asked the Minister for Justice if his attention has been drawn to the recent circuit court case in County Waterford in which it was noted that whipping in private is still a punishment open to a circuit court judge under the Larceny Act, 1916, and if he will introduce legislation to repeal the relevant section and, if so, when.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Larceny Act, 1916.
11.
The provision in question is formally on the Statute Book but is, in practice, long since a dead letter. There are provisions in a number of other statutes also which permit the imposition of corporal punishment by courts but such a punishment has not, under any of those statutes, been imposed by a court for many years.
Apart from the statutes in question, there are of course numerous provisions on the Statute Book which are in practice obsolete for one reason or another but they create no practical problems and they are not formally repealed until a suitable opportunity presents itself when other relevant legislation is being enacted. To adopt any other policy would be contrary to the public interest as it would mean diverting scarce resources from legislative work of practical importance.
Would the Minister not agree that a motion to repeal the corporal punishment provisions in this and other legislation would be so uncontroversial as to receive virtually all-party support, especially in view of the fact that cases are being taken in relation to similar legislation in Britain and the European Court of Human Rights? Would the Minister not undertake to have discussions with the parties in order to have such a Bill framed, drafted and passed with the minimum of delay?
It is not a question of disagreeing with the Deputy but that for the reasons given in my answer to do so now is unnecessary. It will be done at the first available opportunity when new legislation in this area is coming forward and the position as outlined in this question can be rectified.
Would the Minister not agree that, while he has stated that this section has not been invoked and that whipping and so on have not arisen, on occasions there are some very bizarre results in court cases as happened some years ago in a noted case in the Kilkenny area? Because such a situation can arise would the Minister not take immediate action in regard to the case specified here?
If the situation as envisaged by the Deputy did arise I can assure him that I have statutory powers which enable me to remit any such punishment. I would be quite prepared to use these powers.
It may be too late before the matter is drawn to the Minister's attention.
No, I am advised the situation could not arise without my knowledge. I agree that our legislation would be clearer if this provision did not exist but again I would like to assure the House that at the first available opportunity, measures to rectify the situation will be implemented.
In his formal reply the Minister said there were other obsolete and undesirable provisions under existing law—would the Minister consider including all those in one Bill which could be put before the House in order to rectify the position?
I am not sure whether that would be possible because it would involve many different Acts and would perhaps affect other Departments but I take the Deputy's point.
Possibly the Minister has not the information available but could he furnish me with the provisions under existing law which he had in mind when he referred to them as either undesirable or obsolete?
I have some but I can get a comprehensive list and send it to the Deputy.
Those the Minister has will suffice.
The Vagrancy Act, 1824; the Larceny Act, 1861; Malicious Damage Act, 1861; Offences Against the Person Act, 1861; Garrotters Act, 1863; the Summary Jurisdiction Over Children (Ireland) Act, 1884; the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1812.
I thank the Minister for giving those and for offering to send me the additional ones, but would he not agree that the list he has already given would more than justify the time of the House and of the Parliamentary Draftsman in drafting measures to repeal these highly undesirable provisions?
I accept that they are undesirable. There is no disagreement between any Member of the House and myself on that. I also say they are obsolete and that in practice they are long since a dead letter. At the first available opportunity they will be repealed.
Has not the Vagrancy Act been used in the recent past?
That is a separate question.
But it is still operating.
Accepting the Minister's generally reasonable response, does he nevertheless agree that there is an obligation on the Government and himself particularly in this case to introduce the necessary reforms wherever these are clearly essential to get rid of legislation that is repugnant regardless of whether or not it may be expedient? I am only asking to what extent the Minister feels obliged to introduce in an innovatory manner legislation which would get rid of this type of statute rather than wait for an appropriate Bill, because as long as they are on the Statute Book they reflect on all of us. Does the Minister feel an obligation to introduce an innovatory Bill?
I do, of course.
When may we see it?
When it is ready for introduction. The Deputy should remember that there are other areas crying out for attention which perhaps the Deputy first highlights even though he knows I am working extremely hard in some of these areas. There are questions on today's Order Paper dealing with some of them. The Minister and his Department must adopt some priorities and I have priorities which I think should be brought to Parliament. When I have dealt with those I shall deal with others but I cannot do it all together.
Will the Minister communicate the priorities?
There are other questions on the Order Paper and the Deputy can raise the matter under those.
We tried to help the Minister to get rid of one of those a couple of weeks ago but he did not agree.
Order. Deputy Enright, please.
The vast majority of the Acts the Minister mentioned were passed in another century by another parliament. Because some of these are obsolete and because of the danger of some court case results giving rise to bizarre headlines and having disastrous effects for many people, would the Minister not agree that the should set up an all-party committee to consider this matter?
For reasons I have given and other reasons, the party the Deputy supports established the Law Reform Commission four-and-a-half years ago for the purpose of doing what the Deputy now wants. I am awaiting work from the Law Reform Commission which I shall gladly and speedily bring into the House. I shall seek to get it through as quickly as I can so as to bring our laws up to date. Until I get something on stream from the Law Reform Commission I must wait and be patient.
What about the other reports of the commission?
If the Deputy understood the work of the Law Reform Commission he would not have had made that remark.
I understand that——
No definite proposition or proposal has come from the Law Reform Commission as yet. I say that and the Deputy can try to prove me wrong if he wishes.
I certainly will.
Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons for the delay—if it is such—in relation to the Law Reform Commission may be related to their staffing difficulties which in turn may be related to the salaries allowed by the Minister's Department for people working in that area?
Question No. 12.