Vol. 824 No. 1
66. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the discussions he has held with the Northern Executive in relation to the cessation of prosecutions of pre-1998 crimes related to the Troubles; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52678/13]
I have tabled this question in light of the comments by the Northern Ireland Attorney General, Mr. John Larkin, concerning a proposal to have a cessation of prosecutions for all pre-1998 crimes. The matter is relevant, given the recent publication of the Smithwick report.
In that context, I welcome last week's apology by the Minister for Justice and Equality on behalf of the State. It was timely for the families concerned and for their communities.
I thank the Deputy for his remarks. The Deputy himself dealt with the matter in a responsible and correct way, following on from the Smithwick report.
I assumed the Deputy was alluding in his question to the comments made recently by the Northern Ireland Attorney General, Mr. John Larkin, QC, in which he spoke about drawing a line, set at the time of the Good Friday agreement in April 1998, with respect to conflict-related prosecutions, inquests and other inquiries. I have had no such discussions with the Minister of Justice, David Ford, MLA, who is my counterpart in the Northern Ireland Executive. I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment on Mr. Larkin’s proposal which was made in the context of ongoing considerations on how to address issues of the past. The Deputy will be aware that Dr. Richard Haass has been asked to consider these issues with the Panel of Parties and to make proposals to the Northern Ireland Executive later this month. The opportunity offered by the Haass process should be grasped by everyone involved. The Government is fully committed to supporting that process in any way it can and to finding a way forward on all the issues within the remit of the Panel of Parties talks.
In seeking to address the legacy of conflict and the many violent incidents related to the Troubles, the victims and survivors must be paramount in our considerations. We must be conscious primarily of taking into account and addressing their needs. The Good Friday Agreement explicitly refers to the need to acknowledge and to take actions to address the individual suffering of the victims of conflict violence and their families. This is a necessary and important element of reconciliation. All efforts to address the legacy of the conflict should be motivated above all by a commitment to making progress towards reconciliation and a cohesive society.
For the sake of completeness, there is another good reason I have not discussed the issue with my Northern Ireland counterpart, namely, as Minister for Justice and Equality I have no function in taking decisions on criminal prosecutions. In accordance with the provisions of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1974, the Director of Public Prosecutions in this jurisdiction is charged with the prosecution of criminal offences and she is fully independent in carrying out this function. A similar arrangement applies in Northern Ireland in respect of this separation of powers.
There is no doubt there was a great deal of energy surrounding the statement by the Northern Ireland Attorney General, Mr. John Larkin, QC, possibly, because it suited the political agenda of some people. More important, it greatly concerned the vast majority of people. Mr. Larkin proposed a general amnesty of pre-1998 crimes. Fianna Fáil has made it clear it would not support any form of general amnesty as proposed by Mr. Larkin. The Good Friday Agreement provided for the release of people who were involved in or committed crimes. To take this a step further and provide a general amnesty would not serve the victims or their families in an appropriate manner.
The notion of a truth commission has been floated in some quarters. We need to be honest about this. We do not need a truth commission for people to effectively tell the truth. We are all aware of the fall-out from the Smithwick report last week in terms engaging in the truth. Some people say there was engagement by the IRA with the Smithwick tribunal. However, that engagement was limited and not fulsome.
The Minister has stated that he has no plans to meet the Minister for Justice, David Ford, MLA, and that he has no role in regard to prosecutions, which we know and understand. However, perhaps he would clarify if he proposes to meet with Mr. Ford to discuss the matter. The Minister might also clarify if what was proposed by Mr. Larkin, which proposal I presume the Government is nailing on the head, would require legislation in this jurisdiction? Will he also confirm that the recommendations contained in the Smithwick report in terms of compellability in respect of future inquiries will straddle the two jurisdictions?
The Deputy has raised a series of issues of importance. I will do my best to respond to as many of them as I can. First, the Minister for Justice, David Ford, MLA, and I are in regular contact. My most recent meeting with him was in Brussels on Thursday of last week.
We also met briefly on Friday. On Thursday we had some substantive discussions of a preliminary nature arising out of the Smithwick tribunal report and the recommendations relating to it. We have both requested our officials to do some work with regard to those recommendations. From memory, I believe I am right in saying that we are scheduled to meet on 17 December together with the Garda Commissioner and the Chief Constable. At that point we will continue our further discussions on the implementation of recommendations in the Smithwick report. Some aspects of the recommendations are happening in practice but we will discuss those issues at the meeting.
As I said to the Deputy in respect of the other issues, I do not want to get in the way of the Haass process. It is an important process. It is important the parties in Northern Ireland participate in the process. We will look constructively at what comes out of that process with a view to seeing what steps we might take.
I reiterate something I said earlier. We must be conscious of the victims of the conflict in Northern Ireland in decisions we make and the impact of any decisions on them. I share the view of Deputy Collins about the need for us to know the truth in respect of some aspects and matters. Perhaps I will come back to that.
I wish to push the Minister on the notion floated by Mr. John Larkin of a general amnesty. Will the Minister state emphatically that he is ruling it out? It is our view that it is not a runner and that it would require legislation in this jurisdiction.
An important issue is arriving at fair justice for the victims and their families. As I stated in my introduction, people have benefited under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement for crimes they committed. To take it further and confer a free pass by way of a general amnesty is not a runner. Will the Minister give the House some clarity on that?
The Deputy is asking me again what he previously asked me, and I am going to repeat what I previously said, that is, I do not believe it would be helpful for me to comment on Mr. Larkin's proposals which were made in the context of ongoing consideration on how to address the past. Dr. Richard Haass has been asked to do that.
Everyone across the floor of the House may have views in respect of certain aspects of these matters. There is a time when it is appropriate to express views and there is a time when one might be better keeping one's views to oneself. However, it is important the engagement takes place.
In the context of dealing with the past, it is important not only that people tell the truth about the past but that they engage with that truth with a degree of insight, sensitivity and understanding of the impact of past conduct on individuals. It is unfortunate that some Members, in response to the Smithwick report, took it on themselves to blame the two former senior officers in the RUC for their own death. They failed to acknowledge that those directly responsible for the murders or assassinations - because assassinations is what they were - were the individuals holding the guns who fired the shots. I repeat in the House what I said outside the House, that is, I believe the comments made by Deputy Adams and, surprisingly and unfortunately, repeated by Deputy Mac Lochlainn were little short of nauseating.
67. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality to outline his plans to implement the recommendations from the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality regarding changes to prostitution laws. [52790/13]
In 1981, ten men died on hunger strike in order that they could not be labelled as criminals. Bobby Sands was elected as an MP. Kieran Doherty was elected as a Member to this House. We did not let Maggie Thatcher criminalise them and we are not going to let Fianna Fáil criminalise them today. I wanted to state that on the record in case they think any differently.
The Minister has the report on the changes to the prostitution laws. I am keen to hear his views on it and whether he will consider implementing the recommendations of the report.
It is unfortunate that the Deputy continues to defend murder and assassinations. If we want to deal with the truth of what happened in the North, we should confront the reality of conduct in which people were engaged.
The Minister has no interest in the truth.
However, the Deputy appears to have greater insight into the area of prostitution than the conflict that took place on this island for 30 years.
In respect of the Deputy's question on this area, no policy decisions have been taken in this matter as yet. The Deputy will be aware the joint committee published its report on hearings and submissions on the review of prostitution legislation on 27 June last. I have requested the views of the Attorney General and the Minister for Health on the report. I have also corresponded with the committee since it published its report to seek clarification and elaboration of some of its recommendations. The Chairman's reply of 6 November provided very detailed and helpful responses and this has also been referred to the Attorney General and the Minister for Health for examination. Policy decisions by the Government must await their examination of the legal and health implications of the committee's recommendations and each must have the opportunity to prepare considered views and advices.
As the Minister is aware, a huge amount of work went into this report. There were approximately 800 submissions as a range of people appeared before the joint committee. It is an all-party report and the Minister will agree that, at present, those who avail of the services of prostitutes throughout Ireland walk away scot free, while the unfortunate people - very often foreign nationals - who are vulnerable, find themselves paraded in local newspapers and radio stations and with their lives reported on. A decision must be made to pass responsibility onto the users, rather than those who, in the vast majority albeit not all cases, are vulnerable, are being used by others and whose dignity is taken away by the process. I ask the Minister to do something courageous and to do what is right with regard to this all-party series of recommendations based on a great amount of work and deliberations. As the recommendations are crystal clear, I again ask the Minister whether he can implement them.
Obviously, the Deputy has greater insight into this area than that with which Members were dealing earlier.
God almighty.
I have treated the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality with great seriousness. As the Deputy is aware, the Department held its own detailed one-day seminar on this particular issue some considerable time ago now. Some issues arise from the report, including issues relevant to the Department of Health, based on the approach taken to this issue by the World Health Organization. Consequently, it is important to receive the observations of the Department of Health on the report. I greatly appreciate the detailed response I received from the joint committee to the series of queries I raised and it should form part of the public record of the engagement on this issue that both the queries I raised and the Department's responses be published. I have written to the Chairman of the joint committee in proposing this and hopefully that will occur. There are also issues for the Attorney General's office to deal with. There is one particular issue, which is whether any constitutional difficulties could arise. It may be the case that they do not, but advice is needed as to whether constitutional issues could arise with regard to implementing aspects of the recommendations received.
Go raibh maith agat.
I hope to receive observations from the Department of Health, as well as legal clarification from the Attorney General's office, early in the new year after which my Department will be in a position to bring matters for final consideration.
Obviously I am aware of the Minister's concerns or the clarifications he sought from the joint committee to which he now has the responses. I believe these responses deal adequately with the concerns he has raised and there comes a point in time at which one must make the decision. In the North of Ireland at present, a Bill sponsored by Maurice Morrow will be moving through the Assembly and going through the different Stages. I believe the outcome will be the introduction of the Swedish model with which the Minister is very familiar. I will ask the Minister a direct question. Does he believe those who avail of the services of people who in the vast majority of cases are vulnerable, are foreign nationals and are used, should be asked to take the penalty, rather than those who find themselves in that situation?
I have dealt with the Deputy's questions. Robust legislation is in place that addresses organised prostitution and human trafficking for sexual exploitation, including the prostitution and trafficking of children. It is sometimes forgotten that such legislation is in place. I need to get the responses we have sought from the Department of Health and Children and from the Attorney General before we can adequately advance this matter. We will then need to make decisions based on the detailed report received, the diversity of views expressed, the recommendations of the committee and the legal advices obtained from the Office of the Attorney General. I hope we will be in a position to do all this next year, having engaged in a very careful deliberative process and having regard to the whole variety of issues. I cannot simply deal with this issue from a justice perspective as there are very serious and important health issues, some of which have been dealt with in great detail outside the State but which were not dealt with in detail by the committee. The committee was asked a question about certain health issues but it did not deal in the detail with which the matter is being considered elsewhere. I must be very careful that from the point of view of public policy we consider this issue comprehensively. I note with interest that the French Parliament has recently taken steps to implement in France the legislation applicable in Sweden. This issue is getting wider discussion across Europe and we will be engaged constructively in this discussion in 2014.
68. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Justice and Equality if he will reconsider the refusal of his predecessors to order a wider investigation under section 106 of An Garda Síochána Act into the general practices, policies and procedures of An Garda Síochána in relation to Corrib Gas, in view of the recent serious allegations regarding the delivery of alcohol to gardaí; if he has concerns regarding the long history and high incidence of complaints to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission in this area; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52900/13]
In 2008 the Morris tribunal completed its work cataloguing corruption, systemic failures in senior Garda management and working practices and the failure of accountability systems. The Garda Síochána Act 2005 was presented as the answer to many of these problems but instead the force has been over-centralised and politicised since then. The Morris tribunal did not just identify malpractice and corruption on the part of individuals but also stressed that the problems were institutional. Will the Minister consider being proactive and order a Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission investigation under section 106?
I am looking forward to the day when Deputy Wallace tells the House what work of the Garda Síochána he supports. It would be an interesting revelation.
Will I tell him now?
Silence, please.
Significant protest activity over a number of years has occurred in the north Mayo area connected with the development of a very important natural resource. This has necessitated the temporary redeployment of large numbers of gardaí, including specially trained personnel, from throughout the western region into the Belmullet district. It is deeply regrettable that so much Garda resources have had to be tied up at the north Mayo site. However, this is absolutely necessary in view of the actions of some of the protestors, many of whom, as I have said previously in respect of the matter, are not from the area and who have engaged in acts of public disorder as well as damage to property. Such action cannot be tolerated and the Garda presence is there to prevent it. In that regard, from 2011 to 2013, 38 defendants were brought before the courts for public order offences, criminal damage and assault on gardaí.
The Garda Síochána has in the past been wrongly accused of facilitating the interests of a multinational company over the interests and safety concerns of local residents. In response to these allegations it has been consistently stated by the Garda Commissioner that the aim of the policing measures currently in place is to prevent public order offences and to ensure that people can go about their lawful business. I support this policy. An Garda Síochána is duty-bound to uphold the rule of law without fear or favour and that is what local Garda management will continue to do in what is a difficult and confrontational setting which is not of the Garda Síochána's making.
I wish to inform the Deputy that the total cost of policing this issue has now reached in excess of €16 million. This does not include the significant cost of the basic salaries of the members who have performed duties at the Corrib gas project, as these arise in the normal course of their duty. This expenditure comes at a time of economic difficulty for the State and when such resources could be put to far better use elsewhere.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
With regard to the specific allegations concerning the supply of alcohol, I am informed by the Garda authorities that on 19 September the allegations were referred by An Garda Síochána to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission under section 85(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The Deputy will be aware that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is an independent statutory body. In these circumstances it is currently a matter for the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to carry out its investigation and to arrive at a conclusion. The House will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment further on that matter.
On the issue of a request to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission under section 106 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, while the Garda role in the Corrib dispute has given rise to a number of complaints being made to the GSOC, it should be borne in mind that the majority of these were either found to be inadmissible or did not disclose wrongdoing on the part of the members of the force against whom complaints were made. Those complaints found to have disclosed breaches of discipline relate to matters which would not come within the remit of an examination under section 106 of the 2005 Act, that is, the practices, policies or procedures of An Garda Síochána. In the current circumstances, I do not believe an examination under section 106 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 is warranted.
I do not suppose the Minister's sums include the cost of the alcohol supplied.
There has been a high incidence of complaints in this area. A total of 111 complaints were made in 2007 to 2008 but no charges have been brought.
It is clear there is a systemic problem in terms of Garda policy and procedure. The section 98 investigation will not address that but a section 106 investigation would, and I am disappointed the Minister would not consider introducing it. We can also see this defensive approach of the gardaí, the blue wall of silence and the Garda entrenched in automatic opposition to any kind of transparency in the refusal of the Minister's friend, the Commissioner, to provide files in the Ian Bailey civil case against the State for wrongful arrest, and also in the Commissioner's direction to the Data Protection Commissioner to seize the files in the possession of the Committee of Public Accounts relating to the cancellation of fixed charge notices. However, it is within the remit of the Minister to check that tendency and to hold the Garda to account. Sadly, his track record to date has been weak and bordering on cowardly. Ordering a section 106 investigation into issues surrounding the Corrib gas project would go some way to redressing that imbalance.
The Deputy still has not told us if he can identify a single action of benefit that An Garda Síochána do in the public interest.
Regarding the specific allegations concerning the supply of alcohol, I am informed by the Garda authorities that on 19 September the allegations were referred by An Garda Síochána to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC, under section 85(1) of the Garda Síochána Act 2005. The Deputy will be aware that the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission is an independent statutory body and in these circumstances it is a matter for the ombudsman commission to carry out its investigation and arrive at a conclusion. The House will appreciate that I am not in a position, therefore, to comment further on that matter.
On the issue of a request to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission under section 106 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, while the Garda role in the Corrib dispute has given rise to a number of complaints being made to GSOC, it should be borne in mind that the majority of these were either found to be inadmissible or not to disclose wrongdoing on the part of the members of the force complained about. Those complaints found to have disclosed breaches of discipline relate to matters which would not come within the remit of an examination under section 106 of the 2005 Act, that is, on the practices, policies and procedures of An Garda Síochána. In the current circumstances I do not believe an examination under section 106 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 is warranted.
In response to the Deputy I want to be clear that I expect members of An Garda Síochána to behave appropriately and to do their duty without fear or favour. Where there are issues that need to be dealt with, they will be addressed, but, unlike the Deputy, I do not labour under the illusion that the gardaí as a group do no public good, that the gardaí as a group should be under continuous attack in this House and that no recognition of any description should ever be given to them for the substantially important work they do in combating subversion on this island, dealing with criminal gangs, reducing the level of crime, providing protection for communities, giving advice with regard to crime prevention and engaging in crime investigation.
I believe the majority of gardaí do a very good job but, sadly, a section 98 investigation will scapegoat a couple of individuals whereas a section 106 investigation will tackle the underlying problems. A section 98 investigation will more than likely blame individual gardaí for decisions made by a higher authority. First, does the Minister honestly believe it is satisfactory that GSOC's hands are tied unless the Minister consents to an investigation under section 106, a deficit that was criticised by the United Nations Special Rapporteur, Margaret Sekaggya, in her report in March last year. That is yet another example of the lack of independence of GSOC and the weakness in the current legislative structure of Garda oversight and monitoring. Second, can the Minister confirm he will implement legislative changes as recommended by the UN Special Rapporteur, Margaret Sekaggya, to amend section 106 of the Act?
Does the Minister not believe that gardaí will also get due process and fair procedures in the section 106 investigation and that under a section 106 investigation individual gardaí would not run the risk of being scapegoated for only implementing a policy decided at a much senior level? It is not the rank and file gardaí who are causing the problems; it is the people giving the orders.
The role of the gardaí with regard to Corrib is to preserve law and order. The role of the gardaí is to facilitate a lawful engagement in the development of that resource and its utilisation.
The role of the protestors is to disrupt and sabotage and the gardaí have a very specific role.
I disagree completely.
Some of the protestors who visit are tourist protestors. They turn up in the summer when the weather is good and then they disappear again. I regard it as a scandal that €16 million of taxpayers' money has been utilised to maintain law and order so that people can engage in lawful business engagement in that location. It is a waste of public money and Garda resources.
Does Deputy Wallace think it is appropriate that, to maintain law and order, it has been necessary to spend €16 million in the context of providing security in that area-----
I do not think the State should have spent €16 million defending Shell.
-----in respect of individuals who seek to prevent bringing in an important natural resource to the detriment of the economy of this country and of that region and who are intent on trying to sabotage jobs that are available to people in the local community?
We were there a few weeks ago and met a lot of decent people.
69. Deputy Niall Collins asked the Minister for Justice and Equality the steps he has taken to address existing misleading property trusts that promise to help indebted home owners avoid repossession; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52679/13]
This matter was aired recently in the Topical Issue debate and it was dealt with by the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. Some additional information came out that up to 500 applications had been made to the Property Registration Authority. It was also indicated that the Minister intended to have a discussion with the Garda Commissioner on this matter. Given the nature and scale of the fraud and deception which has been perpetrated in a very public fashion, I raise this again as a matter of public interest.
As Deputy Collins is aware, this matter was the subject of a Topical Issue debate on 27 November 2013 which was dealt with by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, in my absence. I should explain first that to address the problem of over-indebtedness, the Government has brought forward significant modernisation of the law, primarily through the enactment of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 and reform of the Bankruptcy Act 1988. The Personal Insolvency Act established three new debt resolution mechanisms, of which the House is aware, namely, the debt relief notice, the debt settlement arrangement and the personal insolvency arrangement.
On the matter of property trusts, I can confirm that trust law allows for the legal title of land to be held by trustees not for their own benefit but rather for the benefit of the beneficiaries of the trust. The trust mechanism may be used in family situations where, for example, the intended beneficiary is a minor or is otherwise incapable of managing the property. Trusts are also commonly created in the context of wills where the testator may leave property to his or her spouse for life and afterwards to his or her children. The creation of trusts for charitable purposes is also common.
I am aware of only one property trust of the type referred to by the Deputy in his question. This trust has been the subject of significant media attention in recent times. Obviously, I would advise distressed debtors to examine the range of debt relief solutions available through the Insolvency Service of Ireland and to engage with their creditors in resolving their personal situations rather than pursuing unrealistic solutions being proposed by other groups or individuals.
The Property Registration Authority is the State authority which manages and controls the Land Registry and the Registry of Deeds. I am advised by the authority that in recent months more than 500 applications were received in the Land Registry office for registration of notices of certificate of acknowledgement of the living man's claim of right. These appear to be applications to record on a State register the acknowledgement of the living man. The freeman on the land is one of a number of groups, originating in Canada and the US which advance the notion that the legal person and living person are two distinct entities, a particularly interesting concept. The living person is, in that belief system, not bound by law or court rulings unless and until the living person or freeman contracts to accept such law. I am advised that obtaining entry on a State register of the recognition of the living man or freeman on the land is often a first tactical step within these groups.
These applications were all rejected by the Property Registration Authority. I warn the public to be aware of spurious legal constructs which are presented to them by individuals who have an agenda but who do not have the legal expertise to know what they are talking about or the legal qualifications. People should be very aware of not getting caught up in such circumstances.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In so far as the Registry of Deeds is concerned, the documents that were presented for registration were not deeds within the meaning of section 32(1) of the Registration of Deeds and Title Act 2006. Therefore, no registration could be made in the office. In so far as the Land Registry is concerned, the registers, which are maintained in that office, must consist of information required to be recorded under the Registration of Deeds and Title Acts 1964 to 2006 and be authorised by the Land Registration Rules 2012. The applications received in these particular cases did not constitute applications for an authorised entry on the folios of the register and were not in a form prescribed by the Land Registration Rules 2012. I am advised by the Property Registration Authority that no applications appear to have been received from any other trust of this nature and staff continue to monitor the situation.
I am not sure whether the Minister is aware that a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Sean Ryan, has described the activities of Charles Allen at Lota More, County Cork, as "unsatisfactory and unsavoury". Mr. Justice Ryan further commented that trust documents could be a front for illegal activity. Has the Minister discussed this situation with the Garda Commissioner, as indicated by the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch? Can he comment on the fact that firearms have been found in some of the properties under the control of this trust? I think that discovery underscores and emphasises the concerns raised by Mr. Justice Ryan. Who is responsible for policing and enforcing section 43 of the Consumer Protection Act 2007, which prohibits the use of misleading, false or deceptive information to attract new customers?
I am sure the Deputy will understand and appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to go into the detail of any investigation the Garda Síochána might be conducting. I can tell him the Garda Commissioner is aware of this matter. I hope the Deputy will understand if I do not take it any further. I agree entirely with what Mr. Justice Ryan had to say in court about this particular issue. Unfortunately, vulnerable people who are overwhelmed with debt can be led into believing that someone has invented a new solution to their problems and, in desperation, following a roadmap created by an individual without understanding where that road will lead. As Mr. Justice Ryan has pointed out, there is no legal validity to the presentation being made in this area. I have genuine concerns that this presentation was initially given some credibility. At an early stage, media reports on this matter, without any accompanying warnings, suggested that this was a route people might travel. Those who wrote about these issues did not investigate the matter further. People should be cautious if they are told their difficulties might have a legal solution of which they were previously unaware. Frankly, they should not rely on individuals without qualifications or on what they read in the media. They should take the time to get some advice and assistance. People can readily access a great deal of important information and assistance on the website of the Insolvency Service of Ireland, in particular.
As a said during a previous discussion on this matter, Mr. Allen even paid a visit to this House as part of his search for credibility. He spoke to my colleague, Senator Thomas Byrne, who reported the matter to the Garda and outlined his concerns after questioning Mr. Allen quite thoroughly. Senator Byrne said a mass deception was going ahead. Can the Minister confirm whether a formal Garda investigation into these activities of misrepresentation and deception is taking place? We do not know whether there is. The Minister has said he cannot comment on what the Garda is doing, but surely he can tell us whether a formal investigation is under way. The usual practice with this type of scheme, and with pyramid schemes in general, is that everybody stands back and lets it roll away until it collapses. All the fall-out from that must be dealt with then. It is a matter of trying to catch this as a work in progress, rather than catching it when all of the ill-gotten gains have been bagged and those involved have ridden off into the sunset. Many of the victims of this scam want to remain below the radar and are not prepared to make a formal report. Is a formal Garda investigation into this activity under way?
I hope the Deputy will be satisfied if I say two things. First, I hope this activity is no longer a work in progress. I hope its progress has been halted. Second, I encourage and ask the media outlets that gave such prominence to this activity at an early stage to give much more prominence to the court decision. I am surprised the decision was not given greater prominence because it is a thing of importance. I hope the Deputy will understand that I do not want to say anything that could prejudice the outcome of any Garda engagement in any way.
70. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn asked the Minister for Justice and Equality when he plans to bring the mediation Bill before Dáil Éireann and if his attention has been drawn to the urgency of this Bill for many families across the State. [52792/13]
In terms of reducing costs, this Bill is even more important than the Legal Services Regulation Bill, because it should encourage those in conflict over issues of family law or civil law to engage in mediation at an early stage rather than incurring the excessive costs of going through the courts. What are the Minister's plans and how can we move this on?
I intend to publish the Bill early next year. The Bill, which is currently at an advanced stage of drafting, will promote mediation as a viable, effective and efficient alternative to court proceedings, thereby reducing legal costs and speeding up the resolution of disputes. It will introduce an obligation on solicitors and barristers to advise any person wishing to commence court proceedings to consider mediation as a means of resolving the matter before embarking on such proceedings. It will also provide that a court may, following the commencement of any such proceedings, on its own initiative invite parties to consider the mediation option and suspend the proceedings to facilitate such a process.
I am at present giving consideration to the possible inclusion in the legislation of an overarching governance structure for the mediation sector. The Deputy may recall that this matter was raised by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Defence in its constructive report on the general scheme of the Bill. Such a representative structure could, for example, play an important role in the promotion of mediation as an alternative to court proceedings and in the development of codes of practice for the sector. A number of mediation bodies have made submissions on mediation regulation and standards in the context of the future legislation and I shall have regard to the various views expressed when finalising the Bill for publication.
The Minister will agree that the sooner this is under way the better. Right now the courts system is clogged up, which increases the sense of dispute and grievance between the various parties. In family law cases children can be caught into it, as the anger, resentment and hurt continues for people beyond the point that it should or is necessary. The legal fraternity has, unfortunately, benefited because the longer these cases drag on awaiting court hearing dates, the greater the level of dispute and the more those lawyers get paid. In some cases they get rewarded for not resolving the matters, which is what they should do. I am referring to some solicitors, but not all. We need to clear that out and give people a better avenue for resolving their differences.
On this issue the Deputy is preaching to the converted. I should make a declaration of interest, in that I am a qualified mediator. My view of the world is that far too many disputes end up in court hearings or are resolved outside the doors of the courts, after people have incurred very substantial expense, that could be dealt with at an earlier stage through the assistance of mediation. When enacted, the legislation is designed to ensure that mediation has a higher profile, that lawyers encourage people at an early stage to go to mediation rather than go to court and that we have a structure that is applicable to the varied types of dispute that substantially end up being dealt with in our court system. As the Deputy knows, the advantage with mediation is that it is a great deal less expensive than litigation.
I look forward to the enactment of the Bill in 2014. I do not want to give an exact date for its publication because, as is always the case, I am dependent on the technical drafting being completed in the Office of the Attorney General. However, I am optimistic that we will have the Bill in the first half of next year and enacted during next year. It will be a significant step in the right direction in trying to encourage people to litigate considerably less and to engage and negotiate more when disputes and difficulties arise.
We are on the same page on this. There have been problems in clearing Bills through the Office of the Attorney General. While I accept the Legal Services Regulation Bill is very large, it has run on and on. I am absolutely certain the Minister will have full support across the House. I ask the Minister to exercise whatever influence he has in government in prioritising Bills to ensure the Bill is passed in 2014.
That would be an even greater service to people in conflict in court than the Legal Services Regulation Bill.
Both Bills will be passed in 2014 and the Legal Services Regulation Bill should be enacted during the first half of 2014. We will publish the amendments to that Bill very soon. As Deputy Niall Collins knows, we originally hoped to continue Committee Stage in December. The good news is that this is now scheduled for 15 and 16 January 2014, immediately following our return from the Christmas vacation. The Deputies will shortly have sight of the amendments and the related back-up documentation requested in respect of the Bill. I expect that in 2014 both Bills will be enacted.
