Enda Kenny
Question:1 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests received by his Department during April 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16025/06]
Ceisteanna — Questions (Resumed).
Freedom of Information.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the number of freedom of information requests his Department has received to date in 2006; the way in which this compares with the comparable periods in 2003, 2004 and 2005; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20714/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.
The information requested by the Deputies about the freedom of information requests received by the Department of the Taoiseach is in the following table. All freedom of information applications made to the Department are processed by statutorily designated officials in accordance with the 1997 and 2003 Acts. In accordance with those Acts, I have no role in the processing of individual applications.
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
21 |
2 |
7 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
|
Feb |
29 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|
Mar |
30 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
6 |
0 |
2 |
|
April |
10 |
4 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
|
May |
11 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
|
June |
7 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
July |
13 |
2 |
5 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
Aug |
6 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Sept |
4 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oct |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
|
Nov |
6 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Dec |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
142 |
38 |
46 |
11 |
33 |
5 |
9 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Feb |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
|
Mar |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
April |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
May |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
|
June |
5 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
July |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Aug |
3 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Sept |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Oct |
12 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
Nov |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Dec |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Total |
45 |
14 |
10 |
7 |
9 |
2 |
3 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
Feb |
3 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Mar |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
April |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
May |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
June |
7 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
|||
|
July |
6 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|||
|
Aug |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Sept |
5 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
||
|
Oct |
16 |
4 |
5 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
|
|
Nov |
5 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|||
|
Dec |
7 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
Total |
61 |
22 |
18 |
4 |
12 |
5 |
|
Month |
Rec’d |
Granted |
Part Granted |
Refused |
No Records |
Transferred |
Withdrawn |
|
Jan |
9 |
8 |
1 |
||||
|
Feb |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
Mar |
4 |
3 |
1 |
||||
|
April |
7 |
6 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
May |
6* |
*ongoing
The Department of the Taoiseach received 45 freedom of information requests in 2004 and 61 such requests in 2005. Those figures represent a dramatic reduction from the 142 requests which were made in 2003. That the number of requests continues to fall proves that the amending legislation that was introduced by the Government is working. Why are so many public bodies exempt from the freedom of information legislation? Public agencies spend almost one third of State moneys and employ as many people as the Civil Service. It is obvious that it is in the public interest that information about what might be called the core work of Government is covered by the legislation. I refer to bodies such as the Health Service Executive and the National Treasury Management Agency. Does the Taoiseach have a list of the public agencies that are not covered by the legislation? Perhaps he does not have that information to hand. Will he indicate when the various agencies will be covered by the legislation? Why are new agencies not automatically covered by the freedom of information legislation when they are established? As the Taoiseach rightly pointed out on many occasions, it is only right and proper that the public should know how the Government and agencies of Government do their business.
There were 45 cases in 2004, but that number increased quite substantially last year and that trend is continuing. There was a period when the number of applications stabilised, but the relevant figure increased by almost 30% to 61 last year. It seems that the trend is continuing this year. The numbers decreased for a while, but they are back up again. A number of bodies have been added to the list. A few weeks ago, 137 public bodies and groups, under the aegis of a number of Departments, were brought within the scope of the freedom of information legislation. The only body under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach that is outside the scope of the legislation is the Law Reform Commission. All the other bodies are within the scope of the legislation.
The question of whether the LRC should be brought within the scope of the legislation is being considered. There has been a big change in this regard. The joint committee recommended that just two legislative provisions under the remit of the Department of the Taoiseach should stay outside. I refer to section 8(4) of the National Archives Act and sections 32 to 35(5) of the Statistics Act. The Information Commissioner has indicated that she agrees with the joint committee's recommendations. Other than one, they are all outside. It is under the Minister for Finance. It will take some time to see how it operates. The Deputy asked about the scope of all these bodies and groups when they come under the legislation. There has been a considerable addition to the number of bodies which are now within the freedom of information legislation.
The Information Commissioner has made it clear that the freedom of information legislation does not operate as it should in terms of the fees charged and the number of bodies that are not covered by the legislation. Does the Taoiseach think there is a need to undertake an exercise of comparison with the UK? The police forces in that country are covered by its freedom of information legislation. An extraordinary omission was made in this jurisdiction when it was decided that our freedom of information legislation would not cover so many bodies. As the Information Commissioner said, the heavens did not fall in across the water when it was decided that the freedom of information legislation there would apply to the police.
Can the Taoiseach offer any opinion on the reason for this country's restrictive approach? I accept that the number of bodies covered by our freedom of information legislation has increased. Given that our approach is quite limited compared with other jurisdictions, will the Taoiseach respond to the recommendations in a recent report published by the think tank for action on social change? The report recommended that the "fog index" surrounding the accountability of approximately 500 public bodies which operate with a national remit should be addressed. It also referred to 5,000 appointments, many of which are in the Government's gift, which are made to public bodies at national level alone. Will the Taoiseach respond to the TASC report by outlining the criteria which are used in respect of freedom of information? It seems that the views offered by the Taoiseach and the various Ministers are given greater weight than any statute of criteria which are independently adjudicated. Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the pattern that has developed since the introduction of fees is evident in the Department of the Taoiseach?
Fees are matters for the Minister for Finance.
No, I want to ask about the pattern of freedom of information requests to the Department of the Taoiseach. It seems that three times more requests are being received for personal information than for non-personal information. Is that pattern reflected in the Department of the Taoiseach? Requests for personal information are far more numerous than requests for non-personal information because fees do not have to be paid for personal information. Non-personal information relating to the operations of the Law Reform Commission, for example, would be extremely useful as a public service. In that context and given that he mentioned that it was under consideration, has the Taoiseach any other news regarding the Law Reform Commission? It might have saved the Government much embarrassment had there been more public scrutiny of the Law Reform Commission.
As already stated, the Law Reform Commission is the only agency under my aegis which is not included at present and this matter has been under consideration for some time.
As for the fees issue, I have stated on numerous occasions that personal information is free and the same is true of appeals. The figures are rising again and the majority of cases involve journalists. While there has never been any analysis carried out, the numbers of applications are not high, apart from during the initial period after the Act was first introduced, when people tried to gain access to older information. While there was a significant rush from the public initially, demand has eased off. The incidence of people using the Act for other information purposes has also more or less stopped. The fee of €15 is modest, particularly when one considers that previous fee in respect of such an application was €425. However, as that figure is a few years old, I presume the actual figure is closer to €500. Hence, when the work and preparation involved in an application are taken into account, the fee is modest.
Various countries have different ways of approaching this issue. The criticism of the legislation in Ireland was that an insufficient number of agencies were covered by the Act and this issue has now been dealt with. Although an independent review of the information by the Information Commissioner does not support some of the contentions regarding record-keeping, people generally use the Act as they require and the fee does not discourage them.
A fee is payable in respect of the appeal mechanism. It costs €75 for an internal appeal and €150 for an appeal to the Information Commissioner, with reductions for those with medical cards. An appeal to the Information Commissioner involves a quasi-judicial process, which can require many months to complete and which can give rise to a considerable amount of work. Hence, the fee is viewed as a fair reflection of the costs involved. Moreover, one receives a preliminary report from the Information Commissioner. If one accepts this report, one may withdraw one's case without incurring a cost, which people sometimes also do.
Has the Taoiseach addressed the issue about which the Information Commissioner complained in her December 2005 report, in which she highlighted the point that Departments introduce legislation that amends the Freedom of Information Act without any reference to her position? The Taoiseach will recall that in the case of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005, the Information Commissioner only discovered the amendment to the Freedom of Information Act when it was brought to her attention by a member of the public. What procedures have been put in place in the Department of the Taoiseach and other Departments to ensure that there is proper consultation with the Information Commission regarding any legislation which may be planned or intended and which will have the net effect of an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act as it currently or has previously operated? Does the Taoiseach agree with the commissioner that it is obvious and sensible for consultation with her office to take place?
I do. I understand from my officials who are involved in this area that they take account of it. Admittedly, it may be easier for my Department because it is not obliged to deal with much legislative change. The Department of Finance monitors the rest. However, people should take into account fully the views of the Information Commissioner.
Has the Government ever considered extending the remit of the legislation to the Garda Síochána? Is it not the case that the comparable legislation in the United Kingdom extends to the police there and that adequate safeguards in terms of security and confidentiality exist which would enable Ireland to take the courageous step to extend otherwise the remit of the Act to the Garda Síochána?
I do not know. Monitoring of the Act is carried out under the aegis of the Department of Finance. I do not know whether there have been any discussions in this regard. To the best of my knowledge, however, it was not in any of the most recent reports in which the bodies I mentioned previously were discussed. Hence, I do not know whether there have been any discussions in this regard. It would be useful for those trying to get information.
I am sure the Taoiseach's party colleagues are happy to see him return to quell the malicious rumour that he had sought sanctuary at the United Nations. No one could deny that he had a well-founded fear of persecution when he fled the State last week. The Taoiseach's problem is that the persecution was also more than well-founded.
Does the Deputy wish to ask a question?
Regarding the Freedom of Information Act, does the Taoiseach ever take a personal role in determining freedom of information requests to his Department? Is he ever consulted before a decision is made? Has he ever been consulted on any particular issue? Can he outline the nature of the requests that have been refused in the past? Do they relate entirely to the National Archives or are there other refusal trends about which the Taoiseach can inform Members?
The process in my Department is carried out by a number of senior staff without any recourse to me regarding either the question or the reply. It is an entirely independent function, as per the Act. There is a database in the Department which allows it to know the details of every request. It is monitored by the freedom of information liaison officer, who receives all the requests, logs them to the system and refers them to the appropriate division. The division then gives its reply. However, under the legislation, this process does not involve the office holder. This is the process which is followed.
State Prosecution Service.
Enda Kenny
Question:3 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Nally report on the reorganisation of the State prosecution service; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16026/06]
As indicated in reply to previous questions on the matter, the recommendations of the Nally report in respect of the reorganisation of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor have been largely implemented. Agreement with the unions involved was achieved during 2001. The criminal prosecutions functions undertaken by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor were transferred to the Office of Director of Public Prosecutions at the end of 2001. A common promotion pool within the two offices, between the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the solicitors division of the Director of Public Prosecutions, for professional solicitor and technical promotion posts formed part of the agreement and is now in operation.
A negotiating process with local State solicitors, which seeks to agree on the transfer of the service to the Director of Public Prosecutions, is under way. Two reviewers were appointed to undertake a study of the current workload of local State solicitors and their expense base. They have submitted their report and it has been considered by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A formal offer of increased remuneration, approved by the Department of Finance, was made to the State Solicitors Association on 21 April 2006. Representatives of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions met the State Solicitors Association to discuss the offer. The State Solicitors Association is considering the offer and is preparing a formal response, which should be received in the coming weeks.
Enabling legislation and appropriate legislative provisions on the transfer of the local State solicitor service are contained in the Civil Service Regulation (Amendment) Act 2005, which was signed by the President on 9 July 2005.
The first half of the Taoiseach's response is identical to what was prepared for him on the previous occasion on which this question was answered.
The study group that addressed the issue of greater cohesion in the criminal justice system on the last occasion recommended the transfer of responsibilities from the criminal justice division of the Chief State Solicitor's office and the local State solicitors' offices to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. An offer was made in this regard at the time. Has that matter been concluded? Was the offer accepted and has the recommendation been finalised and completed?
Are there any unfilled positions in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Does a backlog of work exist there as a consequence? Is work being outsourced by the DPP's office to local solicitors as a result of backlogs? I am aware that additional staff have been appointed but what is the current position?
The Nally report set out a number of recommendations, including that responsibility for local State solicitors should be transferred from the Attorney General to the DPP, with legislative provisions to enable the DPP to delegate to them; that the appointment of State solicitors should be made on the recommendation of the Public Appointments Service, subject to agreement on adequate staffing levels and appropriate staff structures; and that the criminal division of the Chief State Solicitor's office, CSSO, should be transferred to the DPP's office to form a unit headed by the solicitor to the DPP following statutory clarification of the 1994 Act. These issues were addressed.
A common pool of staff, the members of which would be entitled to apply for transfer and promotion among the various legal offices in accordance with accepted Civil Service procedures, was also recommended. The only outstanding recommendation relates to the State solicitor service and that, because it is an industrial relations issue, is the subject of negotiation. Following a report on the workload and the expense base of State solicitors conducted by reviewers engaged by the CSSO, an offer was made on 21 April, which dealt with many of the issues raised during negotiations with the State Solicitors Association and was designed to set a benchmark for the payment of expenses. The CSSO and the DPP feel that the offer responds realistically to the issues raised and it is hoped that the State solicitors will respond favourably. However, given that negotiations are ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further. That is the only outstanding issue.
With regard to staff numbers, the CSSO has recruited the additional staff that were approved. A small number of vacancies exist and the office is in the process of filling them. The DPP's office has recruited the additional staff sanctioned and it has a staff of approximately 170 full-time personnel, while the CSSO has 232 staff. Only a small number of vacancies exist, whereas a number of years ago it was quite difficult to fill positions. However, the advent of new structures and grades and the transferability of staff mean various issues have been addressed.
The Deputy inquired about the workload. The Government has no reason not to contract out legal work. In the recent past, specific cases were contracted out where the workload involved was beyond the capacity of the CSSO. The office also makes extensive use of counsel in dealing with the day-to-day caseload. The DPP's office outsources more prosecution work to barristers and private practice than in most common law jurisdictions and all the advocacy work in contesting jury trials is outsourced to the Bar. Other common law jurisdictions have tended to make greater use of in-house lawyers but that is not what happens here. Local State solicitors are private practitioners who work on contract to the State rather than as State employees and, therefore, work is outsourced to them. Significant amounts of work in the legal service are outsourced.
What is the current status of the working group, comprising gardaí and representatives of the DPP's office, which was set up to implement aspects of the Nally report? Does the Taoiseach recall the decision to caution rather than prosecute first-time offenders in possession of small amounts of cannabis? What other working group recommendations have been implemented?
The recommendation in respect of cannabis was not part of the Nally report. All work under Nally, with the exception of issues relating to the local State solicitors, is complete. Perhaps the working group is dealing with another section in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform but it has nothing to do with the Nally report. I will seek information on the matter and forward a note to the Deputy.
Were all the recommendations implemented?
All the recommendations of the Nally report have been implemented. The only outstanding issue relates to the work of the local State solicitors. I do not think the issue raised by the Deputy was covered by the Nally report but I will check. If it was, I will contact him in writing.
Given the recent concern about the prosecution process engaged in by the State, will the recommendations of the Nally report be treated with urgency? In light of the Supreme Court experience, should the Nally group take on board any lessons? Will the Taoiseach recommend that those involved in the Nally report examine the experience afresh, given that it has been the subject of much debate in the past few days?
The Nally report was undertaken when the DPP's office and the Office of the Chief State Solicitor faced significant caseloads. Following a number of reviews, large numbers of new staff were approved. An additional 75 staff were recruited by the CSSO, including 66 in the professional and technical complement, while a significant number of legal clerks, senior legal clerks, staff officers and higher executive officers were recruited to both offices following negotiations and a number of industrial relations cases in 2000 and 2001. Both offices were revamped and the criminal division was transferred from the CSSO to the DPP's office and the unit is headed by the solicitor to the DPP. All these actions were taken and there has been no difficulty since then other than in respect of the issue to which I referred. Staff numbers have increased substantially to more than 400 between the two offices. The transferability of staff between both offices has been useful because it has helped the career prospects of staff. That was one of the major arguments made by staff. Only a handful of posts are vacant and the new grades have been introduced. The issues that created much difficulty in 2000 have been addressed.
Is the Taoiseach saying that there are no plans to review the statutory procedures for consultation between the DPP's office and that of the Attorney General?
There is no problem with the statutory procedures but the communication procedures could perhaps be examined. The statutory work undertaken between them has not been raised as a problem and it does not require amendment.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether the criminal prosecution functions undertaken by the CSSO have transferred completely to the DPP's office, as agreed in 2001? Last February, the Taoiseach stated that negotiations were still taking place to agree the transfer of the service to the DPP. What are the implications for both offices of section 3(9) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006, under which a proposal to take legal proceedings against a person under the age of 17 must first be referred to the DPP or the relevant legal person in those offices? Would the Taoiseach say that was a desperate attempt to cover the sustainability of his Government? For example, a situation could arise in which 16 year old father might be criminalised because of a completely consensual relationship with another 16 year old. Does the Taoiseach think it is good State policy to make a baby born to teenage parents, which, I agree, would be better not to happen, start life with a father who has been criminalised or even jailed? Has he given serious consideration to these matters? How can he defend asking the DPP or the Chief State Solicitor's office to conduct what is really a judicial review?
The criminal division of the Office of the Chief State Solicitor has been transferred to the Office of the DPP. That was done with statutory clarification that the professional staff are professional staff of the DPP within the meaning of the 1974 Act. The only outstanding issue concerns local State solicitors and efforts are being made on negotiations to bring them within the ambit of the DPP's office. I addressed that issue in a question to which I replied earlier. They are contracted to the State. They made an argument based on their caseloads, office staff and overall expenses and that has been the subject of negotiations for some time. The Department of Finance agreed to a new offer, which has been made and is being considered. The Chief State Solicitor and the DPP hope it will be accepted so that the remaining part can be concluded. All the other issues, including the organisational structure, modern library, information systems, planning and training, have been addressed.
Legislative Programme.
Enda Kenny
Question:4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the summer session of Dáil Éireann; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16029/06]
Pat Rabbitte
Question:5 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17145/06]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:6 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remaining lifetime of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [19167/06]
Trevor Sargent
Question:7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remaining time of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20715/06]
Joe Higgins
Question:8 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach his legislative priorities for the remainder of the current Dáil session. [20850/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4 to 8, inclusive, together.
My Department has one legislative matter for the current Oireachtas session. The National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 has completed all stages in the Dáil. The Bill commenced Committee Stage in the Seanad and this is due to resume on Thursday, 15 June.
My Department will soon be bringing the text of the statute law revision (pre-union) Bill to Government, with a view to publishing it in autumn. This Bill will continue the process of modernising the Statute Book by repealing over 2,000 ancient statutes, dating from prior to 1801, which are now redundant or obsolete. The Bill will also retain a further 300 or so statutes from the same period that are not proposed for repeal at present.
The draft heads of the Bill to deal with the nursing home inspectorate were published in April. When does the Taoiseach expect the details of the Bill to be published?
The establishment of an insurance scheme for the victims of infected blood by means of a hepatitis C and HIV compensation Bill is needed. When is that likely to appear?
In the context of the current controversy, the issue of a register of persons considered unsafe to work with children was raised on a number of occasions. The Government has repeatedly promised to bring forward legislation in this area and such a register is clearly long overdue. Hand in hand with enhanced vetting, the register must be a key aspect of any approach to child protection. However, there is no sign of the legislation needed to establish the register, even though it was promised and has appeared on the Government's legislative programme time and again. Despite repeated questioning, there is as yet no evidence of when the legislation will be introduced. Will the Bill be published in the few remaining weeks of this session? When can we expect to have the register? It can only happen through legislation. I am aware that backlogs can form in the Parliamentary Counsel's system but this is surely a critical matter. Earlier, I raised an issue, about which I was informed by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, regarding backlogs in the vetting process. This register is needed and cannot be established without legislation. The Taoiseach might make arrangements so that the necessary Bill will be brought forward quickly.
I do not have information on Bills other than those relating to my Department but these could be discussed on the Order of Business. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is dealing with the register and trying to co-ordinate work on the issue. I am not sure what stage it has reached.
We have set out the A list for this session, which runs until the start of the next session and, as always, covers the entire period. We have published a number of those Bills and they can be dealt with on the Order of Business, as necessary. We have published 147 Bills and enacted 148 vital Acts but, on this, I intend to deal with my particular areas of legislation.
Is it the Taoiseach's intention to hold a referendum during this session or, indeed, the remaining lifetime of the Government?
No, I do not have any proposed legislation.
Is that the same as saying that the Taoiseach has no plans for a referendum in the lifetime of the Government?
Not over the next year.
Given that the current Dáil has, at most, some 12 months remaining, will the Taoiseach indicate the methodology for prioritising legislation? Given the chaos and crisis of the past fortnight and the need to protect children and update the law on sexual offences, will the Government prioritise this area in the immediate future?
How can the Taoiseach explain the fact that we are meeting today and tomorrow, even though nothing on the schedule of business addresses the real and necessary substantive debate that must ensue from last Friday's special sitting? In terms of making priorities, does he not accept that this is an essential issue for us to address and that leadership must be given by the Government, not only in terms of debate on this floor but also with regard to the wider debate and public consultation that must take place to guarantee the best legislation to properly address every situation that could potentially arise in this difficult and complex area?
In dealing with my own Department, I have no such legislation. Obviously, there are complex and important issues and we should deal with them within the context of the all-party group as soon as possible.
With regard to the legislation we are updating, the Taoiseach referred to the statute law revision (pre-union) Bill. Given our experience over the past fortnight with the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935, does he see a need, as I do, to evaluate legislation enacted prior to 1937 in certain cases that may fall foul of the Constitution? Is there a plan with regard to legislation, given that he already referred to redundant legislation dating from prior to 1801? Can he indicate whether a review is being conducted in light of the lessons that have hopefully been learned from the past fortnight's debates and controversy?
In response to the subject matter of the past fortnight, will the Taoiseach say whether the referendum on the Constitution sought by the Children's Rights Alliance is on the Government's agenda? Will he comment on the legislation that might flow from that, the measures on vetting services for people working with children, which have been mentioned by Deputy Kenny to some extent, and the delays in assessment for psychiatric treatment and counselling for child victims of sexual assault, which range from six to nine months on average? Will he also comment on the issues I raised earlier on the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland report and the residential centre in Dublin funded by the HSE, where, according to newspaper reports, 250 children in care have gone missing? Are those matters the subjects of legislation and a constitutional referendum?
The White Paper on Better Regulation, published two and a half years ago, includes a commitment to carry out an analysis of all the pre-1922 legislation. The first part of that project was completed with the enactment of the Statute Law Revision (Pre-1922) Act 2005, which was finalised last December. The first part of that would have dealt with much of the legislation Deputy Sargent mentioned, which would have been there before 1937. The statute law revision (pre-union) Bill represents the second phase of that and will involve an analysis of all the legislation dating from before 1 January 1801, when an Act of Union came into operation, to decide what should be retained or appealed as appropriate.
The Bill states by means of a white list all the pre-1801 statutes that are to be retained because they are still in use. The white list refers to approximately 300 statutes, while all the others from that period, that is approximately 2,300, will be repealed and for convenience these will be listed in a separate Schedule to the Bill. The public consultation process on the application of the Bill was completed approximately a month ago and the final decision on the number of statutes to be retained or repealed will be taken following submissions from that public consultation process. It will be the biggest repealing measure in the history of the State, repealing almost as many statutes as the total number of Acts enacted since 1922.
In due course other statutes will have to be repealed but that will take time. The work for the next year will be on the 2,300 statutes. It is a phased period of work set out over the past few years and for the next few years. This work will continue in the coming years until we have a modern Statute Book for legislation and statutory instruments. That is possible because of the work that has been going on for the past decade or so. We will get that into good order in probably the next five years but it is a big task and the number of people working on it is small. The personnel are steadily clearing and sorting our legislative base.
The Law Reform Commission has agreed to undertake the restatement project. Once this is up to date an Act should be restated by amending legislation. That will be guided by a steering committee that will comprise representatives of my Department, the Office of the Attorney General, the Law Reform Commission and other Departments. They will be requested to attend the committee from time to time as the work is relevant to their office. The heads of the Bill were approved by the Government a few months ago. My Department and the Office of the Attorney General arranged a public consultation process and that process has concluded. The Bill will be ready for the House in the autumn.
Will the Taoiseach clarify whether his office co-ordinates this extensive process of revision? How does it relate to Dáil Éireann? Is it proposed to do it through each Minister encompassing his or her area of responsibility bringing amending legislation to the Dáil? What is the timetable? It is quite an undertaking in terms of the breadth of the issues covered. This goes back to the mists of the past when one was obliged to sell a horse for a few shillings. When the Taoiseach said he has no plans for a constitutional referendum for the remainder of his time in government, did he mean the Minister for Foreign Affairs was blatantly putting a red herring out on Monday when he advocated that such a course of action would find favour with him in terms of the present and recent controversies?
Work on the updating of the Statute Book has gone on for almost a decade. The statutes were put on CD-ROM, the statutory instruments were listed, the pre-1922 legislation was dealt with and the Statute Law (Restatement) Act was passed four years ago. The 2,600 Acts are to be dealt with — 2,300 will be amended while 300 will remain and be brought forward by means of the white list. That work will continue for some time. A number of phases have to be dealt with. Since the enactment of the Statute Law (Restatement) Act there have been four restatements in the areas of consumer law, defence, tourist traffic and succession.
On Deputy Joe Higgins's point about how the House is involved, all the legislation is brought before the House. I am keen that there should be more restatements, particularly for Acts that have a wide application and impact on citizens and businesses. In May I announced a two-month consultation process on the restatement programme. The results of that consultation will inform the Government in deciding which Acts will be restated as a priority. The Law Reform Commission will play a role in that it will undertake the restatement project.
The value of restatement is that as we get the legislation up to date, for example, in the case of Bills that are regularly enacted such as the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill, which are introduced every year, the restatement process will automatically update the Act without it having to go through the House each time so that practitioners, students of the law and people who follow this work will have an up-to-date version of the law. This is very important for those people. Under this process no amendments can be made to the law, it is simply restated. Only the House can amend laws. If a particular Bill has been amended half a dozen times, one will be able to access the current Bill without having to go back to all the individual Bills. That will be helpful and useful for people who use legislation regularly.
One is stuck with the same old legislation. The Taoiseach did not answer my question on the constitutional referendum mentioned by the Minister for Foreign Affairs?
Unless the Government makes a decision on that——
The time for questions has expired.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.