Constitutional Review: Motion.

Professor Dooge

I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to continue the review of the Constitution by an advisory committee with a view to its completion before the end of this year, and to present to the Seanad and Dáil the results of this review.

I indicated today that I thought we should have time available to discuss some of the motions on the Order Paper. I must confess that I thought we would have more time available than in fact we have. However, interest was expressed in the question of taking other motions on the next day. Accordingly, I think it would be quite feasible for us between now and 8.30 to complete this motion. I intend to make a very brief opening speech to facilitate the Seanad if it wishes to complete this motion today.

The motion asks that the review of the Constitution at expert level, which is now taking place in the Attorney General's office, should continue. It, secondly, asks that they should work with despatch and complete their work at the very latest by the end of this year. Thirdly, it asks that the result of this work should be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas for debate.

I would like briefly to attempt to justify these three points of the motion. We debated here towards the beginning of the session of this particular Seanad the general question of the Constitution. There was then quite a large majority in this House supporting the point of view that there should be a review of the Constitution. I have always held this view. I remember the committee that made an interim report in 1967. Constitutions should always be reviewed because, if they are not reviewed by Parliament and the people, then the so-called rigid Constitutions will be amended by continual judicial review which will amount to amendment.

We should follow the process of review. We can make this process most efficient if we, first of all, get the views of expert constitutional lawyers. We should then have a through debate in the Houses of the Oireachtas where we can get the political input into what is essentially a political problem. I agree with what Senator Robinson said earlier today on this point. This is the essential input. But I think, provided it does not delay things, then it is useful to have working papers, reports, which essentially are a number of working papers prepared by experts.

I do not want to go into the reasons for review. There are reasons for the review of the Constitution that are purely domestic. There are reasons that relate to the process of reconciliation between the two traditions in this island whose division has given rise to so much tragedy. The members of the Attorney General's committee were chosen completely for their expertise. There is not such a supply of experts on constitutional law that it was a matter of picking and choosing. There is of course a new Attorney General. He may well feel that he would like to add one or two other persons, but I doubt that the Attorney General, being the excellent lawyer that he is, would wish to dispense with the services of any of those who are presently operating.

This House should express its opinion on this matter and should call on the Government to give the Attorney General the necessary authorisation. There is much work to be done at this expert level. The words "call on the Government" are used in the motion itself. The meaning of the word "Government" is open to doubt. The word "Government" has three meanings in the Constitution. There is an attempt to overcome some of the difficulties by occasionally using a lower case "g" or an upper case "G". The body we are calling on is referred to in the Constitution by the same word used here. If one looks at Articles 1, 6 and 28, one sees these difficulties. The Irish is not quite so ambiguous because alternative phrases are used.

Accordingly, I recommend to Seanad Éireann this motion which calls for a continuation of this review, for the work to be completed with dispatch and for the report to be presented in Seanad Éireann and in another place. It may be that when it comes to the Seanad or the other place the political decision will be made to proceed no further. This process of review which was initiated by Seán Lemass in 1966 and was stillborn, has again been initiated and should be continued. I recommend the motion to the House.

Mr. Ferris

I second this motion. The day this motion was introduced in the presence of the then Taoiseach, Deputy Garret FitzGerald, I outlined my reasons for wanting a constitutional and legislative review. I explained that there were areas of progressive legislation which were required in this country but which were precluded from being put into operation because of constitutional restraints. If Ireland is to progress, and to be seen by the rest of the world as doing that, it is obvious that our Constitution should not inhibit that progress. There are several areas in which it is obvious there is not alone a need for a review but a real need for change. I will not spell out what those areas are, because that would be the purpose of the constitutional review and the people involved would highlight what areas, if any, needed amending.

I know from experience over the last two years that there are areas in need of legislative change. The Constitution debars certain progressive legislation being put into operation, such as the Rent Restriction Bill and the Land Bill, which was promised by the previous Government. We knew there would be constitutional difficulties raised under those Bills. If the anomalies are highlighted in a review, the report would then be a subject for discussion in both Houses of the Oireachtas and it would be for the Government of the day to accept or reject the findings of the review committee. Hopefully, then, the people would be in a position to voice their opinions on it, especially if some sections were subjected to a referendum. We cannot stand idly by and say that our Constitution, which was drawn up many years ago, should remain intact today and should not be tempered with. In the earlier debate Senators spoke about certain areas they were afraid to change, but this subject was never mentioned by the other side of the House when we were discussing the review committee. We are calling on this Government to continue this review so that at the end of the day we can all sit down and look at what the committee suggest are necessary legislative changes so that we can progress.

The initiation of this review by Deputy Garret FitzGerald was welcomed not only in Ireland but internationally as a major step forward so that any anomalies that might exist vis-à-vis our separated brethren in Northern Ireland could be removed. This would bring the eventual unity of this country much closer than a mere aspiration to which we all subscribe. The anomalies in our Constitution make the reunification of Ireland very difficult in the short term. I have no doubt that a review of the Constitution is necessary and I sincerely hope the Government will carry out this review and bring the findings of the committee to both Houses in the immediate future, because this matter is very urgent.

Professor Murphy

I support this motion in a non-partisan spirit as an Independent who holds very strong views about what should be done constitutionally, but that is not at issue in this motion. I support the idea that the new Government should encourage the work of the advisory committee and bring it to completion, and, as the motion says, report to the Dáil and the Seanad.

I have been looking at the report of the Committee on the Constitution, December 1967. It is a remarkable thing when we reflect that the initiative for this was taken in August 1966, in the euphoric aftermath of the 1916 anniversary celebrations. That points up how the all-party committee set to work in a remarkable atmosphere of detachment. It is good to note that two of the members of that committee of eleven are with us tonight — Senator Dooge and Senator Ryan. It might be no harm to quote from the preface to that document some of the conclusions of the committee. They said certain things would not change in any constitutional review, such as national sovereignty, supremacy of the people, universal franchise, fundamental rights, freedom of speech, association and religion. They also said, when they had their work completed, that the review had been worthwhile and they hoped similar reviews would take place after suitable intervals in the future. They went on to say it was their earnest wish that every citizen, and particularly every public representative, would analyse most carefully the arguments for and against the propositions they had considered.

My basic point is that if this could be done in the pre-troubles atmosphere of 1966-67, how much more important it is that it should be undertaken afresh in 1981-82. Looking at the willingness to reappraise and to review in the late sixties, it is a rueful and dismal conclusion how reactionary the decade of the seventies has been and how regrettable it is that there is a reluctance to look again at the Constitution.

I appeal to this Government to put aside their attitude of fear. They are afraid apparently that by looking at the Constitution we are going to surrender and renege on our traditions. All we are trying to do is look afresh at our heritage and see how it can be rearranged. I do not accept for a moment that we are going to lose anything in a constitutional review. It is simply adjusting what we have to the realities of the present day and to the knowledge we have now and which we did not have in the late sixties about the complexities of the conflict in Northern Ireland, and our new awareness of how difficult our relations with the North are and are going to be for some considerable time.

Some people say that constitutional review means that the achievements of the Constitution and the establishment of individual rights under the Constitution, as they have been accepted and upheld by the court, will be at risk from the proceedings of the review committee. I do not think that is so. I do not think there is any question of setting aside the positive achievements and gains under the decisions of the courts. These can always be incorporated into any changes we may make in the Constitution. We must remember as well that the Constitution in itself is not sacred. What may be sacred are some of the principles enshrined in the Constitution. It is very important not to see the Constitution as a sacred text which on no account is to be tampered with. What is valuable are the values enshrined in the Constitution and I do not think that in 1982 any more than in 1967 anyone wants to interfere with those basic principles and values.

I would appeal indirectly to Senator Ryan, who is representing the Government side, to remember that he was a party to that innovative committee in 1967. If the minds of the party he represents were open in 1967 — there were five or six members of that committee from the Fianna Fáil Party — why should their minds be closed now in 1982? It seems that there is an overwhelming case for having a more open mind at this point.

Perhaps the most important point of all in connection with this motion is that, for good or ill, the former Taoiseach has set a constitutional review in motion. The work has begun and the whole process of debate has begun. Last autumn in the country at large there was plenty of evidence that people were interested and willing to talk about the possibility of change. I participated and talked to various groups in various parts of Ireland where the people certainly had a much more open mind than would seem to be indicated from the reaction of the new Government up to now.

Certain things have been set in motion. The former Taoiseach has accustomed us to begin to discuss the possibility of constitutional change and under that new departure certain things have happened which are quite remarkable. Let me cite the visit of Mr. Harold McCusker, M.P. to the remote and republican township of Skibbereen last November. Mr. McCusker would not have come to Skibbereen — he told me this himself — if the whole logjam of misunderstanding had not been loosened up by the former Taoiseach. So, if there is going to be any slowing down of the momentum it will be seen as an enormous reaction by Ulster Protestants. The whole question simply cannot be arrested. If nothing more is done it will be a positive reaction. By getting people like Harold McCusker to Skibbereen and Robert McCartney to Dublin we were beginning to have the right — because we were engaging these people in dialogue and because the former Taoiseach was courageous enough to question and be prepared to debate the matter — to say to the McCuskers and the McCartneys, "You will have to listen to us now about the Northern Catholics and about your relations with them". So it seems that it is essential to continue the work that has been begun if we are to have the right at all to advise or to talk to people about the situation in Northern Ireland. It is in the interest of better relations between the two communities in the North, of relations between North and South, and in the long term it is in the interest of unity, so much cherished in the Fianna Fáil philosophy and indeed in the philosophy of all of us. In the most detached and non-partisan of spirit I appeal to the Fianna Fáil Party and to the incoming Government to maintain the momentum that has begun.

Mrs. Robinson

Though I am happy to be called to speak I regret that this is inevitably going to be a very one-sided debate here this evening. There appears to be nobody offering from the other side of the House. That is really very remarkable. I appreciate that the matter was voted on against the views of the Government side of the House and that there was an amendment to the Order of Business to take this motion. But the motion having been taken, I would have thought there would have been some view to be expressed on a matter which is of such importance as the review of the Constitution.

I approach this question in very much the same spirit as it was approached by Senator Murphy. I do not think that this motion should be approached in a partisan fashion. What we are considering is whether this House would like to see a technical review, which has already been embarked on and carried out by a group of experts brought together by the former Attorney General, continue either with the same people — for the reason given by Senator Dooge, that they are nonpolitical and non-partisan — or with the addition of some other experts in the particular area if the Attorney General so wishes.

I find myself in a certain dilemma because when that technical committee were established by the former Attorney General to advise him they were regarded by the media — I think mistakenly — as the review of the Constitution which had been launched. I remember particularly that the Irish Independent ran it on their outside page as “Committee established by Attorney General to review the Constitution”. Suddenly, yet again politicians had backed away from the problem. It had been side-stepped and had been somehow passed on to a committee of legal experts. From my discussions with him I do not think this was at all the intention of the then Attorney General, Mr. Peter Sutherland. He had not intended that this committee would take away the major responsibility and political thrust of an essentially political debate which was, if not launched, certainly baptised in this House by Deputy Garret FitzGerald when Taoiseach in a major debate which was to launch a political discussion.

We have to talk about two very different matters. One is the review by a committee of experts brought together by the Attorney General of various sections, of various provisions, where it may be that politicians would like to have alternative wording, would like to have interpretation and working papers and advice. That is what we are talking about when we talk about the continuation of a review. But the particular legal experts are not the appropriate people to consider the crunch points, the real issues, the crunch points of Articles 2 and 3, the crunch point of the removal of the ban on divorce, the crunch point of the question of the protection of property, the crunch point of whether we require an amend- ment to protect the unborn child or whether that is already adequately protected. These are the very important political problems that politicians should be facing up to. Senator Murphy referred to the former report on the Constitution published in December 1967. That was a political grouping which included Senator Dooge and Senator Eoin Ryan. It was an all-party committee. I agree with Senator Murphy that it is a pity that we have lost the possibility of having that kind of all-party committee where politicians try to face up to the particular problems. It is worth remembering that that committee which published their report in December 1977 recommended a change in relation to the prohibition on divorce, and any change recommended had to be a unanimous decision of the committee. When an all-party committee got together in the middle sixties, in 1966-67, they were able to agree on the thorny issue that it would be desirable to remove the total ban on divorce. There was a suggestion of alternative wording which would have permitted divorce for persons whose own religion would allow them to apply for a divorce, and they could get that divorce before the Irish courts.

We now come to 1981-82 and it appears from the debates we had in this House when Deputy Garret FitzGerald was Taoiseach that we could not have that kind of either formal or informal committee on the Constitution at this stage. That is part of the price we are paying for the divisions in this land, and the kind of political aspirations and the methods used by some parties in furthering those aspirations which have led to polarisation. That is to be very deeply regretted, because we need political attention paid to our Constitution. We need political reform of that Constitution. If we are to have political reform of the Constitution, it would be of immense assistance to politicians to have the kind of technical review by a committee of experts which would explain the provisions to us, given us alternative wordings, point out implications of a change in one sector, and point out the need to interpret the Constitution as a whole.

Clearly this is badly needed because, as I said when this matter was being put forward by Senator Dooge earlier today as an amendment to the Order of Business, the Government of the day are identifying as the only possible change in the Constitution we are likely to see in this coming year a proposal to amend the Constitution to protect the rights of the unborn. The judicial statements we have had so far interpreting the Constitution affirm that the right to life is a right under Article 40, section 3. It is one of the personal rights of the citizen and it extends to the unborn child. I have not heard any Government Minister or the Taoiseach explain why it is felt to be necessary to have this constitutional amendment. I have seen no wording, no words, no text, nothing but a commitment which appears to have been given to a lobby by a private sector which lobbied the Taoiseach and he gave that undertaking. Apparently he is prepared — presumably we will get some more specific detail on it — to introduce what I believe is an academic amendment, to underline twice Article 40, section 3, or in some way affirm what is already there.

A constitutional referendum involves a great deal of time and commitment. It involves a Bill going through both Houses. It involves the expense of a referendum, and it involves the participation of citizens. That is quite a considerable expenditure of energy, administration, commitment, time, and so on. Why are we not spending half that time and half the cost of a referendum on trying to meet the practical problem on the ground of unwanted pregnancies and the fact that an increasing number of women go each year from Ireland to various cities in Britain to have abortions? That is the problem we are trying to deal with. Why do we not remove the discrimination against illegitimacy? Why do we not provide better economic, social and financial rights for single families and rights for families, because not all of the women who go for abortions are single women; a number of them are married women but they cannot cope with further unwanted pregnancies.

It is very interesting that this whole lobby on the right to life are not addressing themselves to these problems. They are not part of the pressure to increase immensely the budget of Cherish and other organisations who cope with the single mother and child. They are not looking for changes in the law in relation to illegitimacy. They are not calling on the Government. They appear to have the same kind of hold on The Taoiseach as Deputy Gregory has. Let them use that hold to bring about the legal, financial and social reforms we need, and that will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of women who exercise the option of going to a city in Britain for abortions.

We have so many Irish responses and Irish solutions to Irish problems. Please let us not have an academic exercise of so-called constitutional reform in one of the areas where we do not need it, in order to avoid coping with our real, pressing social problems on the ground where we have women going on a lonely trail, on an expensive trail, in fear, in dread, in guilt, without proper advice and counselling beforehand, without proper after-care and counselling, who are left very much to their own devices and resources and who are forced by the pressures we have created in our society to take the step they are taking, and who badly need to have these practical problems dealt with. If we came down from the hypocritical heights of moral condemnation and started to deal with the problem on the ground, we could make very substantial progress in favour of life and in favour of the right of the unborn child to be born, a right protected by our Constitution.

There are other areas where there is a clear political need for reform. One of these areas is in relation to the protection of property as outlined at the moment in the Constitution. It is a particularly difficult area. For that reason alone it is important to have the help of experts. There are two articles that we are concerned about. We are concerned about Article 40, section 3, which is the main article on personal rights, including the right to life and the right to life of the unborn child, and Article 43. It is not possible to envisage a change to Article 40, section 3, protecting the personal rights of the citizen without very serious ramifications. If there was to be a change it would have to be in relation to Article 43. Any politician faced with trying to devise a way in which we could bring the terms of the protection of property in the Constitution more into line with the kind of measures for social progress we wish to adopt, whether it be in relation to rent restriction or control of building land, or whatever the particular issue may be, knows we need expert advice and help on this.

I have another reason for being slightly concerned about giving too much authority and attention to the committee of experts brought together by the Attorney General. On these kinds of issues, which, as Senator Murphy pointed out, are issues of political values, and whether they are in conformity with the modern Irish faith, whether they meet the needs of a young growing population, it is politicians who must decide on what the values will be. If the matter is left to either the existing committee of legal experts — the one brought together by the former Attorney General or even if a name or two were to be substituted — by the nature of the persons involved, some are lawyers, some are academics, one or two of them are practitioners, they tend to be conservative on these issues. They probably would not regard that as a criticism. They might even regard it as a compliment. They are conservative with a small "c" in the sense that they would tend to view the provisions relating to property rights in particular from a conservative perspective.

It is important to see this committee of experts as being an aid to politicians, but no more than that. Certainly from the perspective of a person belonging to a party seeking fairly radical social reform, we would benefit from the work of this committee. At times we would approach in a different way the wording of articles or the particular values underlining them because we would wish to see some change that would reflect the very real pressures which have come since the last review of the Constitution. These pressures did not exist in 1966 because we had a stable or slightly declining population. We have reason not to be very proud of our record because, even though matters have not polarised and even though there have been changes, we have lived in comparative peace in this part of this country.

I regret very much what appears to be the attitude of the present Taoiseach, that apart from his concession on this constitutional referendum we do not need, he does not envisage any changes other than that, certainly at present, and in some vague way, because he will do so only when we are all around the table again with the people on the Unionist side in Northern Ireland. There is that awful credibility gap as to why on earth the Unionists and other sections in Northern Ireland should come to that table. But apparently we are not to have any social and Constitutional reform here until that mythical moment when everybody gets around the table. I have never believed that was a credible stance. I have admired the courage of Deputy FitzGerald, when Taoiseach, in launching the constitutional debate. I have differed on some details with it. I believe that that debate has captured public imagination, that it ought to go ahead and I believe it will be greatly assisted by a continuous review and by papers supplied by legal experts on this committee established by the Attorney General. I should like to see that continued.

Mr. E. Ryan

I said on the Order of Business today that this motion was brought before the House with little or no notice, did not enable Members of the House to give it proper consideration and did not enable us to have a Minister here to talk on the motion. To the best of my knowledge the Government have not yet seen the work done by this committee and certainly have not had an opportunity of deciding whether or not the work should continue. Therefore, even if a Minister had been available he would not be able to express a view or give any decision whether or not it was proposed to continue with the work of this committee.

As far as I personally am concerned I do not disagree with the general proposition that the Constitution should be looked at from time to time but that is not really what is before us. This motion is not that there should be a review of the Constitution, it is that this committee should continue their deliberations. Without knowing what this committee have been doing, without knowing what progress they have made or in what way they are working, it would be impossible to express a view whether it would be a good idea for them to continue with their deliberations. Consequently the whole way in which this motion has been introduced, its terms of reference, its very narrow approach, make it virtually impossible to speak at any length or give any serious view about whether or not this is worthy of support.

When the Government have time to look at the work of this committee undoubtedly they will bear in mind the views which have been expressed here in the House and in due course will make up their minds whether this committee should continue, or perhaps whether some other kind of committee should be set up to review the Constitution. But for the moment they have not reached that stage and, for much the same reason that they are not in a position to take a decision, I find myself in a difficulty about expressing a view on a committee, of the work of which I am not aware and of the merit of which I am also not aware. In those circumstances I do not feel I can express any view one way or the other about this motion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is now 8.30 p.m., the normal time for the Seanad to adjourn. Might the Chair have an indication of what is going to happen?

Mr. E. Ryan

Sine die.

Professor Dooge

I would suggest that, since there are only two speakers offering we should continue for some time.

Mr. Ross

I shall be very brief if I am given the opportunity to speak.

Professor Dooge

And perhaps we could reconsider the matter at 9 o'clock.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Chair awaits a decision.

Mr. E. Ryan

If it is the belief of the House that we can finish in another ten minutes or so I suppose we should continue.

Professor Murphy

Yes, I think we should.

Mr. O'Connell

In view of the discussion that has just taken place, and also in view of an agreement into which I entered — I am not quite sure whether I am in order in referring to this agreement — with a distinguished Member of the House with regard to the possibility of him assisting me to return to this House on another occasion, he has indicated that he was not prepared to support me in any election unless I was prepared to give him some kind of guarantee that my contributions in any future House would be substantially less than they have been in the present one.

I want to refer to two points with regard to the constitutional review which were unfortunate. These were with regard to the perception of the constitutional review. The first point is that the constitutional review, as it is called, should not be regarded as something that is there as a sop to Unionists, that is something that would not take place or should not take place if the Northern problem, as it is called, were to be removed. In other words this is something that should take place not because we are doing it as a gesture to our separated brethren but because it is good in itself. The second aspect is — this is a point that has been made elsewhere and I have tried to make it as well — that this is not just a constitutional review, it is not just a legislative review, it is something very much deeper, something which at a certain stage in the development of our society we need to have, in other words, a far-reaching debate on the nature of our society as it is at present and a debate that would involve a fair amount of questioning.

This questioning need not necessarily be something of which we should be afraid. It may well be that there are aspects of our society — and one can think of them — which would emerge fortified and re-invigorated by such a debate. Nevertheless the fact remains — and it is something that we as public representatives have been very much concerned about over the last year — that our society is in a crisis, the economic and financial aspects of which a great deal of attention is devoted to in political life are the symptoms of a very much deeper crisis in our society. This is not removed from the question of a Constitution. A Constitution should reflect those aspects of our national philosophy on which we as a nation can agree. There would be some who would argue that, in the context of a pluralistic society, it would be difficult to find such points on which we could agree. But it seems to me that if we consider our society as it is, consider from whence it has come, and consider those themes and patterns in our history which have brought us to the position in which we are, we are not just entitled but have a duty to consider where we stand in relation to those themes and patterns. Consequently, if we carry out such a debate, such an investigation, if we are prepared to question aspects of our society, we will then be able to find how far we have moved from those objectives of our ancestors and antecedents and where we should go from here.

Consequently I would plead with the present Government and with the members of the Government Party to consider the question of this review, to face up to the questioning involved, to do so with courage, with an open mind because it is something — as Senator Robinson and others have said — in which we should all involve ourselves in a non-partisan way in the hope of taking our society out of the crisis in which it finds itself at present and moving forward toward a future more in line with the aspirations of those who went before us.

Mr. Ross

I was disappointed to hear Senator Eoin Ryan kicking for touch on this issue when he got up to speak. It was quite obvious that he had very little instruction on it when he said he could not decide and that no decision had been made by the Government on whether the constitutional review would go ahead. It appears to me it will probably not go ahead and it will be quietly dropped. At the end of the term of office of the previous Government I was doubtful about the whole thrust of the crusade. This may be because the media were not covering it with quite so much keenness as they had done before. It seemed to be fading somewhat into the background under the umbrella of the Attorney General and that may or may not have been a good thing. It worries me that the new Government are going to drop it very quietly.

The reason I think this debate is important is because there has been the change of Government. As I understood it, the objective of Deputy FitzGerald's crusade was to be seen in an all-Ireland context. As Senator O'Connell has said, there are very good, absolute reasons why things should happen here in their own right and without any appeasement to any element in Northern Ireland. Deputy FitzGerald and the previous Government saw the crusade they launched in an all-Ireland context and it is important that we debate it here today because there has been a change of Government. It is very important that the new Fianna Fáil Government should realise that whereas Deputy FitzGerald had won a great deal of confidence from the majority population in Northern Ireland, the Fianna Fáil Party and the new Government have started extremely badly. It is unfortunate that this should be said.

The visit of the Taoiseach, Deputy Haughey, to America a few weeks ago, with his call for British withdrawal and the fact that he did not condemn violence, has reawakened those fears that the Northern Unionists have always felt about him. The real worries they have and the confidence they had in Deputy FitzGerald have completely reversed roles. Now there is a situation where they need some sort of reassurance from Dublin. They have seen a Fianna Fáil Government come to power and they regard a Fianna Fáil Government as an aggressive Government.

I should like to warn the new Government — I represent many people from Northern Ireland, as does Senator Robinson — that if this is dropped, if the sabre-rattling goes on and if the constitutional crusade is dropped, the confidence of the Unionist population will be gone. I believe the attitudes shown during the past few weeks have thrown a life-line to Mr. Paisley who was on the way down. He lost a by-election rather humiliatingly. He had been getting a very bad press but the Taoiseach's sabre-rattling has thrown him a life-line. This is a great pity.

Perhaps the constitutional crusade should be enacted under another name. Perhaps we should have an all-party constitutional review. I do not think we can play around with the Constitution, as Senator Robinson so eloquently said today, by introducing a pro-life amendment which is playing party politics and which wrongfoots many people. It is not necessary; it is not a controversial issue that needs to be written into the Constitution. The Constitution contains too many more important things such as the provision regarding divorce, Articles 2 and 3 and extradition, matters that are material, necessary and immediate. On those items we should go ahead with a constitutional review.

Professor Dooge

There is very little I have to say in reply. Speakers from this side of the House have largely echoed my own sentiments or have uttered sentiments with which I agree. Although I would not like that to be interpreted as saying I agree with everything that was said on this side of the House, on the other side of the House Senator Ryan seemed to indicate that perhaps this debate was premature, that the Government have not yet received a report regarding the Attorney General's committee and that perhaps this debate should not have been held.

I disagree quite sharply with that view. Now is the time before that interim report reaches the Government and before it is considered by them. The Seanad debated this matter at great length on the opening day of its session. Having looked at what has happened, now is the time to say that it should continue. The nature of the debate changed somewhat during those months. As I said last October and I repeat now, my personal view is that the constitutional review should be not a continuous process but an intermittent one and that one is long overdue.

Accordingly, having discussed this question at the beginning of its life, I think it is a good thing that this Seanad should discuss it towards the end of its life and put its views on the record.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the motion agreed?

Mr. E. Ryan

I ask the proposer not to press this to a conclusion. Views have been expressed that were interesting and useful. I am not in a position to accept the motion but neither do I wish to oppose it. I ask the proposer to leave it at that.

Professor Dooge

Senator Ryan finds himself in the position in which I found myself earlier this evening and I sympathise with him. However I ask that the question be put.

Question put and declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed that the Seanad will meet again?

Mr. E. Ryan

We are adjourning sine die.

Professor Dooge

I agree with the Leader of the House. I think he appreciates there are difficulties. Members of the House and officers of the House will have difficulties on certain dates between now and the time when it would have been necessary for us to have passed the Rent Restrictions Bill. I urge the Leader of the House in determining when the Seanad should meet that it should be left late. If it were to be left to the middle of April — perhaps 15 or 16 April — I can guarantee there will be full co-operation in the expeditious passage of the legislation that will be necessary. A meeting at that time would be far preferable to this side of the House.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.45 p.m. sine die.

Seanad Éireann debate - Friday, 26 Mar 1982