Proinsias De Rossa
Ceist:5 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Taoiseach the amendments to the Constitution, if any, the Government plans to bring forward during 1998; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1589/98]
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Constitutional Amendments.
As I have indicated already today, it is proposed to hold a referendum on the Eighteenth Amendment of the Constitution to enable Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Amsterdam before the summer. As I indicated in reply to Parliamentary Question No. 3 from the Deputy on 12 November 1997, the Government will also consider proposals on constitutional issues which arise from commitments in party manifestos and recommendations from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. I had previously indicated a willingness to consider the Cabinet confidentiality issue further in the light of the work of the all-party committee and the operation of the Moriarty and Flood tribunals.
The Irish and British Governments have given a commitment that in the context of an overall settlement, arising from the multi-party negotiations, they will propose and support balanced constitutional change, including changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution and to section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. As I also indicated in reply to the parliamentary question on 12 November 1997, when decisions for constitutional change are taken, the Government's position will be announced and necessary legislation brought forward.
I appreciate the Taoiseach's reply, but it appears to cover a number of years whereas the question relates specifically to 1998. Does the Taoiseach expect a referendum will be held this year as an outcome of the Northern Ireland negotiations? Does he see the need for special legislation to provide for a referendum to ratify such an agreement as distinct from changing the Constitution in line with whatever may be agreed on the Constitution? Is there need for special legislation to provide for a plebiscite to simply approve the agreement and, if so, what preparations are being made in that regard?
I hope the referendum to ratify any such agreement and the constitutional aspects of that, as mentioned in the propositions document and elsewhere, will be held in the course of this year. Work is ongoing and it will be some time before we see whether we are successful. I have no proposals regarding other legislation.
Is the Government considering any proposals to amend the Constitution to limit liability for compensation?
Not at present.
Inevitably, elements of the agreement will require constitutional change and in such instances specific questions will be put to the people. With regard to the commitment to a referendum to take place in the North and the South simultaneously to approve the agreement, what legislation, if any, is required to provide for that kind of plebiscite, which will seek the approval of the people for what is essentially an international agreement? It is not a referendum in respect of constitutional change per se, because the Constitution cannot be changed simply by putting the agreement to the people.
The Deputy is referring to what would be a Referendum Bill passed in this House to make way for a constitutional referendum.
What about the separate plebiscite on the agreement?
At this stage, I am not sure that is necessary. We have not discussed it. All our work has been involved in trying to secure an overall agreement, including the constitutional issues. However, I see the Deputy's point.
While the referendum regarding changes in the Constitution may take time, there may be political requirements to hold a referendum quickly following an agreement. It is important, therefore, that we know whether we need special legislation to put that in place. I understand there may be a need for such legislation.
I note the point and will explore the matter.
Given that the referendum commission is to be established on a statutory basis, is it the Taoiseach's intention that funding will be provided to the "yes" and "no" campaigns in all future referenda, including the Northern Ireland referendum?
The system to which the Deputy refers is being put in place for the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty and whether it remains is a separate question.
Arising from the Taoiseach's reply to a question by Deputy De Rossa, will he clarify the Government's thinking on any referendum or plebiscite that may be put to the people in this jurisdiction following what I hope will be a successful conclusion to the talks in Northern Ireland? Would he agree that what would be required is, first and foremost, a plebiscite for the citizens in this State to establish whether or not they accept and endorse the out-turn of those talks and the basis on which an agreement has been proposed? Would he also agree that subject to those talks and their finality being acceptable to the people in Northern Ireland, the people would be invited to amend the Constitution to change Articles 2 and 3 in a form that would be agreeable in this jurisdiction and in Northern Ireland, and that a referendum to amend Articles 2 and 3 without any guarantee that the overall agreement would be accepted and implemented in Northern Ireland would be politically fraught?
The Deputy is aware of the longstanding commitment that an overall agreement will be put to the people in the North and the South on the one day.
That is a plebiscite on an agreement.
Yes. If people accept the agreement then it must be accepted that there will be constitutional change. While there has not been much discussion, perhaps the two matters could be addressed on the one day.
They are two separate questions.
One is the overall agreement.
Does the Taoiseach agree one is a plebiscite?
Yes.
Consequently, if the agreement is accepted, does the Taoiseach propose to amend the Constitution to give effect to it? One is a referendum and the other is a plebiscite. They could be put on the same day but one could not be implemented until the other was accepted by all sides.
The intention is that once that stage is reached, it will all be put on the same day. However, it does not necessarily have to be put on the one day.
Has the Taoiseach considered the possible difficulties which could arise if there were contradictory results on the one day? For example, people might vote in favour of an agreement, but against a change to Articles 2 and 3 which is part of the agreement. Has the Taoiseach considered how that eventuality could be avoided? The issue of two separate questions has been inherent in the process from the beginning in that Mr. John Hume's proposal at all times has been that there should be a joint referendum North and South on the agreement. However, there is a separate proposal for changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. There was always going to be two separate referenda, but the inherent problem is that there could be contradictory results whether the ballots are held on the same or different days.
That aspect has not been fully thought out. However, the questions are consequent on each other and one cannot allow for a position where such a problem might arise.
I understand the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Deputy O'Donnell, indicated at the United Nations inquiry on policy relating to children that the Government is considering a constitutional change to guarantee the rights of the child. Has that matter come to Cabinet? How is it proposed to deal with that promise?
Regarding the electoral system, is the Government considering a constitutional amendment to change the current multi-seat PR system to a single seat system?
The Minster of State, Deputy O'Donnell, made those remarks and some of those issues are being considered as part of the two reports being prepared by the all-party committee. There are no proposals for a referendum on changes to the electoral system.
The all-party committee has already produced two reports and undoubtedly it will produce more. Has the Taoiseach considered putting in place an implementation procedure? Many Members are happy to plough away in the vineyard and help to get consensus on an agreement. However, unless there is a programme of constitutional reform, it might be viewed as a worthless exercise.
I assure the Deputy, as I have assured his colleagues on the committee, that I have no intention of asking Members to take part in a worthless exercise. They put in much work on the committee. The Government has put in train a detailed examination of the recommendations of the two reports in terms of all Departments. Responses are awaited from some Departments but there is a relatively full picture at this stage. The reports are in the process of being put by memorandum to the Government for decisions. Responses from two important areas are still awaited but most of the work is completed.
Is the Taoiseach telling the House that a statutory referendum commission will be established and that at present it is only intended to use it for the Amsterdam Treaty and not to fund cases for and against in future referenda? If so, will the Taoiseach consider scrapping this idea and using the £2.5 million to improve the environment, the living conditions of people in the inner city or reduce waiting lists? The Government should not waste the £2.5 million on a referendum commission which is totally unnecessary. It is even more unnecessary to set it up on a statutory basis for one campaign.
It is there, but whether it stays is another day's work. One cannot scrap it because it is based on the Supreme Court decision.
It is not.
Like it or not, it is based on the Supreme Court decision.
If so, it must apply to future referenda.
Future referenda will look after themselves.
They will not look after themselves.
We must comply with the law.
The Supreme Court has told us, in the Hanafin and McKenna cases, what we must do. That is the objective of the legislation.
A group to run against this will have to be funded.
This will be the motto of the Government: the future will look after itself.
I seek clarification of the Taoiseach's reply regarding the electoral system. He indicated that there were no Government proposals to change the electoral system. Has the Government asked the Minister for the Environment and Local Government to examine this issue or is he on a solo run in arguing for constitutional change in that area?
Deputy de Rossa will recall I stated that various options were being examined, but no constitutional change is proposed nor is one likely for some time. A paper detailing the options was suggested, but that will take some time, and whether anything is done is another matter.