I want to raise on the Adjournment the requirement for laying the annual reports of the Law Reform Commission before both Houses under section 6 of the Law Reform Commission Act, 1975. To my knowledge, although the Law Reform Commission have been in operation since October, 1975, no such annual reports has been laid.
Section 6 of the Act provides as follows:
As soon as may be after the end of each year, the Commission shall make a report to the Attorney General of its activities during that year under Section 4 of this Act, of any preliminary working papers published by it during that year, of any examination during that year of the legal system of a country other than the State and of the activities during that year of any working party or advisory committee established by it. The Attorney General shall, as soon as may be, send a copy of the report to the Taoiseach, who shall submit it to the Government and copies of the report shall, as soon as may be, be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.
In my experience this is a particularly elaborate and detailed provision for the laying of annual reports before the two Houses, both as to its content and because of the fact that the Attorney General would forward it to the Taoiseach who would ensure that it was laid before both Houses. The elaborate procedure reflects the emphasis which was placed on this section when the Bill was debated in the Seanad on 10th April, 1975. In introducing the Bill the then Attorney General, Deputy Declan Costello, who was a Member of the other House, said at column 210 of the Official Report:
It will be observed that section 6 of the Bill will require the commission to furnish an annual report of its activities during the year. The report will also contain references to other matters referred to in the section. After submission to the Government, copies of the report will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This section, together with the preceding section which provides that a copy of the commission's approved programme is to be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, will facilitate discussion in the Oireachtas on law reform matters in general and the work of the commission in particular. I feel sure that Members of this House will welcome the opportunity which will thus be afforded to contribute to the ongoing work of the commission.
Subsequently, when section 6 was discussed on Committee Stage in this House I referred to the terms of the section and welcomed it. I was followed by Senator Alexis FitzGerald whose contribution at column 264 was as follows:
I would just like to say that it is because of the existence of this section and the preceding section that I welcomed this Bill as creating a structure which should ensure that we will get law reform and that it is meaningful. It is very important that the provisions of this section seem to me to go very far and they will have to give a full account of themselves.
Members of the Seanad had welcomed the fact that there would be an annual, detailed and meaningful report from the Law Reform Commission about their activities, about how they were performing in relation to their programme, about the working parties they might have established, about the extent at which they had examined the law in other countries. The Attorney General emphasised the importance of this and it was stressed by us on Committee Stage.
Regrettably, however, the clear legislative intent does not seem to have been carried out. The Bill was passed in April, 1975 and the commission were established and came into full working order in October, 1975, so that they have been more than two full years in working existence, but no annual report has been tabled. Consequently the Members of this House and the other House have not been able to fulfil that constructive role of examining the progress of the Law Reform Commission, of helping perhaps to reassess priorities and of contributing to the debate on law reform.
I would like to make it clear from the beginning that my primary purpose in raising this matter is not to be critical of the Law Reform Commission, but rather to be supportive of the purposes of the Law Reform Commission. I warmly welcomed the Bill to establish it. In my view the necessity to concentrate on law reform is a real priority and it is because of this basic belief I want to insist that the annual reports are laid and do stimulate the type of debate which was intended and promote a constructive appraisal of law reform. The extensive scope of the first programme of the Law Reform Commission, which was submitted to the Government in December 1976 and laid by the Taoiseach before both Houses on 4th January, 1977 as provided in section 5 (2) of the Act makes this all the more important.
This programme is very broad and ranges over extremely important areas of law. It is important that both Houses monitor the progress on it of the Law Reform Commission. For example, it would be very interesting to Members of both Houses to know at what stage the commission are in their work. They have only published one occasional paper so far—working paper No. 1 of 1977 on "The Law Relating to the Liability of Builders, Vendors and Lessors for the Quality and Fitness of Premises". That is an extremely important report which has very substantial implications. I would like to see the substance of that report debated in this House and, personally, I would like to see its recommendations implemented. Obviously I cannot go into detail on it now, on the Adjournment, but it is a very worthwhile report.
However, it is only one item in a very substantial programme of law reform. I would like to be able to ask to what extent the Law Reform Commission have contracted out work and research to other bodies as they are entitled to do under the terms of the Act. To what extent have they sought help from academics in the law schools or from other disciplines in the universities. To what extent have they made use of other research facilities in the country? It seems to me that if the Law Reform Commission were not to produce substantial reports in the areas included in this programme, there is a danger that no law reform will take place in these areas. In that way the existence of the Law Reform Commission could delay the possibility of reform because it would be an excuse not to make progress in reforming the particular areas.
I was very disappointed to find that the term of appointment of one of the five commissioners had expired on 20th October, 1977 and was not renewed.
