asked the Taoiseach the costs and expenses of the Law Reform Commission in the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and the estimated figure for 1984; the number of reports recommending changes in legislation introduced by the Law Reform Commission; and if he will specify the reports of the Law Reform Commission which have been implemented in whole or in part into legislation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Law Reform Commission.
1.
I propose to circulate a statement giving the information sought by the Deputy.
Following is the statement:
1. Costs and expenses of the Law Reform Commission in the years 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983 and the estimated figure for 1984.
The expenses of the Law Reform Commission, including the remuneration of their officers and staff, are defrayed out of grants voted by the Oireachtas. In the years for which information is sought these grants were: 1980, £174,000; 1981, £171,000; 1982, £187,000; 1983, £240,000.
For 1984 the Oireachtas has provided for expenditure of £292,000. The accounts of the commission are audited annually by the Comptroller and Auditor General and presented to the Minister for Finance for laying before each House of the Oireachtas.
2. Reports of the Law Reform Commission recommending change in legislation and legislation measures taken on foot of such Reports.
To date, the Law Reform Commission have produced nine Final Reports (as distinct from Working Papers). The nine reports are listed under, together with an indication of legislative measures taken arising from these reports: Report — Legislative measures taken or proposed by the appropriate Minister.
1. First Report on Family Law — Criminal Conversation, Enticement and Harbouring of a Spouse or Child, Loss of Consortium, Personal Injury to a Child, Seduction of a Child, Matrimonial Property and Breach of Promise of Marriage (1981) — The Family Law Act, 1981, abolished the actions for criminal conversation, the harbouring and enticement of a spouse and breach of promise of marriage. It also provided for the regulation of various questions in relation to the property of engaged persons and formerly engaged persons. Legislation arising from other recommendations in the report is in course of preparation.
2. Report on Civil Liability for Animals (1982) — Drafting of a Bill to change the law in relation to civil liability for damage caused by animals is at an advanced stage.
3. Report on Defective Premises (1982) — The report is being considered in the light of the passage through the Dáil of the Building Control Bill, 1984, and the introduction of building regulations.
4. Report on Illegitimacy (1983) — The general scheme of a Bill to reform the law in this area is in course of preparation.
5. Report on the Age of Majority, the Age for Marriage and same Connected Subjects (1983) — The Age of Majority Bill, 1984, is before the Dáil.
6. Report on Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Jactitation of Marriage and Related Matters (1983) — The general scheme of a Bill arising from matters in the report is in course of preparation.
7. Report on Domicile and Habitual Residence as Connecting Factors in the Conflict of laws (1983) — The recommendations in the report are being examined with a view to the introduction of legislation.
8. Report on Divorce A Mensa et Thoro and Related Matters (1983) — The general scheme of a Bill in relation to the recommendations in the report is in course of preparation.
9. Report on Nullity of Marriage (1984) — This report was published only recently, and its recommendations will be considered as soon as possible.
It is difficult to ask a supplementary question as I have not heard the Taoiseach's reply, but let me ask him two questions: (1) How many commissioners are currently serving with the Law Reform Commission? (2) Do he and the Government believe that the work of the Law Reform Commission and the expenses involved in carrying out this work justify the continuation of the Law Reform Commission?
I would require notice of the questions. They do not seem to arise directly from the question as put down. Perhaps the Deputy would like to put down questions on those points.
Perhaps I can help the Taoiseach by saying that the most recent report of the Law Reform Commission, that is the report in relation to the recognition of foreign divorces in Ireland, lists three commissioners as serving with the Law Reform Commission.
A question, please.
I wanted to explain to the Taoiseach before I asked the question because he was not familiar with this, I understand.
We cannot have a lengthy statement.
I note that the legislation in relation to the establishment of the Law Reform Commission specified five commissioners. In view of the fact that there appear to be three commissioners serving with the commission, is it a fact that the Law Reform Commission is ultra vires?
I missed the last couple of words.
Ultra vires.
I do not think so. That is highly improbable, but if the Deputy wishes to pursue the matter by way of question we can take it further. On the spur of moment I cannot give a legal opinion of that kind.
Does the Taoiseach believe that the work of the Law Reform Commission, the amount of their work that has subsequently been implemented in the form of legislation through this House and the expense involved in carrying out these duties by the law Reform Commission and, in view now of the very adequate committee system in the Dáil——
The question put down is specific and it does not even carry the now familiar safety valve asking the Taoiseach to make a statement. The Deputy should put down a separate question.
With all due respect, let me say that the question asked the amount of expenses involved in the Law Reform Commission in the years 1980-83 inclusive. It also asks the Taoiseach how much of their work has been implemented in the form of legislation. In the first place my understanding is that very little of their work, if any, has been implemented in the form of legislation. Secondly, I understand that it is costing an enormous amount of money and I believe that this is not justifiable in the circumstances.
Deputy, you will have to ask a question.
I wish Sir, you would be a little more lenient. If the Taoiseach had answered the question I could have asked relevant supplementary questions, but he has not done so.
Experience has taught the Chair that if he is lenient things tend to get out of hand.
When the Taoiseach does not answer the question at all, how do you expect me to ask relevant supplementary questions? The Taoiseach has said he will circulate a statement——
The Deputy knows the Chair's view on that, but there should not be a supplemenatry question and I was leaving it with the Deputy.
Let me endeavour to help the Deputy by giving the key elements of the information the length of which precludes it being given in full orally. The provision for the commission in 1984 was £292,000. Apart from other work that they have done they have produced nine final reports and half-a-dozen of these are either enacted in legislation, are before the House or legislation is being prepared in respect of them.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that it is a cause of very serious concern as far as lawyers, the courts and legislators are concerned that this body has been in existence for ten years and that the amount of legislation produced as a result of its recommendations is minimal? Will the Taoiseach assure the House that he will look into the matter personally along the lines suggested by Deputy Harney who got to the heart of the matter by referring to the inadequacy of response on the part of the Government and the Legislature to the recommendations of the Commission?
I am not sure that I follow the point. The commission were established almost ten years ago. Their first full report, as distinct from discussion documents and other similar documents, started to come forward in 1981. There was a long period of gestation before reports started to come. We have now had nine reports, half-a-dozen of them since the beginning of last year. In half-a-dozen cases they are already enacted in legislation or, alternatively, legislation is at an advanced stage in relation to them.
Would the Taoiseach care to mention the legislation concerned because I believe there is none?
The Family Law Act, 1981, the Age of Majority Bill, which is at present before the Dáil and a building control Bill which will be incorporating the report on defective premises. Other Bills in preparation relate to civil liability——
They are all routine administration Bills that would be brought forward in any event.
The Deputy asked me a question and I am merely trying to facilitate him. Other legislation in preparation based on their reports deals with civil liability for animals, illegitimacy, restitution of conjugal rights, jactitation of marriage and related matters. The other reports which were received much more recently are under examination with a view to the preparation of legislation. In fact, in one case the general scheme of the Bill has been prepared. There are actually seven cases where legislation is under way.
Will the Taoiseach give us an actual figure of the cost to the Exchequer of the Law Reform Commission ot date, if that is all they have produced?
I cannot give the Deputy the accumulative figure to date but the figure for 1984 was £292,000. I cannot give an accumulative figure for the entire period.
It is a very expensive club to have.
I am delighted the Taoiseach has outlined some of the work of the Law Reform Commission that has been taken on board in the form of legislation but in some cases the Government — in fact, my own party in Government — clearly ignored the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, specifically in relation to criminal conversation.
The Deputy is not being fair to the Chair. She is making a speech that would be suitable for a debate on this matter.
In view of the fact that in many cases the advice of the commission has been ignored when legislation was being prepared in a specific area——
The Deputy is continuing to make a speech and that is not in order.
In view of that the Government should reveal whether it would be wise in present circumstances to have the Law Reform Commission continue in operation.
The Deputy's first statement was to the effect that reports had been ignored and she referred to criminal conversation. The Family Law Act, 1981, abolished the action of criminal conversation.
They recommended that it would be extended, a ludicrous recommendation, so that women could equally claim criminal conversation. That was a ludicrous suggestion.
The Deputy will understand my concern to defend the record of the Government in regard to legislation but our failure to enact something which the Deputy has described as ludicrous can only be to the credit of the Government.
Will the Taoiseach not agree that it is rather dualistic and repetitive to give the task to the Law Reform Commission of reviewing and suggesting reform of the law and then to give the task to the Joint Committee on Legislation of reviewing the reports of the Law Reform Commission?
I concede that such a procedure, although designed to give maximum opportunity to Members of the House to contribute to legislation, arguably has the effect of holding up legislation but it is a matter of judgment as to whether it is the best way to proceed or not. It is a matter I am more than willing to discuss with Members of the House.