Vol. 448 No. 4
6 Mr. Molloy asked the Taoiseach when he intends to appoint a group of experts to prepare a report on all aspects of the Constitution; the number of persons to be appointed to the group; and the terms of reference for the group. [1908/95]
In accordance with the commitment in A Government of Renewal the Government is giving active consideration to the appointment of a group of experts to prepare a report on all aspects of the Constitution. This consideration includes the membership of the group and its terms of reference.
Does the Taoiseach envisage political party representatives being involved in this group?
As the Deputy is aware, the proposal contained in the Programme for Government is a twostage one. The first stage will take place during 1995, comprised of a group of experts, in which there will be no particular party representation, although membership of a party will not disqualify people from taking part if they have the necessary expertise. A report will be prepared which will then be referred to an all-party committee of this House in 1996 and subsequently. Obviously, at that stage, there will be a very substantial and formal, all-party, input to this process.
Will the Taoiseach bear in mind that the Constitution has served us well, that a body of judgments has been built up on the strength of it and that, therefore, any proposals for change in it would be few? Will the Taoiseach now outline to the House what constitutional referendum he expects will be held during the current year?
I agree with Deputy Ahern in regard to his general observations in regard to the Constitution because it is very important to recognise that a significant body of jurisprudence has been built up in regard to the interpretation of particular Articles and that, therefore, any change in those Articles, however, minor, could alter or invalidate the existing jurisprudence which gives certainly to constitutional lawyers in interpreting the Constitution. The Deputy made a very valid point which I hope will be taken into account by anybody examining the Constitution. At the same time there is no doubt that some aspects of the Constitution, not necessarily those subjected to controversy particularly frequently, could be improved. To make that type of improvement possible this review is being initiated.
I have a number of hopes in regard to issues that might be dealt with by referendum this year. The only one I would say that most certainly will take place is a referendum in respect of divorce; that is something which I believe must take place this year, if possible. Indeed it is not just possible but probable that other matters will be dealt with simultaneously. It is my intention, if possible, to bring a number of other issues before the people where the Government has already indicated an intention to do so. For example, I mentioned the matter of Cabinet confidentiality and the issue of representation of emigrants in the Seanad. Those are two issues I should like to see dealt with, if possible, this year. However, I will not get myself into that dangerous territory, of putting dates on things and finding, for reasons that may not be foreseeable at this stage, that they cannot be adhered to.
I appreciate the Taoiseach cannot give exact dates, but will he confirm that, the last Wednesday or Thursday of May, the date tentatively agreed by the last Government still applies for the holding of a divorce referendum?
Yes, if possible. I have avoided setting precise dates in public statements and I encourage Ministers to do likewise. In a matter of this complexity it frequently proves impossible to meet dates because of the programme of work the Government set itself. We are aiming to hold a referendum in May, if possible.
Will the Taoiseach agree that changes in the Constitution are essentially political matters and are not necessarily matters for consideration by experts? Will he be prepared to meet the Leaders of Opposition parties to discuss membership of the expert group and maybe accept nominations or suggestions from Opposition parties? Will the Taoiseach be prepared to meet with the Leaders of all parties to discuss the mechanics for holding a divorce referendum? I am sure he will agree that if it is to be passed it is important that we have all-party support in a referendum campaign?
I would say yes to the second part of the Deputy's question. In regard to the first part of her question, the Programme for Government envisages an expert group being appointed in an initial phase. I do not wish to be drawn into a position where the experts had to include a Fianna Fáil expert, a Progressive Democrats expert, a Democratic Left and so forth.
Like you appointed the Government.
Fine Gael experts— that is an oxymoron.
Well said. I hope that will be included in the quotes of the week. I do not want to enter that process, but I will be more than happy to have discussions with Deputies Ahern and Harney about any matter affecting this process and to take their views into account. However, I am not willing to commit myself to accepting specific nominations as that would be imprudent.
The Taoiseach has given me some information on the divorce referendum. I assume we will not have to wait until the end of an examination by the constitutional review group for an indication about the referendum on bail. Regarding constitutional change, will the Taoiseach not agree that it would be better to put fewer items before the people at any one time rather than a number of amendments which I presume would result from an examination by a constitutional review group? That is not the practice in other countries and I would not like to see it develop here.
The Deputy has made a very good point. None of us in the House would like to see 20 constitutional amendments being presented to the people and they being asked to make 20 separate decisions on the one day. Even if there were 20 proposals for amendment to the Constitution at the end of this process clearly there would be advantages in not putting them all to the people on the one day.
In regard to bail, as the Deputy is no doubt aware the Programme for Government commits us to refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission. It is a matter that probably will require constitutional amendment. Given that it is identified as a separate item within the Programme for Government, it would not have to await attention until completion of the comprehensive review. It is something we will deal with separately whenever we are in a position to do so.
I am reassured to hear the Taoiseach say that a referendum on bail will be brought forward. It is a vital issue given the revolving door syndrome in our justice system. I encourage him to bring forward such a referendum at the earliest possible date.
An issue that is an irritant for many thousands of people, one that has been debated here many times is the iniquitous ground rents. It should be a simple issue to address and a simple question to put to the people. Will the Taoiseach consider including a question in a referendum on the abolition of the last vestiges of ground rents?
As the Deputy is no doubt aware, there are references to the question of ground rents in the Programme for Government. If I correctly recollect, ground rents do not necessarily require constitutional amendment and I would prefer if a non-constitutional route to deal with them was explored before reaching a conclusion that a constitutional amendment is necessary. However, I stress that it is an issue that needs to be dealt with.
Does the Taoiseach accept that the role envisaged for women in our society under the constitution is very unsatisfactory. Given that the Taoiseach does not wish to have the agreement of all parties on the appointment of experts, will he give me an assurance that women will be represented on the expert group?
I have no doubt there will be women among the group, but women frequently represent men too. I have no wish to say that any women among the group would simply represent women, she would represent the overall interest. There are many women who deserve to be part of a group of this nature, regardless of gender. That being said, I accept the point Deputy Harney is making.
The Taoiseach acknowledged yesterday that the exclusion of the equality provisions from the Programme for Government was an oversight. As his predesessor might have said — that's new for you. I am rephrasing what his predecessor said about women. I am simply raising the point because there are some very offensive articles in the Constitution regarding the role of women about which women feel very strongly which are separate from any legal changes we might make. That is why I raised this serious point with the Taoiseach and it is one he should certainly discuss with for example, the Council for the Status of Women.
We should proceed by way of questions, not statements.
As a member of a party which proposed the Constitution in 1937, I will be so bold as to make the point that the author of the Constitution by including those articles was probably reflecting the mores of the time, but the mores have changed.
Will the Taoiseach give a conclusion date for completion of the expert group's considerations? Will he agree to publish the report of the expert group so that it can be fully discussed and debated in this House and will he confirm whether the clauses on Northern Ireland will be included in its area of study during 1995?
The conclusion date will be the end of this year and the report will be published. The provisions in regard to Northern Ireland will not be included because they are being dealt with separately in the overall negotiations in that matter. I would not wish to see that issue subsumed in any longer term review.
I agree.
What legislative or policy hurdles remain to be dealt with on the divorce issue? How does the Taoiseach and the Government propose to create a climate of confidence and reassure women on that issue bearing in mind that it is women who feel strongly about this issue, particularly in view of the result of the last divorce referendum?
I would not like to answer a question about which I did not have prior notice. It is clear that there is a number of relatively important but not major legislative obstacles to be dealt with before holding the divorce referendum. We must also await the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court. If the Deputy wants definitive information, she should table a separate question as my answer here could be criticised for its lack of comprehensiveness by people who are punctilious in these matters.
