Ruairí Quinn
Question:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if the Government accepts the recommendations made in the Seventh Progress Report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11530/02]
Ceisteanna – Questions. - Publication of Reports.
Michael Noonan
Question:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach his views on the Seventh Progress Report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12431/02]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Seventh Progress Report on Parliament, which was published at the end of March, has recently been circulated to all Departments for consideration.
In so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, in April 1998, I wrote to the all-party committee asking it to examine how people living in Northern Ireland might play a more active part in national political life, to the extent that they so desire and in a spirit consistent with the principles underlying the Good Friday Agreement.
I am grateful to the committee which agreed to undertake this review as part of its wider review of the institutions of the State. In undertaking this aspect of its work, the committee had the benefit of submissions received from a number of organisations and individuals, including the SDLP and Sinn Féin.
I deeply appreciate the thoughtful manner in which the committee has approached this sensitive matter. It has sought to ensure that nothing it proposed was at variance with the provisions of the Good Friday Agreement. Its conclusions are fully consistent with that approach.
The committee states its belief that the establishment of a North-South Joint Parliamentary Forum, to bring together representatives of the Oireachtas and of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as the establishment of an independent consultative forum appointed by the Administrations, representative of civil society, both of which are proposed in the Good Friday Agreement, could make a major contribution to dialogue and mutual understanding between North and South. The Government fully shares this view and would wish to see early progress achieved in these areas.
I share the committee's view that it could be particularly valuable from time to time to have the expertise, experience and insight of politicians from Northern Ireland in appropriate debates in the Oireachtas. The Government therefore supports making the necessary procedural arrangements to allow MPs elected for Northern Ireland constituencies to speak in periodic debates on Northern Ireland matters and on the operation of the Good Friday Agreement, as envisaged by the committee, and will seek the assistance of other parties in the Dáil to bring this about as soon as practicable.
The committee rightly points to the valuable precedent established by the contributions of past and present Senators from the North in the Seanad. I fully agree that it would be valuable to extend and to formalise this existing practice. The committee brings forward a range of options, some of which would require amendment of the Constitution. These deserve careful consideration and we will seek to move forward on the basis of the maximum political consensus to achieve an outcome that will provide, as soon as practicable, for a permanent presence from Northern Ireland in the Seanad.
The committee also suggests, in the context of an enlarged role in the scrutiny of EU business envisaged for the Seanad, that consideration could be given to allowing MEPs elected in the State and Northern Ireland to speak in periodic debates on EU matters. The Government supports taking the necessary procedural steps that would facilitate such an initiative. I issued a statement to this effect regarding Northern Ireland following the publication of the all-party report at the end of March.
On the question of participation by representatives from the Northern Ireland Assembly or MPs who are Westminster representatives from Northern Ireland participating in either the deliberations of the Seanad or Dáil or committees of same, has the Taoiseach any suggestions as to whether by participating in a debate it would be necessary to have the Constitution changed or could ad hoc arrangements be made to facilitate such an exchange either through the committee structure or through formal sittings of the Dáil and Seanad?
In relation to some of the matters, for example the North-South parliamentary tier, we could make progress on some of these issues on an ad hoc basis but the more formal matters of the Seanad and the restructuring of the Seanad would definitely be constitutional issues. We probably could make progress on the basis of certain individual debates and make our own standing orders for them. The report's findings on the Seanad and the restructuring of the Seanad, which is what it is about, and the present representational role of the Seanad, are that that would be a constitutional matter.
Does the Taoiseach find it somewhat strange if not contradictory that the President of Sinn Féin, whose party has been to the forefront in demanding equal access to the Houses of the Oireachtas for democratically elected members in Northern Ireland to either the Assembly or to Westminster, declined the invitation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Oireachtas to come and speak to it on a matter of considerable importance to every body on this island? Does the Taoiseach find that at odds with the repeated demands from that party for a presence, for a representation and for an audience either by right or as an extension of the Constitution? Does he have any comment to make on that contradictory position?
Clearly that is matter for the President of Sinn Féin. So far as it relates to what we are doing, if we make arrangements that allow for debate and dialogue they would have to be on the basis that people will turn up, otherwise there is not much point in us doing that. Any future changes we make would have to be on the understanding that there would be participation. As well as the parliamentary tier, an independent consultative forum representative of civil society is envisaged. Deputy Quinn will recall that this issue was raised three or four years ago. Following the recent meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council an institutional format was agreed that consultation should be initiated with the social partners. Both of these would make a major contribution to dialogue and reaching an understanding between North and South and would give us an opportunity to move on that tier which was also envisaged and not just the parliamentary one.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the Seanad should not be a mere carbon copy of the Dáil as it is now with the same type of party lines adopted and whip system in place? Does he agree we should all be committed to making the Seanad a place where a genuine second look at legislative proposals can take place? Does he also agree that if we are to proceed on the basis of negotiation and representation, as suggested in his reply, that effectively would give a veto to people who do not want to participate? Does he not think it would be better to give certain categories of representatives in the North a right of audience in the Seanad, such as MEPs and probably Members of the Legislative Assembly, and then it would be up to them to take up that opportunity when they so wish?
The committee set out a range of views and it is a matter for it as to how it works those out. Deputy Mitchell is correct in stating that the committee is examining this matter in the context of the reform of the Seanad and not in the context of the Northern element being the same as it is today. The task going forward will be to examine how we can structure that. In whatever structure emerges, there should be a permanent presence from Northern Ireland in the Seanad, which, in effect, there has been for almost 25 years to 30 years.
When does the Taoiseach expect – I can hardly at this point ask when he intends – that the necessary steps will be taken to facilitate the implementation of the measures recommended in the all-party commit tee's report, in particular the matter of access for Northern MPs to the Dáil Chamber and to specified Dáil debates? Does he envisage that such access will be enhanced and expanded in the months and years ahead? Does he accept that in response to the invitation from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs the Sinn Féin President and this Deputy did not decline but sought clarification and have not ruled out an opportunity at a future appropriate date yet to be determined? For the record, we also responded to questions posed.
What the Deputy said in the last part of his question is correct. I am sure that will happen in due course.
With regard to the first part of his question, it will take some time to get the process moving, but the setting up of a North-South joint inter-parliamentary forum could move ahead quickly. That would be an initial step and it should not be too difficult to arrange. I have sent this report to all Departments and all the relevant agencies and asked them to go ahead with making the necessary examinations. That work is ongoing and, hopefully, we will be able to come to some conclusions and move on to set up a North-South joint inter-parliamentary forum as quickly as possible.