John Bruton
Question:1 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when he expects the Law Reform Commission's report on occupiers' liability will be available.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Law Reform Commission Reports.
John Bruton
Question:2 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Taoiseach when he expects the Law Reform Commission's report on family courts will be available.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The Deputy will be aware that the Law Reform Commission, which is an independent body under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Anthony Hederman, works to a programme and the timing of the publication of reports is a matter for the commission. The commission is currently preparing reports on a wide range of topics, including the topics mentioned in the Deputy's questions, each requiring extensive research and consultation with interested parties. While the Attorney General may from time to time request the commission to examine particular issues, it would be disruptive and unhelpful to set deadlines for the publication of specific reports.
Once reports are published, it is, of course, the responsibility of individual Ministers to examine them and to take whatever action they deem appropriate. In this regard, a considerable number of the commission's recommendations have already been accepted by the Government and implemented, including proposals relating to child abuse, malicious damage, foreign adoption decrees, the Statute of Limitation, rape, the competence and compellability of spouses in court proceedings, receiving stolen property, civil liability for animals, divorce a mensa et thoro and the Hague Convention on the abduction of children.
Will the Taoiseach agree that publication of the report on family courts is urgent in light of the Government's commitment to hold a referendum on divorce? Is he aware that facilities in family courts are very poor in Dublin and virtually non-existent outside Dublin, with in many cases no consultation rooms and no opportunities for private discussion between the families involved? It is imperative that this report be not only published but acted upon before the divorce referendum is held.
I agree that the two matters mentioned by the Deputy are important. When the report comes to hand the Government will waste no time in taking decisions on it.
I am sorry the Taoiseach has not answered the specific question I put to him about family courts. That suggest the matter does not loom large in his concerns. In regard to the occupiers' liability report — I note the Taoiseach said he has no control over the timing of reports — is the Taoiseach aware that the Minister for Equality and Law Reform has claimed that this report will be available within the next number of weeks? I would like to know whether this is true.
On Deputy Bruton's first question, he may not take it from what I said that the Government is not concerned about family courts. Of course we are so concerned. This matter is very important and as soon as the report comes to hand decisions will be taken by the Government. On the Deputy's second question, we expect that report shortly.
Will the Taoiseach agree, in view of the imminence of the report, it would be wise of the Government to accept on Second Stage Fine Gael's Bill on occupiers' liability? In view of the commencement of the tourist season when many tourist attractions may be closed to tourists because of fears of liability by owners in the event of an accident occurring, will the Taoiseach agree to allow the Bill go to Committee Stage where it can be amended, if necessary, in light of the report?
On the contrary, the Deputy should accept the suggestion by the Minister for Equality and Law Reform that Fine Gael withdraw their Bill until such time as the report comes to hand. That would be a much wiser course to follow.
Will the Taoiseach agree that before a divorce referendum takes place legislation should be enacted to provide for the establishment of family courts? Is it the Government's intention to make provision for their establishment?
Deputies are injecting new matter.
That is a separate question.
It is exactly the matter——
These questions ask when the reports will be made available, and it is unwise, to say the least, to anticipate the substance of such reports at this juncture.
I am asking the Taoiseach if it is Government policy to provide for the establishment of family courts before the divorce referendum is held. This matter arises directly from the question——
The Chair decides that matter, not the Deputy.
It seems the Taoiseach is willing to respond.
As I have said, the questions ask when the reports will be available.
It is reasonable to assume that one may ask by way of supplementary question what the Government intends to do in this area, and that is what I am asking.
It is foolhardy to anticipate the substance of such reports at this juncture.
The question refers to the subject matter, not the substance of the reports.
I am naive enough to assume the Government might have a policy in this area rather than simply waiting for the report of the Law Reform Commission.
Let us bring this matter to finality.
Perhaps you would allow the Taoiseach to respond. Is it the Government's intention to establish family courts before introducing divorce legislation and does the Taoiseach accept——
That is a separate question.
——that the current court structure is unable to cope with the number of family cases coming before it?
As Deputy Shatter has wasted enough time in the Dáil in his arrogant approach to this matter he should recall quite clearly the legislation that we regard should be in place before the holding of a divorce referendum. I have made the position clear on a number of occasions in this House——
The Government is not going to provide family courts.
I know that Deputy Shatter has a very lucrative business outside this House. If he was here more often he might hear the reply.
The Taoiseach is demeaning this House by making snide remarks about Members. I suggest that remark should be withdrawn, with all due respect. I tell the Taoiseach that every time I have introduced a Private Members Bill in this House some blackguard on the Fianna Fáil back-benches——
Deputy Shatter, there is no need for disorder of this kind.
——has been given a script to that effect——
Please, Deputy Shatter.
It is time the Taoiseach got that out of his system. If I talked about any Member in that way I would be asked to withdraw my remark.
If the Deputy feels that the Taoiseach reflected on him in a personal capacity I am sure the Taoiseach would wish to clarify that matter.
The Taoiseach did reflect on the Deputy.
He should be asked to withdraw the remark.
Deputy Shatter takes an arrogant approach in trying to lecture the Taoiseach as to how he should answer questions.
The Taoiseach considers the asking of questions as arrogant.
If the Deputy does not like the answers I am sorry for his troubles.
On a point of order, are you aware, Sir, that it is a well established precedent in this House, often cited by the Taoiseach, that one should not refer in the House to the private business interests of Members outside the House, and that the Taoiseach has clearly breached that practice in a typically crude fashion? I ask that the Taoiseach, in clear voice, withdraw the implication he made, or is he so low that he cannot bring himself to do so?
Please, Deputy Bruton, let us not aggravate the situation.
I have no notion of doing so.
The Chair did hear what he considers to be a reflection on the outside interests of a Member and that might be clarified.
The implication should be withdrawn.
When Deputy Bruton learns to live by the rules he has expounded we will all abide by those rules.
The Taoiseach should withdraw what he said.
I will not.
On a point of order, the Taoiseach has refused to withdraw a remark which if made by other Members they would have to withdraw, namely, an adverse implication on the business interests of a Member. As you well know, Sir, it is a well established precedent that such remarks should not be made——
We should not get a lecture from the Deputy.
Will you please ask the Taoiseach to withdraw the remark? Otherwise you should have him named.
I wish very much that the Taoiseach would withdraw the implication appertaining to the personal interests, activities or profession of the Member in question.
A Cheann Comhairle, you never use that contrite tone with the rest of us when we——
What I said is that if Deputy Shatter was not here on the number of occasions I answered questions in this House in relation to legislation that should be in place before a divorce referendum is held, it is not for me to try to educate him otherwise.
That is not a withdrawal.
The Taoiseach is making a disgrace of himself.
That is not a withdrawal.
If Deputy Bruton wants to take over the role of the Chair, fair play to him.
The Taoiseach is not man enough to withdraw what he said, and he knows he should not have said it.
Ask Deputy Shatter to withdraw that remark.
I did not make a personal remark about the Taoiseach.
(Interruptions.)
Withdraw it.
On a point of order the Chair should again ask the Taoiseach to withdraw the remark.
On a point of order——
On a point of order, will the Taoiseach withdraw the remark?
On a point of order, Deputy Shatter referred to this side of the House as "blackguards". If Deputy Shatter withdraws the remark we will deal with the matter.
Will the Taoiseach have the courage and the manners to withdraw the disorderly statement he made about Deputy Shatter?
Please, Deputies, we are wasting the precious time of the House.
We are not. If we clearly establish the rights of Members in this House——
Please, Deputy Bruton. There is no need to create disorder.
We must establish that no Member of this House is above the rules.
Reflections were cast on both sides. A reference to "blackguards" was made.
Only one reflection was made and that was by the Taoiseach.
Withdraw the "blackguards" accusation.
Withdraw? The Taoiseach is refusing to withdraw a clearly disorderly statement.
I have already said——
Withdraw the remark.
——that Deputy Shatter referred to the "blackguards" on this side of the House. That is not acceptable either. If Deputy Shatter wants to withdraw that, I will withdraw my remark.
The Taoiseach has been asked to withdraw what he said but has not done so.
On a point of order——
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Shatter, please. Let order be restored. It is usual for the Chair, when a reference is made to the personal private professional activities of a Member, to ask that it be withdrawn, Taoiseach. I also wish Deputy Shatter to withdraw the reference to Members of the other side as "blackguards".
On a point of order and responding directly to the Chair, on every occasion on which I have introduced a Private Member's Bill here, a member of Fianna Fáil has come in and recited the mantra we have just had from the Taoiseach which has cast aspersions on my professional conduct. In so far as I referred to members of Fianna Fáil as "blackguards", I withdraw the remark. I regret that from the Taoiseach downwards this mantra——
Does the Taoiseach have the courage to withdraw his remark?
——is constantly recited.
Deputy Shatter, please do not compound the issue.
(Interruptions.)
Perhaps the Taoiseach will talk to Deputy Taylor about his profession.
I am delighted that Deputy Shatter has withdrawn his accusation that we on this side of the House are blackguards. I have no hesitation in saying that if he takes what I said to be a reflection on his personal capacity and business, I will withdraw it.
The Ceann Comhairle said that the Taoiseach's statement was inappropriate and that he should withdraw it. Will the Taoiseach withdraw it unconditionally?
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Bruton, please desist. I am proceeding now to——
On a point of order——
No, Deputy.
(Interruptions.)
——is it reasonable for the Taoiseach to trade withdrawals when what he said was clearly disorderly in the first place?
Deputy Bruton, I have dealt with a point of serious disorder and I must ask you to resume your seat. The Deputy may not continue in this vein. The matter has been resolved.
It has not.
If the Deputy feels it has not been resolved he can raise it in another place.
The Taoiseach has only withdrawn the remark in a niggardly fashion.
I am proceeding to deal with Question No. 6 as Questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have been withdrawn.