Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 21 November 2006
7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30658/06]
View answer8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32252/06]
View answer9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next intends to hold a referendum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32253/06]
View answer10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the various reports of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34031/06]
View answer11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his proposals for referenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34032/06]
View answer12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will hold a referendum before the dissolution of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34476/06]
View answer13 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution. [35929/06]
View answer14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he plans to hold constitutional referenda before the dissolution of the current Dáil. [35930/06]
View answer15 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his plans for referenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37077/06]
View answer16 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will hold a referendum on the rights of children; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37451/06]
View answerI propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 16, inclusive, together.
The Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution published its report relating to the family on 24 January 2006. The relevant Departments are considering its recommendations. The Government has acted on most of the key recommendations which have emanated from earlier reports of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. In all this and the previous Government have held ten referenda. The Government will avail of appropriate opportunities to take forward further recommendations of the all-party committee. The complexities involved in holding a referendum require that careful consideration be given to the frequency with which referenda can realistically be held and the significance of the issues in question.
I announced on Friday, 3 November 2006 that a referendum on children's rights would take place. Our Constitution strikes balances between personal rights, the status of the family, the rights and duties of parents and the powers of the State as guardian of the common good. Constitutional change is now proposed to include children in this equation.
The Minister of State with responsibility for children has written to party leaders in the Oireachtas, the Ombudsman for Children and the Chief Executive of the Children's Rights Alliance and invited them to meet him with an aim to achieving consensus on the wording of an appropriate constitutional amendment. Until this process is completed, it is not possible to indicate when the referendum will be held.
The St. Andrews Agreement envisaged some form of electoral endorsement next March. The form that would take was not decided at that time as the legislation needs to go through the House. In the legislation published last week and following further contacts with the Northern parties and the Government, the British Government has provided that this will be by way of elections to the Assembly in Northern Ireland on 7 March 2007.
The Attorney General will advise the Government on any implications that may arise in this jurisdiction in the light of the final content of British legislation to give effect to the St. Andrews Agreement, when it is passed.
I find the discussion on referenda somewhat bizarre given that it seems to be developing into a pattern. In the cold light of day the recommendation that we should have a referendum on the St. Andrews Agreement does not seem like such a good idea and the Green Party does not support it given that we thought the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement was the decisive referendum. A referendum on children's rights is proposed, but the Taoiseach has not advised the terms of the referendum — essentially he wants the Opposition to provide those terms. While I am very happy to discuss it, it would be useful to know whether the Taoiseach had given it detailed consideration before announcing it in the wake of the Ard-Fheis.
Does the Taoiseach have any wording in mind for a referendum on such an important issue as children's rights? Did he have a discussion with senior Ministers in his Cabinet in advance of making his announcement? It seems some Ministers were not aware of the announcement.
Will the referendum be as broad-ranging as possible and will deal with issues including the provision of schools, the protection of human rights, matters relating to crime etc? There are many aspects to a referendum of this nature. When will the Taoiseach sign off on the wording for the referendum? Is there a timeframe in place regarding the consultations in which the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is engaging? Will he publish the provisions relating to the referendum? Will the Taoiseach provide a list of the organisations and individuals the Government intends to consult and will their submissions, which would be interesting to read, be published?
Will the referendum contemplate the fallout from the Baby Ann case? Will the amendment to the Constitution countenance children taking their parents to court? What will be the limit in respect of the referendum or has that been thought out? Will the Taoiseach indicate whether he plans to hold the referendum before the general election?
In respect of the St. Andrews Agreement, one party insisted that an election should take place and that it should take the form of a full election in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly. All the other parties were satisfied that the main matters with which the new agreement deals — consent, equality, etc. — are covered in the Good Friday Agreement and that an election would not be required. It was not possible to deal with that issue. An election could have created difficulties for some political parties.
A referendum could perhaps have represented another way of testing support for the agreement. Following the discussions, it is obvious that the British Government strongly believes — I am not of the same opinion but I would not go to the stake in respect of this issue — that an election should be held. The Assembly will remain in place until the end of January and an election then will be held prior to the new agreement coming into operation. In my view, other parties — although I am not sure they will be very enthusiastic — will go along with it.
We were advised that if a referendum were to take place in the North, one would almost certainly have to take place here. The holding of elections in Northern Ireland will not affect our position. The Attorney General wishes to see the final legislation before making his observations known not only on that issue, but also in respect of any other changes that might be made and how these might affect the international agreement reached on Good Friday in 1998. To date, the indications are that the new agreement will not alter anything in its 1998 predecessor.
Regarding the referendum on matters relating to children, the Deputy will be aware that this is not a new issue. It has been raised by the Ombudsman for Children, the Children's Rights Alliance and the Law Society and it dates back ten years to the deliberations of the Constitutional Review Group. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has raised the matter on several occasions, particularly in the context of the United Nations children's rights group. He reiterated during the summer that we would be obliged to deal with this issue. I understand that not only has the Minister of State given consideration to this matter, but he has also spoken at length to many groups and bodies. I am sure he has a wording in mind. Having been involved in dealing with many constitutional issues, I am aware that if the wording is produced, people start to unpick it and state that it is not correct and that proper consultation did not take place. Deputy Sargent would probably lead the posse in that regard.
It would be a draft wording.
It would be far better to engage in meaningful consultations rather than trying to fix wordings and dates and I thought the Deputy would have welcomed that move.
I refer to the Taoiseach's remarks about the St. Andrews Agreement, which everybody supports. The leader of the DUP wants an election to do what he intends in respect of the Ulster Unionists, which is understandable. When the Taoiseach spoke about this previously, he raised the possibility of the Attorney General advising him to hold a referendum in this jurisdiction arising from the St. Andrews Agreement because of the confusion and lack of clarity. Given legislation has been published in Britain to enable elections to be held on 7 March 2007 and the Assembly to return, surely no complication should arise in respect of having a referendum in this jurisdiction. Is a referendum on this issue necessary because of the legislation and the subsequent election in Northern Ireland?
With regard to the referendum on children's rights, the Taoiseach will be aware Article 42.5 of the Constitution allows the State to intervene where it is called on "to endeavour to supply the place of parents where parents, for physical or moral reasons, fail in their duty towards their children". A number of organisations are calling for this provision to be replaced with an amendment which would state, "In exceptional circumstances, where parents fail to protect the welfare of their children, the State shall take such action as is necessary to ensure such protection". Has the Taoiseach a view on that? Has the Attorney General advised the Government regarding that wording?
I refer to the issue of soft information, which should be a vital part of any referendum in this area. It is estimated a conviction is only secured in 5% of child abuse cases. For instance, the third anniversary of Ian Huntley's conviction is approaching. He was repeatedly questioned about charges relating to sexual activity with minors, indecent assault, burglary and rape. In 1998 and 1999 he was questioned on four separate occasions about rape. The flow of soft information is, therefore, crucial to a referendum on children's rights. When Deputy Enright raised the issue, she was told constitutional issues would restrict the use of such information. Is that the case or has the Taoiseach been advised to the contrary? If a referendum is held, will the issue of soft information be included in the context of what I described in the British case, where clearly soft information regarding the danger posed by a particular personality had been gathered but was not made available? Is there a constitutional restriction in this regard? Should soft information be available? If a referendum is held, will it be included in the wording?
I reiterate my comments about the St. Andrews Agreement. Subject to the legislation being passed and the Attorney General being happy that nothing will happen over the next week or so, there should no reason to hold a referendum here. On passage of the legislation, as I understand it, the Assembly will cease in its transitional form at the end of January and an election will be held on 7 March next year. However, the Attorney General will conduct a final examination when the legislation is enacted.
As the Deputy correctly said, children's rights issues have been raised by many groups at national, EU and UN level. Many issues were raised a decade ago when Ken Whitaker chaired a constitutional review group. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has made numerous comments about these issues.
When one looks at what is or is not to be included, the main thing is for the Constitution to be amended to include the welfare principle and to provide an express guarantee of certain other children's rights that derive from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The case comes from that convention. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in examining our report on the implementation of the convention over the past number of years and particularly since 1998 — it arises every two years — is of the opinion "that Ireland's approach to the rights of the child appears to be somewhat fragmented". We have given an undertaking to deal with that issue, which has been highlighted by many eminent people and people working in the field.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution, in its review of the Articles dealing with the family and after examining what the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and others have said, recommended that a new section should be inserted in Article 41 dealing with the rights of children. The committee stated:
All children, irrespective of birth, gender, race or religion, are equal before the law. In all cases, where the welfare of the child so requires, regard shall be had to the best interests of that child.
Many groups, including three notable ones — the Ombudsman for Children, the Children's Rights Alliance and the Law Society — criticised those recommendations strongly and trenchantly. The Minister of State then brought forward some of those arguments in his statement to the UN during the summer. He has furthered his consideration of the matter and it is best that it be discussed by him because he has prepared his case and presentation to bring the issue forward.
From what Irish groups, including the Ombudsman for Children and others, have said, what has been said in court cases — not just the Baby Ann case, but several others — and what is stated in European law and international law in the various conventions, we must address this issue. It is not simple. The Deputy mentioned the issues and sensitivities around the family, a side on which there are counter views. We must make our best efforts to resolve this issue.
Some people outside the House have purported that this matter is new and has jumped up from somewhere, but it is not new. The first references discussed in the House followed the 1996 report, which took from reports that were six years or seven years old. It is quite an old issue.
Deputy Rabbitte may speak for one minute and the Taoiseach will have a minute to reply to bring us past Questions to An Taoiseach.
The Constitution is the type of issue that can be adequately dealt with in a minute. I will be brief. On 14 June, the Taoiseach stated in the House: "We do not have a plan at this stage to have a constitutional referendum in the lifetime of this Dáil." Is this still his intention? Do I understand him to have said that he does not believe that a referendum will arise from the St. Andrews Agreement, but that he cannot be absolutely certain? Do I understand him to have said that we have a long way to go before we have a referendum on the rights of the child and that it is not likely to be held before the election?
Is there any other matter in respect of which we are likely to have a referendum before the election? I am sure the Taoiseach was right when he stated he was sure the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has all of this worked out and has an amendment in his head, but does he agree that if the Minister of State has an amendment in his head, he has kept it a secret? Does the Minister of State intend to let the House in on the secret? I ask for clarity as to whether the Taoiseach intends to hold the referendum on the rights of the child before the election. Most, if not all, in the House are favourably disposed to the principle but it seems from the Taoiseach's statement at the weekend of his party's Ard-Fheis that he has not really thought through the many complexities involved in such a prospect being hurried.
I have said on two occasions that it is unlikely a referendum will be required on the St. Andrews Agreement but until the legislation is passed in Westminster — because in its draft form it can be amended, as can any legislation — the Attorney General cannot be asked for a definitive answer. If it passes in its present form it is unlikely to require a referendum.
I am the only Deputy in this grouping——
The need for a referendum can arise at any time, such as following a court judgment. There will not be a referendum until the Cabinet decides there is to be one, which was my answer in June. The Government's aim is to obtain agreement on an all-party basis as early as possible, which is always our aim with such an important issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has made a case not only in his own mind but at the United Nations, if anyone cares to read what he had to say on the matter. He has set out his thoughts a few times in the past few years but did so in particularly detailed form this summer. On a contentious issue it would not be good business for me to come here and set a date for a referendum. The Minister of State will engage with the parties in the House and all interested groups, of which there are many. If we can deal with it quickly we will do so but if we cannot then we cannot. It is up to us. The Minister of State would like to deal with it quickly and believes it need only take a few months.
