Vol. 417 No. 5
18 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Justice when it is proposed to introduce the legislation which is required as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision on Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution, and if he will give details of the general nature of the legislation proposed.
32 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Minister for Justice if he has any plans to amend the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861 in the light of the judgments given by the Supreme Court on 5 March, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I have nothing to add to the Taoiseach's reply to parliamentary questions on 10 March 1992 about the Supreme Court's judgment except to say that the Government's examination of all the implications of the judgment is proceeding as quickly as possible.
Has the Government's thinking advanced in any way since the Supreme Court judgment some three and a half weeks ago? Will the Minister indicate the advice given by the Attorney General as to the approach to be taken and the legislation required in the light of the Supreme Court judgment?
No final decisions have been taken on these matters which have been referred to on a number of occasions, particularly by the Taoiseach, and it was clearly understood by all concerned that very careful consideration would have to be given to the implications of the case. Obviously, there are constitutional, political and humanitarian issues to be considered. As the Taoiseach indicated today, we have had an initial look at the matter following the advice tendered by the Attorney General but we have not progressed to the point where I can make a definite statement as of yet.
Would the Minister agree that there is huge public concern about the steps to be taken as a result of this judgment? Would the Minister agree it is completely unsatisfactory that there be a trickle of information on Government thinking deriving, for example, from submissions made to the European Court in Strasbourg today? Would the Minister indicate when the Government propose to bring specific proposals before this House in regard to the constitutional and legislative implications of the judgment delivered?
I ask the Deputy to recognise that it would be irresponsible to attempt to come up with an instant solution, as suggested. I accept that there is considerable public concern about this issue and I take on board the point he made about the information coming from the European Court today. All the issues have to be taken on board. The Deputy will also be aware that consultations took place with the party leaders. These matters have to be examined. The undertaking given was that when these matters had been examined in great depth, the Government would then deal with them. There is no delay in dealing with the matters. They are very complex and the Deputy recognises that.
Would the Minister agree that the options the Government are considering should be brought before us for a debate? Would he further agree that no other parliamentary democracy in the world would tolerate a situation where a judgment on such serious matters, delivered so long ago, without the Government allocating time for a debate?
Hear, hear.
Would the Minister also confirm that until such time as specific proposals are brought forward and implemented, be it by way of referendum, legislation or amendments to the Maastricht Protocol, there is a likelihood that we will have further court cases of this nature, whereby the Attorney General will injunct people to stop them travelling abroad? Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable?
I am not aware that any court cases are contemplated in regard to this at present. The Deputy is right that there are many options to be considered. These options are being considered by the Government. I accept that these are serious matters. The question of a debate in the House on a possible amendment to the Maastricht Protocol or matters relating to constitutional amendments should be taken up with the Taoiseach.
The Government are paralysed with indecision on this issue.
Please desist. This is Question Time.
On the contrary, the Taoiseach indicated today that we discussed the issues put before us by the Attorney General today.
But no decision has been reached.
The Taoiseach kicked to touch and said absolutely nothing.
The Government will run out of mirrors.
The time for dealing with priority questions is very precious. Fifteen minutes only is provided for this purpose.
