There are a number of issues on which I wish to touch. As usual, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has confidently and capably dealt with the points raised here. However, a number of issues are still outstanding.
Should the advice, which was made available to the Government, be also made available to Members of the Oireachtas? To a degree we are in the dark because the advice was made available to the Government in respect of this Bill and the other one this morning. Without having had the benefit of that advice, particularly in the short time available, the Opposition is not in a position to come to a reasoned conclusion as to whether the correct approach is being followed or not. We are flying blind to a degree. The same issue will arise in respect of the other procedures on which the Government will embark next week. I suggest it would be a useful initiative for the Government to make available such advice to Opposition spokespersons.
The approach to this issue can only be described as "ad hockery". The views presented to us have changed by the day and there are reasonable grounds for suggesting that an ad hoc approach is being followed. That concerns me less than the fact that if all these changes have taken place in the past seven days, what will happen in the next seven days? Have all the angles been covered? Are we clear if the function we are embarked on is to ensure that confidence is maintained in the Judiciary while on the other hand we have fair procedures for a member of the Judiciary whom it is proposed to deal with under Article 35? We need that reflective approach. One of my major concerns is just that, which feeds into the Bills with which we are dealing today as well as the major issues underlying those Bills, namely, the admissibility of possibly constitutionally tainted evidence, questions of compellability generally and the question of self-incrimination.
I also refer to the Minister of State's response in respect of grooming and I am glad to note he recognises the problem I raised is a genuine one. Children are not adequately protected from predatory Internet users under our existing law. We may state that dealing with Judge Curtin or any other member of the Judiciary is a matter of urgency. However, it is far more urgent to deal with a situation in which the children of the nation are not adequately protected from paedophiles.
I do not understand the Minister's reasoning. There is urgency in getting through a Bill today which deals with a member of the Judiciary, yet there is no urgency when it comes to children who are vulnerable under the existing law. I reject that reasoning and I suggest that some urgency could be injected into the Government's approach to the problems I have highlighted.
On the specifics of the Bill, I am unable to table amendments in the short time available. Nothing occurs to me immediately though on Second Stage I asked if all advisers and so on will be covered under the legislation. I accept that the reference to "or any person" probably covers any person associated with the Houses or the committee who might have to deal with the material covered by the Bill. I hope we can establish some procedure through which we will not have to force everyone to look at such images, though that raises another, broader issue. If both Houses are to be involved in the Article 35 process, is there an obligation on all Members who are voting to see and hear all the evidence? That is another issue which has not been dealt with in detail so far. There may be a legal basis for suggesting that someone voting on such a motion might have to see all the evidence, on the basis of natural justice, before fairly and properly casting a vote. That is yet another issue that has not been teased out adequately due to the unseemly haste in dealing with this matter.
On that haste, I have no notion of holding up proceedings but I go back to the point I made this morning: we would be better off carrying this process out well rather than quickly. There is an internal conflict in a rushed situation, as almost inevitably one does not do the job well. That is a continuing concern of mine.
We are dealing with two Bills today, the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) (Amendment) Bill 2004 and the Child Trafficking and Pornography (Amendment) Bill 2004 [Seanad]. Which Bill will go through first? They are both being run simultaneously through the Dáil and Seanad. The compellability legislation is going through the Seanad and may have passed at this point. There are strict time limits involved but a minor point arises. Section 13, as drafted, provides that nothing will prevent the giving of or compliance with the direction under section 3 of the 1997 compellability legislation. There is no reference to the other amending Bill, the legislation under which such a direction will be given if we are dealing with a judge. If the other Bill goes through first and we then pass this Bill, we are making no provision for the issuing of a direction under the other Bill, therefore an exemption provided for under this Bill would be defective. I accept this may be legalistic but let us get our procedures right. I raise the issue to make a constructive point. Basically, we will not be issuing a directive under the 1997 Act; we will be issuing directives under the 2004 Act.
