Enda Kenny
Ceist:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he intends to hold in the next year; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24222/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 12 October 2005
Ceisteanna (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Pat Rabbitte
Ceist:2 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. [24369/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Ceist:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he proposes to hold before the next general election; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24383/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Trevor Sargent
Ceist:4 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his proposals to amend the Constitution during this session of Dáil Éireann; when a referendum on such proposals may be held; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [25202/05]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Joe Higgins
Ceist:5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if his Government intends to propose any amendments to the Constitution during the current Dáil session. [25337/05]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (52 píosaí cainte)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 5, inclusive, together.
There are no specific plans to hold referenda during the lifetime of the 29th Dáil. The Government remains committed to ratifying the EU constitution. However, following the discussion at the European Council, we will not at this stage set a date for the referendum or progress the referendum Bill. We will, however, continue to prepare for a referendum and will use the period of reflection to intensify our engagement with the EU constitution and Europe in general.
I thank the Taoiseach for his reply. Recent European Commission research indicates that more than half the population believes Ireland has benefitted from our membership of the European Union. Following the Taoiseach's discussions with his counterparts in other member states, what is the situation regarding the ratification of the EU constitution? Is it likely it will ever be put to the Irish electorate in the format which was rejected in France? Will non-contentious sections be extracted and implemented and some other type of treaty or ratification process be put in place?
Has the Government considered what approach we should take? Does the Taoiseach believe a referendum on some form or elements of the draft constitution will be put to the electorate in the course of the Government's lifetime? What future is envisaged for the still extant National Forum on Europe? How many meetings does the Taoiseach expect it to have over the next 12 months and will it have an explanatory and information role in the meantime through hosting public debates on EU issues cental to the constitution as proposed?
I will give my views and those expressed by leaders in other member states. All participants at the European Council agreed the constitution remains a valid response to the concerns of citizens and the best available compromise. We have given ourselves time to reflect on this difficult situation. Some 13 or 14 countries have now ratified the constitution, comprising a majority of member states. At least three or four more will complete a parliamentary ratification process before Christmas, meaning a total of 16 or 17 states will have ratified the draft constitution by the end of the year.
The declaration passed at the last Council recognises the different situations and circumstances in the various member states. The particular situation of those scheduled to hold referenda was explicitly recognised by the president of the European Council in his statement after that meeting. There is a clear understanding of the need for an EU-wide period of reflection which will continue through the remaining period of the British Presidency and on through the Austrian Presidency, before a decision is made on how to proceed in June of next year.
There have been issues in France where various senior politicians have made conflicting statements about what will happen in the future. The official line, however, is that the constitution was rejected and that a second referendum will not be held. This stance is unlikely to change until after that country's 2007 presidential election. Some of the contenders for that election have already stated their positions in regard to the constitution. The Dutch Government has said it will not hold another referendum and the general view is that it will need time to make any decisions in this regard. My assessment is that nothing will happen in the short term at EU level. The British Government, which is not comfortable with holding a referendum on this issue, will not force the issue during its Presidency. It will be next summer before any progress is made.
We in Ireland should continue with the debate. The Government has made the constitution text available through numerous outlets. We have already distributed the explanatory information and a detailed document is currently being printed and will be issued very shortly. The National Forum on Europe will continue. A range of people is involved in debating and engaging with these issues, not only through the forum but through various other organisations. Members of all parties have attended such conferences and seminars. We should continue to engage in this way in the coming months.
The debate should continue regardless of whether the constitution in its current form is revived. During the discussions on the draft treaty, there was a lengthy debate as to whether member states should ratify the entire document or particular sections. Some, including the French, were insistent that we should proceed with such a bulky document. I would have been satisfied to omit some of the appendices because they made what should have been a short document grow to 480 pages. The insistence of some members in this regard made it necessary to concede in order to reach a compromise. However, I contend that one could take Parts 1 and 2, which are the reforming parts, and move ahead with that. It would not be feasible to try to reform the entire document because it is based on checks and balances. There are some who would like to push ahead with some elements while removing some of the protections for smaller member states. There is a huge danger in that. I certainly would not support that and I do not think anyone in the House would support it because it would be dangerous for small countries. Regarding the Deputy's question, which is fair, they could move ahead with the early parts. If they do not decide to move by 2007 that issue should be examined subsequently. To be frank, I think that is what will happen.
I understand the position is there may or may not be a referendum on the European constitution in the lifetime of the current Government but that is the only contemplated referendum on an amendment to the Constitution. I ask that question in the context of nine different reports having been produced since 1997 on the matter of necessary or perceived necessary amendments to the Constitution. I take it from the Taoiseach's response there is no intention of bringing an amendment or a number of amendments forward between now and the putative lifetime of the Government. In regard to remarks the Taoiseach has made about a right of audience being given in this House or in the Oireachtas to elected representatives in Northern Ireland, will he clarify whether in the negotiations with Sinn Féin, in particular, there were any side deals on this issue and whether it is his intention to go outside the tentative proposals recommended in a narrow context by the all-party committee?
There is no referendum envisaged at this stage. Perhaps some urgent issue may arise but none is envisaged. Based on the recommendations of the all-party committee we have a good record. We have dealt with the issue of abolition of reference to the death penalty, the issue of judicial oversight was not passed, the abortion issues, local government recognition, the constitutional amendment and conduct of referendum were dealt with, as was the scrutiny of EU business and a host of other recommendations from the All-Party Committee on the Constitution that did not require constitutional change. There is a number of other issues across Departments that have been examined but there are only so many issues that can be dealt with. Some of the issues raised cannot be grouped together satisfactorily. Other issues are, perhaps, not very urgent. The issue of votes for under 18 year olds is not one with which I would agree. I would not agree with all the recommendations. Given that we have had eight on nine referendums during the past five or six years I do not envisage other referendums.
On on the issue of Northern Ireland representation, there is an all-party committee report. I undertook to ask party leaders to see if we could implement the recommendations of that all-party committee report. It is not envisaged that members will have rights of audience in this House but, as I said outside the House, it would make sense, in line with the all-party committee recommendation, to examine the basis of discussion at committees of the House when discussing either North-South reports, which we produce every year, updates on the Good Friday Agreement or other relevant all-Ireland issues concerning economic and energy issues. Those issues could be discussed in committees. That would be a useful initiative and one I support but a constitutional referendum in terms of the role of this House is not envisaged.
As Deputies are aware there are proposals on Seanad reform which may require amendments, but we are some way off coming to an understanding on that issue.
I call Deputy Sargent.
I think the order indicates that Deputy Ó Caoláin——
My apologies Deputy Ó Caoláin.
Your apologies are accepted, a Cheann Comhairle, and noted for posterity. I take it from the responses the Taoiseach has already given that he is not now intent on proceeding with a referendum on the draft EU constitution in advance of the next general election and take it, therefore, that he agrees with the recent statement from EU Commission President Barroso who said that, "in all probability, at least for the next two or three years, we will not have a constitution". Does the Taoiseach welcome that statement, as I do?
The 2001 report of the task force on autism recommended that urgent attention should be paid by the Government to the need for appropriate constitutional reform to provide clearer provision for the rights of persons with disabilities to education and to provide a more solid base for advanced legislation in this field. Has the Taoiseach picked up on that recommendation from the task force report in 2001? Has it been considered at any time by the Cabinet? Does he have plans to provide for greater constitutional protection for people with disabilities in general given that there is great disappointment at the failure of the recent Disability Bill to address the rights of people with disabilities across all the areas?
The Taoiseach referred to Seanad reform. Will the Government bring forward, whether by referendum during its lifetime, a package of constitutional changes to provide for Seanad reform along the lines of directly elected members on a list system with voting rights being provided for citizens in the Six Counties and Irish citizens overseas?
Work is continuing on Seanad reform. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, has been liaising with the Leaders in the Seanad and it is intended to bring forward a report, as I understand it, based on the initial report and the hearings that took place in the Seanad two summers ago.
On the disabilities issue, we have the legislation and have made our decision on it. Thankfully, the organisations are working to make the changes happen regardless of what arguments were put previously. I welcome that. I have spoken with many of these organisations, even in the past week.
In the last few years the Government has provided for hundreds if not thousands of additional posts in the area of autism to try to address the needs. If it is a constitutional issue it can be looked at by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution but in terms of assisting and providing services for those with autism and to help those with autism who attend schools and health services the Government has continued to put in huge resources. I am not familiar with the report to which the Deputy referred but certainly it has been Government policy to do everything it can to help those who have difficulties, particularly children, with autism.
I heard the Taoiseach say there is a period of reflection in mind and that a referendum may be required after that. Having heard the comments of the French Minister for European Affairs that she did not envisage the French Government putting a referendum again on the European constitution but that what she really means is a period of coercion, what is the reason for publishing a White Paper and the cost of same if in effect the constitution being referred to is legally dead, given that it requires unanimity among all member states? I am interested to hear the cost of this exercise as, apart from being a flight of fancy politically, it will cost the taxpayer. When asked if a constitutional referendum would be required in order for Ireland to participate in the battle groups idea, the Minister for Defence, Deputy O'Dea, stated clearly that what he had said was merely his opinion. Can the Taoiseach offer any more information on that matter? Does he have any more to go on than the Minister's opinion in referring to the need for a constitutional amendment on Ireland's co-operation with battle groups? It seems that no sooner have we welcomed the end of one illegal army, that the Constitution is being challenged again. Article 15.6.2° states:
No military or armed force, other than a military or armed force raised and maintained by the Oireachtas, shall be maintained for any purpose whatsoever.
It seems a referendum would be required on that matter. Will the Taoiseach comment on that?
The democracy commission and other bodies have been examining the issue of involving young people in politics more effectively. It has been suggested that 18 years should be age not just for voting but also for the entitlement to stand as a Deputy or presidential candidate if one is able to obtain a nomination. There should not be an age bar above 18. Does the Taoiseach have any thoughts about that matter and, if so, does he envisage a constitutional referendum being held on it?
I am on the record as having said that I am against that idea. I do not agree that the age limit should be 18 years.
The European constitution contains an article and protocol on structural co-operation in defence. Under the arrangements, member states could choose to enter into binding commitments on the provision of military capabilities to be used in undertaking the more demanding tasks of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and international security. It was made explicitly clear that this would be done in accordance with the principles of the UN charter and without prejudice to the specific character of the security and defence policies of different member states. It was also made clear that the arrangements were open to all member states. As I have said previously, the Government will examine that carefully and any decision would have to respect fully our traditions, while not affecting the terms under which our Defence Forces can be deployed under the so-called triple-lock mechanism. Therefore, the matter will have to be examined in that context.
The UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, has been anxious for this country to participate and he has been asking us to try to find a way of doing so. Deputy Sargent knows that the other neutral states have already decided to participate in it. It is an issue with which we must deal.
Both this year and last year, I was being asked to ensure there was sufficient information on the European project generally. I was told that we should provide data and not keep people in the dark, yet now I am being asked not to spend money on providing such data.
That is not much.
Let us be fair.
It is a simple question.
It is important for us to publish a detailed White Paper on this issue, which has been raised repeatedly in the House, and we will do so. As I told Deputy Kenny earlier, there is a period of reflection pending a decision next summer on what will happen. At this stage, I do not see the French or the Dutch being able to make a decision in that regard. The French, in particular, will not make such a decision during a presidential election year. Whatever happens next summer, it is unlikely that those countries will hold a constitutional referendum, but that does not change the position. Europe cannot continue to operate structures that were designed for six member states and were then tinkered with to cater for nine countries. The structures were never really changed to cope with 12 or 15 states, and we are now looking at 25 plus. It just cannot go on.
The Taoiseach told us that was what the Nice referendum was about.
No. Nice was not about that.
That is what the Taoiseach said.
Nice made a few changes on the side just to get us to deal with the larger Union, but it has not dealt fundamentally with the role that Europe plays today. Europe cannot continue like that. By the end of this decade, the European Union will comprise 30 countries. Whether people like it or not, they will have to introduce structures to deal with such a Union in future, otherwise Europe will get into huge difficulties over the next five years. Everybody knows that.
Is it only a matter of structures?
Please allow the Taoiseach to reply without interruption.
The issues concern who has the powers, how decisions are made, and how structures will operate. All the matters that were in the European Constitution must be dealt with one way or another, whether through a working document or in some other way, otherwise it will not be possible to continue. Even though, as I believe, this could drag on until 2007 or 2008, it will still have to be dealt with. I have made that point clear in the European Council and I will continue to argue that we must find a mechanism for doing it.
Perhaps, in the first place, the best mechanism for doing it was not via a constitution, but others saw it differently. Some of the people who fought for that constitution five or six years ago are already beginning to advocate other ways around it. Perhaps it would have been better if they had thought about that before they pushed everyone into a convention some years ago. However, that is how these matters work. Six or seven years have passed but the issues remain to be dealt with because it is not possible to drop them. One can call the methodology whatever one wishes, but the treaty changes to modernise the Union will have to happen.
What about the cost of the White Paper?
It is not too much.
Not too much.
I was a member of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution which spent considerable time considering the issues of property rights and the cost of building land. It produced a comprehensive report and I know the Taoiseach wanted us to expedite that work. The recommendation was that there was no need to change the Constitution in this regard. So far, however, there is nothing in the legislative programme on this matter, so does the Taoiseach intend to bring forward legislation in that area?
That matter does not arise from these questions that deal exclusively with constitutional amendments.
It is related.
No, Deputy, it is not related.
It is certainly an issue upon which the Taoiseach wanted action.
It is not.
He seems to be indicating that he would answer the question.
I appreciate the Deputy's point but there are other ways in which to raise the issue. I have taken a fairly broad view this morning but we cannot go outside the Constitution into legislation on these five questions.
I still think the Taoiseach needs to respond in some way.
The view has been strongly expressed that one cannot interfere with property rights without changing the Constitution.
These questions are about introducing legislation, although the Deputy said that a constitutional amendment was not necessary.
It may be that the legislation requires constitutional change.
Perhaps the Taoiseach would indicate whether it requires changes to the Constitution.
I would be glad to answer that point. The recommendation in the all-party committee's report was that it does not require legislation. There is a strong argument about that and I have spoken to more than one senior counsel about the issue. Their view is that if one tries to do so, it will be challenged. The Department is now proceeding to examine the matter on a legislative basis and is reflecting on it. I should let the Department come forward but my view, having spoken to a number of senior counsels, is that when one tries to finalise the legislation it could be quite difficult. I spent a lot of time corresponding with senior counsels on this matter and they said that when we try to do it, it will prove to be very difficult. However, the Department is currently trying to do it on a legislative basis. Apart from all the work we are doing on initiatives, including affordable housing, if we can do it through legislation well and good, but I fear people will try to challenge it. The Department has now decided to try to follow the advice and do it through legislation.
The net point here is that no action has been taken. The relevance of Deputy O'Sullivan's question is that it was the same Taoiseach who used the Constitution for about four years to explain why he could not intervene in the cost of building land because he feared that a constitutional amendment might be necessary. It was then put to the all-party committee——
Does the Deputy have a question?
——which offered the view that it is possible to intervene in the public good.
The Taoiseach now says that senior counsel with whom he apparently fraternises——
I do not.
If the Deputy has a question, we will hear it. He cannot make a statement.
He is not referring to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He should tell him that notwithstanding what Deputy O'Sullivan and her colleagues have concluded that they think a challenge would be likely. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his patience. My question is which will it be? If the Taoiseach expects a challenge, why does he not introduce an amendment that secures the position? If on the other hand no such amendment to the Constitution is necessary, when will we see legislative action? The damage has been done in the past ten years with the constant spiralling of house prices——
The Deputy should ask a question.
——putting house ownership out of reach of ordinary people. Land is the biggest element of the problem. We have taken no action and are now reduced to buying back the designated sites for schools——
The Deputy should ask a question.
——at rezoned values. It is a major issue.
I already answered Deputy O'Sullivan on the matter. I stated that the Department is proceeding with the legislation. I cannot give a date for that legislation. I do not accept the other point. There has been an enormous range of initiatives on affordable land allowing for affordable housing. What was achieved in the Supreme Court judgment on Part V three or four years ago has allowed significant changes to take place. I hope we can make further ground on this issue. If Deputy Rabbitte believes that on private property rights we would be able to go in and just force the price of land down in a way that goes against the market then there would be a challenge. It will not happen like that and that is the point the legal people make.
We have had legal advice before.