There is one proposal to put to the House. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 11 agreed?
Order of Business.
Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources (Dr. Woods): It is proposed to take No. 11, motion re. Agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning mutual assistance in relation to criminal matters; No. 28, Irish Sports Council Bill, 1998, Second Stage (resumed), and No. 4, Road Transport Bill, 1998, Order for Second Stage and Second Stage. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that No. 11 shall be decided without debate.
No. We will not agree to business being taken in the House until we receive a commitment that the Taoiseach will make a statement about what happened yesterday. Does the Minister not realise that there is profound shock, anger and concern at the decision of the State to accept a plea of manslaughter in a case of blatant murder of a member of the Garda Síochána and the serious wounding of another?
The matter cannot be pursued now.
We cannot agree to the Order of Business until we receive a commitment that a statement will be made, today if possible but certainly by next Tuesday.
The Deputy will realise that all Members of the House are very deeply concerned about this matter. She will also be very fully aware – and indeed it is recognised by all sides in the House – that the Director of Public Prosecutions is independent in the conduct of prosecutions. That has been the position since 1974 when the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions was established, and established for very good reasons, with support from all sides of the House.
No member of the Government has any role in relation to the prosecution of criminal offences. The Government has no involvement whatsoever in this matter. The case is still before the courts and sentencing is due today.
I assume I will get a chance to see the Minister's statement. The Minister is reading from a prepared statement.
We cannot have a discussion on this matter. You requested a comment from the Minister, Deputy. Please let the Minister reply.
It is very well established and recognised that the Attorney General is independent of the Government and it is important that the public at large recognise this fact. It would not be appropriate for the Government to seek to dictate the manner in which either officer conducted his affairs. There are very good reasons why matters pertaining to the prosectution of offences were taken out of the political domain and I am sure that nobody in this House would wish to argue otherwise. It is not something to which we can take an à la carte approach. Prosecution policies and decisions are either in the political domain or they are not. That was agreed and settled a long time ago. If we want exceptions to this we should change the law but I do not believe the reasons for taking the matter of prosecutions out of the political domain are any less valid today than they were in 1974 when that matter was settled.
I have to protest. The Minister has a written script. Will I not be allowed ask my question?
You cannot be called while the Minister is on his feet.
Will the Minister furnish a copy of his script to Deputies?
I make these points quite clear. That is the position under the law, well established for very good reasons and accepted by all sides. Members on this side are just as concerned and will be just as anxious as Members on the other side of the House. The decision is an independent one, taken away from the political arena in 1974, and it must stay that way.
We cannot have a debate on this issue. I will allow the leader of each party or one person nominated by them to make a comment of a general nature.
I was not allowed to make a comment. You only allowed me to ask a question
I happen to be in the Chair, Deputy. I ask you to resume your seat. I will return to you.
You are showing disrespect to the largest Opposition party.
You should not make accusations against the Chair. I allowed you to raise the matter and I will now allow Deputy Quinn to make a comment. I will then call Deputy Sargent and I will return to Deputy Owen. Deputy Owen, please resume your seat.
On a point of order, can you explain how you can rule Deputy Jim Higgins's request out of order and then allow the Minister to make a full statement on the matter?
That is the Chair's prerogative. The Minister's statement arose from Deputy Owen's question which I allowed her to ask.
We are not prepared to allow No. 11 on the Order of Business without debate. We want the Order of Business changed, something only the Government can do. My office was informed early today that the Taoiseach would not take the Order of Business because he was in transit to Copenhagen. Fortunately, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is here and the court will have given its judgment before the end of Question Time this afternoon. Accordingly, if the Minister for the Marine is to be believed – and I do believe him – I ask the Government to ensure that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will come into the House after Question Time to make a statement in a form and manner to be agreed by the Whips and to answer questions.
I support the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party in calling to have this matter dealt with today, subject to the requests that have been made. While I accept that the Government had no role in yesterday's decision, I resent the implication that an à la carte approach is being sought.
The Deputy cannot have it both ways.
A capital murder is known and recognised to be a special kind of crime requiring special attention. The matter of an investigation into charges of intimidation must equally be answered. I call on the Government to have this investigation put in place and to amend the law if necessary to avoid this type of loophole being used again.
I am not agreeing to No. 11 being taken without debate until assurances are given that both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will explain the situation to the House. The Minister, in his prepared statement which I object to because we were not informed that it would be made, said that the Attorney General was not answerable to the Government. Does this mean that, under the 1974 Act, the Director of Public Prosecutions consulted with the Attorney General or did he not? The Minister appears to be confirming that there was consultation between the DPP and the Attorney General. This is the key.
I do not say they interfered in any way but I wish to know what prior knowledge the Minster for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Taoiseach had of the fact that this change of charge was to be made. When did they have this knowledge? When my colleague, Deputy Noonan, raised this matter yesterday morning the Taoiseach appeared to want to answer that question. He appeared to know something.
That is outrageous.
The Minister for Defence should listen to the words I am saying, not to what he thinks I am saying.
The Deputy has no evidence.
The Government has been getting away with the response of "no evidence" for too long. They should own up.
The Taoiseach appeared to know. If the Chair is to allow statements to be made, Sir, we wish to know when the Government had information that this arrangement was being entered into. Where does the charge of manslaughter lie in our law now that it has been so diminished by the plea made yesterday by men who took a gun, pointed it into the confines of a car and shot multiple bullets into the bodies of two members of the Garda Síochána? How could anyone call that anything but murder?
My next point is crucial to the peace process. In all statements made by the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and every other Minister at the time of the signing of the British-Irish Agreement, assurances were given that those convicted of the murder of Detective Garda McCabe would not benefit from the prisoner release programme. However, these men will not be convicted of the murder of Jerry McCabe. They will be convicted of manslaughter. As one lawyer said on RTE this morning, there is no signed protocol to the British-Irish Agreement which covers this situation. The release programme is guaranteed merely by the word of the Government.
There is deep concern that these men, once convicted of manslaughter, will become party to the prisoner release programme, despite assurances given by the Taoiseach and the Minister. Because the charge has been dropped from murder to manslaughter for which a mandatory 40 year sentence will not be given, we need an assurance as to where stands the commitment given during the British-Irish Agreement negotiations that these men would not walk free after a few years. We need an answer to that question. It is only fair that I ask these questions to ensure that when statements are made we will get all the answers.
The Deputy will get all the answers.
We must get all the answers.
The Taoiseach made clear yesterday his attitude to this, the position he has taken and the Government's position on this.
On the questions raised by Deputy Quinn, the problem is that this case is before the courts and sentencing is due today. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has no difficulty in answering questions after the case is completed in the courts.
The Dáil can sit late if necessary.
We cannot interfere with the work of the courts. If the Whips want to consider the best timing for taking this matter, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is prepared to respond to it as long as he or the House does not interfere with the case before the courts.
Is it agreed that we will discuss this matter?
Most Deputies will accept, even though many people outside this House may not realise it, that the position of politicians must be completely separate from that of the courts for very good reasons.
I wish to clarify a point with the Minister.
We are trying to assist the Minister.
It is important that it is understood outside this House that this House cannot interfere with the work of the courts. The Minister is willing to answer questions when the case is completed. The Taoiseach made it clear that he had no prior knowledge of this.
I am trying to be orderly on the Order of Business. We are discussing the net point of whether we will accept No. 11 without debate. I am opposed to accepting it without debate until I get a commitment from the Government that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is prepared to come into the House, and from his body language he appears to be willing to do so, to answer questions after the end of Question Time. By that time we can safely assume the court will have delivered its sentence. While Members of this Assembly welcome the lecture on the procedures of the Dáil and the separation of powers between this House and the courts, it is not new. I ask not only that the Minister would come into this House, but in view of the latitude that was given to other Opposition spokespersons I wish to put questions to him in advance so that he will know about what we want him to prepare. There is outrage across the country about two aspects of this case.
I wish the House to take note of Standing Order 56 paragraph 3 which states that a matter shall not be raised in such an overt manner so that it appears to be an attempt by the Dáil to encroach on the function of the courts.
I accept that.
I want Members to bear that in mind.
This is already in the public domain by way of newspaper reports and the newspapers will carry as much weight on the deliberations of the court as anything we might say here. I refer to widespread intimidation of six witnesses and the course of action that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform intends to take to ensure that witnesses will not be intimidated in any cases in the future. I am not referring to the case that will be deliberated on today; I am talking about the problem of intimidation as a result of the continued operations of the IRA and where these people are pleading guilty to a charge of manslaughter in relation to the murder of Garda McCabe. Before we accept the Order of Business and not divide this House, I want a clear and unequivocal response from the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Woods, that on the assumption that the court will have delivered its sentence before the end of Question Time we will be able to ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform questions on this matter. That is my request.
The Government has no difficulty with that as long as that assumption is accepted. At approximately 3.30 p.m. we can have statements on this matter provided the sentencing has been delivered and the case is completed.
Can we have statements and questions?
The Minister is willing to have statements and questions. The Whips can make the arrangements because they will know what is happening.
I seek clarification on this matter. The Minister agreed to this as long as the court has passed sentence, but if leave is given to appeal the case there is a danger the Minister might use that decision as a reason not to come into the House. We need to show the relevance of this House. Today is the day we must have a statement on this case, even if an appeal is allowed. The Minister must be allowed to come into the House to give us whatever information he can. As a former Minister for Justice, I know how difficult it is for a Minister to come into the House to respond to a matter such as this, but I was always made to do so and I did so when I was Minister long before investigations were completed, and the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, knows that.
Deputy Owen understands the Minister's position. The Minister would naturally be reluctant to respond to this matter, but he is prepared to deal with the general issue of this case on the basis agreed.
Have we agreed a time for the taking of statements and questions?
The Whips can agree the time for taking this matter.
Is the proposal for dealing with item 11 agreed? Agreed.
I take it the Order of Business has been formally changed and that we will be able to put questions to and get answers from the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on this matter subject to the court having delivered its decision and that the record of the House shows that the Order of Business has been changed?
Yes.
The Deputy can trust us.
When does the Government propose to implement the recommendations of the report of the expert group on child care which was published yesterday? Will the Minister confirm why the Government is proceeding to set up yet another committee after all the work that has been done on this? When will the Minister for Finance make arrangements under the forthcoming Finance Bill to improve the position in child care and ensure that people inside and outside this House, who are seeking this service, will not have to wait a minimum of another six months for it?
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform made a statement on this. He said he is setting up an interdepartmental committee which is necessary and he has given it a limited time to put forward its proposals. The committee will examine not only this report but two others which are directly related, the report of the Commission on the Family and the report of the Forum on Early Childhood Education. These three reports are relevant to any resolution of the issues involved in this matter. These reports are important and it is necessary that their recommendations are considered as a matter of urgency, and for that reason the Minister has set a time limit for the interdepartmental committee to put forward its proposals.
It is clear that those who prepared the latest report which was published yesterday have taken on board the recommendations of the two reports to which the Minister referred. Why is it necessary to set up another interdepartmental committee to examine the three reports? A member of the expert group said that the group had taken on board the recommendations of those two reports.
The Deputy should read the report of the Commission on the Family.
It is not only a question of the expert group taking on board the recommendations of the report of the Commission on the Family and the report of the Forum on Early Childhood Education. It considered one specific area and examined it thoroughly and comprehensively, as did the Commission on the Family and the Forum on Early Childhood Education. These three reports must be considered together and Members can rest assured they will be examined as a matter of urgency.
On a separate matter, the Government has failed to bring forward legislation to give effect to the British-Irish Agreement com mitment to establish of a human rights commission. As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is in the House and is manifestly busy with many other matters and there are 20 Bills I ask him, through the acting Head of Government, if the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform would be prepared to accept the Labour Party's Bill on Second Stage and to proceed to Committee Stage when it can table whatever amendments it considers necessary, given the all-party support for the British-Irish Agreement. There is broad agreement on this legislation. To reject it would merely signal pride on the part of the permanent government of the Departments, of whatever label, which will not accept legislation introduced by the Opposition because it was not born in their back yard. The first anniversary of the British-Irish Agreement is less than two months away and I ask the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform, who is overburdened, to accept this legislation on Second Stage and to table whatever amendments the Government considers necessary on Committee Stage, given that there is 95 per cent agreement in the Republic on this issue. The Minister should show some progress in implementing this agreement. He is hopelessly behind his own timetable in regard to it.
I agree with the Deputy about the urgency and importance of this matter. The Minister hopes to be in a position to obtain Government approval of his proposals very shortly. The heads of the Bill will then be circulated to the two committees in question – the Committee on Justice, Equality and Women's Rights and the all-party Oireachtas committee on the Constitution – for their consideration. There were matters which had to be referred to the Attorney General but it will be available very shortly.
That is not acceptable – the alternative is much more transparent.
When will the promised legislation on torture be brought forward to give effect to the international convention? Will the Minister take this opportunity to join me in condemning the execution at 6 a.m. Irish time today of a man in the United States for an offence he committed when he was 16 years old? The United States has now put to death more people for offences committed when they were children than the rest of the world put together. An opportunity should be found for this House to condemn such barbarity. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity, in replying to my question on the torture legislation, to condemn this barbarity.
I am happy to be able to inform the Deputy that that Bill has now moved to Committee Stage in the Seanad.
Will the Minister join me in condemning the execution? The man was 16 years old when he committed the offence.
The matter does not arise on the Order of Business.
It should.
In regard to promised legislation, I am concerned the Government is seriously rowing back on commitments that were given to the UN committee on the rights of the child. Last year, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, gave a firm commitment that an ombudsman for children would be established. This was later watered down to a social services inspectorate. That commitment to introduce legislation has completely disappeared off the Government's legislation programme. Where now stands the commitment to establish an ombudsman for children?
I understand there are proposals coming to Government next week; the matter should move on then.
Will that be an independent ombudsman on a statutory basis?
That will be considered in the Children Bill.
The Minister does not know, and neither does the Minister with responsibility for this.
(Mayo): The Mountjoy prison officers withdrew their services for a period of time this week in a limited industrial action. The State solicitors are withdrawing their services from Monday. The forensic scientists are withdrawing their services from Monday. There is a complete breakdown in the apparatus of the criminal justice system. When will the 1997 Criminal Justice Bill be returned to this House?
What is happening there? Something is going wrong – there is no protection for prison officers or gardaí.
There is a crisis in the Government.
I understand the Bill will be in the House next week or the following week.
Given the widespread public feeling that the Garda Síochána have been let down, can the Minister say when the Garda Síochána Bill will be introduced? That would focus more attention on the needs of the Garda Síochána.
What legislation is planned or being used to challenge the rulings of the Supreme Court on the McKenna judgment, which is under attack by the Attorney General? Former Deputy Michael McDowell has described this as an attempt to loot the Exchequer.
That question is not in order on the Order of Business.
The expected publication date of the criminal justice Garda Bill is mid to late 1999.
The Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands travels to Los Angeles at the end of the month to promote the Irish film industry. The central plank of that promotion is the tax incentive known as section 481. I do not want to anticipate legislation, but when is it expected to conclude Committee Stage of the Finance Bill? It is pointless for the Minister to go anywhere to promote this growing industry without its central foundation being in place.
The Minister is doing an excellent job in this area and it is very important that she goes to meet the main players in the industry. This has been very beneficial to the country.
(Interruptions.)
The Finance Bill will be published on 11 February.
When is Committee Stage expected to conclude? I do not want the Minister to go without—
I heard the Minister was trying to get a permanent job out there.
It is scheduled to finish in the Dáil before St. Patrick's Day.
The time for the Order of Business has expired but Deputy Quinn may ask a brief question.
Can the Minister confirm that it is the intention of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce emergency legislation next week to close off a legal loophole which was established in the courts in regard to immigration? If so, can the Government indicate when it proposes to terminate the legal action which has held the operation of the Refugee Act, 1996, in abeyance?
The Bill is due before the House next week. It was cleared by the Government last Tuesday.
We are completely out of time.
I know you are anxious, a Cheann Comhairle, for the business of the House to proceed but we are not exactly over burdened with legislation at the moment. I am concerned about legislation which was passed by this House two years ago but which has deliberately been allowed to be stalled by this Administration over a spurious court case—
The Deputy cannot make a statement on the matter.
I am asking the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to give me an answer. What is happening at the moment is outrageous. The Government is trying to set back the clock by bringing in emergency legislation which the courts found to be not valid.
A comparative study of Irish legislation and that of our EU partners has been arranged to ascertain what changes might be necessary to the Refugee Act to align Irish policy more closely with that of our EU partners.
That is rubbish.
That is under examination at the moment as a matter of urgency
Will the—
We cannot prolong a discussion or debate on this matter.
In five minutes time there will be three Members left in the Chamber and business will not be impeded.
I will allow the Deputy to ask one more very brief question.
Can the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, through the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources, answer whether the legal action in regard to the age of the commissioner is continuing? Is it still the case that we do not have an independent commissioner for refugees, as it is being run by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform which is not independent? The Minister is deliberately frustrating the Act.
The approach being taken by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is to bring forward amendments to the Act. He will have those relatively soon.
The Minister must be joking.