In periods of rapid change, constitutional rules that can command allegiance and agreement on the rules of the game are important for the healthy functioning of political societies. The best constitutions are organic open ended documents, capable of being recast in line with political development. Ireland has been relatively fortunate in respect of Bunreacht na hEireann and of the legal activism that has seen it continually amended to take account of the profound changes in all the spheres for which it lays down rules over the last forty years. But it was time for a fundamental review of its relevance and functioning - and this is what has been provided by the extremely thorough Report of the Constitution Review Group which was published yesterday.
Its brief was precisely to review the Constitution, not to rewrite or replace it. A striking feature of its 701 pages is, nonetheless, how far its discussions ranges over the subject matter thrown up by the articles of the existing document and how lightly it wears the legal, political, historical, ethical and international learning that it brings to bear. Each article of the Constitution receives a careful commentary, often supplemented by an appropriate review of available research. The arguments for and against change are carefully set out and conclusions and recommendations clearly presented. The review group's modus operandi has been a tribute to its collegiality across professional involvement, party affiliations and disciplinary expertise. It is something of a miracle that it should have come up with such a report within a year - a tribute to its commitment and to the valued role that constitutional law is understood to play in our society.
The shabby manner in which the Government published the document and mandated the All Party Committee on the Constitution yesterday, is therefore all the more regrettable. It was provided late in the day to news organisations without benefit of a press conference or even a clear expression of thanks for the hard work that has been put into it. The terms of reference laid down for the all party committee allows its members to escape any "obligation to support any recommendations which might be made, even if made unanimously". Its timetable is much less stringent than was the case for the review group. Perhaps there is an intelligent strategy behind the Government's approach; but it would have been better to spell it out coherently and explicity.
It is not as if so much of the Government's work is not intimately bound up with matters that bear directly on the Constitution. Several of the issues excluded from the review's remit underline that reality, including Articles 2 and 3 involving Northern Ireland and the right to bail - at the centre of the current public concern with serious crime - not to mention the EU Inter Governmental Conference, a constitutional exercise if ever there was one. The Constitution Review Group's recommendations on property rights, education, religion, fundamental rights, international relations, the role of the Senate and the office of the President - to name only some of the most important, themes - will deserve long and careful study by politicians and citizens alike. The Constitution comes through this close examination in a surprisingly resilient way. This document must not be allowed to moulder unattended or ignored if the Government chooses not to accord it the priority it deserves.