Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Jun 1996

Vol. 466 No. 4

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Constitutional Amendments.

Michael P. Kitt

Ceist:

4 Mr. M. Kitt asked the Taoiseach the referenda, if any, due to be held in 1996. [11166/96]

I refer the Deputy to my reply to written Question No. 44 of 26 March 1996, in which I stated that the Government is committed to initiating constitutional amendment Bills on votes for emigrants and Cabinet confidentiality.

I also stated that the Minister for Justice, having examined the Law Reform Commission Report on the law of bail, would be bringing proposals, including options for a constitutional amendment, to the Government for consideration.

The timing of any referendum arising out of the all-party negotiations commencing on 10 June is not possible to predict at this stage.

Does the Taoiseach definitely envisage referenda being held within the lifetime of this Government?

Yes, I think it is likely that we will consider amendments, certainly on votes for emigrants and Cabinet confidentiality. There is also the possibility that there may be amendments considered on the matter of bail. I can only postulate at this stage. Until firm decisions are taken to introduce legislation to provide for referenda, one cannot be definite about that. If the Deputy is trying to inquire about the lifetime of this Government, I can tell him it will be a very long one.

On the matter of Cabinet confidentiality, in advance of putting any proposals to the House, will the Taoiseach be willing to circulate a discussion document on the issues involved and of the scope of any amendment proposed to ascertain whether he can obtain all-party consensus on this issue? Did I hear the Taoiseach refer to the possibility of a referendum on bail?

Until the Government has come to conclusions about the matter one cannot go further than refer to possibilities. No decisions have been taken. We are looking at options for dealing with the problem of crime committed while on bail. We shall look at options that might be helpful which do not involve constitutional change and others that might include or involve constitutional change. However, until the Government has concluded its examination of these options, it is not possible for me to go beyond referring to possibility in this regard.

In regard to Cabinet confidentiality, the Government has approved the drafting of legislation to provide for a constitutional amendment thereon, at present being worked on by the draftsmen but there are other drafting priorities, including the freedom of information Bill being dealt with simultaneously by them. I am interested in what the Deputy had to say about a consultation paper. It may well be that, when the wording is prepared, a consultation paper would be a useful part of the process. I will certainly bear that in mind if I think it is a constructive proposal put forward for a constructive purpose.

Bearing in mind that the constitutional review group had a number of issues excluded from its remit and the all-party constitutional review committee due to be established in the near future, I take it that any discussion of issues such as bail, Cabinet confidentiality and proposed legislation in relation to the latter, will be submitted to a committee of the House prior to Government approval? In other words, will members of that all-party committee be given an opportunity of submitting their views before a proposal is submitted for Government approval?

It would not be normal to consult a committee of the House before a matter goes to Cabinet; that would be without precedent. Obviously, after a matter has been considered by Cabinet no bar is placed on consultation with anybody. In so far as the work of the all-party committee is concerned in regard to issues like bail, votes for emigrants, Cabinet confidentiality and the like, I have written to the Deputy's party leader in some detail indicating an open approach to that matter, which he has probably received by now.

Will the Taoiseach add the abolition of existing ground rents to the list of issues being considered since he is well aware of the controversy in relation to them and people's resentment at having to pay them?

I would require notice of that question. There is no proposal to hold a referendum on that subject. Any referendum proposal that impinges on property rights in the Constitution could involve many difficulties of a precedent-creating kind which would have to be considered carefully.

Will the Taoiseach indicate if there is any good reason a committee of this House, which is supposed to be competent to examine virtually every other aspect of the Constitution, should not be consulted in advance on the question of Cabinet confidentiality?

I was hoping to avoid repetition.

That is a repeat of Deputy Ahern's question.

It is not.

I indicated it would not be normal for a committee of the House to be consulted in advance of a Cabinet decision on a matter upon which the Government was working. That is not a matter which has been precedented in this House or by any Government. However, there is no particular problem with a committee of the House putting forward views on any topic currently being considered by the Government, but specific proposals for Cabinet consideration should go to Cabinet first.

Will the Taoiseach accept that the collective wisdom of this House on issues such as Cabinet confidentiality and others, might have an extremely good input to Government deliberations on issues that might arise which would only have the stamp of officials and that the all-party committee, which is agreed, would be the appropriate vehicle to consider those issues?

We are having repetition.

If the Deputy is allowed to read the letter I wrote to Deputy Bertie Ahern——

——he will realise that we make provision for the possibility of an input by a committee on these matters.

The Taoiseach excluded it a few moments ago.

There is not a problem in this regard.

Given that the report of the Law Reform Commission on bail and the options arising from it have been published long enough for each Cabinet Member to memorise them, will the Taoiseach accept that there will not be a referendum on bail because the Government parties are hopelessly divided on the issue?

The Deputy should not make assumptions of that nature. The Government parties are anxious to deal with the serious problem of crimes committed by persons on bail. We are anxious to deal with the problem in a way that works, that respects our traditional civil liberties, that does not imprison people for crimes they have not yet been proved to have committed and that provides assurance in a realistic way to potential victims of crimes committed by persons on bail. This matter requires a careful balancing of rights and it is currently engaging the Government. The Deputy should acknowledge that.

Barr
Roinn