Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Justice and Equality on a proposed referendum on the structure of the courts. It would be excellent if a debate was arranged in this House on what is being proposed. Some of the constitutional changes would be very welcome and I also welcome the despatch with which the Minister has proceeded on the recommendation of the Chief Justice only a few weeks ago regarding a referendum to establish a court of appeal. I agree with Senator Bacik on the provision of choice in making a judicial oath. This is one of the areas in which it is legitimate to speak about choice. I would support such a change, as I would in respect of the presidential oath.

I am concerned, however, about the suggestion that the Supreme Court could be put in the position whereby it may reject a referral from the President. The power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality is one of the two absolutely discretionary powers vested in the President. It is not something that Presidents do lightly. They do not often refer Bills and when they do so they make the decision only after consulting the Council of State. It is somewhat insulting to the institution of the President and the deliberative approach we expect to be taken in these matters to suggest that the Supreme Court could reject such a solemn exercise of its functions by saying there is no basis for the referral. That is not something which should be in the Supreme Court's power. We must take the Office of the President, the Council of State and the consultative process seriously and if a President deems that an issue arises in respect of a Bill and wants to refers it to Supreme Court either to put the public's mind at ease or to clarify genuine doubts about the direction that the Oireachtas has taken it is entirely appropriate that he or she should have that discretion. The Supreme Court should act accordingly and that should be the end of the matter. I do not understand why it is suggested that the Supreme Court should be put in the position of rejecting such referrals.

The Irish Times does not go so far as to say so but it portrays the constitutional convention as a bit of a joke. While I will co-operate with the convention and I welcome the element of public consultation involved, it is not realistic to expect a serious and considered analysis of important aspects of the Constitution in the framework established for it. We now see that the Government is not serious about it because it is proceeding with the separate task of proposing constitutional changes. Some of those constitutional changes involve the Executive arrogating too much power to itself. That is another day's debate, however. One certainly sees the lack of seriousness with which the Government regards the constitutional convention, which is a pity in hindsight. I hope there will be time to have a debate on the convention before we reconvene in September.