It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 2, 3 — the restoration motion, followed by all remaining Stages of the Bill — and 12 (resumed). Private Members' Business, item No. 22, will be taken between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m.
Order of Business.
Has the Minister for Justice seen the report of a case in this morning's newspapers of the horrific so-called manslaughter and sexual assault of an elderly woman, and is he satisfied that it is in keeping with his duty to protect the public that the person convicted is free on bail for a year on condition that he has treatment for alcoholism?
It does not arise on the Order of Business.
You have indicated that it is in order to raise matters on which the Government had indicated they will be preparing legislation. The matter of bail has been raised in the House and I am asking the Minister if he believes the public are being protected properly by allowing out on bail a person who has murdered somebody after grevious sexual assault on the ground that he was unfit because he had taken drink.
It may be raised only in regard to matters on which legislation has been promised.
We have been told that action will be taken by the Government on the matter of bail. This man has been given bail because, apparently, he was drunk when he murdered this woman. I am asking if the Minister for Justice is satisfied that such a decision fulfils his duty to protect the public.
The Deputy can ask that question when amending legislation has been introduced in the House.
Is the Minister then satisfied that that decision is in keeping with his duty to protect the public?
You can ask him if the legislation will be forthcoming and, if so, when.
I am asking the Minister is legislation forthcoming on the matter of manslaughter accompanied by sexual assault and if a person is convicted of manslaughter while drunk is it proper that person should be out on bail?
You can only ask about the legislation.
Has the Minister any intention of examining the situation with a view to introducing legislation to prevent such an extraordinary decision being made?
We have had no notice of this matter from the Deputy. Perhaps the Deputy would give us an opportunity to let her know the position during the course of the day or perhaps tomorrow.
I would point out that the Minister has just said that he has intentions of introducing the legislation.
The Deputy asked me if I had any intention of considering the matter.
We had better have some order on this.
(Interruptions.)
There is a different attitude today than there was last week.
I said you can ask questions on forthcoming or promised legislation, but that is all.
Will there be legislation in regard to ground rents, bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court?
That does not arise because such legislation does not arise.
(Interruptions.)
I am calling on Deputy FitzGerald.
I am asking the Taoiseach whether or not legislation will be introduced, bearing in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in the Gilsenan case which found portion of the Ground Rents Act, 1978, to be unconstitutional?
The Deputy is not allowed ask that question.
I suggest that if the Deputy puts down a question we will be happy to give him an answer.
In reply to the Taoiseach——
Deputy FitzGerald to ask a question.
If Deputy FitzGerald's is a different point, it would be as well to complete this.
(Interruptions.)
The Chair previously ruled that, when I gave way to a colleague in accordance with normal parliamentary courtesy, I thereby ruled myself out from asking a question.
The Chair calls on Members to ask questions.
As a result, one is forced into a position of silencing a colleague because of the ruling. I would ask the Chair to reconsider that ruling.
Would you ask your question now?
I have two questions. Will the Chair reconsider the ruling under which, if I give way to a Deputy, I am subsequently ruled out from asking a question? If I submit to the Chair 23 instances between July and December last, when matters were raised by the then Opposition in this House which related to matters not on the Order Paper and the Chair allowed discussion and in some cases insisted that there should be discussion even though challenged, will the Chair, in the light of that evidence, reconsider the ruling that he made here last week?
I will examine the matter fully.
On the Order of Business, in relation to item No. 1, which is a Bill by Deputy Spring to amend the Courts Act, 1981, in respect of the area of family law, is the Taoiseach aware that on 12 May this 1981 Act will come into force and is going to cause total chaos in matrimonial litigation in our courts? Have the Government any intention of giving Government time to a Bill to amend the Courts Act, 1981, or does the Minister for Justice intend to introduce any legislation to deal with this problem before chaos ensues in the courts?
There is a Bill on the Order Paper, but that Bill has not been moved.
Arising out of the Taoiseach's reply would he be prepared, as this matter is urgent and will arise on 12 May, to give Government time to consider it?
The appropriate procedure is for the Deputy to move the Bill and then we will see what happens.
On a point of order, the Minister for Justice indicated that he would consider the matter of the assault and manslaughter raised by Deputy Hussey. I am not clear as to when and in what form the House will get the results of the deliberations.
That matter is dealt with.
The Minister is not here at the moment.
Will we be informed individually or collectively, or will we be informed at all?
The Taoiseach said he would look into the question and it was not clear in what way he would communicate the results of his deliberations. That is the question put to him and it is a fair question.
At the risk of being disorderly, I have had no notice of this question but I promised Deputy Hussey that I would look into it and communicate with her either today or on the Order of Business tomorrow morning.