Enda Kenny
Question:1 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on his attendance at the meeting of the European Council on 29 and 30 October 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38346/09]
Ceisteanna — Questions.
EU Council Meetings.
Enda Kenny
Question:2 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the meetings he held on the margins of the recent European Council meeting in Brussels; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [38347/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the outcome on the European Council meeting held in Brussels on 29 and 30 October 2009. [38546/09]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, together.
I attended the European Council in Brussels on 29 and 30 October. As I will make a statement in the House later, I will merely give a summary account of the proceedings.
The Council discussed institutional issues, including implementation of the Lisbon treaty and agreement was reached in regard to the Czech position. I warmly welcome that following the Czech constitutional court's dismissal of the last challenge to the Lisbon treaty, President Klaus signed the Czech instrument of ratification on 3 November. Czech ratification will be complete when this instrument is deposited in Rome. I looked forward to seeing the treaty enter into force in December.
In regard to climate change, the Council agreed a clear and ambitious mandate for the negotiations in Copenhagen in December, including endorsing the global figure of €100 billion in international financing per year by 2020 and committing to paying a fair share of that. The Council also discussed the financial and economic situation, illegal immigration and external relations. I had a bilateral meeting with President Barroso and I informally met the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
Since that meeting, the Taoiseach will be aware of developments taking place. As I pointed out yesterday, 22 of the 27 countries have nominated their personnel for consideration for commissionerships. The Swedish Prime Minister has said there will be a summit meeting of Heads of Government on 19 November at which I hope the decision on the appointment of a President of the Council will be concluded. He also said this appointment would almost certainly be one of the sitting Heads of Government or a former Head of Government.
It appears there is some fluctuation in the names going forward for the position of High Representative and President of the Council. I am glad the Taoiseach and the Government support an Irish candidate for the position of President of the Council, namely, former Taoiseach, John Bruton. I hope that as the week moves on, it will be possible to build on that application.
What Europe needs now, in the context of the Presidency of the Council, is not somebody who wants to be out front as the person who epitomises Europe in all its respects but somebody who can tie the ambitions of the countries together and consolidate Europe's current position before it moves on to the next phase of being able to stand against the Far East and emerging phenomena around the world in financial terms, in terms of globalisation, climate change and so on. From that point of view, I welcome the Taoiseach's support for a former Taoiseach. Has he received any further information from any of the Heads of Government or other sources as to whether this matter is being finalised either in the context of the High Representative, who will have to be a Commissioner, or the President of the Council itself?
The Swedish Presidency has been in contact with me. I have spoken to the Swedish Prime Minister in regard to this matter. He is engaged in his first round of consultation with Heads of Government. I indicated to him our position in regard to the matter. We await to see what he gauges to be the situation having spoken to everybody, I presume, on a bilateral and confidential basis. He will then be able to inform us of his view on the level of support for various candidates mentioned and take it from there. That he set a European Council meeting for tomorrow week this morning would indicate to me that further rounds of consultation will take place between now and then.
I assume the Taoiseach will attend that meeting. If there is a summit meeting of the European People's Party of which I am a member, I will be happy to attend and to lend my voice to that.
Did the Taoiseach confirm that a conclusion was reached at the Council meeting about the transfer of €100 billion in respect of the climate change challenge between now and 2020? Is he hopeful some kind of conclusion can be reached in Copenhagen? From the meetings of the Heads of Government who are part of the European People's Party, there seems to be serious concern that there may not be the drive to sign up to it, in particular in regard to the United States, China and India, and that it may not be possible to reach a conclusion or an agreement in Copenhagen. Does the Taoiseach have a view on that? Was any decision arrived at by the Heads of Government at the meeting in Brussels?
In regard to the conclusions, the European Council endorsed the global figure of €100 billion in international financing per year by 2020 and committed to paying a fair share of that. It is very conditional and it remains to be seen what emerges from other regions of the world and other powers as to what they will do in regard to their contribution to this international public financing provision which is part of the means by which mitigation and adaption measures can be provided for developing countries in order that we achieve an overall and comprehensive agreement.
In response to Deputy Kenny, the Taoiseach said he had discussions with the Swedish Prime Minister as Sweden holds the EU Presidency. In those discussions, did the Taoiseach discuss particular candidates for both the position of High Representative and Presidency of the EU Council? Does he expect appointments, or nominations, for both positions will be made at the summit meeting on 19 November?
The Taoiseach said yesterday that the Government would shortly announce its nominee for Irish Commissioner. Has President Barroso had any discussions with him in regard to the possible portfolios an Irish Commissioner might have?
In regard to the proposed €100 billion international fund for climate change, is it the case that the European Union contribution to that fund will be approximately €15 billion, as has been reported? Has any estimate been done as to what the Irish contribution might be to such a fund? Has that formed part of the Government's thinking in regard to budgetary matters?
On the first matter, given the nature of the discussions, they are pending an assessment by the Swedish Prime Minister as to what the overall situation might be. These are bilateral and confidential discussions. I can confirm that my position in regard to the Presidency is my public position which I outlined to the Deputy.
In regard to the High Representative position, it remains to be seen what candidates emerge. I understand there was some indication of the possible candidacy of David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, but I understand he has indicated that he is not a candidate. I brought to the Swedish Prime Minister's attention the candidacy of Mr. Rehn from Finland, who is a person I could support if there was sufficient support for him. He has been a very effective Commissioner. We must wait to see the levels of support there. This situation will evolve in the coming days. I wait to hear from the Swedish Presidency for its assessment after it has spoken to everyone.
My meeting with President Barroso was a general discussion. He has made it clear that portfolios are not ascribed to countries, rather to individuals. He is also making it clear that until the High Representative is appointed he is not in a position to pursue the composition of his Commission in any final way until he sees who is to be the High Representative. The difference now is that under the Lisbon treaty provisions the High Representative is also Vice-President of the Commission. Until he has that name before him and endorsed by the European Council, which is a requirement under the Lisbon treaty, he is not in a position to conduct further discussions or come to any conclusions on the composition of the Commission in general.
I have spoken to him about this position. As a result of our second Lisbon treaty referendum decision, one Commissioner per member state is now available to all member states and is a decision to which we ascribe great importance. My discussions with President Barroso were along the lines that we want to work closely with him. He has indicated some of his overall requirements but we must make a decision, taking into account what is best for the country. We have excellent people who have indicated their availability.
On the question of climate change, no internal burden-sharing decisions have been taken within the EU in respect of our contribution to it since we are in the midst of a negotiation ahead of the Copenhagen conference. We have indicated what is the global figure and that the European Union is prepared to pay its fair share. We are waiting to see what others are prepared to do in this regard. No final decisions have yet been taken in the midst of negotiation. On the question of internal burden-sharing, separate from whatever emerges from Copenhagen, a working group has been set up with the European Union in order to finalise the internal burden-sharing arrangements.
In respect of the position of High Representative and President of the Council, in earlier replies on previous occasions, the Taoiseach indicated both here and in public commentary the expectation that the position of High Representative would be appointed first then followed by the rest of the Commission and that the issue of the Presidency of the Council was something that might be dealt with separately from that. Does the Taoiseach expect that just the High Representative will be appointed at the summit meeting on 19 November or does he expect the President of the Council will also be appointed, that the two positions will be dealt with at that stage?
I just heard on my way down to the House this morning that the Swedish Presidency announced it would hold a European Council meeting tomorrow week. I expect that both positions will be filled at that meeting. From speaking to colleagues at the Berlin function on Monday evening, I have the impression that a decision will be taken sooner rather than later on both positions. This is my reading of the situation although I have not seen the communiqué from the Swedish Presidency but I presume both positions will be filled.
Is the Taoiseach aware of the growing and justified cynicism in Ireland and throughout Europe at the wheeling and dealing around the appointment of someone to the newly-created position of the presidency of the Council of Europe? Would he accept that what is involved here is the putting in place of someone at a very senior position within the unelected bureaucracy of the European Union and about whom the people have no say? Will he tell the House the criteria he has put together with his colleagues in the Department or across the Cabinet in determining where Irish Government support would rest with regard to any nominee, anyone challenging for this position? The most obvious names that resonate here at home include Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, whose very important role in helping to bring about major political change on this island I acknowledge. Nevertheless, would the Taoiseach agree that a criterion applying would have to take on board his disastrous co-arrangement with George Bush on the war in Iraq and that this should be a factor in any consideration? For my part, despite other undoubted positive aspects of his tenure, specifically with regard to Ireland, I would think this would be an eliminating factor.
It appears that the Taoiseach had an almost knee-jerk reaction to the suggestion that former Taoiseach and current EU Ambassador to the United States, John Bruton, would enter the race. Is it not ironic that the Taoiseach declared his support without apparently giving any consideration to the suitability of the candidate on a raft of different levels? People here in the corridors of these Houses are of the view that if former Deputy John Bruton were to be nominated by Fine Gael to stand for the Presidency of Ireland post the current President's term in office, the Taoiseach would oppose him and would come up with a nominee to oppose him. This is very likely the scenario that would present itself yet without any apparent time being taken to evaluate his suitability for the position — I am not saying he is not suitable — there are no apparent criteria set with regard to the Taoiseach's and this Government's support for whomever they decide to back in the current race. My point is this is absolutely unacceptable and it is unacceptable to people when they see the greater concentration of power now within the European Union within an unelected bureaucracy and such power only copper-fastened by the passage of the Lisbon treaty. Here we see again another exercise in the allocation of an unelected office. This whole procedure vexes people who have argued for reform of the European Union and the introduction of real democratic practices which clearly, the filling of this position is not.
I do not agree with Deputy Ó Caoláin's analysis. During the course of the Lisbon treaty referendum campaign we had this discussion about what are the institutional arrangements and — something Deputy Ó Caoláin disagrees with — what is the democratic validity of democratically elected leaders of governments meeting for the purpose of adopting common policies, co-decision-making powers with a directly elected European Parliament, and a Commission that acts as guarantor of the treaties for all member states, large or small. These institutional arrangements are what have made the European Union successful and where exclusive conferences at EU level are allied to conferences at national level. The EU is a union of states and peoples. I do not see anything undemocratic in directly elected Heads of Government of 27 democracies sitting down at a European Council to decide who should chair a meeting. It is absurd to suggest this is undemocratic. I could not figure out the logic behind or understand the view of the Deputy's party that we should have a directly elected President of the Council, elected by all the people of Europe. It was something I saw somewhere along the way and the suggestion was that it was perhaps more democratic. One may ask the question of how that democratic validity marries with the democratic legitimacy of the Heads of Government. Such thinking has not worked out from Sinn Féin's point of view.
The Lisbon treaty represents a consensus and a compromise. It is the agreed means by which the European Union will develop in the foreseeable future and for a long time. That is the way it is and that is the emerging consensus. People can hold individual views about how it should be, but I believe in the community method and the community method will inform our position in respect of the filling of these vacancies as well. The community method is about trying to develop a consensus around an agreed candidate. A number of people have been spoken about. Some have declared themselves publically and others have not. Others may be available should there be an agreement among colleagues that they should take up the position.
At any time the EU Presidency has the responsibility to assess and ascertain the level of support for prospective candidates and how to proceed and to get a decision. It has been indicated that this is how the decision will be made tomorrow week. I can do nothing for the Deputy if he holds a cynical view of it. That is the procedure, that is what has been agreed and that is what has been adopted constitutionally in many parliaments and through a referendum in this country. This treaty will probably come into force on 1 December and contains a provision that there will be a President of the Council. The President of the Council may be an existing member of the Council, a former member or, perhaps, in theoretical terms, someone who was never a member of the Council. However, when a group of leaders ask someone to chair a meeting, it is likely it will be someone with whom they are acquainted, in whom they have confidence and someone whom they may personally know or who has a reputation as someone who is capable of doing the job.
The position in respect of the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, is that before the last European Council meeting he wrote and indicated his availability in particular in the event that no existing member of the Council was available to take up the position. He let it be known that his name could be considered in that respect. Given his position as a former Taoiseach and his current position as ambassador to the United States on behalf of the EU, he is entitled to put forward his availability. As leader of the Government, I made it clear, as I should, that regardless of our political differences in domestic politics, I would bring his experience and the merits of his candidacy to the attention of anyone who was interested, who inquired about it or who wanted to know, if they did not already know. They would know from the correspondence he sent. There is no problem with that.
I will not speculate on the candidates to emerge beyond the tenure of this or any other election. That is a matter for democratic decision. People can put forward who they wish and there is no harm in that; it is called democracy. However, in the meantime if a person shows an interest in a position and I believe he is capable, on all objective merit, of doing the job there is no reason that as a fellow Irishman I should not indicate the merits of his candidacy. There are others who claim they can do the job too. The question of who will emerge as a candidate at the end of the day is a matter for political discussion. These are political decisions. One does not go and examine a book on political science to find out the criteria for this job.
That is correct.
The criteria for the job are simple and they include whether one has the confidence of one's colleagues to run the show.
Exactly.
It is not that complicated in that respect. I take the point that it is an important position and it must be carefully considered. It is being considered and we are at the early stages of the discussion on who will emerge. That is politics; it is not an exact science but that is the way it is.
In case he is wondering, the Taoiseach does not have the confidence of all his colleagues. However, I am looking at the situation as it presents. My concern is that I see the wheeling and dealing and the fact that there are no particular criteria. The Taoiseach may deny the presentation of it as he pleases but it appears he was wrong footed and that there was not in place a process by which a collective decision of the Government would be taken or any basis for the consideration of it. None of that came through in terms of the unfolding opera we have witnessed in the past several weeks. That is a fact of life.
I am not an advocate of direct elections in respect of European positions of high office, created by a succession of treaties I do not support. However, I must consider the reality now because, sadly, the Taoiseach had his way in having the Lisbon treaty adopted by a majority of the people the second time around. There it is and we must live with it for now at least. My point related to what I believe is a fundamental weakness and flaw in the Government's approach to this and its decision making in respect of it. It is not enough to say he is from down the road, that we know him well, that he is a fellow Irishman or whatever is the case. That is not enough.
I did not say that.
The Taoiseach said that he was a fellow Irishman and is that not good enough.
It is about the office.
It must go a little deeper than that. Let us make no mistake about it and it is not lost on people that the Taoiseach would not have supported Mr. Bruton if his nomination had been presented for the Presidency of Ireland. There is no question about it.
We are not discussing the Presidency of Ireland at the moment; we are discussing the Presidency of the European Council. The former Taoiseach, Mr. Bruton, put his name forward and I can extol the merits of the man. I have known him as a parliamentarian since I entered the House in 1984. He has been a committed European.
This is not about John Bruton.
The Deputy's comments were about John Bruton.
No. My comments were about the Taoiseach and the criteria.
Let me answer the question and explain the criterion in terms of my support for Mr. Bruton's availability, should it be required or should it be possible for that to happen. I have indicated it. His record and commitment to the European Union has been consistent, passionate and committed. On European matters there is much with which I would agree and perhaps very little with which I would disagree in respect of Mr. Bruton, considering the national view. There are many people in the House from different parties and associated with other parties in Europe about whom I could say the same, so that is not the issue.
The issue is how the President of the Council will be appointed. That is the nub of the Deputy's question. It will be done by agreement among the Heads of Government at a European Council meeting, hopefully to be concluded on 19 November. Presumably, at that stage the EU Presidency will be in a position to put a proposal to the Council for its consideration. The process works based on consultation among Heads of Government by the EU Presidency. We will see what emerges and how we get to it. That is the way it works, out of respect for every country, every Head of Government, the candidates who may put forward their names or a person who may be asked to take the position and who may not yet have declared candidacy. I cannot be any more specific than that.
Ireland will play its role. We have a constructive role to play in respect of people. I have no fundamental objection to any existing member of the Council becoming President of the Council. They are all colleagues and they have all shown great solidarity to Ireland in recent times. They listened to what we had to say and to what was said at the all-party committee in respect of the issues we believed needed to be dealt with in a substantive way before we could put a second referendum. Solidarity has been shown to us. Europe is a two-way street. In fact, it is a 27-way street. However, in whatever way we can constructively engage with colleagues to come up with competent people to do the job, we will do so. An Irishman has made his position clear and he will be available in certain circumstances. I do not see why I would not support this, should there be sufficient support for his candidacy.
A good Irish candidate has declared for the position of President of the European Council and a number of candidates have declared their interest in the Commissioner position. I am sure the Taoiseach will do the right thing in the interests of the country in that respect. My question concerns the European Council meeting. I am pleased to see that there is a special summit on 19 December, one month before the winter summit was planned. The Swedish Presidency is showing a sense of urgency. Is this a full summit? Will it deal only with the Lisbon treaty coming into force and a number of appointments? Will it also deal with addressing the Copenhagen conference on climate change? Will there be further advances in that respect?
Employment was tentatively dealt with at the summit. There was recognition that there is a deteriorating situation through the EU regarding unemployment. All that member states seem to be thinking of doing is discussing the review of the Lisbon strategy. That is extremely tentative for a matter as serious as this.
My reply made the point that the Council discussed the financial and economic situation. We can examine this issue in more detail during the upcoming statements on the European Council. ECOFIN is engaged in regulatory change and reform of financial services. At the December meeting there will be an important discussion arising from decisions taken at ECOFIN by the Council to consider the economic and financial response.
Regarding what will take place at next week's meeting, I am at a slight disadvantage because on my way to the House I was informed that the Swedish Presidency called the meeting for tomorrow week. I expect it will primarily concern institutional matters. Since the Council meeting of 29 and 30 October the President of the Commission has been to Delhi and the United States on the climate change issue. I do not have precise information on whether he will be in a position to report back to the Council on that matter next Thursday but it may occur.
Constitutional Amendments.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he will hold in the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30608/09]
Enda Kenny
Question:5 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30640/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:6 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach when the constitutional referenda will be held during the remainder of 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32521/09]
Eamon Gilmore
Question:7 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the progress made in implementing the recommendations contained in the reports published to date in 2009 by the Joint Committee on the Constitution [32522/09]
Alan Shatter
Question:8 Deputy Alan Shatter asked the Taoiseach the referenda he envisages taking place during the lifetime of the current Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35230/09]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:9 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he plans to initiate during the remainder of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [39055/09]
I propose to answer Questions Nos. 4 to 9, inclusive, together.
It is clear at this stage that no further referendum is planned for 2009. As regards referendums after that, the renewed programme for Government envisages a number of potential referendums during the lifetime of the Dáil, subject to appropriate Oireachtas approval, to consider children's rights based on the work of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children; to consider amending article 41.2 of the Constitution to broaden the reference to the role of women in the home to one that recognises the role of the parent in the home; and to consider the establishment of a court of civil appeal. In addition, the renewed programme for Government states that the proposed electoral commission will propose reforms of the electoral system, including outlining new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann. Such proposals could give rise to constitutional amendments.
Regarding the Joint Committee on the Constitution, I have put it on record that neither I nor my Department is solely responsible for the implementation of the recommendations of the joint committee. The committee reports to both Houses of the Oireachtas. The committee has produced reports on various aspects of the Constitution that come under the responsibility of various Ministers and Departments. If there is any particular recommendation of interest to Deputies, they should get in touch with the relevant Minister or a table a parliamentary question.
There are a number of referendums I would like to put but I am not in a position to dictate that at the moment. It is important we reaffirm that a constitutional referendum should be held to enable the electorate to decide whether the Oireachtas should enact new legislation to reinstate the criminal offence of statutory rape for the protection of children. On 12 June, during the debate on the Ryan report, the leader of the Green Party and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, called all-party agreement on a referendum on the rights of children the best monument to the victims of institutional abuse. I am pleased at this and that there seems to be movement towards honouring the commitment made by the Taoiseach's predecessor on behalf of the Government to hold a referendum on children's rights. Does the Taoiseach have a view of when this will happen? It will not be in 2009. Is it the intention of the Government to hold a referendum on children's rights in 2010?
The revised programme for Government refers to holding three referendums over the remaining lifetime of the Government. One seeks to broaden the reference to the role of women in the home to one that recognises the role of the parent in the home, another on children's rights, and another to consider the establishment of a court of civil appeal. What is the intention of the Taoiseach regarding these commitments?
These are matters for consideration by Government. They will be considered during the remainder of the term of Government. When, how and in what way they will be taken is a matter for further discussion and debate.
Regarding children's rights, work is ongoing and includes one report on soft information, which is being considered by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Minister of State with responsibility for children. The second interim report on absolute or strict liability in respect of sexual offences against or in connection with children was published on 7 May. It contains 39 recommendations in total, including some that are restatements of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Child Protection report of 2006 concerning criminal justice procedures. The Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children was initially expected to report within four months of its establishment. Due to the number and complexity of issues under consideration and the volume of submissions received, the deadline for reporting to the Oireachtas has been extended on four occasions and the committee is due to report to the Oireachtas on 16 December. We should await this, given the work that is ongoing, before coming to a view on it. The majority view on the committee has been to examine legislation as a possible means of resolving this matter but we will await the report and then consider it.
The Taoiseach has acknowledged that there were two interim reports from the joint committee dealing with a constitutional amendment on children. The committee recommended urgency on the issue of soft information, which is why that issue was extracted from the body of work to be completed by the committee. The recommendation was made in September 2008. Is there a reason why the legislation recommended across all parties and by all members of the committee has not been introduced?
The second interim report was published in May. The Taoiseach correctly states that the majority view is that the issues arising from the CC case in the Supreme Court are best dealt with by a number of measures. There were 39 recommendations, including a call for significant legislative rather than constitutional change. Since May, has the Government come to a conclusion on going down the route of the original published Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2007, which proposed to re-instate a constitutional position on statutory rape, by putting a referendum to the people on the matter or is it minded to accept the majority view in the second interim report of the committee?
On the first matter, as I stated in my primary reply my Department is not primarily responsible for the consideration of some of these issues. Deputies take the opportunity of Question Time to Ministers to delve into greater detail on specific issues such as this and I understand the urgency on the soft information issue, but it is complex and data protection issues arise, although I do not believe they would prove insurmountable. Work is ongoing between the office of the Minister of State with responsibility for children and the Department for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this question and perhaps questions tabled directly to the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, might elicit the greater degree of detail which the Deputy requires.
On the second matter, no Government decision has been made. The report is due in December and proper procedure is for the Government to await that and then consider it. As Deputy Howlin stated, the context of its consideration is that the majority of the committee see the legislative route as being a better way forward.
On the separate issue of the programme for Government commitment on electoral reform, the Taoiseach indicated that it will primarily be a matter for an independent electoral commission. Has the Taoiseach ruled out the prospect of any constitutional change on the election of Members of the Dáil or Seanad in this Parliament? In what timeframe does he envisage the electoral commission would deal with these matters? Is it proposed to invite the Opposition parties to involve themselves in a shorter-term analysis of whether the Dáil and Seanad as constituted are fit for purpose or are all these matters to be long-fingered?
It is not a question of long-fingering. Recently, I made the point that one must consider constitutional change with great care. In recent times there has been a trend in our politics to change the Constitution every time we have a problem. From my study of it in the past and my knowledge of it in the present, the Constitution is a document of which we can all be very proud. Constitutional change must be very carefully considered but that does not mean one should not deal with issues or come up with new ideas to see what way we can better frame our arrangements to enhance the institutions of the State in the eyes of our citizens. I have no problem with that. The idea that emerged from political discussions among the Government parties was to ask an electoral commission to examine it.
When is it to be established and who is to be involved?
It will be brought forward by the Minister concerned. Being a programme commitment, it has to proceed, the policy must be devised and arrangements made. However, the programme for Government sets out what we believe is the best way forward. This issue can be discussed through various committees of the House and everyone in the House will have many opportunities to put forward their views on what is the best way forward.
I call Deputy Ó Caoláin and ask him to be brief because we are running out of time.
Last week, the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, published a shocking report that highlighted the need for greater protection for children under the Constitution. I noted the Taoiseach's earlier reply that he understands the majority of members of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children do not support the constitutional amendment route. This Deputy does. We need greater protection for children under the Constitution, in legislation and, most importantly because they are no use on their own, in practice through our care system.
The national children in care inspection report recommended the closure of the Ballydowd special care detention unit in Lucan and highlighted serious deficits in standards aimed at safeguarding vulnerable children, including lapses in vetting procedures for staff and foster carers working with children. That is a terrible indictment in 2009. We must all address this collectively, as we have been doing on the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, where the phrases "children's rights committee" and "children's referendum committee" interchanged all the time because it was established with the specific brief from the Taoiseach's predecessor to examine improving the wording——
A question please.
——and the presentation of a constitutional amendment that would enshrine the rights of children in the Constitution. Does the Taoiseach agree that this most recent report, with all that has gone before, compels support for a constitutional amendment and that it is the only and appropriate way to proceed to ensure we reach a point that will guarantee not only the care system but the necessary supports in all settings for children?
On the question of a possible constitutional amendment on children, given that two distinct views emerged in the joint committee's report — on constitutional amendment and legislative options — and that the committee has not been able to reconcile these views and accordingly is unable to make an agreed recommendation, the Government must examine the divergent standpoints emanating from the report with a view to progressing this important issue.
In the coming weeks, the committee will concentrate its deliberations on family law matters as set out in the proposed Articles 42(A).1, 42(A).2, 42(A).3 and 42(A).4 in the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2007 dealing with the rights of children, intervention by the State where parents have failed in their responsibility towards children, involuntary and voluntary adoption of children and taking the best interests of the child into account in certain court proceedings. The committee's deadline for reporting back to the Oireachtas is 16 December. The Government will need to consider the implications of the committee's second interim report and its forthcoming report on the family law aspects of the Twenty-eighth Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2007 before determining its standpoint on a referendum.
On the specific question on the Ballydowd special care unit being closed, it is a good example of the accountability of HIQA being effective. We established the Health Information and Quality Authority and gave it the statutory mandate to ensure that care standards are maintained to a standard we would expect. Where there is a failure to do so alternative arrangements have to be made. If we did not have HIQA perhaps we would not have that report and if we did not have that report perhaps the fact that changes have to be made at that facility would not have been brought to our attention. Moving from the facility will take place over the coming two to four months and discussions are ongoing on reducing the adverse impact of this. All HSE vetting is now centralised.
When we establish mechanisms such as this it must never be on the presumption that everything works fine. Where difficulties are identified action needs to be taken; that is the principle of accountability at work. What is damning our politics is this notion of perfectionism, that everything is correct and if anything turns out to be incorrect it means the whole thing is not working correctly. It is time for us to recognise that there is much good work being done by professional people working with people in this area. It is a difficult area but where there are difficulties and issues are not being dealt with properly decisions are taken to rectify the matter. That is an exercise in democratic accountability.
Briefly——
I have one more question for the Taoiseach.
We have seriously overrun the time allotted for Taoiseach's Questions. The Deputies' questions will have to be very brief.
The Taoiseach made a valid point but, while I acknowledge we have HIQA and a report which makes 11 recommendations about management, only one recommendation concerns the building while the remaining ten pertain to operational issues. Now we are about to transpose that management to Crannóg Nua, where we will encounter the same problems all over again.
The Deputy should put a question. That is commentary.
There is no point in carrying out HIQA inspections if we do not act on the ensuing recommendations.
Does the Taoiseach not agree that the Ballydowd facility has only been in existence for nine years? It is a tragic exposure of the failure of our system that when HIQA finally presents its report, the centre has to close. This should have been picked up along the way so that the necessary remedial interventions could have been undertaken to avoid the closure of the centre and the displacement of its residents and support services. When the committee presents its third report at the end of this year or early next year, will the Taoiseach indicate whether we will see movement towards a constitutional amendment, which I would prefer, or legislative proposals in order to deal with the essential areas on which agreement has been reached over the course of the committee's 50 plus meetings?
I will allow a final brief question from Deputy Jim O'Keeffe.
I raise an issue on which there should be cross-party support, namely, the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment in the Abbeylara or Ardagh v. Maguire case in 2002, which precludes committees of the Oireachtas from attributing blame to any named or identifiable individual. The court’s decision was based on the fact that the Oireachtas was taking on a quasi-judicial role. I imagine cross-party support could be achieved for a reform of Dáil and committee procedures, particularly given that the alternative has been tribunals. We have seen how the tribunals have given rise to enormous delays and costs running into hundreds of millions of euro. Would the Taoiseach consider a change in the Constitution that would permit a strengthening of Oireachtas committees to enable them to deal with the effects of the Abbeylara decision?
I ask the Taoiseach to be brief because we have seriously overrun Question Time.
The HSE has accepted HIQA's recommendations and will have to proceed on them. In regard to the matter not being addressed previously, the fact that we have in place independent authorities provides greater public confidence that such matters are being assessed objectively. There is an independent oversight mechanism in place to help those who are engaging in services to work with front line staff to achieve the best possible outcomes and provide the protections set out for children by the Oireachtas and the Constitution.
In regard to Deputy O'Keeffe's question, lessons can be learned from the many inquiries initiated by the Oireachtas which have deliberated on matters of urgent public interest for lengthy periods of time at great cost to the taxpayer. Reform could be introduced on the basis of commissions of inquiry, which were introduced on foot of statutory reforms passed by the Houses as a means of overcoming the constraints of the 1924 Act, or improving the committee system. In terms of improving the committee system, the Supreme Court judgment makes clear that when we act on a quasi-judicial basis, such as re Haughey in 1971, we must protect the constitutional rights and natural justice of individuals appearing before committees.
We need fair procedures.
That places a responsibility on all Members to avoid a natural tendency towards the politicking and partisanship which undermine the prospects for our committee system of providing the sort of democratic accountability which I agree might be more transparent to those who send us here. People need to go beyond party loyalty to work on committee matters in an objective and fair way. This requirement is additional to any reforms that may be suggested.