Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 6 October 2004
1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on recent progress 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. [17231/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra2 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. [18314/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra3 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the constitutional amendments the Government intends to bring forward within the lifetime of the 29th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21327/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda that he intends will be held in the next year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [21426/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to propose amendments to the Constitution during the current Dáil session. [22384/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his proposals to amend the Constitution during the lifetime of this session of Dáil Éireann; when a referendum on such proposals may be held; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22464/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach when there will be a referendum on the proposed EU constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22465/04]
Amharc ar fhreagra8 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the proposed constitutional amendments which will be brought forward in the current Dáil session. [23418/04]
Amharc ar fhreagraI propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, together.
The Government has acted on most of the key recommendations, which have emanated from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. This Government and the previous one have held ten referenda in total. The Government will avail of appropriate opportunities to bring 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.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution published its ninth progress report on private property on 7 April 2004. All relevant Departments, and in particular the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, are considering its recommendations, with a view to further consideration by Government in due course. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government answered a parliamentary question in this regard last Thursday.
The treaty to establish a constitution for Europe will be signed at a ceremony in Rome on 29 October. As the Deputies will be aware, I have indicated my intention to hold a referendum on the treaty. Member states of the EU must have completed their ratification processes by 1 November 2006. The Government will give detailed thought to the timing of the Irish referendum in due course.
On 17 February the Taoiseach told me the Government had no intention of holding a referendum to amend the Constitution. However, a few weeks later the Taoiseach announced his decision to hold a referendum on citizenship. Will the referendum on the constitutional treaty for the European Union take place sometime in 2005 or is it intended to put it off until 2006? This is a serious matter and if the referendum is to be held in 2005, will the Taoiseach ensure that the National Forum on Europe will be adequately resourced to allow it to do its job around the country so that the citizens can have clear explanations of what is involved in this constitutional treaty and so we will not have a repeat of what applied at the first referendum on the Nice treaty when clearly people were not fully informed as to what the treaty was about?
Arising from some recent comment does the Taoiseach believe it would be appropriate for the All-Party Committee on the Constitution to examine the manner and the requirements under which eligible candidates might wish to have themselves considered for election to the Presidency of Ireland?
On the first matter, no decision has been made. The likelihood is that it will be in 2005. However, we have not discussed the matter yet. On the Deputy's second question we will ensure the National Forum on Europe can adequately carry out its job. While I am not sure when they will be ready, I am preparing two documents, a short information document on the main features and a more detailed one, which will be available in community buildings, libraries and other areas as we did the last time for the Nice treaty. Those documents are in preparation in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I believe these will be available sometime in November. The preparatory work is going ahead. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has prompted me to say it is nearly completed and we will have them late this month or early next month.
On the other issue, I have not changed my mind based on the debate and I do not want to get into the whole argument. I am satisfied that the eligibility requirements set out in the Constitution are adequate for prospective candidates to participate. I said this in 1997 and I have said it previously. Having again had the debate on the matter and given the nature and the responsibility of the position I do not believe it is unreasonable for candidates to be asked to show a fairly modest degree of support from elected representatives. I am satisfied it is possible for a substantial number of candidates to be nominated. It has been shown in the past that candidates do not have a problem in getting support. The system exists to do that.
It is my opinion and not that of the Government, which has not considered the matter, that it is too easy for candidates to run. If the Deputy were to press me I would say that if I were to change it — I have no intention of making such a proposal — I would toughen it rather than going the other way.
The constitutional requirement is prohibitive for Independents.
I do not see why a person should be able to run for the Presidency of the country without showing a degree of support. I do not see any justification for changing it. While we have not had any Government discussion, that is my view.
Arising from the Taoiseach's last comments, no facility is open to Government to have interaction on a regular basis with civil and religious leaders to discuss matters of religion, morality or issues that arise within their respective communities. In the past 20 years the country has changed utterly in that regard. Would the Taoiseach see a role for the President——
The Deputy cannot go into that area. It does not arise out of Questions Nos. 1 to 8.
How does the Ceann Comhairle know? I have not yet asked the question. When I finish——
It would not be appropriate for the House to discuss the role of the President. The President's role is totally independent of this House. In any event it does not arise out of these questions.
All right. Deputy Kenny mentioned that the Taoiseach told the House on 17 February that he had no intention of holding a referendum this year. Then a couple of months later he decided to hold a referendum on citizenship. I ask him to be clear with the House on this occasion. Are the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, cooking up any other surprises for us? Will any other referenda be sprung on us? How can the Taoiseach reconcile this with us having nine separate reports from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution? The only referendum we have had bears no relationship to any of the reports. Will the Taoiseach give the House a commitment that the time frame recommended by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution for processing a referendum will be adhered to by the Government if it promotes another referendum?
I do not want to speak again about the last issue raised by the Deputy because I have answered a question on it already. I will point out briefly that I cannot say that the Government has decided to hold a referendum until a decision has been taken. I cannot say that if the deliberative process is ongoing. Such a difficulty was encountered on the last occasion. I assure Deputy Rabbitte that I do not think any issue which is around at present will fall into that category.
We have had discussions on this issue on many occasions in recent years. There have been many referenda in the State in recent years — on Cabinet confidentiality, the Amsterdam treaty, the British-Irish Agreement, recognition for local government, the death penalty, the International Criminal Court, the Nice treaty, the protection of human life in pregnancy and citizenship. Some of the issues raised by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which have not yet been dealt with could be categorised as technical, but the committee has said that trying to change the Constitution is never a technical matter. The issues which are the subject of referenda are always substantive. Departments have made a number of changes to legislation without requiring a constitutional amendment. Issues raised by the all-party committee have been taken on board.
Three considerable examinations of property rights are currently taking place — the NESC report, which will be available shortly, as well as the reports prepared by Goodbody and the all-party committee, which has said the matter can be dealt with by means of legislation. The detailed consideration which the issue received over the summer is continuing. There is no other item. Deputy Rabbitte asked me to stick to the timescale recommended by the all-party committee. I cannot recall what that timescale is but——
Sixty days.
——I think it is the right thing to do.
Can I ask the Taoiseach a question which I have asked him before? What is the point of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution's industry? Although the committee continues to produce reports, the Taoiseach's intentions in that regard are entirely unclear. What is the purpose of the committee's work? It has produced reports on land, international affairs, the role of Parliament, the Seanad, the Judiciary and other matters. Is the Taoiseach preparing us for a proposal to introduce a new constitution? Is he saying the Government may act on different aspects of the all-party committee's reports? It seems from the Taoiseach's replies that there will not be a constitutional referendum this year and that it is unlikely that there will be a referendum next year. If there is a referendum next year, perhaps it will concern the proposed EU constitution. What is the point of the committee producing so much output, recommending the need for change in certain areas, if the Government is not willing to take its proposals on board?
For a number of years, the Taoiseach intimated in his unique style that he did not intervene in the consistently spiralling house price market because there is a constitutional impediment to intervening in the price of private property. It was argued at length on this side of the House that no such impediment exists where intervention is required by the exigencies of the common good. The Taoiseach ultimately referred the matter to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, which recommended that there is no such impediment. Having considered the committee's report on the matter, does the Taoiseach intend to take action on this issue?
I wish to take the Deputy's last question first. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, has also answered a question on the matter, which is being examined by his Department. The report says both things, as all great reports do. It states that the committee does not believe that a constitutional impediment exists, but it goes on to say that the current constitutional provision could be strengthened. I can understand that the committee has said that because of the complexities of the matter. The possibility of doing it legislatively is currently being examined. Either way, I think it should be done. If the all-party committee feels that it can be done legislatively, we should do it legislatively. If the committee feels there is a risk——
The movement has been going on for ten years. The Taoiseach has been in office for seven and a half years.
Allow the Taoiseach without interruption, please.
When will we do it?
The Deputy knows that the great experts who have examined this matter have said that many of the problems will not be resolved, for various reasons, regardless of whether it is addressed legislatively or by means of a constitutional amendment. I think it would have a significant advantage, but not many people on either side of the argument accept that. I still think it is easier to do it legislatively. A constitutional referendum on property rights would be quite divisive as it would involve all kinds of extraneous arguments. When one speaks about the matter, as I have done in various fora, people get very stroppy about changing the section of the Constitution dealing with property rights. We are examining whether it can be done legislatively. The NESC report, which tried to help the NESC parties to reach a consensus, will be published soon. I hope the Department, which has done a large amount of preparation on the basis of the reports prepared by Goodbody and the all-party committee, will bring forward its proposals shortly. That is what the Minister said the other day.
Deputy Rabbitte's first question was about the Government's record in acting on the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, which has been very good. It is not true that the Government has not dealt with the committee's proposals, which did not all relate to constitutional change. Many of the recommendations were for procedural or legislative change, or updating the relevant statutes. We have made many such changes and we will deal with the recommendations which have not been acted on. The all-party committee recommended a constitutional amendment to abolish the death penalty, for example. While we did not pursue a referendum on the issue of judicial oversight, we held referenda on abortion and the recognition of local government. We have dealt with matters which did not require a constitutional amendment, such as the oversight role of this House in dealing with scrutiny of EU business and other matters.
There are practical limits to the number of referenda which can be put to the people at any time. The Government will continue to give priority to the recommendations of the all-party committee. Matters in respect of which action has yet to be taken include gender issues. The committee published a report about gender and the Constitution's reference to women in the home. The Government agrees with the committee's recommendations on such issues, but we need to find a way of implementing the necessary changes. The committee's report included some articles on the Presidency which can be dealt with. Its proposals relating to the courts are being dealt with in legislation, such as the Courts and Court Officers Bill. It has made recommendations on the oversight of judicial conduct, impeachment and issues relating to the Special Criminal Court.
We have dealt with a number of the issues of Government, but some of them are outstanding. I do not think the issues relating to changing the articles about the state of emergency in the State are urgent, but the necessary changes can be made at some stage. Other recommendations relate to international relations, the Ombudsman and national parliaments. Constitutional issues relating to Northern Ireland include the ability of people to come before the House. The proposals I have made in that regard should be implemented. If we can reach a comprehensive agreement, it is important that we can deal with that when we are dealing with Northern Ireland issues. There is a separate report on that. The Government has made a decision and stated its position in that regard, but it needs all-party support to proceed. The all-party committee is examining issues relating to children and the family, many of which will not require constitutional change. All of the committee's work has been useful. The Government has not ignored the various issues raised by the committee.
I call Deputy Joe Higgins.
Are Members being called in a certain order?
Yes. We take Deputies in the order in which they submitted their questions. We take Deputies who are in the House before we take Deputies who are not in the House.
The Taoiseach has been referring to the question of possible constitutional referenda in the course of the 29th Dáil. Does he agree that, in reality, the uncontested Presidency shows that the office is a superfluous arm of the establishment and should be abolished, with an amendment brought forth in that regard? Does he also agree, in the context of what he said in answer to a previous question, that, in the event of there being an election for the Presidency, it should be open to any citizen to go before the people to be elected? Does he agree that, in reality, the current requirement for four county councils or 20 Members of the Oireachtas means that the candidature will be confined to those who have gone through the hoops of the political establishment? That was quite common in the Stalinist era in eastern Europe, but it is hardly appropriate.
A question, please. I remind the Deputy that he is being repetitive. That question has already been asked and answered.
A different angle was adopted in previous questions.
And a different emphasis.
The Deputy has repeated the question.
The Ceann Comhairle may be referring to Deputy Kenny, but he did not say that any citizen should be able to stand for the Presidency. I wonder what he feels on that. However, does the Taoiseach agree that a really democratic election in the event that we keep the office means that citizens should be able to go before their peers?
I may as well be bluntly honest: I do not agree with that at all. I cannot see the point in having a large number of people on an ego trip to find out how few votes they can get.
It is more serious than that.
I am deadly serious.
The Taoiseach without interruption.
As I said to Deputy Kenny, if one considers the matter, one will see that, if people in this House really wanted a candidate, it would be easy enough to get 20 Members. One need not think long to work out the figures. The same is true for the county councils.
We had the numbers.
I know that they had the numbers and did not want to. One does not change the Constitution to provide for that, but that is another issue. It is not unreasonable that candidates are asked to show a fairly small degree of support, and the current requirements are relatively modest.
In the same vein, an tUachtarán, Mary McAleese, has been deemed re-elected, and I wish to acknowledge her fine work. However, I note the Taoiseach's earlier response that prospective candidates should be able to show a modest degree of support. Does he therefore not think that the recommendation of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution of 1998, that a minimum body of 10,000 citizens should sign a petition or take part in a nomination process in support of a given candidate, would reflect a modest degree of support by anyone's standards? Should it not be open to people outside the political establishment or the political engagement that local authorities and the Houses of the Oireachtas represent? That is only fair and reasonable, and the office of the President——
The Deputy should confine himself to a question.
I am doing so. I am asking the Taoiseach whether he agrees that it reflects a modest degree of support and the true nature of the office of the President, which is above political interaction. I would also like to ask the Taoiseach whether he plans, over the remainder of this term, to consider extending the right to participate in future presidential elections to Irish citizens living throughout the island of Ireland and overseas. We will recall that, in the last presidential election——
The Deputy should confine himself to a question.
It is a question. I am asking the Taoiseach whether he recalls that, on the last occasion, the current President was unable to vote for herself by virtue of the fact that she had an address in County Down. It is not a small matter but a very important one, and I would like to know what response the Taoiseach will give——
I am sorry, but I must ask the Deputy to confine himself to a question. Several people are offering questions, and I would like to facilitate them.
Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle might allow me to ask the question. These are questions, and I will conclude.
The Deputy is making a statement.
I do not know whether it is the questions or the constant interruptions of the Ceann Comhairle that are so humorous. I know that he will tell me that the Chair never interrupts.
In the same vein as Deputy Rabbitte's earlier question, does the Taoiseach accept that the all-party committee's report on private property made several recommendations that were, importantly, also reflected in the Kenny report of 1973, which clearly stated that compulsory purchase of land for social housing purposes at existing use value plus 25% would not be unconstitutional? The Taoiseach has already said that he would be broadly in favour of such a measure. Given our serious need for social housing in many areas, with current waiting lists of 50,000 housing units, does the Taoiseach believe that now is the time to make the change, be it constitutional or legislative, to grapple with this great need?
For the third time, on that last point, that is precisely what is happening. We are examining proposals, which now look like being legislative, to deal with that issue. There is a view that we do not require——
But when?
The Minister answered a question on that the other day. He hopes that it will be as quickly as possible. It is his priority, and one hopes that it will work. The core point of the Kenny proposal is still relevant. There is a basis in the all-party report for moving forward, and I support it.
I am not bringing forward any proposal on the Presidency. The last presidential election showed that several candidates who were non-political in nature and not from the political establishment could seek nominations. If the climate is right for people to do so, it shows that they can do it. Of the five candidates last time, two were not in any way part of the political establishment but were able to gain nominations. Not everyone should be able to go forward. People must have a modest degree of support, and that is what I see in the current constitutional position. I do not envisage any changes to that.
Deputy Ó Caoláin asked me about people in Northern Ireland.
Extending the franchise.
There was some discussion, but no great consideration has been given to it, subject to it being examined. No change is proposed. Perhaps there might be change in a different climate or in a different manner, but there has been no examination of the question, and I am not prepared to make any suggestion on the issue without its being thought out. As I said, Deputy Rabbitte also raised views on the desirability of existing practice regarding representation in the Seanad. The proposals of the all-party committee are now being discussed by the leaders in the Seanad in a working group chaired by the Minister, and I understand that they hope to bring forward proposals by Christmas. It is to be hoped that their basis would be formalising the excellent practice of several years' standing of having Members from Northern Ireland involved in the Seanad. Of course, it would have to be done on an all-party basis and at least be available to those of other persuasions in Northern Ireland. On that basis, I would support it.
I have two brief questions on the European constitution and I want a "Yes" or "No" answer. I suppose it is a little like Deputy McDaid at the meeting of the Taoiseach's parliamentary party last night. If the Irish people vote against the European constitution, will they be asked to vote a second time on the same question?
That does not arise from Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive.
Regarding the European constitution, it does.
It does not arise from Questions Nos. 1 to 8, inclusive, which really deal with referenda.
This is surely going to be a referendum.
Yes, but we are not talking about——
It is a referendum, a Cheann Comhairle. We heard this morning that there will be a referendum——
Let us hear the Deputy's second question.
This is a vital question. There will be a referendum in 2005 on the European constitution. I am asking a direct question. If the Irish people vote against that, will they be asked to vote a second time? It is a fair question. If several countries vote no, will the matter be referred to the European Council at the end of 2007?
I call Deputy Kenny.
I beg your pardon, Ceann Comhairle.
Those questions do not arise out of Questions Nos. 1 to 8.
They are about a referendum which will take place next year.
We cannot anticipate what the referendum might be and what the result might be. We could be here all day.
Is the Taoiseach thinking of changing his fullback?
The questions are reasonable and are entirely in order. The Irish people would like to know if they vote a certain way if they will be asked by the Government to vote again. That is not democracy.
The questions are not appropriate.
The Taoiseach might enlighten us. I ask him to answer the question.
The issue was discussed in the formulation of the European constitution, as Deputy Gormley knows, and in the convention earlier. That convention specifies that if after two years, one or more member states has failed to ratify the European constitution, the matter will then be considered by the European Council. There is no other stipulation.
I accept that the family is the basic unit of society. Our Constitution asserts that all children of the nation are to be cherished equally. Does the Taoiseach foresee a time when the All-Party Committee on the Constitution will look at the question of constitutional barriers which currently prevent all children being treated equally, given the various forms of families that currently exist in the country, particularly with regard to social welfare and other entitlements?
That examination is about to start. The committee is now looking at the provisions of the Constitution for families and children. The issues involved must be considered because a number of reports over the past three or four years, or longer, have spelled out the inequalities and difficulties regarding people's rights. The argument is being made for more equality legislation. While we have extended the Status of Children Act, there is an argument that some constitutional change must be made. It is inevitable that an examination of the issues will now be made.
I have received, as no doubt has Deputy Kenny, submissions from some eminent people pointing out the areas into which the all-party committee should look. Those people are seeking to make presentations on the issue. I am not sure if constitutional change will be needed, or simply legislative change, but the matter will be considered by the committee in its current round of discussions.
In the Taoiseach's response to Deputy Rabbitte's question earlier, he seemed to indicate that there was indecision about the recommendations regarding private property. I participated in drawing up those recommendations and there is no confusion at all regarding them. The committee said clearly that there was no constitutional impediment.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Does the Taoiseach agree that the recommendation was clear, that there is no constitutional impediment? The committee suggested that it would be a good idea to pull together the two constitutional sections dealing with private property versus social and common good. Do the proposals being considered specifically relate to the original Kenny proposals, i.e. to cap the prices and add a percentage? Is the Minister considering that, and is there a time frame for bringing forward proposals?
That question is more appropriate for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
The Minister is carrying out a broad examination of the issue. The all-party committee stated it did not find a constitutional amendment was necessary to allow reform of the existing system of compulsory land purchase. It went on to suggest that the wording of the Constitution in this area could be improved.
Why not rope things together?
I am not arguing about that, but I have stated what the committee said. The Attorney General told me that because of part 5 of the Supreme Court decision, it seems we can address the issue through legislation. That is what we are currently working towards. I merely referred to what the report said.
Regarding the possibility of a referendum on the Presidency, I know the Taoiseach has answered the question relating to how a President is nominated. Is the Government considering shortening the length of the presidential term? The seven-year term in Ireland is longer than in most countries. France had a term of similar length but is now attempting to shorten it to five years. Is the Government considering changing the Constitution in that regard, and holding a referendum on such a change?
To the best of my knowledge, that was considered when the report on the Presidency was issued by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution, but I do not think any change has been made in that area. I will check that. Changes were recommended in other areas. What action we take depends on the statements made in the report by the all-party committee.
