Vol. 504 No. 2
36 Mr. S. Ryan asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform if he will confirm the Government's intention to draft new juvenile justice legislation; the progress to date in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11562/99]
76 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform further to Parliamentary Question No. 295 of 30 March 1999, the changes in international law which have delayed the passage of the Children Bill, 1996, through Dáil Éireann; the specific aspects of the New Zealand system the Minister studied on his recent visit there; the outcome of that visit, the specific changes he will introduce as a result of that visit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [11568/99]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 36 and 76 together.
Work on amending and expanding the Children Bill, 1996, which deals primarily with juvenile justice, is almost complete and the greater part of it has been forwarded to the parliamentary draftsman's office for drafting. Because of the number of changes to the Bill, it would be difficult, if not well nigh impossible, to process it through Committee Stage. Accordingly, the parliamentary draftsman has been asked to proceed on the basis that a new Bill will be required and, as soon as the drafting has been completed, I intend to ask the Government for approval to publish the new Bill.
In September 1998 the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Fahey, visited New Zealand and while there took the opportunity to study at first hand its juvenile justice system, which has a reputation for being innovative and successful. He was particularly interested in the New Zealand system of family group conferencing, both for children who have committed offences and children who may be in need of care or protection. It is generally accepted the New Zealand system cannot be transported to other countries but the Minister of State considered it worth undertaking a total examination of our system in the light of the New Zealand experience to identify the extent to which the ideas underpinning the New Zealand system might be adapted for use in Ireland. Accordingly, proposals for inclusion in the new Bill which I intend to bring to Government will reflect the outcome of that examination. The proposals will, in the main, be concentrated on the use of conferencing as a preventative measure dealing primarily with children at risk and on expanding the existing family conferencing provisions in the present Bill to include a role for the court.
There have also been major developments, not only in New Zealand but internationally, on the relatively new system of restorative justice. The Bill will seek to reflect that development also.
The Minister is giving the same kind of confusing reply that his Taoiseach has given on occasion. He says on the one hand that the existing Bill will be amended and on the other that there will be a new Bill.
A question please, Deputy.
Will the Minister give a definitive answer to the question I asked him – will he confirm that the Government will produce a new juvenile justice Bill, as the Tánaiste clearly stated before the Easter recess?
In the immortal words of Shakespeare, " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". The reality is that the legislation which will be produced, whether under the guise of the old legislation or of a totally new Bill, will be new legislation. The reason for that is there have been developments internationally on the issue of juvenile justice and legislation must reflect that.
The delay is not impeding the provision of juvenile justice services. The legislation will be the blueprint for the development of a juvenile justice system for decades to come. It is important that we get it right. The Bill has undergone a fundamental re-examination and analysis. If I was to proceed by way of amendment, we would be dealing with between 200 and 300 amendments. The Bill had 230 sections and I will be adding 50 sections to it.
I acknowledge the work of Deputy Currie in his time as Minister in regard to the old Bill.
Am I correct that there will be a new Bill, as the Tánaiste stated in the House? Will the Minister confirm that there will be a new juvenile justice Bill and, if that is the case, why does it not appear in the Government's programme of legislation?
I will give the Deputy a definitive answer as to whether it will be a new Bill or whether it will be an amended old Bill.
Yes or no?
My best analysis is that it will be a new Bill.
We are not looking for the Minister's best guess.
Please, Deputy Shortall, allow the Minister to reply.
My personal preference is for a new Bill.
In his reply the Minister referred to international developments, as did the Taoiseach. Is he aware that in a recent written question to the Minister in which I asked him to outline these international developments, the reply was that there were none? I ask again for clarity in this important area. I know that in many Dublin constituencies juvenile crime is a major problem. It appears the Minister is abrogating his responsibility in this area. We have heard waffle for the past two years and I call on him again to give this area priority and ensure that proper legislation is put in place because it is desperately needed.
I regret to hear that Deputy Shortall believes waffle has been spoken for the past two years, but, as I have often said, a man convinced against his will has not really changed his opinion. The position is that the Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, has been in New Zealand—
Is the Minister aware there is a problem?
—and has examined the situation there in great detail and has taken a particular interest in it. The reason I cannot say definitively that it will be a new Bill or the old Bill revamped—
The Tánaiste has already said it.
—is because a formal Government decision has not been taken on it.
Does the Minister not know?
I ask Deputy Shortall not to interrupt the Minister.
Until such time as a formal Government decision is taken I cannot give Deputy Shortall or anybody else a guarantee, but I have indicated my preference and I would have thought that in those circumstances a nod is as good as a wink.
