Vol. 504 No. 5
1 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Taoiseach the plans, if any, he has to introduce a package of constitutional reform measures given the recommendations to date of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and when it will be introduced. [11498/99]
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution has done considerable work to date on proposals for reform of the Constitution. The committee's recommendations set out in its progress reports were considered by the Government at its meeting on 14 April.
The Government agreed to proceed immediately with the recommendation of constitutional recognition of local government and a referendum to this effect will be held to coincide with the local and European elections in June. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government published the Twentieth Amendment of the Constitution (No. 2) Bill on 30 April 1999 which the House discussed today.
I have asked Departments to report to me on proposals for constitutional amendments relating to their spheres of responsibility which arise from other recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and from the programme for Government. The committee's proposals will be given further consideration on receipt of observations from Departments.
There have been three reports from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and 121 recommendations from the Constitution Review Group headed by Dr. Whitaker. Does the Taoiseach accept that one recommendation being put to the people at this stage is meagre considering all the background work?
This will be the fourth referendum in a two year period which is a lot. There have already been referendums on Cabinet confidentiality and the British-Irish Agreement and there will now be one on this issue. I acknowledge and appreciate the work of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and the review group. Deputy O'Keeffe is aware of the responses from Departments to the first two reports which I forwarded to the committee. In conjunction with the all-party committee, I would like to take on board all the work done and try to reach agreement on an omnibus referendum on a number of issues. It is perhaps taking too positive an attitude to assume they can all be dealt with, but a large number of them could be decided upon if agreement can be reached.
Does the Taoiseach accept there are a number of simple uncontentious proposals from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which could and should have been included in the proposal being put to the people on 11 June, such as the granting of constitutional recognition to the Ombudsman and reducing the age of membership of the Dáil to 18, something which had all-party support?
I accept a number of them are not contentious, but it will not make much difference if it takes time to deal with a number of them. The Deputy has seen the responses from the Departments to the effect that some of them are not only considered good ideas but also desir able amendments. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has very positive views on a number of them. The Government's view is that a series of them should be dealt with together by agreement. I am conscious the committee has worked well and I do not wish for a situation to arise where everyone's agreement cannot be obtained, for example, where the agreement of the committee is obtained but not that of the House. There must be co-operation between the committee and the leaders in the House to take a range of recommendations and put them forward.
The Taoiseach talks about an omnibus proposal but is he aware of the legal debate whether such a proposal is possible? Has he taken the advice of the Attorney General on the issue and does he accept an omnibus proposal is constitutionally proper?
I did not mean an omnibus proposal in that sense. The matters must be put separately. I meant an omnibus proposal in the sense of dealing with the recommendations of the committee and responding to them. There are 43 recommendations in one form or another.
That would be a long questionnaire for people to fill in.
It works well in other countries. The Swiss do it every month.
How long did it take them to give women the vote?
A few other things also. There is no difficulty with many of the recommendations. I have only circulated the third report to Cabinet and have not yet raised it for consideration. I will do that during the summer to see if a range of issues can be compiled with which we can deal.
The Taoiseach indicated in his reply he requested reports from Departments regarding commitments made in the programme for Government as well as the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. Is an update on the issue of ground rents included in this request? Is it intended that constitutional proposals to abolish ground rents would be brought forward given that the Taoiseach has repeatedly indicated in the House it is not possible to abolish them without a constitutional change?
Is it also proposed to introduce a constitutional referendum to give people with disabilities full constitutional rights which take priority over the rights of private property, given that equal status legislation passed by the House was ruled by the Supreme Court to be in conflict with the rights of private property?
Will the Taoiseach comply with the solemn promise he made while in Opposition and during the last general election and hold a referendum on the Partnership for Peace?
These are separate questions.
The Attorney General has submitted a report on the ground rents issue but it is no secret that there would be major constitutional difficulties with it. There is not much difference between the views of the Attorney General on the issue and those of his predecessors. On the disability issue, I do not think it was in the document. I know it relates to what had been said previously. I will check and will find out the position.
On the third question, the Deputy will be aware that the debate on Partnership for Peace is ongoing and I am glad to see that. It was made clear by me at the time of the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty that a referendum would arise in the context of a departure from this country's neutrality. No such departure is envisaged so participation in PfP would not be incompatible with our neutrality. Therefore, a referendum is not necessary.
Would the Taoiseach agree in retrospect that the inclusion of a commitment in his party's manifesto, this portion of which was authored by former Deputy Raphael Burke, was a mistake?
It was not in the Programme for Government. It was in our document. When the changes were made in the north Atlantic alliance in May 1997, I referred to that stating that it changed the position. It does not change neutrality and the Department of Foreign Affairs will publish a document which adequately explains this.
Earlier I mentioned Switzerland, which is probably one of the great neutral countries of the world. The Swiss did not even hold a referendum on PfP.
Will any package of constitutional reform measures arising out of the deliberations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution include representation in this House for citizens in the Six Counties?
The question is about the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.
There has been a presentation to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution and I know it will consider that.
Given that Northern Ireland is in NATO, does the Taoiseach envisage any constitutional amendments to give effect to all-Ireland security arrangements? With regard to his answer on PfP, will he confirm to the House that it is his intention to appoint an ambassador to NATO as all other PfP member countries have done so?
That is a separate question. This question is about the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution.
My first question was about that issue. Arising from the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, does the Taoiseach envisage, given that Northern Ireland is part of NATO, that there will be security arrangements which might need to be addressed and constitutional amendments which might need to be considered?
I still consider it a separate question.
In view of the Taoiseach's reply with regard to the ground rents issue, that a previous Attorney General identified serious constitutional issues with regard to abolishing ground rent, will he make the report of the Attorney General on that matter available to Deputies in the same way as the information with regard to the constitutionality or otherwise of PfP was made available to Members of the House?
On the question of PfP, I remind the Taoiseach that he stated explicitly in this House, apart from in his party's general election manifesto,—
The matter was the subject of a question yesterday.
Yes. This is leading to a question. He stated specifically that to join PfP without a referendum would be grossly improper of the then Government. Why has he changed his view on that, given that all of the neutral states who are members of PfP were at that time also members of PfP and the position has not changed?
Maybe I can have my question answered.
This question is about the recommendations of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. Deputies should ask relevant questions.
I asked a relevant question on the ground rents issue.
On the ground rents issue, as the Deputy will be aware, it is not normal to make available the advice of the Attorney General. I would have to check the context in which that could or could not be done, but it cannot be done in the normal course of events.
Given that the Taoiseach informed the House that he is not proceeding with a referendum on PfP even though it was in the Fianna Fáil manifesto—
This question is not about the Fianna Fáil manifesto.
He drew our attention to the fact that it was not in the Programme for Government. Is the Taoiseach telling the House that it was the Progressive Democrats who persuaded Fianna Fáil to remove this commitment from its manifesto or is it that the Taoiseach does not take seriously his party's manifesto before the election?
As I stated already, in May 1997 there were substantial changes and in the campaign I made a speech on that issue which had changed the position.
That is not true.
It is. I will give the Deputy a copy of the speech since he reads all my other ones.
That is not true.
When the House sees the document which will be produced by the Department of Foreign Affairs, this will be put to rest. If that document had been produced earlier, perhaps people would have been able to analyse the situation.
All of that information was available prior to 1997.
The Deputy was a member of a Government which brought forward the first White Paper. He signed up to it.
All of that information was in the Fine Gael document.
If I have changed somewhat, so has Deputy De Rossa because he signed up to that paper.
No. I am quite prepared to stand up now and state exactly what I said.
He signed up to that paper. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, issued a paper and Deputy De Rossa signed up to it.
