Ruairí Quinn
Ceist:1 Mr. Quinn asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the progress to date in implementing the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. [12888/01]
Ceisteanna – Questions. Committee on the Constitution.
Michael Noonan
Ceist:2 Mr. Noonan asked the Taoiseach the position regarding the implementation of the proposals of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; if any further referendums are planned during the life time of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14355/01]
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the progress which has been made in implementing the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15046/01]
Joe Higgins
Ceist:4 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the proposals of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if any further referendums are planned during the lifetime of the current Dáil. [16003/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4 together.
As the House is aware, referendums will be held on 7 June to amend the Constitution with regard to the death penalty, the Nice Treaty and the International Criminal Court. Referendums were previously held on Cabinet confidentiality, the Amsterdam Treaty, the British-Irish Agreement and constitutional recognition for local government.
Other proposals for constitutional change recommended by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution will be considered in due course.
I have a number of questions arising from the Taoiseach's reply. First, the House rejected, in effect, a proposed amendment to the Constitution drafted by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform as being hopelessly inadequate and grievously unsuitable for incorporation in it. Do I take it that the Government has now decided not to proceed any further with such an amendment and if that is the case, what will happen?
Second, where lies that proposal arising from an undertaking given by the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, to seek to amend Article 40.1 of the Constitution to give constitutional rights to people with disabilities and to include that in the next tranche of amendments?
Third, what action has been taken by the Government in response to the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, which proposed, among other things, and upon which there was all-party agreement, that a special agency should be established to deal with the problem of unwanted or crisis pregnancies?
On the first question, the Government did not believe it would be appropriate to proceed with such a fundamental change to the Constitution without all-party agreement. Every reasonable effort was made to achieve that and, therefore, at this stage there is no further action planned on that. Perhaps it can be taken up again between the spokespersons and the Whips.
On the disability question, legislation is due in the autumn. I have no information on the referendum. It did not form part of the tranche of five, to the best of my knowledge, but I can check for the Deputy.
On the third question, last week the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Martin, dealt fairly comprehensively with the aspects on which there is agreement and outlined his plans for setting up an agency which will progress what was agreed by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution to try to reduce the enormous numbers of people from this country who go elsewhere seeking abortions.
Has the Taoiseach given any commitments in respect of holding a referendum on abortion to any of the four Independent Deputies who usually support the Government?
I have been asked this question many times. I outlined my view on that before and since 1997, that we should prepare a Green Paper and present it to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and try to seek a consensus on the issue. As Deputy Quinn said, we have managed to reach consensus on various aspects of that issue for which there will now be a separate unit set up in the Department.
The Cabinet committee has taken the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution and is deliberating on that issue. I hope over the next few months we can try to finish those deliber ations. Until that has happened, there is no commitment.
The Taoiseach did not directly answer my question. May I rephrase it? In particular, has the Taoiseach given any commitment to Deputies Fox or Blaney in respect of the holding of a referendum on abortion or is what he is telling us here now the full total of his understanding with them, or is there an alternative understanding which he has reached with these two Deputies?
I just said – I did answer the question – that until the Cabinet deliberates on both the Green Paper and particularly the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution there is no commitment to do anything. This is a matter still to be dealt with if we can achieve both a wording and a legislative base. However, the Cabinet has not completed its work on this and until that happens, there is no position to be stated, either to the Independents or to anybody else.
What is the Taoiseach's opinion of the recommendation by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution that a Bill to amend the Constitution should not go before the public until 90 days have elapsed, to allow people an opportunity to consider all the aspects of the legislation? In the light of the MRBI survey, the results of which were published on 19 May in The Irish Times, which showed that most people did not know what the Nice Treaty was about, good, bad or indifferent, should this recommendation not have been heeded? This recommendation was not heeded and people have been given only 21 days to consider, for example, the Nice Treaty. Is this not a gross disservice by the Taoiseach to the people? Would the Taoiseach's opinion of that recommendation be that it should be followed and that it was a mistake not to follow it?
As I understand it, there is in draft form within the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, something similar to what the Deputy said, but the committee did not make a recommendation and its report has not yet been issued. There is no basis for the Deputy's question.
The Taoiseach is aware of the recommendations.
(Dublin West): Would the Taoiseach agree that it is a very bad development that last week more than 60% of the Irish people said they knew nothing, or very little, about the contents of the Nice Treaty and that, in retrospect, it was a huge mistake to force this issue by going to the people in such a short period?
Will the Taoiseach agree that it is impossible to get a wording that will safeguard the health and life of the woman in all circumstances and, therefore, such a referendum cannot take place, and that it should be so stated? Will the Taoiseach further agree that a referendum for a blanket ban on terminations in this State would be to totally ignore in a very hypocritical way the fact that in recent days it was revealed that more than 6,000 women with Irish addresses availed of terminations last year in Britain? This number is only for one year. Would the Taoiseach agree that the best way for this State to proceed is to legislate for the findings of the Supreme Court judgment providing for the safeguarding of the health and life of the woman?
I disagree with the Deputy's first point. We are the only country in the European Union that is holding a referendum and it is constitutionally necessary in our case. When I spoke to Deputy Quinn last Christmas on the subject, I stated my view that I would be in favour of a referendum. The present debate has been ongoing for the past three or four weeks in one form or another and has probably attracted more attention than many other referenda in the past. It has probably attracted more attention than the referendum on the Amsterdam Treaty or the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. People seem to be more informed now and as we deal with the more fundamental issues in a few years time, I think that debate will be developed.
In relation to the other matters, the Deputy has his views, and I know that he will be the first to appreciate that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who hold alternative views. Many thousands of people went to the trouble of writing to the all-party committee and 150,000 people submitted their views to those who were preparing the Green Paper. This number consisted of differing views. It is the Minister for Health and Children, not me, who is dealing with this issue and he answered questions extensively in the House last week. The Government hopes to complete its work and give its considered response. It is a complex issue.
Anyone who has read the excellent report of the All Party Committee on the Constitution will be aware of the different legal, ethical and moral views and the different views of obstetricians gynaecologists and others, including those from a religious background, given to that committee. It is a matter for the Minister for Health and Children.
In the Taoiseach's first reply he seemed to indicate that the question of amending the Constitution to make our judges more accountable to the citizens and to the Oireachtas is now in the hands of Opposition parties and the Whips. If I heard the Taoiseach correctly, I take it the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not propose to bring forward new proposals and, more importantly, as was the case in relation to the controversial legislation to amend the Constitution to provide for civil div orce and remarriage, that the Government took the precaution that was deemed necessary to publish in advance the legislation that would flow from such a constitutional amendment so that people would know precisely what they would get in terms of primary legislation if they were to vote to change the Constitution in the first instance. That request was made in respect of the judicial council. Can I take it, therefore, that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has washed his hands of any reform in this area and that the onus of legislative responsibility has fallen on the shoulders of the Opposition parties and their Whips in this Dáil?
No, that is not what I said and I do not think that interpretation could be taken from it. What I said was that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made every reasonable effort to follow as closely as possible what the all-party committee had said, the Susan Denham report and the justice who was given the task of doing this to try to get agreement. That was not possible in the time or in the circumstances or through the efforts of the Minister. If that proves possible or is likely I am sure the issue could be taken up again. It would be good to hear what the Minister could do that would satisfy people. We heard a great deal about what he could not do to satisfy people.
I am interested to hear that the Taoiseach believes the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform handled the affair well because there is a widespread view that he banjaxed any chance of the legislation going through this House or being successful in a referendum. Will the Taoiseach give a simple answer to this question? Is it the Government's intention to pursue a referendum on the issue of judicial conduct during the lifetime of this Dáil?
That was our clear intention. We had hoped to have it next week. As I made clear, unless there was agreement in the House on that fundamental issue it would not be the desirable thing to do. As of a few weeks ago there was no possibility of achieving that. If that position changes the Government would, of course, reconsider the matter. In the meantime there are many other important constitutional issues we could examine, even though that issue almost got agreement within the all-party committee.
The Taoiseach cannot have forgotten the chaos which surrounded the introduction of the proposed amendment to the Constitution as brought forward by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Amendments appeared late at night, we were confronted with a guillotine and there was little or no discussion and certainly no dialogue. May I clarify that the current position is that the Government will not bring forward proposals to give effect to the recommendations of the Denham committee and that if any proposals are to be brought forward it will be the Opposition parties who will do so because the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform does not propose to publish in draft the kind of legislation that would emanate from a constitutional amendment or a change in the way in which the Constitution must be measured in the first instance? Is that the position as of now?
For the third time in this Question Time, that is not the position. The position is that the Minister's proposals exist. He outlined in great detail how this would work. Deputy Quinn seems to be saying that if the legislation was in draft form and his party had more time to consider it, it would withdraw its opposition. It appears he is happy with the wording and the other matters, but he has not seen the legislation. I will convey that to the Minister.
In the dying days of this administration, is it not highly unlikely that we will have a further constitutional amendment leading to a referendum? If he is not prepared to clarify that point fully, can the Taoiseach confirm that the Government will not give legislative priority to any such proposal between now and the next general election?
On what issue?
Any proposal to amend the Constitution. Are we to have a further referendum before the next general election or is any such idea being given the lowest possible priority?
No. Deputy O'Keeffe is vice-chairman of the committee chaired by Deputy Lenihan, which has done considerable work on this. There are aspects of the committee's five reports, which are still getting very active consideration. As Deputy O'Keeffe knows, one of the early reports suggested how to take the issues together. There was great pressure on me for three years to take an omnibus set of amendments. However, when more than one issue is taken, everybody changes position.
The Taoiseach tried to rush it through.
I was asked to examine the 26 proposals outlined in the earlier reports. Given that I heard so many problems with regard to three or four of the issues, the Deputy would definitely be correct that it is unlikely I would try to deal with 26 together. They are all very important. In the life time of this Government, we will have had seven referenda, each on a separate issue. That is far more than any other Government ever did. There are a number of other ones that I would still like to try to deal with, some of which are more important than others. The general constitutional issues were covered in the committee's first report. The second and third reports covered the Seanad and the Presidency. As I said here, I do not altogether agree with some of its recommendations. The fourth report was on the courts and the Judiciary and the fifth report on abortion is before a Cabinet committee.
From the Taoiseach's response it is difficult to understand whether there will be a further referendum. What are the Taoiseach's priority issues before the next election?
They are covered in those five reports. There would not be any sense in going beyond those. There are many issues in that first report and I hope we might be able to get some omnibus way of dealing with them. It would be a pity not to address them because the arguments have long been set out with regard to dealing with them. It may not be easy to deal with the issues because often when a proposal is made, the debate is about what is not included rather than what is included. I do not want to get into that type of debate.
Far be it from me to answer for the Taoiseach, but can I take it he would regard having another referendum on the Nice Treaty as a priority, if this one is rejected?
The Taoiseach has made his name by reading signs and interpreting messages and gestures when dealing with industrial disputes. Is he choosing to ignore a recommendation from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution? Whether it is in draft or finalised form is academic. The recommendation is that a Bill to amend the Constitution should not be passed by the Oireachtas until 90 days after its publication. Given that ratification of the Nice Treaty is not required until December 2002, what was the reason to only give 21 days instead of three months? There is no legal reason to transcend a well considered recommendation from the all-party committee which, as the Taoiseach said, has undertaken a long and difficult task. Why is this recommendation being ignored?
It has not even been presented yet. I first heard of it when Deputy O'Keeffe mentioned it a few weeks ago. I understand it may or may not come to me within the next few months. One cannot ignore something which has not been presented.
Was the Taoiseach unaware of this matter?
Until Deputy O'Keeffe informed me. It has happened a number of times already that matters which are confidential to the committee have been disclosed in some way. My position is that, when the committee wishes me to see a report, it is presented to me. I have made myself available in relation to the work of the committee whenever I was asked to do so. I cannot be accused of ignoring a matter which has not been presented.
On the question itself, I can see merit in it in some situations but not in others. A process involving a green paper, a white paper and further consultation, could go on for years. At the end of all that, does one then go on to another stage lasting a few months? I understand the committee stated that, in exceptional circumstances, the Dáil could take the opposite approach. However, it is a reasonably regular approach to constitutional change to have green papers, white papers and a consultative process. I do not believe that allowing a period of three months would make a great difference. From my experience of many referenda, it is only in the final few weeks that people begin to show an interest. That is just how it happens and it is naive to pretend otherwise.
The Taoiseach is probably aware that the committee on the Constitution made specific proposals in 1997 in connection with Seanad Éireann. It recommended that both the nomination and electoral procedures for Seanad Éireann should be altered, with a view to achieving gender balance in the Seanad. Has the Taoiseach reflected on those recommendations and could he share his views with the House?
Yes, that formed part of some 26 or 27 recommendations from the all-party committee, which have been sent for comment to the various Departments. Comments have been received on all of them. Most of them are non contentious and many of them are technical. There is agreement on practically all of them, with the possible exception of one or two technical issues which were not teased out. Gender proofing was an important part of the recommendations, all of which I have no problem in supporting.
Am I to take it from the Taoiseach's response that, despite the promises made by members of the Fianna Fáil Party prior to the last general election, this Government has no intention of introducing a constitutional amendment to abolish ground rents? Has the Taoiseach made a sincere effort to resolve this issue? Is he not disappointed and is it not appalling that the issue did not get the priority it deserved, despite the promises made by Fianna Fáil?
That issue has received priority attention to see if it is feasible. Over the past year, the Attorney General has made considerable efforts to resolve it. It may yet prove possible but it may take some time. The Attorney General believes that it is possible.