Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 4: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he intends to hold during the remainder of the current Dáil [23056/10]

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 5: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he plans to hold during the remainder of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26375/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 6: To ask the Taoiseach Taoiseach the constitutional referenda he plans to hold during the remainder of the 30th Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [27647/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, together.

The renewed programme for Government envisages the following potential referenda during the lifetime of the current Dáil, subject, of course, to appropriate Oireachtas approval: to consider children's rights, based on the work of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children; to consider amending Article 41.2 of the Constitution to broaden the reference to the role of women in the home to one which recognises the role of the parent in the home; and to consider the establishment of a court of civil appeal.

In addition, the renewed programme for Government states that the proposed electoral commission will suggest reforms to the electoral system, including outlining new electoral systems for Seanad Éireann. Such proposals could give rise to constitutional amendments.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We have had to press repeatedly to get clarity as to the Government's intentions regarding the proposal put forward by an all-party Oireachtas committee on a referendum to enshrine children's rights in the Constitution. This has taken many forms in the House in recent months, including a Private Members' motion tabled jointly by the Labour Party and Sinn Féin. There is a continuous and consistent effort on the part of all of those who gave service in the all-party Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children, including its former chairperson, the Taoiseach's party colleague, Deputy Mary O'Rourke, to urge certainty as to the Government's intention regarding the children's referendum in the current year. Will the Taoiseach give a clear indication of when he proposes to hold the referendum? Have deliberations between the respective interested Ministries and the Office of the Attorney General concluded? Is the Cabinet of a mind to proceed with a referendum to enshrine children's rights in the Constitution? Will the Taoiseach, with but a week remaining in the current Dáil term, give certainty and clarity on this issue? On our return after the summer recess, all political parties and independent voices in the House have a collective and shared job of work to do in ensuring the successful conduct of a referendum with an ultimate positive result in the interest of children first and foremost.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The senior officials group has met twice on these matters and has almost completed its work. A range of implications have been identified by the Office of the Attorney General and Departments. It is incorrect to assume that the proposed wording should go straight to the people, as is, and there are no implications or there is nothing for the Government to do. The Government must check out what are the financial implications, whether resource or other issues arise, if the acknowledgement of rights is sufficient and correct and whether the constitutional language provides the necessary clarity.

Many issues are involved in this matter and any Government would have to look at them. There are a range of implications. For instance, are there unintended consequences? All these issues have to be teased out. This is a constitutional referendum. While I know a great deal of good work was done by the committee which came to a view on the matter, the Government has a responsibility, before bringing legislation to the House, particularly on a constitutional referendum, to make sure we know and understand what exactly is involved. We are agreed that we want to bring forward a referendum but we want to make sure we do so correctly and get the work done departmentally and interdepartmentally. When the Cabinet has been able to deal with the issues that arise, we will come and discuss the matter.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was unquestionably a sense of urgency expressed by all of the political voices involved in the 60 or more meetings of the all-party Oireachtas committee in which its members engaged. This was reflective of the very serious backdrop to our deliberations and the ongoing revelations about serious failures of care in relation to children in State care and across the board. Does the Taoiseach not accept that several months later, this sense of urgency does not appear to have translated into Government action in moving towards the implementation contained in the third and final report of the joint committee? The Taoiseach is indicating that he disagrees with me.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Very much so.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not propose to make politics on this issue. The critical issue is that we have worked together and I am expressing no less a sense of urgency and commitment to the realisation of the joint committee's recommendations than members of the Taoiseach's party. I am acknowledging that to their favour and indicating that we are all of a mind that this matter needs to be given the urgency it truly deserves. That is the expectation of people in the non-governmental organisations who for decades have been campaigning and working tirelessly in the interests of children in this State who equally reflect those same opinions.

Accepting that a job of work is under way and remains to be done-----

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy accepts that.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course, we all understand that will be necessary.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is no provision for making speeches when asking a supplementary question.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is most regrettable, a Cheann Comhairle, that you continue to interrupt me when I am asking relevant questions.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am trying to establish order in the House. The Chair does not interrupt; the Chair intervenes.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair should exercise a little consideration towards Members seeking information. Accepting that there was a job of work to be done, does the Taoiseach not accept that the urgency is not reflected in any stated intent on his part or the part of the Minister that the referendum will be realised in the current year? Is it not within his gift to give the House certainty that we will have, in 2010, a referendum that will enshrine children's rights in the Constitution?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure the Deputy that I am as anxious to fulfil my job in this process as he is, as a member of the committee. If it being suggested that when the committee brings forward a wording, the Government should step aside and we should get on with the referendum, that is not the process. The Government has to work out what are the implications of the referendum and what unintended consequences could arise from it. Every statement must be constitutionally right.

I understand the work that was done and the wording proposed, some of which is very long. However, this is not simply a matter of inserting the wording. Judges will have to decide what was meant when this, that or the other was stated. What are the financial implications? Have the resource requirements been worked out? One has to do this work. One cannot simply decide that the committee has done a great deal of work on this matter and reached an agreement on it.

This process started in 1993 with Catherine McGuinness and the Kilkenny incest case and much work has taken place since. Wording was also proposed in 2007 and the joint committee was asked to see if it could reach a consensus on the issue. It did two years work on the matter, which came before the Government in February. We must now get into the detailed work behind what has been put to us and see what are its implications, as any responsible Government would do. It is also what those who have worked on the matter would expect the Government to do.

I had a meeting on this issue with the Attorney General, the Minister of State with responsibility for children and the Ministers for Justice and Law Reform and Education and Skills at which we were updated on the issue. This is not a simple matter. While we are all agreed that we want to acknowledge the rights of children in our Constitution, we have to do this in a careful and considered way. I recognise the work done by the joint committee. To suggest that the Government is prevaricating, sitting on its hands or this is simple stuff and we should have the referendum by September is to ignore the reality. Let us give all sides some credit for taking our responsibilities seriously.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach makes it sound as if the Government was not a party to the committee that produced the wording for the referendum. It was represented on the committee. The Taoiseach referred to a number of matters on which homework needs to be done. I am surprised, as he appears to acknowledge, that no homework was done on the implications of the referendum - financial and resource implications and so on - in preparation for the Government's participation in the committee.

This is the first time that I can recall that the Taoiseach has introduced financial and resource implications as a reason for delaying the holding of the referendum. My understanding up to now was that the Government's position was that it was taking advice from the Attorney General in respect of the wording agreed by the all-party committee. It seemed to be taking an unusually long period of time to take that advice. I believe the all-party committee reported on the wording in February and we are still awaiting the advice. The Taoiseach is now adding a new dimension into this, the financial and resource implications, which seems to be a way of basically blocking the holding of the referendum at all.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy should ask his supplementary question.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Let me ask the question. The question on the Order Paper asks what referenda will be held in the lifetime of this Dáil. Will this referendum be held in the lifetime of this Dáil and if it will be, will it be held in 2010?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This is one of the issues we are dealing with and which we would like to bring forward, obviously during the course of this Dáil, but the work needs to be done. All parties were represented on the all-party committee. Is it suggested that, as the Fianna Fáil party is represented on every committee in the House, when that party comes forward with proposals the Government must accept them because there were members of the party on it?

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister of State was on the committee.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, but the idea was to try to find consensus. A consensus emerged that was different, if one likes, from what we had in 2007, which is why the committee was set up. What are the implications of the consensus wording that has come forward? What are the sectoral implications for education, health or any area involving children's rights? What is the nature of the interventions that are being suggested in the wording? What impact does that have on family rights or on children's rights? What express further acknowledgement of existing rights beyond what exists in the Constitution are we talking about? As the Deputy knows, constitutional law needs to be very carefully considered. We do not do a service to the children of Ireland if we do not bring forward something that we know can be validated and acknowledged in our Constitution. We do not want to end up in a situation where the words we propose could involve judges' interpretations that were unintended or could have consequences beyond the ability of an Executive to deal with. These issues need to be very carefully considered.

It is not for the purpose of making something simple complicated. It is not for the purpose of wasting time or not being committed to it. It is because the Government - as I am personally - is very committed to it. I want to be able to stand over what is coming forward and do it right. There are adoption issues and social protection issues. The Deputy has seen the draft that has been proposed. From other areas of family law or involving fundamental rights, he has seen what the implications and sometimes unintended effects of wordings can be. He has seen that himself. It has been our constitutional experience. We need to work through this issue.

I say to the House that this is an issue I take seriously and is being worked upon. It in no way detracts from the work of the committee that was established to see what consensus could be built up. However, the Government now needs to get into the business of working out the implications of what is being suggested. It is a responsible thing to do to ask Departments, as I have now done, to consider what has been proposed here and, in so far as one can obtain a constitutional interpretation, see what are the implications.

Can we give a broad figure of the resource requirements? We need to know before we decide we are all in favour of putting a constitutional referendum on children to the people. Then the people are entitled to ask subsequently whether we realised this, that and the other about it. They could ask what our view was and whether we checked it out. That is what is involved. It is not in any way to be, as has been suggested for months, that we are simply messing around. There is a lot of detailed work. There are legislative implications beyond that regarding what is coming forward.

The Members know that this is not a simple area; it is a very difficult area because it is also about the interaction of rights and children in the context of the family and what interventions are proposed, and the adoption issue. I assure the House that we are working on this.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach has said that Departments have been asked to identify the resource implications and to identify the legislative implications of the proposed wording. Has any Department flagged resource or financial implications, or legislative implications that are causing difficulty?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At last night's meeting I made the point that the question of financial resources should be checked because the issues that arise are quite considerable. If one were to look at what areas identified initially would require new legislation, it is not an exhaustive list. Legislation on adoption would need to be published in advance of a referendum so that there would be a detailed understanding of what is proposed. Legislation is required regarding the rights of fathers in non-marital families, which would require amendment of guardianship, adoption and family law legislation. The explicit duty placed upon the State to provide care and protection to children would require extensive amendment to Child Care Acts, including, for example, the Child Care Bill currently going through the Oireachtas if one were to take the wording as it stands at the moment. The Government needs to come to a decision based on legal and other advice on the scope. We do not want to end up with judges making allocations of resources. The separation of powers must be respected. We need to ensure we introduce something that will acknowledge the rights of children and the scope of that taking into account all the implications. That work is ongoing.

In adoption, the current focus on the best interests of the child would be changed to a focus on continuity of care, which could become paramount for the consideration of adoption decisions based on the wording we have at the moment. Is that what we want? If a right to continuity of care became the paramount duty, over and above the best interests of the child, a child could be left in an abusive or neglected situation. That would be a very unintended consequence of what we are talking about. If we gave constitutional status to continuity of care, how would that relate to inter-country adoption? These are very complex and difficult issues. That is only one area that arises.

Looking at the wording itself, there is a lot of detailed work to be undertaken with some of the wording that is put forward. That is work in progress. I am not being definitive about this. I am just trying to give an indication to the House of some of the issues that arise when one gets into the details of what is proposed.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

From the Taoiseach's reply do I understand that there will not be a referendum on children's rights until the Government has settled in its mind on the resource and financial implications, and until it has published and put through the legislation the Taoiseach has now identified as arising from such a referendum?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are in the throes of discussions. The scope and content of what we are discussing is of far wider implication than simply what one would expect just reading the report. When one gets into it, this is an area that is becoming very complex and not easily resolved. When we become clearer as a result of the work that is ongoing, we can come back and discuss it more cogently based on a clear view of where we are.

I bring these matters to the attention of the House in an open, honest and transparent way to explain to Deputies that it is not just a case of producing the wording of the Bill. That is not to in any way detract from people's work. The job of the committee was to see if a consensus could be arrived at in what we would like to see in the Constitution and come forward with some appropriate wording. That must be tested by the system and by the Attorney General. We must determine the constitutional and resource implications and how we will do this, whether it is the right action to take and if we will be able to take some action.

I have mentioned continuity of care over the best interests of the child and we must get the issue right because we do not want unintended consequences. We are committed to the issue.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The only way I can interpret the reply from the Taoiseach today is that it is new. The Taoiseach is now saying there is a range of issues, including financial and resource implications. There is a body of legislation that does not yet appear to have been worked out or considered. It appears the Bill is a long way from being agreed by the Government and published. Therefore, the only conclusion to be drawn, and it is new, is that the Government is today telling us, in effect, that there will not be a referendum on children's rights in the lifetime of the Dáil.

Given the Government's record in dealing with, prioritising and preparing legislation, it is clear the body of legislation described by the Taoiseach now will not be ready in time for a referendum on children's rights in the lifetime of the Dáil. There is a pretence that somehow the all-party committee comprised representatives of political parties who came to some kind of view before the issue went to the Government. Through a Minister, the Government was represented in an official capacity on the all-party committee and was part and parcel of it. What has happened over the past 15 or 20 minutes on the issue is not just that the goal posts have been changed; they have been taken down and off the pitch.

Paul Connaughton Snr (Galway East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The playing field is gone.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is now, in effect, telling the House that because there is such a range of resource and financial implications for legislation that must be prepared, etc., the Government has dropped the referendum on children's rights. That is a very sad day for the Government and the House, and it is certainly a very bad day for children of the country.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not playing politics like that with the issue at all.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not playing politics with it either.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is if he is questioning the commitment of the Government.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There was all-party agreement on the matter.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If the issue was put unabridged as it is, issues would arise that would have to be dealt with. The examination is taking place currently at Government and interdepartmental level. A senior officials group is working on it and I had a discussion about it last night at a ministerial level, getting a full view of where the work is currently. I am coming to the House today to explain the scope of the issues, which are not insignificant. If the Deputy were in my position, it would be his role to do the exact same exercise or he would not be doing his job, with respect.

Whatever is required for us to do the detailed work, we will continue with it and bring forward ideas and proposals on the basis of that ongoing work. I am trying to indicate our intentions in a frank and open way, out of the respect for the work others have done in this area, and to disabuse people of the idea that there are political shenanigans involving prevarication or putting the issue on the long finger. It is a detailed and complex area of law that must be dealt with in a very considered and careful way. I am saying it must be worked through thoroughly and that we are committed to this work.

Based on Deputy Gilmore's observations, I accept this will be a difficult area to resolve and push through but this is not to in any sense dilute the commitment of the Government to the issue. It is out of consideration of the commitment we have for the area that we act properly and correctly, as would be expected in addition to the work done by the committee in trying to build a consensus around the area. We must now work out the implications of that work, any unintended consequences and the interaction of rights. This is the work the Government is expected to do and I would not expect an all-party committee to have the resources to do this. It is a different responsibility and a different job.