Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Mar 1998

Vol. 488 No. 2

Ceisteanna — Questions. - Committee on the Constitution.

John Bruton

Question:

3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach his views on the work programme of the all-party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5554/98]

John Bruton

Question:

4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has been consulted in relation to the work programme of the all-party Committee on the Constitution. [5781/98]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together.

Yesterday I received a letter dated 2 March 1998 from the chairman of the committee enclosing a memorandum of the same date setting out the work of the committee. The memorandum set out a number of issues which are to be considered by the committee on the basis of referral, including the abortion issue following receipt of the proposed Green Paper; the individual rights of children at the request of Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, at the Department of Health and Children; nomination to the Presidency by private citizens — Private Members' Bill — in the context of nomination procedures generally at the request of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the age limit for election of TDs, Senators and the President.

Other specific tasks that the committee feels it should appropriately tackle are the electoral system, Cabinet confidentiality, people with disabilities and, following a successful conclusion of the Northern Ireland peace process, changes to the Constitution to cater for consequential political arrangements such as, perhaps, North-South bodies and issues relating to funding of referenda and the implications of the McKenna case.

I understand that many of these issues will be discussed by the committee, having regard to the systems into which they fall whether that be the political system or the rights system. The committee suggested that it would be desirable if the chairman had an opportunity to discuss such issues with me as Taoiseach from time to time and if the other party representatives on the committee likewise had an opportunity to discuss such issues with their party leaders and receive political direction on them. I propose to reply to the chairman indicating my availability for such discussions.

The committee says the first tranche of proposals it made, which are contained in its first and second reports, should be put to the people in the form of proposed changes. Has the Government considered that request of the committee and, if so, when does it intend to put those proposals in a referendum?

I replied to that matter on 10 February and said I had set in train a detailed examination by Departments of the two progress reports which the committee put forward. I expect that in a matter of weeks I will have detailed replies on those issues which I will then put to Government.

I take it the Taoiseach does not yet know if he will accept any of the proposals. Does he have a view on the recommendation of the committee that the committee chairman should seek direction from him on matters affecting the committee? Does he consider that this is wise in so far as the committee is acting independently of parties and the chairman should surely seek direction from all party leaders rather than one, if that is the course being followed? It may simply be the drafting of the particular passage in the report to which I refer that may be open to misinterpretation.

The committee asked that the chairman have the opportunity to discuss issues from time to time with me as Taoiseach and that other party representatives on the committee have the opportunity to discuss such issues with their party leaders to receive political direction. I spoke to the chairman and the vice-chairman this week and have informal chats with them most weeks. There is a huge workload and the committee is trying to ensure its efforts, time and commitment are likely to run politically.

I fully accept that. I felt the report might have been drafted in a way which did not reflect the true intentions of the committee. The committee recommends certain enhancement of the facilities available to the vice-chairman which would presumably require the sanction of the Minister for Finance. Has the Taoiseach or the Minister for Finance had occasion on which to consider or decide on this?

I accept the argument put forward by the vice-chairman. There is a huge amount of work involved and a few weeks ago I forwarded a request to the Minister for Finance to sanction the issue raised.

Is the Taoiseach aware there has been some concern in the committee on the difficulties in ensuring its work will be relevant to the deliberations of the Government? Already work done by the committee on the Referendum Bill has been disregarded. Will the Taoiseach indicate that he is committed to ensuring the good work of the committee will be relevant to the work of the Government? I suggest that unless there is a proper connection between the work of the committee and that of Government, it will be hard for it to continue on with the dedication which is evident across all parties, of which I am sure he is aware.

Of course I am aware of this. It not only relates to Government but to all parties. That is precisely the point to which Deputy Bruton and I have just referred.

I will discuss with the Government the committee's request for a mechanism to be found by which it may be consulted on constitutional issues.

Does the Taoiseach agree that, if at all possible, the use of the committee as a dumping ground for difficult issues should be avoided, that it should be allowed continue with its work programme which has a coherence of its own, and that our first reaction every time the parties are faced with a constitutional difficulty should not be to give it to the committee so that it has the headache rather than ourselves? I do not mean we should never do that, but our first reaction should be to see if we can overcome the constitutional difficulty ourselves rather than referring it to the committee. Does the Taoiseach agree that the committee is taking a coherent and holistic view of the Constitution rather than a piecemeal approach and that it should be allowed do that as far as possible without interruption by politically generated fire fighting requests from the various party leaders in the House?

It is very dangerous to ignore political dumps these days.

All dumps are political.

I agree with Deputy Bruton. It would make life easier for the Taoiseach of the day if that were the process. Deputy McManus made a point about the Amsterdam Treaty. I dealt with that matter effectively but it would have been simpler to give that to the committee because it took much discussion between the party leaders to ensure it was right. It could have been sent to the committee which would have given its view on it, but I do not think that is the appropriate approach. I am sure there are some issues from which we can benefit from the committee and it has stated that it should be consulted at times. That is a reasonable point, but to dump all problems on it is unacceptable.

I recall that, when the committee was being established by Deputy Bruton, one of the points made was that some issues and the preparation and work surrounding them last for years. Therefore, the committee should be allowed some continuity. The Whitaker report, which was compiled in a short period, gave an opportunity to the committee to involve itself in substantial detailed work. If it is not allowed to continue with that, it will never reach a conclusion. The issue of electoral changes has been a source of debate since I entered this House. Four previous Taoisigh have said the most significant issue they believe should be addressed by committees is the electoral issue, but we never seem to get around to it. I would like to see a constitutional review committee do that, even if it took ten years.

I wish to clarify something because I think the Taoiseach misunderstood what I said. I did not suggest that the wording of the Amsterdam Treaty referendum should have been referred to the committee. I pointed out in relation to the Referendum Bill that the work of the committee in the operation of referenda was disregarded. That is a separate issue. The Taoiseach is absolutely correct about the wording and absolutely wrong about the Referendum Bill.

Top
Share