John Bruton
Question:5 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, the Government has to introduce amendments to the Constitution in the second half of this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16490/00]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Constitutional Amendments.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:6 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has for amendments to the Constitution between this month and the end of this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17215/00]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5 and 6 together.
Preparations for ratification by Ireland of the Statute of the International Criminal Court are in the hands of the Department of Foreign Affairs. A constitutional amendment is required to enable ratification of this Statute to proceed. The Bill is being drafted and will be circulated after the summer.
I am considering the options for holding referenda at the same time to address more of the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution on constitutional reform generally.
Would the Taoiseach agree that it is very unsatisfactory that the only mechanism for testing the constitutionality of a Government decision is for an individual such as Denis Riordan to put his own home and resources at risk to take the Government to court? Would the Taoiseach agree that we need some form of constitutional council such as the one in France or a constitutional ombudsman which would be able to receive complaints and look at the constitutionality of practices or actions of Government in such a fashion as to provide an alternative mechanism to citizens having to go all the way to the Supreme Court to raise issues of public concern?
I would never rule out any ideas that help the public. However, the President performs that function in regard to legislation because he or she can ask for a Bill's constitutionality to be tested when we finish our work here. Perhaps if there are other alternatives elsewhere, the All-Party Committee on the Constitution should examine them. I would not object to that.
Does the Taoiseach agree there was no possibility of the President referring the Government's appointment of Hugh O'Flaherty to the European Investment Bank to any court because that was an administrative and political decision and not a legislative decision? Does he further agree that an ongoing oversight of the constitutionality of governance in this State is needed so that the Constitution is a living document which inspires the actions of Government and is not used by lawyers to beat other lawyers in contests on behalf of clients? I ask the Taoiseach to consider my suggestion carefully.
How many countries have ratified the Statute of the International Criminal Court to date? What degree of urgency does the Government attach to it? Does the Government agree this is an urgent matter given that the only war criminals who are tried are those on the losing side and the international criminal court needs to be established so that there is a universal standard in regard to war crimes and individuals, no matter which side they are on in a war, are capable of being brought to trial if they have committed war crimes?
We clearly need an international criminal court and the timeframe set down is that all countries should ratify it before the 31 December. The legislation is being drafted and, hopefully, it will be ready following the summer recess. The memorandum has already been agreed by Government. It is a quite complex but important area. Constitutional change is required but I cannot give a precise date. Other than war crimes, the court will cover an enormous number of issues which have been spelt out by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his predecessor and that underlines why its ratification is required as early as possible. I would like to adhere to the date which has been set. I do not think too many other countries have ratified it but they have all been asked to do so over the next six months.
In light of recent developments, including an interview which former Mr. Justice Hugh O'Flaherty is giving to Eamon Dunphy and Ursula Halligan as I speak, has the Government considered implementing the recommendation of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution to hold a referendum which would provide the means to discipline senior members of the Judiciary for misconduct in the exercise of their duties? The Taoiseach will be aware that this report was published on 14 November 1999. Does the Government in light of the controversy that has surrounded this sad affair intend to bring forward proposals for a referendum to enable the Oireachtas or some other body to undertake the task recommended in the report?
As I have stated previously, the recommendations in the committee's report are being examined by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It has completed its preliminary examinations and is awaiting the report on the judicial ethics committee, which is to be concluded by the summer. It did not want to proceed until it received that report. It is a priority which needs to be addressed, as I have stated in replies to Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on a number of occasions. The matter is being addressed by the Department. It requires proper evaluation but it is necessary and as soon as the judicial ethics committee is established we will be able to proceed.
If that is the Taoiseach's attitude, why has he arranged for a Private Notice Question which I tabled to him to be transferred for reply by the Minister for Finance, which, with all due respect, a Cheann Comhairle—
That is a separate matter. It should not be raised in this context.
I know but it should be highlighted that when questions are tabled regarding the comments of the Taoiseach, for which he is uniquely responsible, he does not have the courage, let alone the courtesy, to come in and answer them.
I call Question No. 7.
It is outrageous and your office, Sir, frustrated this, refused to take the question.
I advise the Deputy that the matter is not appropriate to this question.
A Cheann Comhairle, I do not wish to be disorderly and I am aware of what happened earlier—
Then the Deputy should resume his seat.
—but the matter which you indicated could be raised in another way has been frustrated by the Taoiseach. His Department has refused to answer the question.
That matter does not arise. The Deputy should not raise this matter.
The recommendation to which I referred in my questions relates to a specific committee to answer such questions. If one is elected in this Republic one is not allowed to ask these questions but if one happens to be a journalist and knows a friendly station to which one can go, then one can have them answered.
The Deputy is aware of collective responsibility.
The Taoiseach has transferred a Private Notice Question—
He cannot transfer questions and the Deputy knows that. We never do that.
We know how the system works.
I call on the Deputy to resume his seat. I call Deputy Bruton with a relevant question.
Arising from Deputy Quinn's good question, does the Taoiseach agree that there is a need, if judges are to take a solemn oath of office which binds them to act in accordance with certain principles contained in it, for some mechanism other than a private citizen suing to check whether judges at all times act fully in accordance with the provision of their oath? Does he further agree there is a lacuna in our arrangements in the sense that there is no means of judging their compliance—
Perhaps the Deputy will pursue that with a specific question.
Does the Taoiseach agree that a constitutional amendment would be required to deal with this because clearly under separation of powers the Oireachtas has difficulty dealing with it? Does he further agree that we need to examine some form of constitutional arrangement to oversee and test the compliance of judges with the terms of their oaths of office?
These matters were examined and outlined by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution in its fine report on the judicial council to review judicial conduct and it has made recommendations in its fourth report. When the issue of impeachment was raised, a Cheann Comhairle, you stated there were gaps and I and others agreed with you that we should immediately examine it and give it priority. That is what we are doing. We are examining whether it requires the judicial ethics committee's work, which will be a help in this area, which emanates from Ms Justice Denham's earlier report on what was required. It is a priority area which will be addressed as soon as we receive the preliminary report of the All-Party Committee's which is complete. As soon as we get the judicial report we will move on it in the autumn.
What sense of priority has the Taoiseach or Tánaiste if they can allow a key recommendation to lapse for more than nine months without any definitive response? The country was rocked by the issue which precipitated the forced resignation of a member of the Supreme Court and has been resurrected by the Taoiseach's comments last night that have once again brought the Government tottering to the brink of collapse, yet he says it is a matter for priority.
Hear, hear.
When will he come to the conclusion that the public is entitled to ensure that judges appointed by Government carry out their responsibilities in accordance with law? Why did the Taoiseach raise this issue again last night? Why is he not prepared to answer questions this afternoon? A Cheann Comhairle, I may not be allowed to ask this question but I assure you it is one which is being asked by every member of the public.
That matter does not arise.
I ask the Taoiseach to respond. They just coincidentally happen to be linked.
The Deputy is asking a specific supplementary question. The questions relate to constitutional amendment. Supplementary questions relating to constitutional amendments are in order.
The Taoiseach is refusing to answer the question about his own comments and asked the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to come into the House and answer it.
The Deputy should not pursue that matter now.
This is like Aprés Match. We cannot ask real questions.
Given that the Minister for Finance is away on business and will not be available to answer the question, will the Taoiseach take it?
The Deputy is being disorderly.
Will he ask the Minister, Deputy McCreevy—
Either the Deputy wants a proper Question Time or he does not. I will have no hesitation in suspending this sitting if there is continuing disagreement. We have had enough disorder for one day in the House and there will not be any further disorder. It is a choice between disorder and suspension, so the Deputies can make that choice.
(Interruptions).
I call on Deputy Rabbitte to ask a relevant question.
No one on the Opposition benches wants to engage in disorder, a Cheann Comhairle. May I ask you, Sir, for guidance? How is it proposed that the Minister, Deputy McCreevy, will answer for what the Taoiseach had in mind?
We are not going to—
It was the Taoiseach who made the comments. How could the Minister, Deputy McCreevy—
The Chair is not responsible for that. We are either going to proceed with questions or be disorderly, and if Deputies choose to be disorderly then the House will be suspended.
A Cheann Comhairle, you are the guarantor of our rights in the House. May I ask you, Sir, for guidance on that point? How will a question concerning what the Taoiseach has said—
The Deputy knows how he can get an explanation, but raising this matter on the floor of the House is not in order. I have ruled on that and we will now proceed to Question No. 7.
But, a Cheann Comhairle—
We have had more than our share of disorder in the House today. We have had to suspend the sitting already. If I am forced to suspend the sitting again it will have other consequences.
I have asked a set of supplementary questions arising from the questions on the Order Paper and I would like the Taoiseach to have an opportunity to reply to them.
Does the Taoiseach have any further comment to make in dealing with the question?
I have already answered the question the Deputy asked.
Will the Taoiseach answer the question on behalf of Deputy McCreevy?
The only thing I would say is that the report has been there for six months. It is changing what has been there since the foundation of the State. The judicial committee has been working on this matter for about two years. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already finished its preliminary report in under six months, I do not believe there was any delay at all.