Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums he intends holding during the first half of 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30972/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Constitutional Amendments.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:3 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach his proposals for a constitutional referendum during the first six months of 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31481/01]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referendums planned by the Government in 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31662/01]
Trevor Sargent
Question:5 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the referendums to amend the Constitution which will be held in the first half of 2002; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [31917/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 to 5, inclusive, together.
Apart from the referendum which will arise following the passing of the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill, there are no plans to hold any other referenda prior to mid-2002.
The Government has brought seven issues to the people by way of referendum so far. The issues involved in the referenda were Cabinet confidentiality, the Amsterdam Treaty, the British-Irish Agreement, recognition of the role of local government, abolition of the death penalty, the International Criminal Court and the Nice treaty.
Will the Taoiseach comment on the apparent difference of opinion in Cabinet on whether a referendum will be held following the passage of the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill? The Tánaiste said on the Order of Business one morning when the Taoiseach was absent that she did not feel a referendum should be held on the matter without a national consensus to ensure its passage. The Leader of the Progressive Democrats in the Seanad, Senator Dardis, expressed a similar opinion when he spoke on Second Stage of the Bill in the other House. What is the Government's position? If a referendum is held, will all partners in Government participate in the campaign or will the Progressive Democrats be allowed to opt out?
I hope there is no confusion or disagreement on this issue. When the Government announced its proposal, it was made clear that both Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats Party were supportive of it. I hope the proposal receives a broad middle ground consensus. The date for the referendum will be chosen in January.
In which month of 2002 is it likely that the referendum will be held? Is it fair to suggest that it is unlikely that the poll will be held in January, given that the decision is being made that month? Does the Government intend to stage the referendum as a separate event or is it possible that the referendum may be held on the same day as the general election, which is due before the end of June 2002?
I intend to honour a commitment I made to this House following a request by the Fine Gael Party and others that the referendum should be held as a stand-alone event, apart from any other poll.
In the light of the proposed amendment of legislation relating to the Referendum Commission, has the Government considered how funds will be allocated to both sides in the forthcoming abortion referendum?
This complex matter is being considered by the Attorney General, following the report of the all-party committee. It is intended that a decision on the McKenna judgment, which states that funds must be equally split between the two sides in a referendum campaign, will be made before the next referendum.
Does the Taoiseach intend to go ahead with a second referendum on the Nice treaty? If the result of the first referendum had been different and the Taoiseach had been successful, would he be bringing forward a Bill to effectively abolish the Referendum Commission and to help the Government get what it considers to be the right result in the second referendum?
The all-party committee, which has done a good job, continues to deliberate on this issue and the Government intends to follow its advice, with which I totally agree. I answered the question in relation to the staging of the second Nice treaty referendum yesterday. I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions that EU enlargement can only take place if the Treaty of Nice is passed. If it was not clear before, it is now beyond doubt that the Amsterdam Treaty only allows for a small extension of the Union. This is not sufficient, as the report of the Commissioner, Mr. Verheugen, suggests that ten countries will join the European Union in the next year or so. The Nice treaty, therefore, will have to be revisited.
(Dublin West): Tens of thousands of Irish people are still subject to ground rent, which is a feudal imposition which dates back to the days of the landlords. The Taoiseach has hinted in the Dáil that there may be constitutional implications if we decide to remove ground rents. Will the Taoiseach clarify this issue and prepare for a constitutional referendum in 2002 should it be required to remove this relic of the bad old days from the backs of the people? When introducing the ground rent Bill, will the Taoiseach provide for a referendum which might be necessary to allow people to own their homes in comfort and peace without being subjected to pressures from the relics of the landlord class.
The Deputy correctly cited my comments on this issue. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is drafting a Bill to address this matter and hopes to have it before the House during the next session. Subject to correction, the latest view of the Attorney General is that a referendum may not be necessary.
The Taoiseach may be aware of two headlines which appear side by side in today's edition of The Irish Times which state, “Cowen warns of consequences of failing to ratify the Nice treaty and “Ahern refuses to say “Yes” or “No” on Nice poll”. There is a certain amount of confusion when headlines such as these appear. This confusion arises from the fact that yesterday the Taoiseach would not say whether the Treaty of Nice needed to be ratified by a referendum or whether he had some scheme in his head for that purpose. Will he clarify the position?
I did not get a chance to read the newspapers in any great depth. However, I heard the RTE news report on yesterday's Dáil proceedings which was clear and accurate as regards the position. The Government has not made a formal decision on this issue. However, I have indicated on several occasions, and I do so again, that the Treaty of Nice is a condition of enlargement. By 31 December 2002 all EU member states have to ratify the treaty to allow enlargement to go ahead, otherwise we block the entire enlargement process. Our EU partners and the accession countries are firmly of the view that enlargement requires this to happen so we can deal with the institutional changes and ratify the treaty.
I have stated outside and inside the House that I am in favour of returning to the people on this issue. However, if it is decided to return to them, before doing so there are a number of things we have to do. We have to reflect on the reason for the people's decision and try to address those issues which we outlined in the discussion yesterday. A number of points were put to me to which I replied yesterday and we have to try to deal with those issues. It would be unwise not to try to resolve as many of them as possible beforehand, otherwise we would ignore the public, which none of us wish to do. We have no right to do so. We have to address the issues which the people put before us as best we can within the powers available to us and in a manner to which the European Council and General Affairs Council will agree. That is the task for the months ahead.
I will return to the Bill published this morning to reform or amend the legislation regarding the Referendum Commission. Will the Taoiseach clarify whether he intends to enact this Bill before the referendum on the twenty-fifth amendment of the Constitution regarding abortion?
The Bill is short. It proposes to delete one section of the existing legislation and to give powers to the Referendum Commission, not only to explain the broad position of the proposal before the people in any referendum, but to play a part in trying to encourage people to participate in a plebiscite.
The Taoiseach will know that those of us who argued for the "no" position in the referendum on the Treaty of Nice would wish him to honour and respect the decision of the electorate and request the governments of other EU member states not to proceed with ratification, but rather to address the issue of enlargement by other means.
On many occasions I have raised the need to accord representation in the Oireachtas to citizens of the Six Counties as part of the developing peace process. The All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution which has been working on this and related issues since 1998 has yet to present its report. What is the Taoiseach's view on this issue? Will a referendum be necessary to facilitate such representation?
I do not wish to get into an argument or a debate with the Deputy on this first matter he raised. However, I detect from what the Deputy's colleagues are saying elsewhere that they do not wish to block the wishes of the countries who wish to join the EU in a new model of enlargement. However, that is the reality of what we are doing, whether people wish it or not. That is the effect of where we are.
I have no objection to enlargement.
That is always our problem. No one has any objection to enlargement, but the effect of what we have done ensures that we are objecting to it. That is the difficulty.
It is not beyond the genius of the EU to come up with a formula.
I would not put myself forward as a constitutional lawyer, never mind a European lawyer. However, I assure the Deputy with certainty that what I am saying is true. The effect of our position, and we cannot contradict it, is that we are successfully managing to block enlargement. It does not cause a problem now, but it will do so in a year's time.
The issue of representation is being debated. If my information is correct, the report of the committee is almost finalised and is imminent. I am not sure if it will be published before or after Christmas, but it is imminent. The matter will then have to be discussed among the parties in the House. We would need to seek agreement among the parties on this issue. It is more than likely that a constitutional change will be required and we would have to try to work out within the House how to achieve that position.
Why does the Taoiseach think it necessary to change the manner in which the Referendum Commission operates?
It is clear from research by the European Commission and others that the main issue was confusion. People were confused. Looking at the statistical figures from a poll carried out after the referendum, it is agreed by the all-party committee and others that the people were confused. In many cases, making an argument for the sake of it, or putting strong arguments on either side created confusion. This matter has been deliberated on within the committee and it has given a clear recommendation with which I agree. This is an all-party committee, but it has made a clear recommendation.
When a referendum is being held people can explain the issue. Whatever the issue, confusion is created when this House passes legislation and arguments have to be put forward and advertised. The referendum on the Treaty of Nice was not the first occasion on which there was confusion because there were many other issues in addition to the central one.
Deputy Ó Caoláin stated that he is favour of enlargement, but the trouble is that he is against the treaty which was about enlargement. I respectfully suggest to the Deputy that he was not alone. The figures show that the majority of the people were in that position. It is not that the people did not do their job, but, as suggested by the all-party committee, the system is not a good one.
Would the Taoiseach favour a proposition which would allow a committee of the House to establish the facts on any referendum to be put before the people and report either unanimously or by majority and minority reports? It could then be the job of the referendum commission to promulgate the facts as established by the committee of the House. Some of the judges who adjudicated on the McKenna case were strongly of the view that while the Government had done its job and the people had adjudicated, there had not been sufficient input by the Parliament. My proposal would be a way of combining what the Taoiseach is proposing with a very effective way of involving the Parliament to establish the facts of the proposition being put before the people.
Is Deputy Quinn's question on the same lines?
It is related. The Taoiseach may wish to answer both questions together. On the basis of what the Taoiseach has said in response to Deputy Ó Caoláin's observations and comments, there seems to be a legal dispute as to whether the enactment of the Nice treaty is a legal requirement to open the door to the process of enlargement. Enlargement is not merely a political act. It is also a legal act giving legal rights to applicant member states in relation to the treaties of the Union and the Community. In any other area where such a dispute arose on a matter of law, there would be recourse to the courts. Does the Government intend referring this legal dispute to the Supreme Court for an adjudication as to whether a constitutional amendment is required in order to provide for the enlargement of the European Union, whether by ten candidate states – as is probable – or more?
What was raised at the time was the issue of institutional change. That was why a constitutional amendment and therefore a referendum were required. Three reasons were cited. There is no proposal to do as Deputy Quinn asks. I believe it would get us into another complex wrangle.
The legal services of the Commissioner, the Attorney General and groups such as the Institute of European Affairs, who have examined the legalities, have all said the enlargement process cannot be followed by us without a constitutional amendment. The Amsterdam Treaty would have allowed six new member states but to allow ten new member states involves institutional change and for that we must amend our Constitution. Our challenge is to address the issues as best we can and put them before the people.
There is some merit in looking at Deputy Noonan's suggestion in the longer term to set the case. The five reports on the McKenna case and the other issue raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin raise the possibility that while every Member of Parliament is in favour of an amendment, 50% of referendum funds may have to be allocated to some small outside organisation which opposes it. I do not refer to any particular organisation. In such a situation the sovereign Parliament would not be able to put its case. The issue raised by Deputy Noonan has some merit.
Mr. Justice Blaney's judgment is worth examining.
(Dublin West): Does the Taoiseach agree it is necessary to be extremely careful about moving with regard to the issues to which he has just replied and, as Deputy Noonan said, the Dáil establishing facts? Facts can be established in a very partisan manner, depending on the parties which dominate their establishment. Does the Taoiseach agree it would not be in the interest of a healthy democratic debate on most issues of importance that are submitted to referendum if minority voices in the Dáil were not given due attention or the necessary time? In the Nice treaty referendum a substantial section of the people agreed with the minority voices in the Dáil. Does this not prove that one should be extremely careful before departing from the principles laid down in the McKenna judgment, an action I would oppose?
I accept that. The people have a right to reflect their view and we must deal with that, unpleasant though it might be. Members of the House, even a small minority, also have a right to express their views. However, in several referendums the State, in order to establish a balance, has had to seek out contrary arguments and because there may be 15 valid arguments on one side we have almost been obliged to dream up an equal number on the other side. We have had to do this even if no one inside or outside the House was making these arguments. I do not think the McKenna judgment calls for this. I understand there must be debate and that the Government cannot spend the resources of the State in putting only one side of the argument, but seeking out counter arguments merely creates confusion.
Members of this House are all democrats and we work hard at that. The nature of our business should not be to confuse. Nevertheless, I accept the Deputy's point. We must be careful.
Is the Taoiseach aware that there are differing and divergent views within the Catholic community on the proposed referendum? Does he envisage making a final decision on the date of the referendum before the Catholic hierarchy pronounces its judgment on the wording of the amendment and the undertaking of the referendum? Can the Taoiseach confirm whether or not he has spoken, directly or indirectly, with the hierarchy or has he had an indication from the bishops as to their thoughts on the proposed referendum?
I have had no recent discussions on this or any other issue with the hierarchy. I understand they are deliberating on the matter but it will be January before the Government discusses the issue.
The Taoiseach says he did not have any recent discussion. Did he have any discussions in the recent past—
Not on this matter.
—or with any other churches? I know the other churches are also interested in, if not concerned about, the referendum proposals. Has the Taoiseach plans to meet representatives of the other churches, or has he already done so?
I have not. However, it was made clear during the consultation process that people were consulted. The main consultations took place in the all-party committee, where all views were set down very clearly.
Can I take it that, notwithstanding anything that has been said by the Tánaiste in this House or by the Leader of the Progressive Democrats in the Seanad, the Government, within the meaning of collective responsibility, has decided to proceed with this referendum?
I and the spokespersons for the other party in Government made that clear at the outset and it remains the case. The date has not yet been decided.
So their public agonising—
No, the Government will make that decision in January.