Vol. 498 No. 1
2 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he has received the report from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution; if the Government will give effect to the report's recommendations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25563/98]
3 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the report on the Presidency of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. [25604/98]
4 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the proposals, if any, he has to consult other party leaders on constitutional amendments that may arise from the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution on the President. [25605/98]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, together.
I welcome the third progress report on the President published by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution on 25 November 1998. The report recommends a number of changes to the Constitution which require serious consideration. These include issues such as the procedure for nominating a presidential candidate, extending the power of the President to confer titles of honour after consultation with the Council of State and reduction of the age of eligibility for election to the office of President to 18 years.
I understand that the All-Party Committee proposes to publish further progress reports early in 1999. I am prepared to consult other party leaders when the Government has had an opportunity to consider the reports and I will be in touch with the leaders in due course.
Has the Taoiseach any views on the recommendations in the report, in particular extending power to the President, after consultation, to confer titles of honour?
I had the opportunity to read the full report and I thank our colleagues from all parties who make up the committee for their diligent work, not only on this report but on the two previous ones. I know what the committee is trying to do in its recommendations, moving forward from the report of the Constitutional Review Group. I favour the recommendations of the latter group in some areas — I would not support reducing the minimum age limit of presidential candidates to 18 years and I have publicly stated I do not see a requirement for it.
On the specific question of honours?
My stated position in the House, when I answered a question from the Deputy last year, was that I would support looking at the issue again. On that occasion I referred to the eight or nine times this has been raised in the House over the past half century, by almost every Taoiseach in that time. The matter should be considered but it needs further examination.
The Taoiseach said that last year. The matter has been considered by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which recommended that in some circumstances the President, in consultation with the Council of State, should have the power to confer honours. Does the Taoiseach have a view on whether that would be good or bad?
The Government has not considered the issue of an honours scheme. I favour some way of rewarding and recognising people in the community who have given great service in various areas. This should not only involve people of seniority, but individuals in the community. There is the Gaisce awards system for young people but there are no other awards. I do not necessarily agree with the proposed scheme. I do not understand why the Council of State should be increased in size to deal with this issue because the President usually takes decisions based on the advice of the Executive. The recommendation appears to move away from that principle. However, I have no difficulty with the involvement of the President in an honours system.
Is the Taoiseach's view that he is in favour in principle of a system where honours are conferred by the President in consultation with the Executive but not the Council of State? Is that an accurate description of the Taoiseach's view?
We need to consider the role of the Council of State. I do not understand why the size of the council needs to be increased. The report appears to suggest that the Council of State is made up of representatives of only one party. However, that is not the case. The Council of State also includes former Members of the House who held various positions.
Not all the people on the council.
That is correct. The proposal can be considered but, as I said in the House previously, I am in favour of the President having an involvement. However, it is a matter for the Government to put forward proposals.
What is the Taoiseach's view on removing the references to God in the oath of office of the President?
The Government has not considered that. However, I am not in favour of removing references to God from anything, particularly on a church holiday.
What has happened to the Progressive Democrats?
I was wondering whether the Fianna Fáil Party had caught the Progressive Democrats' virus.
Is the Deputy in favour of it?
No. The Minister did not need to ask in my case. What will be the decision making process on the report? What steps does the Taoiseach envisage will be taken towards decisions on this issue?
I assured the all-party committee that the Government will consider the report soon after Christmas and give its views to the committee. Progress will be made after certain aspects are adopted. Departments already have done detailed work on the committee's two earlier reports.
The committee is also preparing a report on ambiguities in the Constitution in relation to the Irish and English languages which it wants addressed. I said that would be done. The committee will also put forward proposals on making the Constitution gender neutral. I said I would also support that work. This volume of work needs to be considered together before progress is made.
Will the Taoiseach consult the committee or the House? I assumed the committee had done its work and the consultation would be wider.
I apologise if I was unclear. I must first consult my Cabinet colleagues.
After that?
The Government will consult the committee on a number of aspects in the report. Areas where there are differences with the committee need to be clarified. As this stage, I am referring to differences I have with the committee. We should not go ahead without further reference to the committee.
Does the Taoiseach consider in addition to consulting his Cabinet colleagues, which is the first step that must be taken, that a debate in the House on this issue would be beneficial? All 166 Members of the House may have something interesting or useful to say on the matter.
Even the alternative Taoiseach, Deputy Gildea.
Particularly Deputy Gildea. He would radiate much sense on this subject.
Do the Deputies know when they will alternate?
There could be a special quota, perhaps even sub-regionalisation.
Has the Government considered that? Furthermore are there any proposals to consult the Opposition parties on the matter and, if so, what will be its structure? Will we be invited in and asked "what do you think lads?" or will there be a suggestion from the Government as to what it thinks to which those being consulted might react?
I am prepared to consult the other party leaders when the Government has had an opportunity to consider the reports and will be in touch with the leaders in due course. As Deputy Bruton is aware, this Government more than any Government in the history of the State has consulted very extensively and in the past 18 months has taken on board suggestions in relation to the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty, on Cabinet confidentiality and on the British-Irish Agreement. Those consultations proved fruitful for both Opposition and Government. We will have similar consultations again in the future.
Following on from my party leader's comments, I am concerned to see an end result. This committee which was set up by the previous Government has been meeting for the past two years ago and has published three reports. Many of the reports' recommendations, such as the gender proofing recommendation, are non-controversial. Neither is the recommendation on local government controversial. The Taoiseach should establish a consultation procedure, as quickly as possible, with his Cabinet colleagues, followed by discussions with party leaders and a debate here as suggested by Deputy Bruton. The Government would then be in a position to avail of opportunities as they arise. The next such opportunity will be in June. We should avail of an economical way of amending the Constitution. I hope all that process will be in place to enable a good package of measures to the put to the people next June. Will the Taoiseach agree with that timetable?
I do not want to be pushed on the timescale but I have set out what we propose to do. We have received reports and expect to receive some more data. I do not want us to have constitutional referendums willy-nilly. The committee has done good work and has given us reports which we can examine. The first two reports have been considered in detail by Departments who have reported back. The third report has been received. It recommends tightening up the Constitution in the translation of English to Irish where the language should be gender neutral. We must try to agree a package of measures and discuss them with the party leaders. I have no difficulty in having them debated in the House when they are ready.
Does the Taoiseach share a concern which seems to form part of the thinking behind the recommendations in the committee's report that politicians cannot be trusted with the allocation of any kind of honours system? Will he agree in the two areas where we have the power to confer an honour, namely, the Freedom of the City for many of the cities that have a charter to so do, or the invitation to address joint or single Houses of the Oireachtas, that as a body of politicians over generations we have been responsible and economical in terms of the way in which those honours have been allocated? Will he take into account in his consideration of any proposals that may come before the House because the Executive is the body that will initially propose, that politicians on all sides should not allow themselves to be denigrated into abdicating this responsibility given that our record shows in the areas where we have had that responsibility, we have been highly responsible?
I accept that. It is for that reason I do not believe we should change it. I presume the thinking is to refer the matter to the Council of State. We do not have to do that given that in every other area the President acts on the advice of the Executive, the Executive takes the advice of the House. I read the file in regard to this matter last spring. A problem has existed for the past 40 years about the word ‘honours'.
I believe ‘life peers' is the preferred term.
The scheme would recognise people who carry out an enormous amount of work but are unlikely to be granted freedom of the city or be nominated to the Seanad. A number of Irish people have received recognition outside Ireland for work carried out here and elsewhere. It is regrettable we do not have some system of recognition here. The record shows that this has been a divisive issue over the years. If we could overcome the difficulties that exist, we could reward and recognise distinguished citizens. This House should have a say in that.
