Bertie Ahern (Dublin Central, Fianna Fail)

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.

See this speech in context