach in complimenting the Constitution Review Group. While the review group has reported on a number of aspects of the Constitution it would appear at this stage, and from the press release issued by the Government, that it has left out a number of important issues, namely in relation to the structure of our courts, the trial of offences and the whole issue of fundamental rights which have been the subject of many court reviews over the years. What will happen in relation to those issues? The press release, other documents and even the report itself appears to be silent in that respect. The Constitution was drafted and put to the people in 1937. Following a number of amendments, court actions and constitutional actions it has stood the test of time. It is indicative of the review group that it has homed in on a number of areas which are not that controversial whereas over the years there have been more controversial areas.
I could not disagree with anything Deputy Ahern has just said. He is right in saying this preliminary report deals with a series of issues on which the body had come to conclusions. Naturally, the more controversial or far reaching issues are ones on which I presume it has not yet come to conclusions and, therefore, are ones that will be dealt with in its final report, if dealt with. The group was asked to provide us with an interim report which would provide us with at least some material on which an all party committee could be working pending receipt of the final report. The final report is expected by Easter 1996. Allowing for the normal delays that arise in regard to the setting up of committees, by the time the committee gets into its stride it will have a much more comprehensive document available to it.
So far as the second part of the Deputy's question is concerned, his point of view is one that would be widely shared. There are other points of view too. The process we are adopting of having an all party committee, where all points of view can be canvassed, is the best approach. That is a matter on which I will be making proposals to the Deputy's party Leader and to Deputy Harney in the reasonably near future.
Given the deadline of Easter 1996 for the final report of the committee, will the Taoiseach agree that it is extremely unlikely that any referenda will be held arising from this report in the lifetime of this Government?
Not necessarily. Either way the report is expected by Easter 1996. To a degree that is a selfimposed deadline. If particular matters arise on which early action can be taken, there is no reason that early action should not be taken. That is a matter we are committed to discuss in the context of an all party committee before coming to any conclusions.
I join with the Taoiseach on complimenting the Constitution Review Group on the work it has done to date. Will the Taoiseach agree that to a large extent, since the terms of reference were so politically filleted, many of the more substantial issues, such as bail, confidentiality and so on, were not referred to this committee for consideration? Is it intended to hold any referenda on those matters this year?
The Deputy's description is not a good one. There were four items on which work was already ongoing which it was felt should not be included in the remit of the committee to avoid duplication. Those issues are: Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution which are being dealt with in the context of all party negotiations; votes for emigrants on which the Government will be presenting a discussion paper shortly to one of the committees of the House for discussion; the issue of bail on which the Minister for Justice is working and will soon finalise proposals for Government for consideration; and the issue of Cabinet confidentiality on which the Government is currently drafting proposals, having agreed the principles on which those proposals should be drafted. Those are all important issues but they represent only a tiny minority of the important issues that arise in regard to the drafting of the Constitution. I would refer the Deputy to Deputy Dermot Ahern's supplementary question in which he referred to a number of important issues within the remit of this body which will, I presume, be dealt with in the report of the body and which are of great political interest.
Will we have a referendum this year?
We will take a pragmatic view about that. It would probably be unrealistic to hold a referendum on Cabinet confidentiality on its own and to ask the electorate to come out to vote on it, say, next June.
It would be irrelevant when we are talking about that Government.
It would not be an issue on which there would be wild enthusiasm for a vote. If proposals are deemed to be necessary for a constitutional amendment in regard to bail or if there are any other issues arising which the Government feels could be put along with it then there could be a constitutional amendment referendum this year but no firm decision has been taken on that at this stage.
I join with the Taoiseach in congratulating Dr. Whitaker and others in the Constitution Review Group on their work on the Constitution and the time and effort being put in by the individuals represented on that group. The value of my party is evident in that there are no leaks from the committee. The Taoiseach knows the amount of work being done by these individuals.
The Deputy's party is well represented on the group.
The value of my party's representation can be seen from the fact that there have been no leaks from the group.
On the question of North-South executive bodies which require constitutional change, does the Taoiseach agree there is little point in having a referendum on this issue and that it would be better to deal with it in the context of the overall settlement? Articles 2 and 3 are being dealt with separately and the wording has been more or less agreed, subject to the Government living with that. Why has the issue of a referendum on North-South executive bodies been highlighted? It would be better to put the full package — the final outcome of all-party talks and the necessary constitutional change following those talks which hopefully will start next month — to the electorate, North and South, in the way proposed during the past year or so rather than to put the issue of North-South executive bodies separately.
On the face of it there is much sense in what the Deputy proposes but some people may suggest that the Government should show its willingness and determination to provide for this issue by making arrangements for facilitative constitutional amendments in advance of the conclusions of the negotiations. I am not arguing that point but some people might argue that such a move would be helpful in building confidence. As of now I do not envisage doing that and there is no particular demand for it. Nevertheless it is probably best to keep an open mind on these issues. This matter will be discussed in an all-party context when the committee is established.
Does the Taoiseach agree that holding a referendum in the Republic only on North-South executive structures would have the opposite effect to building confidence? I disagree with the views of the group in this regard as it may cause more difficulty. I ask the Taoiseach to clarify the position on this matter, if not today then as soon as possible, as it may be used by obvious people in a later conflict.
We should not be looking for a problem under every stone. This proposal was put forward by the group which was asked to look at the Constitution. We are all aware that there is a problem in regard to the constitutionality of the treaty making powers of the State under the Constitution. That problem arose in the Crotty case and while the problems in regard to the EU have been resolved by way of a constitutional amendment the problems in regard to other extra territorial obligations the State might undertake have not been resolved. There is a problem and the group was correct to highlight it in so far as North-South bodies are concerned so that we would at least be aware of it. When we choose to do something about it is an entirely different matter and, on balance, I agree with the Deputy that it should not be dealt with separately. Given that all parties have not sat down together to discuss the report, it is premature for the Deputy to ask me to announce a position on any of the recommendations. We should discuss them together and look at them in the proper context. There may be an argument in favour of dealing with the issue separately and we should keep an open mind on it.
Has the Government given any consideration to the possibility of framing a new Constitution? The group has reported on certain matters but it has yet to report on many of the more important issues such as private property and the role of the family and women. Does the Taoiseach agree it will be difficult to amend the Constitution in a piecemeal fashion given the history of referendum debates and that it might be preferable and more effective in the long-term to consider the entire Constitution with a view to putting a new document before the public?
In other words, take God out of it.
The difficulty with that proposition is that it denies the public the opportunity to vote on individual Articles and they are basically being asked to buy a job lot. Asking the public to vote in toto on a politically honed compromise between the politicians has certain elitist connotations. A more democratic approach would be to ask them to vote “yes” or “no” on individual amendments to Articles. However, this would also create a difficulty in that people would have to vote on 100 different proposals. There would also be drafting problems and one would have to ensure there was no inconsistency between any of the proposals and that people would be free to vote “yes” on one amendment and “no” on another without contradicting themselves.
There are practical reasons against adopting the more democratic approach whereby people vote on each amendment. It should be recognised that presenting a comprehensive new Constitution without allowing people to vote on individual Articles has certain elitist connotations which would not find much sympathy in many quarters. My personal preference would be to allow people to vote on each Article as it is more democratic. However, it may not be possible to do this. At the end of the day we may find that so many issues have to be addressed that a comprehensive approach is the only one we can adopt. By discussing the matter together in the committee we will ascertain the best approach. We should not adopt fixed positions on either side of the argument at this early juncture.
On the recommendations on the Office of the Attorney General, I note with interest that the Attorney General, Dermot Gleeson, and Mr. Hamilton, who replaced witness A, Matthew Russell, are both on the review group. The report has come a year late for Matthew Russell in that——
I would prefer if Deputies did not mention the names of persons outside the House.
Having been present in the House during the debate involving the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, Deputy Lowry, who made allegations about cosy cartels, I thought that rule had gone out the window.
I am seeking to maintain a long standing convention in the House.
I will refer to him as witness A. The review group has adopted the course of action embarked upon by the then Fianna Fáil Government in late 1994, that is to review the entire workings of the Attorney General's office. It has now been admitted that the workload is such that delegation should take place. Will the Taoiseach comment on this matter and on the recommendation which states, in effect, that the Taoiseach of the day should decide whether he should reveal the advice given or recommendations made to him by the Attorney General? It also refers to the two roles of the Attorney General — the Programme for Renewal stated that the Government would examine this issue. The review group has come down in favour of maintaining the status quo as regards the separation of the two roles of the Attorney General as legal adviser to the Government and guardian of the public interest.
The questioning is overlong.
It is the general view of Members in this Chamber which will probably be enunciated at the all-party committee that there should be a separation of roles.
I do not want to deal with the individual recommendations separately. A process will be initiated whereby all parties will sit down and go through them one by one. The truth is that the Government has not formed any view about them at this juncture because it is committed to discussing them in an all-party context. That is the best approach. If the Deputy wishes to raise some of these issues on their own merits, separate from the report, and tables a question, I will try to answer it, but I am not going to tell him what I think of each individual recommendation as that would not be a useful exercise.
I appreciate that the Taoiseach does not want to deal with each individual recommendation separately, but there is one we could dispose of easily. The review group has recommended that the electoral system should not be changed. May I take it that the Government, and the Fine Gael Party in particular, have no proposals to change it?
Again, this matter may be discussed at the all-party committee. Although I have no proposals to change the electoral system I do not want to prevent the Deputy from making any advocacy he wants.
The Taoiseach took the same view to the wording of Articles 2 and 3 at the time of the publication of the Framework Document. On reflection, will he make it clear that he will not seek a piecemeal solution to the changes recommended by the review group with regard to cross-Border institutions, etc., but will take the wise view recommended by my party leader, that he await the negotiation of a comprehensive settlement to the problems on this island under the Framework Document talks process?
I have already answered that question.
The Taoiseach has not; he reserved his position on it. I am asking him to lift it.
There is an element of repetition.
I reserved my position on it about three minutes ago and I continue to do so.
I am asking the Taoiseach to lift it.
The Taoiseach was rather dismissive of my view that we should have a new constitution. He thought it would be elitist and undemocratic if parties came together to put a new constitution to the people. I doubt if any Government would promote a constitutional referendum without widespread political support. All the referenda put to the people in recent years have had cross party support. Does the Taoiseach agree that there is a view that almost everything must be mentioned in the Constitution? We should seek to have a constitution that is short and deals with basic fundamental and communal rights and no more. The American Constitution which has stood the test of over 200 years and only been amended on about five occasions is the kind of document I have in mind. Does the Taoiseach agree that we should go for a shorter, more succinct constitution which would have widespread popular support and deal with the rights I have mentioned and not necessarily stray into areas which can be dealt with by legislation?
I am reminded that it was Napoleon, who was not a noted respecter of constitutional rights, who invented the maxim "Constitution should be short and obscure". I wonder if that is what the Deputy means; I am sure it is not. I have been waiting for months to say that. I came across that quotation in a book recently and thought it was so good I could not forget it.
The Taoiseach is no Napoleon.
I agree with Deputy Harney that, as far as possible, there should be all party consensus on recommendations to change the Constitution. This does not mean, however, that one necessarily has to present them as a new constitution where people cannot pick and choose between the Articles. There is an argument, which I have advanced, that one should do so Article by Article or amendment by amendment rather than as a job lot. There are also arguments in favour of the Deputy's point of view. We will have plenty of time and opportunities to rehearse them at the all party committee. There is no need for me to go any further in discussing the issue.