Vol. 515 No. 1
1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach if he will arrange to formally consult Opposition party leaders on the draft programme of work of the Law Reform Commission to ensure there is a sufficient political input to this work. [2320/00]
The Law Reform Commission has dealt with the majority of projects under its first programme for law reform. The commission is preparing a new draft programme pursuant to section 4 of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975, in consultation with the Attorney General for submission to the Government.
The provisions of the Law Reform Commission Act allow for the consideration by the commission of proposals for law reform submitted to it for inclusion in the programme. In addition, I would be happy to receive any such suggestions from the party leaders.
Does the Taoiseach agree the prioritisation of the laws to be reformed, as distinct from the technical production of legal solutions, is a matter primarily for elected politicians?
I do not have a difficulty with that. I examined the data for the past 25 years, which is a fairly long and fair period. While the commission examined five areas under its remit, practically all the other areas, which runs to 20 or 30, were referred by the Attorney General and I think arose from political discussion and debate.
Does the Taoiseach agree the work of the Law Reform Commission usually runs over the period of two to three Governments?
Yes.
Given that the Taoiseach agrees with that, does he also agree that, in setting priority projects for the Law Reform Commission, there should be formal consultation with Opposition party leaders and with the parliamentary parties to allow all Members, through the party structure, to contribute their views on the prioritisation of work given that it is likely that virtually all the parties will be in Government at some stage during the course of the work of the commission?
As I said, I would be happy to receive any suggestions from party leaders and by that I mean party leaders would represent their parliamentary parties. Given the length of time it has taken to deal with issues and having regard to the areas referred by Attorneys General over the years, it covers a long period. The areas covered show the good work done by the com mission, which has often been referred to generally in the House. Perhaps the Law Reform Commission did not take account of this. When one considers the areas covered and the legislation which has come, in one form or another, from the commission, one realises it has done very valuable work.
In regard to the discussion which is taking place in the commission and the contact with the Attorney General, I will make sure any issues which are brought to my attention by the party leaders, through the political system, will be brought to the attention of commission for inclusion in its report. I would be pleased to do that.
We need something more formal than that.
The question put by Deputy Bruton warrants a more comprehensive and penetrating response than that indicated by the Taoiseach. After 25 years of experience and at a time of partnership, does the Taoiseach agree it would be more appropriate for the Law Reform Commission, which is the creature of no particular party or administration, to consult an appropriate committee of this House instead of going off on its own programme of work, albeit influenced by the Attorney General? I suggest for consideration the constitutional review committee as one example of such a non-partisan or sectoral body to jointly agree the areas of our antiquated legislation that are in need of reform.
Is the Taoiseach prepared to suggest to the Attorney General and the Law Reform Commission that they meet a committee of the House to discuss its programme and to take on board whatever inputs might come on an all-party basis from such an Oireachtas committee? It is ultimately this House which will have the task of enacting any reforming legislation.
Perhaps the committee on justice and law reform would be appropriate because most of the issues would relate to it. I do not have a difficulty in that regard.
I know the Taoiseach does not have a difficulty with it, but will he take it on board?
I think I would. I spent quite a few hours over the weekend reading what has gone on over the past 25 years. Even though I was involved in the process over the years, I never read back over all the submissions, cases and so on which have developed. Most of the commission's work stems from issues which arise in the House. Most of the suggestions and ideas come from this House. Issues such as bail, liability, confiscation of the proceeds of crime, sentencing policies and even gazumping, which arose last year, were raised in my time in this House and were referred to the commission. I would have no difficulty with the commission consulting with committees.
I do not want to become a historical revisionist but I think the Taoiseach will agree that in most cases issues were referred by Governments to the Law Reform Commission not because of any high-minded desire to ensure a proper political input to law reform but because the Government of the day did not want to do anything about a problem—
Or could not.
—about which it was getting stick and referred it to the Law Reform Commission to buy time.
Does the Taoiseach agree we need a more positive way to manage the political input of a proactive nature to the prioritisation of work? I invite the Taoiseach to write to all parties in the House, including his own, which is the largest, asking the members of the parliamentary parties to consider priorities for law reform and to convene a meeting of all the party leaders to consider the responses which emerge from that process so that Members of both Houses have an input into this discussion rather than the Government referring issues to the commission because it wants to get off the hook?
I stated at the outset that I would be happy to receive suggestions from party leaders. They could save me the bother of getting the views of all Members. I am open to considering how party leaders want to generate issues for consideration within their parties. Deputy Bruton put forward that suggestion, and Deputy Quinn suggested there should be consultation between the party committees. While Deputy Bruton's historical analysis might be partially true and issues may have been passed or kicked to touch to the commission at one time because people were not sure about how to deal with them, the position becomes clear when one reads in detail – as I did at the weekend, admittedly for the first time – what happened over a period of time. A few years ago when we needed legislation to deal with serious crime, the Deputy will recall that we were able to pass without delay the Proceeds of Crime Bill, the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill and the Disclosure of Certain Information Bill because the Law Reform Commission had done most of the work involved some years earlier. I read in detail the other night—
No, the Criminal Assets Bureau Bill—
The Law Reform Commission had drawn up proposals for a Criminal Assets Bureau Bill at that time. The Bill was drafted from those proposals. I read that in detail.
Not to my recollection. The Taoiseach is reading another version of history.
It is not another version; it is the version of history that exists.
That is the zero tolerance version of history.
The Deputy welcomed the Bills at the time. That work was done by the Law Reform Commission and if we want to blame people in this regard, I am not sure we should blame it.
Nobody is blaming the Law Reform Commission. Will the Taoiseach indicate the deadline the Law Reform Commission set itself for finalising its draft programme so that other parties know when to submit their responses?
The commission has not given me a specific date but if there is one, I will include it in the letter.
