Vol. 474 No. 1
2 Mr. O'Dea asked the Taoiseach the number of reports published by the Law Reform Commission in the past 12 months; the legislative action, if any, taken as a result of those reports; if he has satisfied himself with the current output of the Law Reform Commission; and his views on the establishment of a separate Criminal Law Reform Commission. [2313/97]
In 1996 the Law Reform Commission published two reports and two consultation papers, as well as its annual report for 1995. Copies of the reports were placed in the Oireachtas Library at the time of publication. These publications included a report on family courts, published in March 1996 and a consultation paper on the Unidroit Convention on the International Return of Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, published in November 1996. These documents arose from topics in the commission's first programme for law reform. On topics referred to it by the Attorney General, the commission published a report on sentencing in August, 1996, and a consultation paper on privacy —"Surveillance and the Interception of Communications"— in September, 1996. The commission's "Report on Personal Injuries — Periodic Payments and Structured Settlements" is due to be published tomorrow.
It was published today.
This reply was prepared for delivery yesterday but I was delayed by the Deputy. However, I apologise that it was not corrected.
Responsibility for implementation of the commission's recommendations is a matter for relevant Departments. I can, however, say that the recommendation in the commission's "Report on Sentencing" that penal servitude and imprisonment with hard labour be abolished has been followed in the Criminal Law Bill, 1996.
To date, the commission has published 53 reports containing proposals for reform of the law, 11 working papers, 11 consultation papers and 17 annual reports. This is a formidable volume of work and I would like to place on record my appreciation, and that of the Government, of the valuable contribution made by the commission since its establishment in 1975. I would like in particular to extend that appreciation to the individual members of the commission, four of whom recently completed ten years' service.
The Government is giving consideration to the formulation of a second work programme for the commission in the context of the renewal of the commission, whose term of office, with the exception of that of the president, expired at the beginning of this year. The Attorney General has had consultations with the President of the commission on the matter. There are no plans to establish a criminal law reform commission.
Is it correct that, leaving aside the personal injuries report which was published today, the Law Reform Commission published four documents during the past 12 months on which no legislative action has been taken? Will the Taoiseach indicate whether the Government intends to implement the Law Reform Commission's recommendations on family law courts in full? The original question sought the Taoiseach's views on the desirability of having a separate criminal law commission. What are his views in that regard, given his statment that there are no plans to establish such a commission? Will the Taoiseach justify that assertion in view of the Government's record on criminal law reform?
Since the end of 1994, in so far as criminal law reform is concerned, the Government has introduced legislation on sexual offences, the proceeds of crime and the criminal assets bureau. Legislation is in preparation regarding fraud offences, the indexation of fines, civil evidence and non-fatal offences. There is an ongoing programme of criminal law reform. I also indicated, in response to questions raised by the Deputy during the summer, that the Government would be introducing a general criminal law reform Bill each year to update matters of criminal procedure on an ongoing basis.
I do not agree with the introduction of a separate criminal law reform commission. It would be best to proceed on the basis of using the existing Law Reform Commission for that purpose. If a separate commission were established, there would be two law reform commissions — one to deal with civil law, the existing commission, and another to deal with criminal law reform, which would be a separate commission. I do not believe two are required and I know of no country in Europe with two such commissions. It would not be a good idea to establish a separate commission. Is that reply clear enough?
Does the Taoiseach not agree that the Government's record on criminal law reform is disjointed, kneejerk and reactionary and indicates the desirability of a separate criminal law reform commission? Does he not also agree that two of the four pieces of criminal legislation outlined were introduced on Fianna Fáil's initiative? Is it not correct that the overwhelming proportion of the criminal law reform measures introduced by the Government resulted from accepting Fianna Fáil legislation, plagiarising other Fianna Fáil legislation and reacting with hasty legislation to respond to particular crises? Does that not indicate that there is need for a criminal law up to standard, in view of the fact that the Government has failed lamentably to do so?
The Deputy has posed an adequate number of questions.
If the Taoiseach is hostile to the idea of a separate criminal law reform commission, would he consider the possibility of establishing an expert group to consider developments in criminal law and advise the Government in that regard?
As the Deputy is aware, the Minister for Justice is establishing a crime council which will advise her on all matters, whether these involve changes in the law, procedure or practice, that can be taken in hand to deal with crime. It is better to take that broad approach rather than merely singling out law reform as if it will solve the problem. Law reform without law enforcement and community support is not effective. I believe the broad approach adopted by the Minister of support for changes in the area of crime prevention and deterrence is the correct route to take.
It is the general view of the public that the present Minister for Justice and the Government have been more effective in making changes in terms of dealing with the crime problem than any previous Government in recent history.
It is not.
The Taoiseach should try that out on the streets.
The actions of the Government in dealing with drug barons, the accumulation of assets by such people and the pursuit of those assets, making crime no longer pay, increasing the possibility of detection and reducing the rewards of crime have been successful and enjoy public support.
The Taoiseach will find out shortly.
Deputy O'Dea's attempt to politicise the issue is not in his interests.
The Taoiseach's last statement regarding the Government's record on crime twists the facts somewhat. In reality, the most important legislation passed by the House last year was the Criminal Assets Bureau Act which, in effect, was originally introduced by Fianna Fáil. That legislation would not be on the Statute Book and could not be used by the Garda Síochána had this side of the House not prompted action on the Government's part.
The Taoiseach stated that the Law Reform Commission has published 53 reports. If he does not have the information to hand, will the Taoiseach prepare an indicative list of the proposals made by the commission which were subsequently implemented by Governments in the past? The Law Reform Commission spent a lengthy period dealing with the bail issue and because of pressure applied mainly by this side of the House, the Minister for Justice accepted the need for a bail referendum whereas the commission had proposed other action which was favoured by Democratic Left and the Labour Party. Ultimately, however, the Minister for Justice got her own way because of the pressure.
I do not know why the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, is laughing.
It is an inside joke. The Deputy should not worry about it.
I suppose everything is amusing to the Minister until matters become personal. Will the Taoiseach provide the information I requested for the benefit of Members?
The information is already available. The annual reports of the Law Reform Commission provide the information sought by the Deputy. They give an indication of the reports presented, the action taken and the introduction of subsequent legislation. I suggest the Deputy peruse the annual reports, which are comparatively brief. I can arrange for an entire set to be supplied to him.
I am aware of the existence of those documents. However, I requested the provision of an indicative list of all the actions proposed by the Law Reform Commission during the Government's period of office.
The debate has entered the realm of repetition.
Observers of Question Time will note that the Taoiseach's replies have become political and cynical, which is an indication of where we are going.
On a number of occasions last year I raised the issue of illegal use of the Internet. The Taoiseach will recall that I requested the establishment of a working group on the broader issue of censorship which would deal with all aspects of the problem. Successive Governments have failed to establish such a body but, rather than taking piecemeal action in respect of the Internet, I thought it would be a good idea to do so.
In October last, UNICEF and the Irish Service Providers suggested the setting up of a working party to work with the Government and agencies, and that has been done. I was in communication with the Taoiseach's office and received a reply on the matter prior to Christmas. I have no difficulty with the working group and I hope it will be successful, but since the Law Reform Commission has vast expertise available to it — whether it has been used by this House and by Governments in the past is another matter — will the Taoiseach consider the use of that commission to assess legislation on video nasties, defamation laws on books and videos and so on? Perhaps that would assist in dealing with this complex issue. The illegal use of the Internet needs to be dealt with in a broad way, otherwise people will continue to break the law. Will the Taoiseach consider my proposal?
The working party approach we have adopted is targeted to get results. To refer the matter to the Law Reform Commission would not necessarily be the best way to approach this issue as it would lead to postponement of action rather than advance the matter. The working group may, however, identify specific matters that need a broader study which would be suitable to the Law Reform Commission and the matter could be referred to it by the Government on receipt of a recommendation to that effect from the working party. That would be the best approach.
I want to move on to other questions. Time is running out for answers in respect of the Taoiseach's questions and I would like to make some worthwhile progress.
I congratulate UNICEF and the Irish Service Providers on taking the initiative, which I support, but since those organisations do not deal with censorship, may I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that he has dropped the idea of reform of our censorship laws generally?
The Deputy should not draw inferences of that nature on the basis of the answer I gave to a question concerning another matter.
