Bertie Ahern
Ceist:1 Mr. B. Ahern asked the Taoiseach the further work being done by the committee established to review the Constitution. [8064/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Constitutional Review.
The Constitution Review Group furnished me with provisional reports on a number of constitutional issues. The Government agreed to publish the reports and I arranged to have copies placed in the Oireachtas Library on the relevant dates of publication — 22 January and 6 February 1996.
The group has indicated that its work is well advanced, that it expects to finish its study by the end of May and that its report, embodying the provisional reports, will be furnished to me shortly afterwards. I will arrange to have the report published and copies placed in the Oireachtas Library in due course.
Given recent experience of referenda, would the Taoiseach agree that constitutional change based on the reports published to date should be limited to what is essential? Would he accept the view of the committee examining the reports that in general the Constitution is constructively adapted and reinterpreted by the Judiciary to meet new needs and conditions in a way that makes constant amendment of the Constitution unnecessary and, probably, undesirable?
Those are interesting points which could usefully be considered by the all-party committee which the Government hopes to establish to consider all of these reports, including the final report from the Constitution Review Group.
When is it envisaged setting up a constitutional committee? From past experience, such a committee would fall at the end of the Dáil. As this Dáil has, at most, a little over a year to run, the committee may only work from this autumn until spring next year. I do not see how it could carry out much work in that time.
The proposal for the establishment of the committee is at an advanced stage. Detailed proposals were furnished to Deputies Ahern and Harney on 10 April. We hope to hear from the Deputies shortly so that we can quickly proceed to establish the committee. The committee will obviously set itself a priority work programme, indicating the areas where work is of the highest priority, and come to its conclusions on those matters perhaps earlier than it would on other more general matters. Until the committee actually meets it would be best to refrain from too detailed a speculation on the work programme the committee might set itself.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that the answer he has just given pre-empts the activities of this committee completely? First, it suggests that there are priority issues to which this committee is supposed to address itself, which suggests that it is not engaged in a general review of the Constitution. Second, would the Taoiseach agree that it would be very unfortunate if issues which in many people's minds are priorities — Cabinet confidentiality, the right to bail, votes for emigrants and Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution — were taken off the agenda as far as this committee is concerned?
Those issues are the subject of separate consideration, as was made very clear when this exercise was commenced a year ago. They remain matters for separate consideration. The work programme of the committee is a matter for itself. My response was simply directed to the common-sense point that the committee itself will want to make the best use of its time, and that, I presume, will involve some form of prioritisation of its work. That is and will be a matter for the committee to decide.
Is it the Taoiseach's intention that the constitutional committee will continue to work at the same time as the all-party committee? It is my understanding that the constitutional committee has many more months of work to do. To come back to my earlier point, is it not the case that we will not have an all party committee until near the end of this year?
The Deputy is misinformed on two points. The Constitution Review Group will conclude its work by the end of May. The all-party committee will be commenced before that and will continue with its work thereafter.
Can the Taoiseach explain to the House why it is that an all-party committee representative of all the views in this House should not address the issues I listed a moment ago? Why is it that the Government's view on those matters is preferable to an all-party view? Can the Taoiseach explain to the House why, if those were priority issues that did not need to be examined by the constitution review group or an all-party committee, nothing has happened in respect of any of them?
I am sorry to have to find myself in disagreement with Deputy Michael McDowell as to the facts. On the matter of Cabinet confidentiality, the Government has decided on the lines of an amendment which is at present being drafted. The matter of votes for emigrants is at present being considered by the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs, as no doubt Deputy McDowell is aware, on the basis of a paper circulated by the Government. The matter of bail is currently engaging the Government's attention. Deputy McDowell will recognise that the matter of Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and their amendment is one that would be far more appropriately dealt with in all-party negotiations involving Northern Ireland as well as the Republic rather than simply dealt with separately by a committee of this House.
Will the Taoiseach say whether the matters of Cabinet confidentiality and votes for emigrants will be precluded from discussion by the all-party group? Presumably they will still be able to discuss these matters.
I have sent the Deputy the proposed terms of reference of the committee which he can study and on which he can present any views he wishes. Work on most of the matters referred to is well advanced. I have already indicated the stage of work in regard to each in response to Deputy Michael McDowell. The Government is advancing its proposals on these various matters, which will come to the House in due course where they will be the subject of all-party consideration.