Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (2) (a), line 25, after "or days" to insert "which shall not be later than six months following its enactment".
I welcome the Minister, I am glad he was able to take time out of his busy schedule to attend. It is a pity some more of his colleagues did not turn out to look at this important Bill.
I tabled these amendments because of concern I have about the Bill in toto.There are inherent constitutional problems with it which have not been faced. To an extent, the debate today is somewhat unreal. Already the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989, has been challenged in the courts and this Family Law Bill is directly related to that Act. Also, an element of this Bill may have constitutional implications.
The Minister stated his intention on a number of occasions to proceed with putting in place the building blocks for a referendum on divorce. The construction of those building blocks has been bedevilled by a large amount of bad luck and bad planning.
I note that there is no specific mention in the Bill of when its provision would come into operation — there is a general reference at the outset — which is adding to the confusion. Other Bills have specific dates and deadlines which give a clear indication of a Minister's intention to put a Bill into operation. For example, there were great hopes for the Child Care Act, 1991. A great deal of play is made of publishing Bills and passing Acts but they do not actually have any real impact because their provisions are not brought into force. In the area of family law, it is a great worry if it is as open ended as what is proposed by the Minister. That is why I tabled the amendment to section 1.
I hope the Minister will accept the amendment. If he does it will confirm that he has some faith in this Bill. He must put some conviction behind his words and indicate that he will actually implement the Bill and accept my amendment which provides that the period "shall not be longer than six months following its enactment".
The second amendment is really a back up to ensure that we have some response from the Minister if he chooses not to give the clear cut commitment I am seeking in the first amendment. It would ensure that at least he will report back to each House of the Oireachtas and give a report detailing the progress made in implementing this Act. Unless we have a system of recall in place we may end up in a similar situation as in regard to the Planning Acts recently. In that instance a Minister was able to produce regulations and put them into force without any recourse to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
People find it disturbing that there is no democratic accountability. I am therefore proposing these amendments and I hope the Minister will accept them as a sign of his intent. We can then proceed on the understanding that he has some conviction about this Bill, whatever about the concerns and reservations the rest of us have about the major hurdles, difficulties and pitfalls in the Bill which I do not believe he has faced up to.
I support the main thrust of what Deputy McManus has said. There is much frustration about the area of family law and particularly about this Bill. We are dealing with the Committee Stage of this Bill while still labouring under a degree of uncertainty about the Judicial Separation and Family Law Reform Act, 1989. This leaves us all operating in a nebulous fashion. Obviously, I am not laying the fault for that at the Minister's door.
We are discussing a Bill which is largely dependent on the 1989 Act and there is an air of unreality about what we are doing. Many groups have said to me that whatever their fears are about this Bill, they are certainly anxious that the Act on which it is based will fall following the current challenge to it. On Second Stage the Minister said this is one of the biggest and most extensive family law measures to come before the House. He is probably right but it might be the biggest and most extensive family law measure to fall if the challenge before the High Court is successful. There is a great deal of concern about postponement of the divorce referendum, this Bill and the challenge to the 1989 Act.
I support Deputy McManus's amendments. It is very unsatisfactory that regulations can be enacted by a Minister without recourse to the Oireachtas. I do not know if the second amendment will cover that difficulty. The Minister for the Environment was specifically mentioned. On many occasions when legislation has been going through the House I have said to him that it would be good to have some system of checks and balances in the Oireachtas.
The second amendment goes a considerable way towards ensuring that we know exactly what is happening. We are faced with the prospect of enacting legislation while there is still a degree of uncertainty about the Act on which it is primarily based. For those reasons I am happy to support the amendments.
I support the amendments for the reasons stated by the proposer but I also have an additional reason. It appears that in some respects the "never never" system has been adopted as part of Government policy. Many things are being put on the long finger and this is particularly inexcusable with this important legislation and indeed the whole area of family law.
There is a suggestion in the community that the Government is lacking in purposefulness and intensity in its approach to family law. People have asked why I am paying so much attention to family law when change is not going to come about and the Government is intent on putting it off. A useful function would be served by the acceptance of this amendment if only because it would give the strongest possible indication that the Government is concerned and intent on bringing in this and other legislation in this field. I support it on that level.
There is also a suggestion that the Government is playing politics with family law. We are all politicians and we can all play politics but there are some issues on which we should resist that temptation. I turned on the news this morning and heard a discussion on "Morning Ireland" and I also saw a headline in one of the newspapers, The Irish Times, which read “New laws to aid domestic strife victims”. As the spokesperson for my party on this issue, I was not aware of this until I heard the discussion on “Morning Ireland”. I am told there was some discussion on television yesterday evening. I was attending an important lecture in Trinty College on the future of Europe and European integration. I have an amendment to this Bill relating to the extension of barring orders to cohabitees and, in specified circumstances, adult children. Those are two important matters and I question why this announcement should have been made yesterday when this amendment is before the committee today. That is what I mean about playing politics.
We complain that the public and the media are not paying as much attention to these committees as we and the Dáil believe they deserve. The best way to emphasise the importance of these committees and the good work done by them is for important announcements to be made at meetings of this committee and not in advance in a press release. I object very strongly to that. In the interest of the committee and the Dáil which created this committee, announcements of this nature should be made here. That is an additional reason for my support for these amendments.
I support it also on the basis that other Bills of less importance have been processed and passed. However, the follow up has been weak. The Abattoirs Act was introduced some years ago but it was four years before some of the regulations were implemented. While it is not the Minister's responsibility some county councils spent a considerable amount of money after the Bill was passed and nothing happened. The Children Act is probably in the same category.
The Bill deals with important matters. However, it will be very open ended if there is no commitment to bring it into force on a given date and it is strictly at the Minister's discretion. It perhaps questions the seriousness of the matter, which is most unfair. I am sure the Minister is genuine in his attempts to deal with this problem but he should have made a definite commitment in relation to bringing this into force.
We had a wide ranging debate earlier on an amendment relating to the commencement date of the Bill. As far as the constitutional issues raised are concerned, we have a written Consititution, promulgated in the 1930s. Under it, it is open to any person to mount a constitutional challenge in the courts but that is not a reason to abandon the progress of necessary legislation. This legislation stands on its merits and although it may have connections with the divorce issue in some respects, the Government is proceeding with it.
Some Deputies appeared to criticise the Government for not pressing ahead with its programme while others criticised it for pressing ahead, notwithstanding the fact that there is a challenge to the 1989 judicial separation Act. That challenge has been mounted and everybody knows of it. It will take its course and the courts will arrive at their decision, as is their role under the Constitution. I do not see the fact that the challenge has been mounted as a reason to put this important legislation on the backburner. The Government is determined to proceed with it. This committee was set up to consider Bills such as this and it should proceed with it.
The effect of amendment No. 1 would be to require that all the provisions of the Bill are fully operational not later than six months after its passing. The amendment, therefore, allows no flexibility where it might be necessary. For example, section 32 of the Bill, regarding notification of intention to marry, will require the training and recruitment of staff by the general register office, the introduction of new procedures in that office and the conduct of an information campaign designed to ensure appropriate public awareness in relation to the provisions in question.
I am also moving an amendment to section 32 to allow regulations to be made by the Minister for Health to give full effect to the provisions of the section. It is not possible to be specific on the length of time required to ensue that section 32 will work satisfactorily. Accordingly, I regret I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment as framed. However, I am prepared to consider the amendment further between now and Report Stage to see if a commencement provision on more positive lines than at present could be provided.
Amendment No. 2 appears to presuppose undue delay in bringing the provisions of the Bill into operation. It is my intention that the Bill, when enacted, is fully implemented as quickly as possible. In any event, there are already adequate procedures under the rules of the House for Deputies to raise matters in connection with the implementation of legislation. Accordingly, with regret, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.
I am most disappointed — but illuminated — by the Minister's response. The excuse that section 32 will require a massive training programme is a little threadbare. With all due respect to the Minister, it does not wash that a massive training programme is required, which will take more than a very short period to educate people as to the provisions of that section. I do not take it too seriously.
I am glad that the Minister is willing to look again at some type of deadline. It is a vague commitment but at least it is better than nothing. It is an indication in itself of a nervousness about this Bill. It is exactly the message being transmitted to people at present. There is no conviction about this Bill and the Minister, by kicking for touch, is simply reinforcing the anxiety and fears about it.
My second amendment, which I thought would have been easier to accept, is not presupposing undue delays. It is to ensure accountability. It is a positive amendment, relating to accountability and transparency and recall of the Houses of the Oireachtas, all the things to which the Government says it is committed. However, every time a member of the Opposition puts it to a Government Minister to act accordingly if that is what is meant, there is an obstacle and it cannot be done. It would be a simple matter to come back and report if there are matters still outstanding. It is regrettable that the Minister will not accept it. However, I will pursue amendment No. 1, because the Minister indicated he will consider it on Report Stage.
The Minister said there are ways and means open to Deputies to have the checks and balances required by amendment No. 2. The onus should be on the Minister to drive this type of legislation, which, ostensibly, is what he set out to do. To some extent, it would alleviate genuine fears if the Minister took this amendment on board. It is not too much to ask and it would be welcomed, perhaps it could be extended to other areas of legislation. A report on the progress of bringing an Act into effect would alleviate fears about the implementation of legislation and would signify serious intent on the Minister's part. It is one thing to say that one is concerned and want to implement legislation. However, we must realise and be honest about the fact that there is a credibility gap at present. The Minister needs to bridge that gap and this amendment would be a helpful device in that regard.
If I did not want to implement this legislation, I would not bring it forward. I am not bringing it forward for some casual, oratorical exercise to take up the time of the Dáil and Seanad. I am using valuable Government time and a large amount of resources so that it will be implemented. That is the object of the exercise, which is not academic.
If there is nervousness about this Bill, it is on the part of others. It is not on my part or on the part of the Government. The Government does not take fright because a person has mounted a challenge to the 1989 Act in the courts, as they ar perfectly entitled to do. The Government will await the outcome of that challenge with interest but it has no nervousness about this Bill. It has invested resources in preparing it. The Bill has passed Second Stage in Dáil Éireann and has been brought forward for passage by this committee. No service is done by casting that type of question mark or doubt about a measure before the Houses of the Oireachtas that is in order.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 1 agreed to.