Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Constitutional Amendments.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 17 February 2004

Tuesday, 17 February 2004

Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he intends to hold during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1006/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

2 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the position in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1007/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Trevor Sargent

Ceist:

3 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution; whether any constitutional referenda will be held in 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1280/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

4 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to hold a referendum or referenda in 2004 on changes to the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [1698/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if the Government has plans for the holding of constitutional referenda during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2892/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

6 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2893/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Pat Rabbitte

Ceist:

7 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach when he expects to receive the report of the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution in regard to building land; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [2894/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if there are plans to hold a constitutional referendum during 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [3703/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Joe Higgins

Ceist:

9 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date in implementing the recommendations of the Oireachtas committee on the Constitution. [3704/04]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (49 píosaí cainte)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 9 together.

The Government has no proposals at present to hold a referendum to change the Constitution. The position continues to be held under review in light of developments, including: the outcome of the examination by the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution of property rights issues; the outcome of the study being conducted by a sub-committee on procedures and privileges on reform of the Seanad; and the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference on the draft constitutional treaty which commenced in Rome on 4 October.

It is difficult at this stage to say when the negotiations on the Intergovernmental Conference might be concluded. However, as holders of the Presidency, we will be making every effort to progress the IGC during our term in office.

The Government has acted on most of the key recommendations which have emanated from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. In all, the previous Government brought forward nine referenda. The Government will avail of appropriate opportunities to take forward further recommendations of the all-party committee.

The complexities involved in holding a referendum require that careful consideration be given to the frequency with which referenda can realistically be held and the significance of the issues in question.

I commend the Taoiseach for the efforts he has made to date in meeting all the leaders of the EU and accession countries. If it is possible, it is particularly important that this matter should be concluded during Ireland's Presidency of the EU. Personally, I would not regard it as a failure of Government ——

Has the Deputy a question for the Taoiseach relative to Questions Nos. 1 to 9?

The Ceann Comhairle is being very touchy because ——

The Chair will not accept that sort of remark from Deputy Kenny. It is quite obvious that Questions Nos. 1 to 9 deal with the Oireachtas ——

Allow me to explain. They are quite obvious. The first question is about constitutional matters. The Chair knows as well as I do that if the Taoiseach in his capacity as President of the EU is able to conclude the IGC, the matter will have to be put to a constitutional referendum of the people.

The Deputy may talk about a constitutional referendum but not about how we arrive at it.

I am talking about constitutional matters. The Chair knows that if the Taoiseach can conclude this matter successfully, it must then go before the people by virtue of the fact that they must vote on it.

We are not discussing the constitution of Europe but a referendum.

This is a constitutional matter.

Has the Deputy a question relative to a referendum in this country on the issue?

I have but the Chair has refused to allow me to elaborate on my point. Does the Taoiseach consider that during this Dáil a situation will arise where the people will have to vote on a constitution, hopefully to be concluded during the Irish Presidency? I hope that question is in order.

In 2003, the Taoiseach stated that he would be willing to hold a constitutional referendum on property rights, if one was necessary to address the spiralling costs of development lands. It is obvious to anybody, and to the thousands of first-time house buyers and young people in general, that the cost of development lands has spiralled. With the abolition of the new house grant, the 1% increase in VAT and the imposition of development levies, this cost is increasing even more seriously. In that context, has the Taoiseach given consideration to what he said in 2003 about holding a constitutional referendum on property rights?

In reply to the first question, it is almost definite that a referendum will be required during the life of this Dáil to deal with the outcome of the IGC on the constitution. Whether that is concluded in the first or second half of this year or next year, it will have to be dealt with. It will almost certainly have to be put to the people in a formal referendum. So the answer is "Yes".

I have not changed my mind on the second issue. The Government has done an amount of work over the last year on the issue of property rights, going right back to the Kenny report and looking to current issues and case law. We have had debates on it here and are awaiting the all-party committee report, which I understand will be out in a matter of weeks. We will then have to come to a consideration of whether this issue can be dealt with legislatively, which some people feel is the case. I have my own view and think it will probably have to be dealt with constitutionally. However, we will wait for the outcome of the report and the work that is being done around it, and then the finalisation of the Attorney General's advice on the matter. My commitment still holds.

The Taoiseach referred to property rights. I would be interested to hear if he took note of the widespread calls made by people dealing with housing and homelessness, for a right to shelter to be incorporated as a constitutional provision, explicitly including people with special housing needs. Has this matter been discussed and does the Government have any intention of acting on this call, which has been made repeatedly and continues to be made?

Has the Attorney General's advice been sought on whether there is a need to amend the Constitution? In the Carrickmines judgment, for example, the judge ruled on it being unconstitutional to amend an Act by ministerial order. Will this have a bearing on the Government's plans for electronic voting? Has advice been sought on this? It is clear that the Government needs to consider a constitutional amendment on this matter.

Has the Government urged the all-party committee to do any analysis of the impact of the proposed EU constitution on the Constitution? Given the detail involved and the significance of it, there may be a role for the all-party committee to examine it so that we can all be both better prepared for the EU constitution and that it can be better understood by the public. Will the Government make a recommendation to the all-party committee in that regard?

On the Deputy's first question, there is no further progress other than what I referred to in regard to the property rights issue and the outstanding report. While we have done some work it has not been based around the issues raised by the Deputy.

What was the second question the Deputy asked?

It was on Carrickmines and electronic voting.

No, there is no constitutional change required. The Attorney General stated that we have to look to the base of legislation to see if there are similar legislative matters that would fall into the same category as that judgment, and that process is under way.

On the Deputy's third question, clearly there is a role to try to ensure that there is as much understanding of the constitutional treaty as possible. This has been done here in the course of debate and by the committees of the House as well as by the Forum on Europe. I do not think there is any other initiative we can bring forward, but I accept that we should all work to this end.

I am always open to looking at ways of bringing forward issues of this nature to the understanding of people as early as possible because, if I understand the Deputy's point, the more people understand the issues and the more debate that takes place on them, the greater the awareness of what people are asked to make a decision on. This applies not only in the EU constitutional issue, which thankfully this time is not as difficult as some of the previous constitutional issues around European matters. However, many of the other areas are quite complex as well. The judgments that bring these issues forward are legally complex. This is the case even for people who are used to looking at legislation or those working in administrative jobs; it is extremely complex and the legal points are quite complex. Even the formula for questions that are put to the people is complex. I agree with the Deputy that it creates much confusion and requires understanding and programmes for explanation.

On several of the other matters that are in consideration arising from the eight reports we have had to date, we have looked at how we might put these together in blocks as it would build up a good reservoir of information. Many of the issues are extremely complex. While we are looking at how they might be grouped, it is not easy to do so as it could lead to more confusion. At the same time, we cannot have referenda every second month. If we are to put issues to the people in blocks, we must put in place an educational process that is better than the one that currently exists.

Based on his last remarks, would the Taoiseach not agree that the best way is always to afford the people the opportunity to make that judgment and decision? I do not know that there are better ways than that — referral to the electorate for constitutional purposes is always the best way.

The Taoiseach stated his view that the issue of land and property rights will have to be addressed constitutionally. Does he recall that in the weeks prior to the Christmas recess, Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats voted down a Sinn Féin motion that sought to enshrine in the Constitution the right to housing? Given what the Taoiseach has just said, will the Government introduce a Bill to amend the Constitution to allow for the control of prices of housing land? The Taoiseach must recognise that the failure to do so has had a devastating effect on the ambition of young couples, including couples where both partners are wage earners, to proceed to home ownership through mortgage or other means. The effect of that is most particularly felt in the area the Taoiseach represents in the city of Dublin. In the greater Dublin area it has a devastating effect.

Does the Deputy have a question to ask the Taoiseach?

As it seems likely that there will be a presidential election later this year, does the Government have proposals to bring forward a constitutional change and does the Taoiseach believe such change is required to extend the franchise to citizens north of the Border, in the six north-eastern counties of our country? Given that the President, were she domiciled in her own home, would not be able to vote for herself — she was not able to do so, what proposals does the Government have in this regard? If it is not a constitutional matter, does the Taoiseach believe it should be legislated for in advance of the presidential election later this year? There is recognition that that is very important.

I have repeatedly raised the issue of ground rents since 1997 and my colleague, Deputy Morgan, has raised it since 2002. In his previous responses, the Taoiseach stated that there are possible constitutional difficulties with a Bill to abolish ground rents, yet it remains an intent in the Government's programme of legislation for each term. What advice has the Cabinet received from the Attorney General on the possible constitutional difficulties regarding a ground rents Bill? Will the Taoiseach publish the Attorney General's advice so that we can all be privy to his concerns?

I have nothing further to add to what I said in reply to Deputy Kenny. The all-party committee has given urgent consideration to this issue. It has received written and oral submissions, held public hearings and will shortly make recommendations in its report. The Government also examined these matters in considerable detail last year. The Deputy will be aware that most of those who spoke on this issue have been opposed to anything I have said on it. While it is not an easy matter to deal with, it should be dealt with when we have the report of the all-party committee.

The Deputy made a point about Deputy Sargent's question. The point with which I was agreeing was that many of the recommendations for constitutional change can be quite legalistic by their nature. What Deputy Sargent and I were referring to was the campaign to explain those issues in a manageable way. We held referenda during the previous Dáil on the International Criminal Court and other matters. Few members of the public understood the issues. My point concerned the educational information process in that regard. One cannot have referenda all the time. One must try to group the issues.

The Presidency was the subject of the third report. Recommendations have been made, but I do not think that there is any constitutional issue. The report concerned age and there were several examinations of issues such as whether the office of President should continue to exist, external relations, whether there should be direct elections, and whether the procedure for nominating presidential candidates was too restrictive. All these matters were examined along with various other issues concerning the Presidential Commission. However, no referendum is planned, and it is not necessary. I am not sure whether the franchise — who can vote on such issues — was addressed in that report. To the best of my knowledge, it was not.

What is the Taoiseach's position?

Allow the Taoiseach speak without interruption.

I may be wrong on that. Regarding a ground rents Bill, we have had several legislative changes to the Landlord And Tenant (Ground Rents) Act 1967 over the past 25 years, and the legal advice for a considerable number of years has been that it is probably not possible to go further in the area. I am not totally familiar with all the arguments on all sides, but the Deputy can table a question to the Minister. However, it is not possible, outside the four or five Acts in which we have made changes, to find a way to make further progress. That has been the position to date.

Will the Taoiseach share——

I call Deputy Rabbitte.

If the Deputy tables a question to the Minister, he will give him the information.

Can we anticipate a referendum regarding matters arising from the Abbeylara judgment? Does the Taoiseach accept that we cannot continue to inquire into every matter of public interest by relying on the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921? Is it appropriate that we put in place a cheaper, speedier, more efficient way of disposing of some of these matters?

Is it not the case that the Supreme Court struck down Abbeylara in specific circumstances relating to imputations against character that might arise in the grave matter of what may have been unlawful killing and that that is not appropriate to this House? However, most matters that arise pertaining to the spending of public money would be appropriate to this House, and, as the DIRT inquiry showed, can be dealt with by one of its committees. Does the Taoiseach intend to hold a referendum to that effect? Why did the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, apparently promise that in the wake of various eruptions regarding the Flood tribunal only for it seemingly to go to ground with no sign of anything emerging now?

Did the All-Party Committee on the Constitution find that there is no constitutional impediment to the Government intervening to deal with the price of building land, which is driving the cost of housing out of the reach of most average earners? In those circumstances, is it the intention of the Government to legislate and may we anticipate such legislation at an early date given that a further increase in the price of houses of the order of 13% was recorded last year?

In light of the facts that this discussion recurs every few months at Question Time, the rainbow Government commissioned a report under Mr. Ken Whitaker in 1996 and the All-Party Committee on the Constitution has reported five or six times since then, to where is all this work leading? When I discussed this matter with the Taoiseach some months ago, he told me he would be clearer on it in the new year. Where is all the work on the Constitution going? Are we likely to have a referendum on a new Constitution at some stage or will we approach the issue on a piecemeal basis? Is it likely that any of the issues that have been the subject of recommendation by the all-party committee will be addressed?

Abbeylara and the issues around it are not among the issues listed for constitutional change. The Commissions of Investigation Bill, the debate on Second Stage of which we await, will hopefully address some of the issues raised by the Deputy. I do not disagree and have stated before that the 1921 Act which operates in this country and deals with inquiries is lengthy and costly. The way in which it operates may make it difficult to bring finality to these issues, considering it is the same Act which operated prior to the foundation of the State and operates in Britain. There are major differences in how it operates.

In the Government's examination of this matter, it was felt that the commission of investigations process provided for under the Bill would enable us to deal with most of the matters that would come before the House, and that the House would not be stuck with the same constitutional problems and difficulties that happened in the Abbeylara case. To the best of my knowledge, that is still the position, but I will raise the issue again with the Minister. I know the Bill has been published for some time and I will check why it is not moving on to Second Stage.

On the issue of property rights, I am in favour of legislative changes if it is possible to make them. Much of the advice over the years has been that perhaps one would not get the same result. Without going into too much debate on the matter, there is an advantage to making legislative changes because it would perhaps be easier to achieve them in the House on these issues than to win a constitutional referendum. I have seen the storm that was thrown up by some of my remarks on this issue in recent years. When the debate about property rights arises or one gives an interview about them, one gets little support other than in the House and groups outside it become very exercised about what it means. Either way, there is an issue to be dealt with and I hope we can move on it quickly.

On the third matter, we have had eight reports and the work which Deputy Rabbitte reminded me I had promised is now complete. We have done a summary of the recommendations and conclusions of all eight reports. The first was a progress report and much of the work outlined in it has taken place. The second report, which was on the Seanad, contributed to the debate on Seanad reform. I understand the Seanad report will come forward in one block this week or next week. The third report was on the Presidency. Some years ago, when we gave our views on this matter, the Government did not come down in favour of legislative change in most of the areas. There are some outstanding issues which could be blocked in with other changes but they are not of enormous consequence.

Some progress was made in the case of the courts and the Judiciary but the judicial oversight issue was not passed by the Dáil and remains outstanding. The fifth report on abortion was put to the people and was defeated. The sixth progress report was on the referendum issue and most of that was dealt with by legislation. The seventh report dealt with Parliament. That report has been analysed and blocks of issues could be put to a referendum and some could be dealt with by legislation. I have a detailed note on the eighth report but no action has been taken on it.

Many issues have been dealt with such as the death penalty, the International Criminal Court, recognition of local government, the scrutiny of EU business and the conduct of referenda. They have been dealt with by referendum or by legislation.

I answered Deputy Rabbitte on a previous occasion on the proposal of a re-run of the Constitution. Following consideration by all those involved, it was decided against that action. The view is that the Constitution has lasted with few changes as against in other countries where there has been constitutional change. While there is a requirement to update the Constitution in many respects such as on the issue of gender, there is not a case for changing it in its totality. The point of view of those working on this report over the last year is that a valuable framework exists within which constitutional change can take place. Some of these issues can be systematically grouped together and put to the people in a referendum. None of these issues will change the world or need to be dealt with urgently. However, when the opportunity arises these issues should be grouped together to update the Constitution. When we are dealing with European or other issues which affect the Constitution, the work of the all-party committee could be included.

Unfortunately it is the committee's view that only five or six issues are the most that can be put to the people at any one time. I have asked the committee to consider a grouping of the conclusions. It has produced a good report but it is a pity that more issues could not be grouped. There are many small changes required in the Constitution and only four or five can be dealt with at a time. I have asked the committee to consider the issue of gender in the Constitution and I do not see why all the issues to do with gender could not be grouped together. There are also some issues to do with language which could be dealt with together. I do not think it will confuse the people that much, quite frankly. I will come back to Deputy Rabbitte on the Commissions of Investigation Bill.

I wish to clarify a point. If the people managed to struggle with Mr. de Valera's Constitution in 1937, does the Taoiseach not think that in 2007 they would be able to struggle with a new Mr. Ahern's Constitution? I presume the Taoiseach will still be here in 2007. I am not entirely clear on the purpose of bringing in report after report if they are not acted upon.

Can I take it that what the Taoiseach said to me in reply to the question about property rights, that in the event of the constitutional committee reporting that there is no constitutional impediment in the way of legislating, that his Government will legislate?

The answer is "Yes". I have an open enough mind on the other matter raised by Deputy Rabbitte. If we were to do this on the basis of five or six issues together, we would never finish, quite frankly. It would be 2017 and I certainly will not be here then.

The Taoiseach should not rule it out.

At that stage the Taoiseach will be in the gallery.

I hope I will not even be doing that. Perhaps there is a case for examining this area. I am not against this, I have already said that the report that has been published in this area should be shared with the all-party committee. I am not sure if this has happened, but I have no difficulty with it. Many of the points are small and will not make much difference, and there is a reason the Government will not accept all of them. Implementation of some of the recommendations would make the Constitution better, more readable and more up to date. I will keep the matter under review, otherwise it will never come to an end.

When does the Taoiseach expect the report of the all-party Oireachtas committee on building land and property rights? Does he agree some of us have been raising this issue with him for seven years and that it is now an extremely urgent task? In light of his legislative commitment some moments ago, will the Taoiseach give a commitment to put a constitutional referendum to the people if the all-party committee finds that a constitutional amendment is necessary to control the price of building land? Will he accept that this is an urgent issue in view of the fact that the free hand given to land speculators in Dublin over the full duration of his two Governments has meant that young working people are shackled with massive mortgages for the next 30 years and that for 15 of those 30 years those people will be paying not for bricks and mortar but for the obscene profits of land speculators? Will the Taoiseach agree that the legislation or a constitutional referendum is extremely urgent? Will he give a commitment that this problem will be resolved in a matter of months?

I have given my views on this issue many times and Deputy Higgins knows exactly what those views are. We await publication of the all-party committee's report, which I understand is due in a few months. The process has not been under way for seven years. The committee started its work about 16 or 17 months ago. The Kenny report was produced about 30 years ago. More houses have been built, by and large, for young people and starters in the past five years than in the previous 25 years. The Deputy's argument in this regard, therefore, does not stand up. Issues relating to land continue to exist. Deputy Higgins is aware that constitutional referenda are not held for the fun of it — one has to bring forward proposals that can be passed by the people. Many people involved with property such as houses and land have concerns about these issues. There is nothing near public support for wholesale changes in this regard, as is clear from the statements of many organisations. We need to consider whether this should be framed constitutionally or legislatively. There are clear questions about the price and availability of land here compared with other countries, and that has an effect on house prices. We should endeavour as best we can to do something about that.

I would like to ask a different question, which the Taoiseach answered before. The all-party committee recommended that the right of emigrants to vote in national elections — to the Dáil — should be confined to those who are ordinarily resident in this jurisdiction, and I support that. Will the Taoiseach confirm that he accepts that recommendation of the all-party committee? It remains to be seen whether the Government will change the system of appointments to the Seanad based on Senator O'Rourke's recommendations, but does the Taoiseach consider that it would be appropriate under the existing system to nominate to that House a person with an involvement in or an awareness, an understanding or a history of dealing with emigrant affairs?

The Taoiseach will have had a report of a recent television programme which highlighted the plight of many of former navvies living in hostels in rundown English cities. In their working years, they gave their sweat and blood in the building of Britain and sent money home to keep their families alive. Pride in many cases does not allow them to return home. Concern for their plight should be rightly reflected in the Seanad by a representative with an understanding and awareness of their condition. Does the Taoiseach believe appropriate recognition would be given by a suitable appointee to the Seanad? The Taoiseach has had the opportunity to make nominations in recent years; I do not know if he will in the future. Can we have his views on this?

There are competing views as to how the numbers in the Seanad should be made up. I gave my views to the committee last September on the issue. I understand from the subsequent debate that took place and from meeting the committee on a number of occasions over the past six months that it will recommend that what is known as the Taoiseach's 11 be used in a different way and also that the overall formation of the Seanad be changed. It is also seeking participation by various groups such as emigrants.

Many Members in both Houses have considerable experience of emigrant issues and speak frequently on them. These include Members who worked or were forced to work abroad. It is not always the case that current members of such organisations — as good as those organisations are — are the only ones who can represent these groups.

I accept that.

I am not against examining such a proposal. The Seanad can be used in a broader way to take account of representative groups. Some of these perhaps feel they should be represented in this House, but the Seanad can give them a part and role to play. I am not against that idea. I have always been in favour of the recommendation that people from outside of the State could hold seats in the Seanad. However, I am not in favour of half the Irish-American community voting in Dáil elections.

It would be a job to canvass them all.

I faced their wrath many years ago when I told them that, while others told them the opposite. I will not change my mind on that issue.

I will endeavour to process the Seanad report as soon as it comes out. I believe it will make new recommendations on the Taoiseach's 11 and the overall formation of the Seanad.

We have heard the Taoiseach speak of competing views, how open his mind is and how referenda are not just for fun. That is obvious enough. Does the Taoiseach agree with having a five year electoral cycle, something the Green Party supports? I see the practicalities when he said that we cannot have referenda every second month. However, in allowing more opportunities for referenda, would he agree to a five year electoral cycle with a voting day for Dáil, Seanad, local and presidential elections? Obviously, this would require the presidency term to be changed to five years and a limit of two terms per incumbent in the interests of turnover. Is it possible to have the electoral cycle truncated to a five year cycle?

Will the Taoiseach inform the House, in crystal clear terms, if an amendment to the Constitution is required to allow citizens in the Six Counties participate in future presidential elections? Will the Taoiseach bring forward such an amendment at this point? If it is not required will he bring forward legislation to accommodate the participation of citizens of the Six Counties in the expected presidential election in the autumn?

I do not envisage any change in the format for the presidential election in October. There will be no change from the present position, either constitutionally or legislatively.

Does he not propose to exempt——

Deputy, please allow the Taoiseach to speak.

In response to Deputy Sargent's question we will endeavour to bring forward amendments. There are several constitutional issues to be dealt with in the coming years and the best way to deal with those will be to group some of the issues arising from the report with those, in as many instances as we can.

Barr
Roinn