Trevor Sargent
Question:11 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if referenda are being planned for 2004; if so, the nature of those referenda and the timescale involved; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8593/04]
View answerTuesday, 4 May 2004
Questions (11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the referenda planned by the Government for the remainder of its term of office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10498/04]
View answer
Enda Kenny
Question:13 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his plans for constitutional referenda during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10540/04]
View answer
Pat Rabbitte
Question:14 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the referenda the Government is planning to hold or is considering holding before the end of 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10704/04]
View answer
John Bruton
Question:15 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he has proposals to amend the provisions of the Constitution in respect of the composition and powers of Seanad Éireann. [11624/04]
View answerPat Rabbitte
Question:16 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if he has received a copy of the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution dealing with property rights; the action he intends to take as a result of the report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11742/04]
View answerOral answers (28 contributions)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 to 16, inclusive, together.
The constitutional amendment concerning the entitlements to Irish citizenship of children of non-national parents will be held on 11 June 2004. The Government has no further proposals at present to hold any other referenda in 2004. The position will continue to be held under review in the light of developments including the outcome of the examination by the Government of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution's ninth progress report on private property, which was published on 7 April, the outcome of the examination of the report published on 28 April 2004 by the Committee on Procedures and Privileges sub-committee on reform of the Seanad, and the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference on the draft constitutional treaty which commenced in Rome on 4 October 2003.
If the House is agreeable I will take two questions from Deputies Sargent and Ó Caoláin, a reply from the Taoiseach and then two questions from Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte with a final reply from the Taoiseach. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Has the Taoiseach looked again at the ill-judged decision to have the citizenship referendum on the same day as the local and European elections in light of the amount of advice that has been given on this? Does he now accept that there is not going to be a need for a referendum on the price of property, as he said before, given the all-party committee's report? What legislative response will the Taoiseach give in the light of that decision?
On 17 February I asked the Taoiseach in the House if it was intended to hold a referendum or referenda during 2004. In his reply he said the Government "has no proposals at present to hold a referendum to change the Constitution". On 14 January, more than a month before that, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government notified the Department of Finance that there were strong indications that a further ballot paper would be required for polling on 11 June and that additional e-voting machines had been procured.
Can the Taoiseach explain why that information would have been in the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Finance more than a month before he replied to my question of 17 February? He made no reference to this information nor admission or indication of such consideration, let alone of a decision. Was it not disingenuous at best of the Taoiseach not to have referred to that information which must have been available to him?
Does the Taoiseach not accept that, in light of the continual requests of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution for comprehensive consultation and legislative scrutiny of all constitutional referenda proposals, the Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill should have been referred to that committee in the first instance as a matter of best practice? Does he agree that it is unacceptable that this matter has bypassed an Oireachtas committee and moved ahead to a referendum without consultation?
The matter of legislation on the property issue is being discussed by a number of Departments. I note what the report states, although I have not read all the documents on the property issue. The National Economic and Social Council report on housing is also due out shortly. That will be important and should be read along with the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. I also note that the committee's report states several times that the issue is not the price of land but the price of housing. To be frank, I do not believe that, although it is a finding from our constitutional committee. It is extraordinary. I have read the case study the committee offers to support that statement, but that does not match with what I live with and see every day. Maybe the committee members know much more than me. As I said to Deputy Rabbitte when we discussed this previously, if this problem can be dealt with through legislation, then we should examine that option closely and move on legislation.
I remember the arguments, the cases and the briefs I read extensively about Part 5. These matters are being discussed in a number of Departments. In recent years I have read a considerable amount on these issues. The report states that, perhaps, the Kenny report was over-conservative. Many examinations of the Kenny report have been carried out during the past 30 years, all of which state that the report is far too radical. It is a totally different interpretation of it. I make those points because I have read this subject over many years.
Will there be legislation?
I am not sure if that will solve the problem, but perhaps legislation is the way to proceed and then we will see what happens.
On the issue raised by Deputy Ó Caoláin, many of these issues are subject to discussion before a decision is finally taken. The rule is that one cannot prejudice Government decisions and one has to avoid making public statements or commenting on policy proposals that are not brought to Government or are under consideration by the Government. That is the rule of the Cabinet handbook.
It can spend public money in buying additional voting machines.
Sorry, Deputy Ó Caoláin, I want to call Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte.
The voting machines will be used in any event because there will not be a separate machine.
They will not be used now.
Aer Lingus might make use of them.
The Government is spending public money.
If Deputy Ó Caoláin wants to deny Deputies Kenny and Rabbitte the opportunity to submit a question he is going the right way about it.
On the second issue, in so far as this matter was covered in Oireachtas report, there was a clear view of what should happen in the 1996 Oireachtas review report. It thought we should legislate to amend the Constitution.
I assume Deputy Ó Caoláin would not want to deny his fellow Irishmen, Deputy Rabbitte and me the right to express an opinion here. It appears as if we are now in uncharted waters in respect of Judge Curtin. Today the Government decided to give him extra time.
If legislation has to be introduced for judicial regulation, I assume that would require an amendment to Article 35 of the Constitution. If that is the case, obviously it is uncharted waters and will require great sensitivity and thorough discussion and investigation, as would any amendment of the Constitution. It is good governance to bring the people with Government in dealing with problems. It appears from soundings that the Government will require the full co-operation of the House if these waters are to be entered. In that case, would it be good governance, from the Taoiseach's perspective, to withdraw the citizenship referendum, which is being rushed on the people without thorough investigation and analysis? There would then be the possibility of two serious referendums, on a date to be appointed later in the year, following full and thorough discussion at an all-party committee or whatever forum may be appropriate.
Following the debacle of the rushed judgment on electronic voting, serious consideration of an amendment to the Constitution should be fundamental to how the Government deals with its business.
Is the Taoiseach saying to the House that no heed should be paid to any answer he gives on this kind of generic question in the future because the Cabinet has not formally endorsed a referendum? Why did he tell the House on 17 February that there would not be a referendum when manifestly it was decided between himself and his Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that there would be?
If the Government is as determined this week as it was last week to impeach Judge Curtin and to impeach him without compensation, is that still——
That does not arise out of these questions.
I believe it does, Sir. Like Deputy Kenny I believe we will be forced down the road of a constitutional amendment. The question was put down not just to highlight the fact that the Taoiseach told the House one thing on 17 February and a different thing today. The question was tabled because we want to know whether the Government is contemplating——
This one may be held.
In all probability it will be held.
The question asks what constitutional referendum may be held; it does not deal with specific cases.
I agree it does not. I am positing a specific one. For as long as I have been a Member of this House, it has been possible to put in such a generic question and to tease it out by way of reference to a particular case. I ask the Taoiseach if his Government is as resolved this week as it was last week——
That does not arise out of these questions.
——to impeach Judge Curtin and whether he thinks it will be necessary for us to have a constitutional amendment to do precisely that.
On the first issue raised by Deputy Kenny, I do not agree with any of the points he made about the citizenship referendum. This issue was highlighted eight years ago. We tried to operate a particular system but abuses of the law in some respects were being practised more frequently. This will be a minor change. It will not have that great an effect on most people. It will have the effect of closing off an area. I do not see the necessity for further debate.
Regarding the other matter, the Government considered it today. As stated this day last week, it could be that the House may require changes in Standing Orders and it might require legislation. It is being examined by the Attorney General and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
My advice at this stage is that it does not cause a constitutional difficulty because the problem is how to make the mechanism work. This was tried in 2001 and some of those areas have to be revisited. The constitutional right of this House to deal with a member of the Judiciary by impeachment is already in place. Judge Curtin today asked for additional time and he will be given that.
The Government has also received the reports from the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Garda Síochána. Until a reply is received from Judge Curtin, there will be no decision made on the action to be taken on those reports.
How much extra time has Judge Curtin been allowed?
A fortnight. He asked for two weeks from today and he has been allowed two weeks from today to reply to the Government.