Vol. 627 No. 6
1 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach if his attention has been drawn to the call made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for the establishment of a dedicated legal policy unit within his office; if it is intended to provide the finance and resources to allow such an office to be established; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [28373/06]
2 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the number of staff, broken down by grade, employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the way these compare with the establishment level; if he is satisfied that the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions has sufficient staff to discharge its functions adequately; if he has received a request for additional staff for the office; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29407/06]
3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if it is proposed to enhance the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34475/06]
4 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he proposes to restructure the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35500/06]
5 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if there are plans to make changes to the operation of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. [35928/06]
6 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he has considered changing the functions or structure of the Director of Public Prosecutions; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37076/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.
The authorised staffing complement of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions stands at 174. Three vacancies in the office are in the process of being filled. I propose to circulate in the Official Report the information requested by the Deputies on the number of staff, classified by grade, employed in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Minister for Finance is considering a request from the Director of Public Prosecutions for the provision of extra resources, including resources for the establishment of a dedicated prosecution policy unit. The adequacy of existing staff levels will be addressed in this exercise. Matters of structure and operations within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions are the responsibility of the director and it would not be appropriate for me to be involved.
|
Post or grade |
Staff complement by grade |
Serving |
Vacancies or excess |
|
DPP deputy |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Directing division |
|||
|
Professional officer II |
4 |
4 |
0 |
|
Professional officer III |
8 |
7.7 |
0.3 |
|
Professional officer IV |
6 |
6.8 |
0.8 |
|
Legal researchers |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Solicitors division |
|||
|
Chief prosecution solicitor |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Principal prosecutions solicitor |
4 |
4.8 |
0.8 |
|
Senior prosecution solicitor |
8 |
6.5 |
1.5 |
|
Prosecution solicitor or assistant principal I |
7 |
6 |
1 |
|
Prosecution solicitor |
27 |
27 |
0 |
|
Principal legal executive |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Deputy principal legal executive |
1 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
|
Assistant principal legal executive |
3 |
2.9 |
0.1 |
|
Higher legal executive |
6 |
6 |
0 |
|
Legal executive |
4 |
4 |
0 |
|
Special law officer |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Trainee law clerk (Trainees) |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Total |
86 |
84.5 |
1.5 |
|
Post title or grade |
Sanctioned posts |
Serving |
Vacancies |
|
Library |
|||
|
Law librarian |
1 |
0.89 |
0.11 |
|
Assistant librarian |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Library assistant |
1 |
0 |
1* |
|
General administration |
|||
|
Principal officer 1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Assistant principal 1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Assistant principal |
3 |
3 |
0 |
|
Assistant principal or system analyst |
1 |
0.8 |
0.2 |
|
Higher executive officer |
7 |
6.5 |
0.5 |
|
HEO or system analyst |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Executive officer |
12 |
8.9 |
3.1 |
|
EO or system analyst |
2 |
2 |
0 |
|
Staff officer |
6 |
6 |
0 |
|
Clerical officer |
44 |
48.1 |
4.1 |
|
Service officer |
5 |
5 |
0 |
|
Total |
88 |
87.1 |
0.9 |
|
Overall totals |
174 |
171.69 |
2.31 |
*CO covering this post while library assistant on career break.
I welcome the more open disposition of the current Director of Public Prosecutions and the number of changes he has introduced, such as availability of books of information, a recent "Prime Time" interview, which is not the first interview he has given, and so on. The DPP pointed out that his office is often called upon in respect of matters of legal policy. He stated:
With the increasing complexity of the criminal justice system, my professional staff are now regularly being called upon to address matters of legal policy. To date, this has been managed from within existing resources. However, I am of the opinion that it is now time to address these issues in a more structured and focused way.
What is the Taoiseach's understanding of the DPP's statement? To what issues of legal policy is he referring? Is it the Government or the Attorney General that requires him to address those issues? Is it intended to set up a legal policy unit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Has a request been made to the Taoiseach in this regard? Has a request been made for more resources? Has the Government a view on the DPP's statement when he thought aloud that there is a need to establish what he called a dedicated legal policy unit?
The matter is receiving attention in my Department. My officials are broadly supportive of this. As it is a resource issue, my officials are dealing with it with the Department of Finance and the DPP. There are no staff dealing with legal policy in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. This has proved to be an enormous drawback, as the director pointed out.
The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform frequently refers issues to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for its observations, as do others. The DPP finds it difficult to deal with these referrals because of the increasing amount of legal work unrelated to specific prosecution files work and without having a dedicated staff. The director considers that the formulation of an internal office prosecution policy is not being given sufficient priority because of the absence of a dedicated unit. He has also stated that such a unit would also support the director on general legal policy positions to be adopted in arguments before the courts, particularly in the appellate courts. The interaction between the prosecution service and victims of crime raises issues of policy which such a unit could address.
In his discussions with my Department, the DPP has stated that such a unit would be required to deal with the legal policy relating to prosecutions and matters such as proposed legislation and proposals emanating from the EU and other international bodies, such as the OECD, GRECO, the EU anti-corruption agency, and OLAF, the EU anti-fraud agency. The DPP's office finds it difficult to deal with the increasing amount of legal work unrelated to these issues. The director also considers the formulation of internal office prosecutions has not been given sufficient priority. He stated that this is a vital area where a unit could stand back from the day-to-day prosecution work to examine policy initiatives and give advice when requested. He also stated that GRECO and OLAF regularly seek his direction. His office needs a dedicated unit to deal with these initiatives on an ongoing basis.
Is the Taoiseach speaking mainly of prosecutorial policy? Is the DPP being asked to make an input to policy preparation? The Taoiseach said the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform contacted him on various matters. Are the DPP's views being sought on the matter of legal policy as distinct from prosecution policy?
Does the Taoiseach wish to comment on the DPP's comments in his recent interview that it would be desirable for judges to provide more clarification and rationale for sentencing decisions? Does the Government have a view on that?
The DPP has stated that he might be asked for his views on legislation dealing with prosecution. He has set out his view on that issue in several speeches. The present DPP has been forthcoming on these issues.
It is clear from his scripts that he views the amount of angst caused to families, other relatives and friends when detail is not supplied as a worrying trend. He argues equally that there are times when that is difficult because if it is not given in every case people distinguish between one case and another. He seems to come down in favour of the argument that it would be better to give more detail so that the public, particularly those involved, are able to see a more factual position.
In one speech he made several provisos showing how difficulty this is in many cases. From a non-legal point of view it is a good thing if the public can see more detail of the rationale behind decisions, making them more understandable.
Is the Taoiseach aware that one of the reasons for enhancing the DPP's office is the need for the office to explain properly why so many cases are not pursued? Is the Taoiseach aware that fewer than one in ten victims of sexual violence comes through the system and that fewer come before the courts in this jurisdiction than in 20 other European Union member states? That detail comes from the Rape Crisis Network Ireland.
Given that the DPP is the gateway controlling the number of reported cases going before the courts, would the Taoiseach agree that the DPP must prepare and report on decisions made through its office to ensure a better understanding of the basis for these decisions? Recognising that need, does he agree that we need further support-enhancing measures to create a more effective, open and understandable Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? This goes to the kernel of the question.
Does the Taoiseach agree that if failures in evidence-gathering constitute a barrier to bringing cases before the courts this should be identified by the DPP's office and rectified? Does the Taoiseach agree the office has the primary responsibility to clearly point out the deficiencies in the investigation and preparation of cases submitted for its consideration?
I will not get into a discussion on policy areas and why or how the DPP makes decisions. He is an independent office holder under the 1974 Act and it would be entirely wrong to discuss issues relating to his administration or staffing. He put forward a case where his present staff complement should be increased, especially in the policy unit.
Where a trial has taken place, it is not the director's practice to disclose the existence of material which was not put before a court of trial because it was inadmissible or not probative to the case. If the director were to do this, it would involve disclosing prejudicial material and would leave persons affected by disclosure with no effective means to combat any damage to their reputation.
The policy of not giving reasons in public for decisions not to prosecute is not just part of the 1974 Act, as I stated previously on Question Time, it predates the Prosecution of Offences Act and the establishment of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. A number of principles underpin this policy. As I stated in reply to Deputy Rabbitte, if reasons were given in one or more cases, it would be difficult to give them in all cases. Otherwise, wrong conclusions would be inevitably drawn in regard to those cases where the reasons are refused. If, on the other hand, reasons were given in all cases and those reasons were more than bland generalities, due consequences would be difficult or impossible to avoid. That is the reason, as the DPP has outlined.
Nobody is looking for named cases to be identified but where a pattern of policy decision is evident, that that would be——
The question does not relate to policy, it relates purely to administration for which the Taoiseach has responsibility.
Where there is evidence of a pattern.
I accept Deputy Ó Caoláin's point. While I acknowledge the long established principle of not giving reasons in public, I am aware the Director of Public Prosecutions is currently examining where there may be scope for giving further information to victims of crime with regard to prosecutorial decisions. He has stated that himself. Until he does that, I do not have any further information.
Does the Taoiseach accept the thrust of Deputy Rabbitte's question, that there should be a dedicated legal policy unit within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Arising from that, is it the Taoiseach's view that there are weaknesses in the criminal justice system. I welcome the fact that the DPP has spoken out in a number of areas. I especially welcome his description of sentencing by judges as being like a lottery and the suggestion that perhaps, in appropriate cases, explanations should be given by members of the Bench as to the reasons for their range of sentences. A range of those tariffs should be set down by the Oireachtas and, respecting the independence of the Judiciary, a sentence given either above or below that range would, at the same time, require him or her to give an explanation in that regard.
Does the Taoiseach accept there are weaknesses in the system at present? Does he believe that the setting up of a specific policy unit within the DPP's office would be helpful? Does he share the DPP's view that it would be appropriate for judges in these circumstances to explain their sentences, which has been put forward by Fine Gael for some time, much to the amusement of some Fianna Fáil Ministers?
I have replied to the question about policy. The Director of Public Prosecutions has put forward a case on why he believes a policy unit would be desirable and beneficial to him. My Department generally supports that and is engaged with the Department of Finance and the DPP's office in making the case for the relevant staff to deal with this area. There are other issues too. There has been a general increase in the volume and complexity of the legal work with which the director's office has to deal, as a consequence of which an increase in staff was sought over a wide range of areas. The work areas in respect of which the office is seeking additional staff is not just in this area, it is also in the directing division, prosecution policy unit, confiscation of assets, judicial review, District Court, European arrest warrants, Court of Criminal Appeal, bail applicants, the High Court, transfer of State solicitors' service, out-of-hours service and additional representation of gardaí. While the office has a large staff, a case has been made for more staff and that is being examined. Undoubtedly the workload is increasing.
The issue of judges or the DPP giving more information is a matter for both bodies. As Deputy Kenny is aware, when the House lays down mandatory sentences and fixed sentences the courts will take that into account but I do not think they look too kindly on accepting what we suggest; other than the House giving guidelines in legislation, there are all kinds of flexibilities on these issues. I have outlined the negative consequences of giving a specific reason for a decision to prosecute as opposed to a bland generality. For example, that the evidence did not permit a prosecution could in many cases cast doubt on the innocence of a person and thereby violate the presumption of innocence that can be displaced by a trial in due course of law in open court where the accused is equally represented. Giving reasons could damage or prejudice the good name or reputation of a potential witness, for example, by stating that a witness was not thought to be reliable. While it always appears easy on the face of it to say the Judiciary or the DPP should give information, when one looks at the DPP's statement there are many areas where he points out that this is not an easy task. What he is saying is that, where possible, these matters should be dealt with. He has stated that he will return to give a more complete view on that issue.
The call from the DPP for a more transparent sentencing policy is welcome. In regard to the actual office and the question in hand, is the Taoiseach taking seriously the Law Society's concerns based on the fact that in 2005 some 37% of cases were not proceeded with, apparently due to lack of resources? Given that the workload is increasing how is it possible to justify in the Estimates a decrease of 1% in overall funding for the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions? Its work has increased not only in terms of caseload but in terms of responsibility for the Chief State Solicitor's office transferring from the Office of the Attorney General to the DPP. The DPP's office also has to advise on the extended responsibilities of the Garda ombudsman and the inspectorate. Is there a case for increasing transparency in regard to sentencing policy and how the DPP's office works? I am aware a certain amount of information is available through the Freedom of Information Act. This would enable us to see the reason it needs greater resources than are being provided.
As I have stated there has been a large increase in staff because there has been a large increase in the amount of work. The negotiations at the Chief State Solicitor's office are, hopefully, drawing to a conclusion but they have not been finalised. Representatives of the State solicitors service and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions have met with the State solicitors associations to discuss the offer but those matters are not completed. That has cost the office in its own right and obviously that matter will be raised. It was not just a prosecution policy unit. In a whole range of services he is looking for additional staff and that is under discussion. If that is decided or any element of it is decided, he will obviously get the resources for that.
Other than what the director has said — he has stated that he will examine the areas and that he would look at where there might be scope for giving greater information to victims of crime with regard to prosecutorial decisions — I do not think in any of these cases freedom of information would be welcomed by the DPP or his staff. It would be far too complex for that.
Why is there a decrease in funding of 1%?
The resources are large. It would be necessary to look at what was in the base figure for last year compared with this year. The figure for this year is the full cost figure of the office for this year based on the complement of 175. It does not include the additional staff the director is seeking at present. The Department of Finance examination of that is not yet complete. The Office of the Chief State Solicitor is dealt with separately. It has a claim outstanding which has been going through the industrial relations mechanism all year. Hopefully it will be resolved before the end of the year so that office can be dealt with in the same way. At present it is not included in the figures.
7 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30658/06]
8 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32252/06]
9 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he next intends to hold a referendum; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32253/06]
10 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach the progress made to date with regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the various reports of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34031/06]
11 Mr. Rabbitte asked the Taoiseach his proposals for referenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34032/06]
12 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if he will hold a referendum before the dissolution of the current Dáil; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [34476/06]
13 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution. [35929/06]
14 Mr. J. Higgins asked the Taoiseach if he plans to hold constitutional referenda before the dissolution of the current Dáil. [35930/06]
15 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach his plans for referenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37077/06]
16 Mr. Kenny asked the Taoiseach when he will hold a referendum on the rights of children; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37451/06]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 to 16, inclusive, together.
The Oireachtas All-Party Committee on the Constitution published its report relating to the family on 24 January 2006. The relevant Departments are considering its recommendations. The Government has acted on most of the key recommendations which have emanated from earlier reports of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. In all this and the previous Government have held ten referenda. The Government will avail of appropriate opportunities to take forward further recommendations of the all-party committee. The complexities involved in holding a referendum require that careful consideration be given to the frequency with which referenda can realistically be held and the significance of the issues in question.
I announced on Friday, 3 November 2006 that a referendum on children's rights would take place. Our Constitution strikes balances between personal rights, the status of the family, the rights and duties of parents and the powers of the State as guardian of the common good. Constitutional change is now proposed to include children in this equation.
The Minister of State with responsibility for children has written to party leaders in the Oireachtas, the Ombudsman for Children and the Chief Executive of the Children's Rights Alliance and invited them to meet him with an aim to achieving consensus on the wording of an appropriate constitutional amendment. Until this process is completed, it is not possible to indicate when the referendum will be held.
The St. Andrews Agreement envisaged some form of electoral endorsement next March. The form that would take was not decided at that time as the legislation needs to go through the House. In the legislation published last week and following further contacts with the Northern parties and the Government, the British Government has provided that this will be by way of elections to the Assembly in Northern Ireland on 7 March 2007.
The Attorney General will advise the Government on any implications that may arise in this jurisdiction in the light of the final content of British legislation to give effect to the St. Andrews Agreement, when it is passed.
I find the discussion on referenda somewhat bizarre given that it seems to be developing into a pattern. In the cold light of day the recommendation that we should have a referendum on the St. Andrews Agreement does not seem like such a good idea and the Green Party does not support it given that we thought the referendum on the Good Friday Agreement was the decisive referendum. A referendum on children's rights is proposed, but the Taoiseach has not advised the terms of the referendum — essentially he wants the Opposition to provide those terms. While I am very happy to discuss it, it would be useful to know whether the Taoiseach had given it detailed consideration before announcing it in the wake of the Ard-Fheis.
Does the Taoiseach have any wording in mind for a referendum on such an important issue as children's rights? Did he have a discussion with senior Ministers in his Cabinet in advance of making his announcement? It seems some Ministers were not aware of the announcement.
Will the referendum be as broad-ranging as possible and will deal with issues including the provision of schools, the protection of human rights, matters relating to crime etc? There are many aspects to a referendum of this nature. When will the Taoiseach sign off on the wording for the referendum? Is there a timeframe in place regarding the consultations in which the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, is engaging? Will he publish the provisions relating to the referendum? Will the Taoiseach provide a list of the organisations and individuals the Government intends to consult and will their submissions, which would be interesting to read, be published?
Will the referendum contemplate the fallout from the Baby Ann case? Will the amendment to the Constitution countenance children taking their parents to court? What will be the limit in respect of the referendum or has that been thought out? Will the Taoiseach indicate whether he plans to hold the referendum before the general election?
In respect of the St. Andrews Agreement, one party insisted that an election should take place and that it should take the form of a full election in respect of the Northern Ireland Assembly. All the other parties were satisfied that the main matters with which the new agreement deals — consent, equality, etc. — are covered in the Good Friday Agreement and that an election would not be required. It was not possible to deal with that issue. An election could have created difficulties for some political parties.
A referendum could perhaps have represented another way of testing support for the agreement. Following the discussions, it is obvious that the British Government strongly believes — I am not of the same opinion but I would not go to the stake in respect of this issue — that an election should be held. The Assembly will remain in place until the end of January and an election then will be held prior to the new agreement coming into operation. In my view, other parties — although I am not sure they will be very enthusiastic — will go along with it.
We were advised that if a referendum were to take place in the North, one would almost certainly have to take place here. The holding of elections in Northern Ireland will not affect our position. The Attorney General wishes to see the final legislation before making his observations known not only on that issue, but also in respect of any other changes that might be made and how these might affect the international agreement reached on Good Friday in 1998. To date, the indications are that the new agreement will not alter anything in its 1998 predecessor.
Regarding the referendum on matters relating to children, the Deputy will be aware that this is not a new issue. It has been raised by the Ombudsman for Children, the Children's Rights Alliance and the Law Society and it dates back ten years to the deliberations of the Constitutional Review Group. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has raised the matter on several occasions, particularly in the context of the United Nations children's rights group. He reiterated during the summer that we would be obliged to deal with this issue. I understand that not only has the Minister of State given consideration to this matter, but he has also spoken at length to many groups and bodies. I am sure he has a wording in mind. Having been involved in dealing with many constitutional issues, I am aware that if the wording is produced, people start to unpick it and state that it is not correct and that proper consultation did not take place. Deputy Sargent would probably lead the posse in that regard.
It would be a draft wording.
It would be far better to engage in meaningful consultations rather than trying to fix wordings and dates and I thought the Deputy would have welcomed that move.
I refer to the Taoiseach's remarks about the St. Andrews Agreement, which everybody supports. The leader of the DUP wants an election to do what he intends in respect of the Ulster Unionists, which is understandable. When the Taoiseach spoke about this previously, he raised the possibility of the Attorney General advising him to hold a referendum in this jurisdiction arising from the St. Andrews Agreement because of the confusion and lack of clarity. Given legislation has been published in Britain to enable elections to be held on 7 March 2007 and the Assembly to return, surely no complication should arise in respect of having a referendum in this jurisdiction. Is a referendum on this issue necessary because of the legislation and the subsequent election in Northern Ireland?
With regard to the referendum on children's rights, the Taoiseach will be aware Article 42.5 of the Constitution allows the State to intervene where it is called on "to endeavour to supply the place of parents where parents, for physical or moral reasons, fail in their duty towards their children". A number of organisations are calling for this provision to be replaced with an amendment which would state, "In exceptional circumstances, where parents fail to protect the welfare of their children, the State shall take such action as is necessary to ensure such protection". Has the Taoiseach a view on that? Has the Attorney General advised the Government regarding that wording?
I refer to the issue of soft information, which should be a vital part of any referendum in this area. It is estimated a conviction is only secured in 5% of child abuse cases. For instance, the third anniversary of Ian Huntley's conviction is approaching. He was repeatedly questioned about charges relating to sexual activity with minors, indecent assault, burglary and rape. In 1998 and 1999 he was questioned on four separate occasions about rape. The flow of soft information is, therefore, crucial to a referendum on children's rights. When Deputy Enright raised the issue, she was told constitutional issues would restrict the use of such information. Is that the case or has the Taoiseach been advised to the contrary? If a referendum is held, will the issue of soft information be included in the context of what I described in the British case, where clearly soft information regarding the danger posed by a particular personality had been gathered but was not made available? Is there a constitutional restriction in this regard? Should soft information be available? If a referendum is held, will it be included in the wording?
I reiterate my comments about the St. Andrews Agreement. Subject to the legislation being passed and the Attorney General being happy that nothing will happen over the next week or so, there should no reason to hold a referendum here. On passage of the legislation, as I understand it, the Assembly will cease in its transitional form at the end of January and an election will be held on 7 March next year. However, the Attorney General will conduct a final examination when the legislation is enacted.
As the Deputy correctly said, children's rights issues have been raised by many groups at national, EU and UN level. Many issues were raised a decade ago when Ken Whitaker chaired a constitutional review group. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has made numerous comments about these issues.
When one looks at what is or is not to be included, the main thing is for the Constitution to be amended to include the welfare principle and to provide an express guarantee of certain other children's rights that derive from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The case comes from that convention. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, in examining our report on the implementation of the convention over the past number of years and particularly since 1998 — it arises every two years — is of the opinion "that Ireland's approach to the rights of the child appears to be somewhat fragmented". We have given an undertaking to deal with that issue, which has been highlighted by many eminent people and people working in the field.
The All-Party Committee on the Constitution, in its review of the Articles dealing with the family and after examining what the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, and others have said, recommended that a new section should be inserted in Article 41 dealing with the rights of children. The committee stated:
All children, irrespective of birth, gender, race or religion, are equal before the law. In all cases, where the welfare of the child so requires, regard shall be had to the best interests of that child.
Many groups, including three notable ones — the Ombudsman for Children, the Children's Rights Alliance and the Law Society — criticised those recommendations strongly and trenchantly. The Minister of State then brought forward some of those arguments in his statement to the UN during the summer. He has furthered his consideration of the matter and it is best that it be discussed by him because he has prepared his case and presentation to bring the issue forward.
From what Irish groups, including the Ombudsman for Children and others, have said, what has been said in court cases — not just the Baby Ann case, but several others — and what is stated in European law and international law in the various conventions, we must address this issue. It is not simple. The Deputy mentioned the issues and sensitivities around the family, a side on which there are counter views. We must make our best efforts to resolve this issue.
Some people outside the House have purported that this matter is new and has jumped up from somewhere, but it is not new. The first references discussed in the House followed the 1996 report, which took from reports that were six years or seven years old. It is quite an old issue.
Deputy Rabbitte may speak for one minute and the Taoiseach will have a minute to reply to bring us past Questions to An Taoiseach.
The Constitution is the type of issue that can be adequately dealt with in a minute. I will be brief. On 14 June, the Taoiseach stated in the House: "We do not have a plan at this stage to have a constitutional referendum in the lifetime of this Dáil." Is this still his intention? Do I understand him to have said that he does not believe that a referendum will arise from the St. Andrews Agreement, but that he cannot be absolutely certain? Do I understand him to have said that we have a long way to go before we have a referendum on the rights of the child and that it is not likely to be held before the election?
Is there any other matter in respect of which we are likely to have a referendum before the election? I am sure the Taoiseach was right when he stated he was sure the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has all of this worked out and has an amendment in his head, but does he agree that if the Minister of State has an amendment in his head, he has kept it a secret? Does the Minister of State intend to let the House in on the secret? I ask for clarity as to whether the Taoiseach intends to hold the referendum on the rights of the child before the election. Most, if not all, in the House are favourably disposed to the principle but it seems from the Taoiseach's statement at the weekend of his party's Ard-Fheis that he has not really thought through the many complexities involved in such a prospect being hurried.
I have said on two occasions that it is unlikely a referendum will be required on the St. Andrews Agreement but until the legislation is passed in Westminster — because in its draft form it can be amended, as can any legislation — the Attorney General cannot be asked for a definitive answer. If it passes in its present form it is unlikely to require a referendum.
I am the only Deputy in this grouping——
The need for a referendum can arise at any time, such as following a court judgment. There will not be a referendum until the Cabinet decides there is to be one, which was my answer in June. The Government's aim is to obtain agreement on an all-party basis as early as possible, which is always our aim with such an important issue. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, has made a case not only in his own mind but at the United Nations, if anyone cares to read what he had to say on the matter. He has set out his thoughts a few times in the past few years but did so in particularly detailed form this summer. On a contentious issue it would not be good business for me to come here and set a date for a referendum. The Minister of State will engage with the parties in the House and all interested groups, of which there are many. If we can deal with it quickly we will do so but if we cannot then we cannot. It is up to us. The Minister of State would like to deal with it quickly and believes it need only take a few months.
