Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 2008

Vol. 670 No. 2

Ceisteanna — Questions.

Northern Ireland Issues.

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

1 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach the discussions that have taken place with the social partners regarding the establishment of the North-South consultative forum, first proposed in the Belfast Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29620/08]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

2 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the social partners have been consulted by his Department on the promised establishment of the all-Ireland consultative civic forum under the Good Friday Agreement; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43735/08]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 2 together.

At its sixth plenary meeting last February, the North-South Ministerial Council noted the completion of the Government's consultation with the social partners on the subject of the North-South consultative forum and noted the position regarding the review of the civic forum in Northern Ireland.

Discussions with the social partners and various cross-Border and North-South groups on the consultative forum were completed earlier this year. A paper has been prepared setting out the Government's proposals relating to the role, format, membership and operation of a forum, which has been provided to the Northern Ireland Executive in advance of the next meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council, now scheduled for 23 January 2009.

I understand the review of the civic forum in Northern Ireland is ongoing and expected to be completed shortly.

I understand the North-South consultative forum was to be drawn from civic society and have social partners and so on involved in it. Will that ever happen? It is now ten years since the Good Friday Agreement and not very much seems to be happening to establish this body. I note that the last meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council was held in February and the next one is scheduled for January. Is it sufficient that North-South Ministerial Council effectively meets just once a year? What progress, if any, is being made on the establishment of the North-South parliamentary body which was also to be established under the Good Friday Agreement?

On the first matter, I agree that I would have rather seen the civic forum established far sooner. It requires political sponsorship and support. As the Deputy knows, we have been working through the North-South Ministerial Council in an effort to carry out whatever preparations people wanted in order to establish the scope of the issues. This is not an area of activity like social partnership that has developed in the Republic. This is not a feature of public life in Northern Ireland as it has become here in terms of how we operate and how we give a greater deal of participation to various groups in respect of policy formulation like the National Economic and Social Forum, the National Economic and Social Council and other such representative bodies that get a very broad breadth of opinion into the area of public policy issues.

Going back as far as the time when I was Minister for Foreign Affairs and up to today, I would have liked to have seen the civic forum established far sooner. I believe it has a contribution to make. It is a confidence building measure and it would also emphasise the many problems that are best solved in common rather than separately and from which we can learn best practice in a range of areas. It is meant to comprise representatives of the business, trade union and voluntary sectors, and such other sectors as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. As the Deputy will be aware, that office has taken some time to bed in particularly following the changeover since the retirement of Dr. Paisley. I am glad to say that hiatus period now seems to be behind us, when many issues were not being dealt with and the Executive was not even meeting.

The Deputy also asked me whether I accept that once a year is sufficient for meetings of the North-South Ministerial Council and the answer is "No"; I do not. Obviously there are many ministerial meetings that occur bilaterally within the various Departments, involving Ministers with responsibility for education, health, local development and so forth. They also involve the Minister for Foreign Affairs. There was this hiatus period of which we are all aware, which would have been a reason for not holding a North-South Ministerial Council meeting in the second half of 2008. It is now agreed that this will take place on 23 January 2009.

The Deputy also asked me about the North-South parliamentary body. I understand that the Speaker in the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Ceann Comhairle have begun a process which gives some momentum to that issue and we hope that under the respective leadership of Mr. Hay and the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy John O'Donoghue, we can see the establishment of that committee far sooner than would otherwise have been the case.

I thank the Taoiseach for the response. If there is foot-dragging in getting the civic body established formally, is there any way to build upon the existing North-South contact, dialogue and arrangements across a range of areas of life on the island? For example some sporting bodies like the IRFU and GAA are all-island bodies anyway and the same is true of churches. There seems to be increased contact in any event across a range of areas of life, including business, tourism and farming. Many organisations, North and South, have considerable contact with each other anyway. That seems to be growing, which is very welcome. Is there some way in which the growing contact between bodies, organisations and interests North and South, which is evolving anyway, can be built upon and supported? If there is a problem in establishing the civic forum as an institution, from the top down, might there be a way of encouraging, shaping and supporting it from the ground up? That would build on what is, in any event, developing organically.

I agree with the Deputy. Historically, much of the leadership in the area of contact and working together has been in sporting and other voluntary organisations which have always ensured, to the greatest extent possible, that politics has not been allowed to hinder or in any way separate contact between people who have common interests, whether these be sporting, recreational, cultural or any other. In terms of democratic authority, quite rightly the emphasis has been on the need for parties to come to a rapprochement on how to govern the island, North and South, in a way that was conducive to peace, prosperity and stability. However, without doubt there have been ongoing contacts where very good relationships have built up within organisations, North and South. They helped greatly to dismiss many of the myths, misunderstandings and shibboleths that grew up during an era of misunderstanding and lack of contact, prior to those organisations filling that void.

With regard to the civic forum, let us remind ourselves that a consultative civic forum was established in Northern Ireland which comprised business, trade unions and voluntary sectors. Having established a civic forum, and despite good progress in discussions, the North-South consultative aspect of the Good Friday Agreement in this respect had not been established when the political institutions were suspended in 2002. We are trying to regain momentum in the aftermath of the St. Andrews Agreement of 2006 to support the establishment of an independent, North-South consultative forum appointed by the two administrations and representative of civil society. It would include and build on the very solid foundations the Deputy adverted to in his question.

The Deputy asked about the future of the civic forum. The present technical position is that it is being reviewed by the new Northern Ireland Executive. The matter was discussed by the two administrations at their meeting in July 2007. The meeting noted that the Irish Government was anxious to proceed and was consulting with social partners and that, when it was completed, the review of arrangements for consulting civic society in Northern Ireland should allow the parties to consider the question. I hope that review is near completion.

We have held consultations with social partners, as we indicated we would. We are also seeking the views of cross-Border, North-South and other interested bodies and organisations. This has been kicking around the House for some time. Everybody knows what its shape, intent, purpose and benefit would be. Its implementation requires some political will to emanate from the Northern Ireland Executive and from the joint offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. I trust that their resumed relationship will be fruitful in this respect as it must be in others.

We all welcome the recent progress in the agreement reached between Sinn Féin and the DUP. One hopes this will bring about the devolution of policing and justice powers from London to Belfast, and that other outstanding matters will be addressed appropriately and soon.

We all want to see the Executive and the All-Ireland Ministerial Council functioning in full. Would the Taoiseach accept that responsibility for an all-Ireland consultative forum does not lie only with the Executive and the Assembly? Does he accept that this forum is one of a number of key outstanding and long overdue elements of the Good Friday Agreement, which is now over ten years in being? There is great concern that this integral part of the Agreement, as endorsed by the popular vote of the people, has not yet been progressed in any real and substantive way.

There are other elements. I acknowledge the Taoiseach's point with regard to the all-Ireland parliamentary forum. I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his recent correspondence in respect of that matter and I acknowledge the corresponding initiative being taken by his counterpart in the Assembly, Willie Hay MLA. Apart from the all-Ireland parliamentary forum there is the matter of the charter of rights. Will the Taoiseach accept there has been minimal movement towards the introduction of a charter of rights, and that this is also an issue that requires greater urgency and proactive address?

The Taoiseach made a point to Deputy Gilmore in respect of confidence building measures. I wonder whether the Government really appreciates the importance of the civic forum. Does the Taoiseach accept that what we are talking about here is, first, the imprimatur of the Good Friday Agreement? Such a forum has the endorsement not only of the Executive but of both the British and Irish Governments. It would help bring broad elements of civic society together across this island for the very first time. Does the Taoiseach realise this would be of special relevance to non-State organisations, NGOs, the voluntary and community sector, trade unions and others? There is a long list of organisations that would be keen to participate in such a forum.

Will the Taoiseach acknowledge that some of these organisations are organised on an all-Ireland basis already? Many are not, and it is of greatest concern that they are not currently exposed to cross-island engagement or interaction. The civic forum would offer such an opportunity. Does the Taoiseach agree that helping to break down these barriers and combating partitionism, in the sense of a thought process, would be patently in the interests of all opinion on the island of Ireland? I shall give a practical example where I believe that such an engagement would have a practical result. We are not talking here only of confidence building. I speak of the merry-go-round that currently exists with regard to cross-Border shopping. The Taoiseach's colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, is as exposed to the reality of this as I am. On one day one sees the drove going in one direction and on another it comes the other way. There must be engagement and a realisation of the benefits for all that would come through, for instance, tax harmonisation and a common currency across the island. These critical debates must begin. The civic forum is just such an entity that would accommodate a real and substantive address of these very real problems that present on one side of the Border or another at different times. Will the Taoiseach confirm that every urgency will be employed in bringing forward, and to fruition, the establishment of the civic forum?

I agree the civic forum should be set up as soon as possible. I believe also that if it is to have the beneficial effect it could have we must accord to it the importance and capacity it can have, rather than a greater capacity. For example, the Deputy mentioned the question of a common currency. Any and every matter can certainly be discussed in a civic forum but these are major political issues and can only be dealt with by governments, rather than in the Northern Ireland Executive construct. These would be very significant matters. In our effort to explore and exploit the full potential of these institutions we should not burden them with a level of expectation they cannot meet. I make that cautionary point not to take away in any way from one's enthusiastic endorsement of a civic forum and the potential it would provide for engagement in a non-contentious way. It should not be seen as an empty formula for discussion but, as the Deputy said, as offering a real participation by wider society in public policy issues that will cement the benefits of the Agreement in all its aspects.

The fact that technically we are awaiting a review from the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on this matter is an indication that we need to move it from there in order to bring it to a successful conclusion. This is not in any way a criticism of the office. I am making the point that a good political relationship is necessary, not only between the parties and the Administration but also between the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, who need to work closely on these matters and show a capacity to move them on. This is the best way we can assist in making this happen as quickly as possible.

I do not believe there is any disagreement in the House about the necessity of establishing the forum as quickly as possible, the potential it has, or the need to develop social partnership on an all-island basis. This would also be of great benefit to the political culture, because social participation and partnership, in the context of policy, are about concentrating on solving problems, finding pragmatic solutions and taking other perspectives into account, whether those of the trade union movement, employers, farmers, voluntary organisations or political parties. We have seen the benefit of this. Social partnership raises a challenge in difficult times as well as being an excellent framework in good times. The fact that we have seen its benefits and developed it in all its aspects, rather than simply in a narrow economic or political way, gives me confidence that even in terms of the challenges we face in the Republic, social partnership remains the best means to find a way forward. People must see a viable way forward, and they must be prepared not to avoid solving the problem but to solve it in a way that can be supported by everybody who is affected.

Would the Taoiseach accept that while the examples I gave were bold in terms of using a civic forum as a means of address, and realising that it would be the political entities that would ultimately make those changes, in the absence of any evidence of serious address of issues such as that of a common currency across the island of Ireland or tax harmonisation in the area of VAT, the making of such calls by an all-island civic forum would be a major impetus to the realisation of these important changes? Would he not accept that they could end up being the drivers of change? Our political voices, North and South, may be a little slower to tackle the fundamental changes that are necessary to have a positive impact on the daily living conditions of ordinary people throughout this island.

In the Taoiseach's response he acknowledged that it is his and the Government's intention to press ahead even after the many years that have gone by. Can he indicate what further steps he now proposes to take to bring about the establishment of the all-Ireland civic forum? For example, can he advise us whether he and the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, have directly addressed this matter or whether it is on the agenda for his next meeting with the Prime Minister? Will both Governments act in concert to help bring about the progress necessary to establish the all-Ireland civic forum?

In the course of the Taoiseach's responses he indicated having engaged with the social partners. Can he tell us what the response of the social partners has been in the discussions with him? Can he indicate whether parallel engagement with the social partners north of the Border in the Six Counties has also taken place, and what knowledge he has of the responses received there on this matter?

The establishment of the North-South forum is a strand 2 matter, which is a matter between the Executive and the Government. The British Government has no problem with its establishment, but the mechanics of establishing it require consent and agreement on the structure by the Executive and this Administration, and we would like to proceed with that quickly. A review is currently taking place within the joint office on a civic forum in Northern Ireland, and this should inform our progress. As soon as the review is completed we will get on with it. That is what we want to do. These are the procedures that are in place and the decisions that have been taken in order to make progress.

As Deputy Ó Caoláin said, the forum has been in gestation far longer than any of us would have contemplated ten years ago. The Deputy's point is taken. We will need everyone to buy into the process. It is not true that in every aspect of political culture in Ireland this is seen as an important contribution to the public life of the country. We think so, the Deputy thinks so, and others are gradually coming to the view that it is a good thing that has benefits. In order to bring along other people who are not as enthusiastic as we are, we need to ensure the work of the forum is incremental.

I do not want to take away from the Deputy's view on the matter, but to bring common currency issues to the forum as a main topic of discussion would be more negative than positive in terms of momentum because in the view of others it is beyond the remit of the forum at this time. I am not closing off the possibility of discussion or of people having views, but I am making the point that we need to have a clear view of what it can achieve in the medium term. The question of a common currency is a huge issue, as the Deputy can see. How to have a common currency in two different jurisdictions is a major challenge. While one can see the benefits of such a decision from a certain perspective, one must also recognise that such a decision lies elsewhere in terms of having an all-Ireland application. Certainly one would have a lot of persuading to do to make it happen.

Let us get on with the work the forum can do and should be doing to reinforce the common approaches and perspectives which will, in time, change the culture and the nature of the relationship between North and South. That is the benefit it can really bring, it can open up new perspectives. It is not a matter of "open minds as open as a trap", as Séamus Heaney has said. We must all be genuinely open to the possibility of reconfiguring that relationship in the 21st century.

Has the Taoiseach had discussions with the Unionist parties in the North about their participation in the consultative forum? Can they identify what is the actual blockage that is preventing the setting up of the forum, which I would support? Following on from the Taoiseach's comments about currency, which is of course a matter for governments, and stepping back a little, does he see the possibility of the consultative forum making recommendations in other areas, such as health? Both Governments missed a great opportunity, in the run-up to the Good Friday Agreement and since then, to deal with cross-Border, all-island health issues. I refer to the possibility of relationships between Altnagelvin and Letterkenny hospitals or Enniskillen and Sligo hospitals for cancer treatment, cardiac treatment or anything else. There appears to be a missed opportunity there.

Would the Taoiseach agree that if the consultative forum were to discuss issues such as this, it might lead to agreement between both Governments that it is a small island and that specialist facilities in certain areas could be provided on a cross-Border basis? There could be one in Altnagelvin and one in Letterkenny, for example. Does the Taoiseach see the consultative forum as having a possible impact in terms of leading the Governments to make decisions in such areas, which would be to the benefit of people North and South and communities on all sides?

The answer is "Yes". Such practical co-operation is precisely the sort of thing to which a forum could lend inter-community support. The idea of the civic forum is to articulate support from within the communities for these type of initiatives and to stretch policy makers in making responses commensurate with the articulated aspirations. This is precisely the value of a civic forum with a structured dialogue of that nature.

Even prior to the Good Friday Agreement, there was a lot of practical co-operation in the health area among others. I refer to the CAWT initiative between the three health board regions in the north east and north west and the health authorities on the other side of the Border, which has enabled people to look at practical arrangements for dialysis treatments. People from County Louth and the Cooley peninsula attend the hospital in Newry. I have visited there in the past with Séamus Mallon and seen the practical aspects of that co-operation and how we use taxpayers' funds to greater effect by co-operating and avoiding duplication of services in natural hinterlands across the Border area and across the island in the case of more specialised tertiary treatments.

These are obvious areas which would have the full support of everybody in the community. I refer to Science Foundation Ireland in the area of education, where collaboration between universities North and South is not only promoted but in some cases is a criterion for accessing money and research funding in order to ensure the best possible outcome for taxpayers' commitments in these areas. There is a plethora of areas of co-operation which have only been touched upon. We need the confidence in the political system to get on with that agenda which is neither surreptitious nor conspiratorial, nor acquisitive but is simply concerned with sensible arrangements one would expect between good neighbours and of good relationships between parallel Administrations on the island of Ireland in the interests of providing better services for all the people we serve.

Constitutional Issues.

Eamon Gilmore

Ceist:

3 Deputy Eamon Gilmore asked the Taoiseach if all of the recommendations made in the Sullivan report, following the A case have been implemented in the Office of the Attorney General; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29622/08]

Enda Kenny

Ceist:

4 Deputy Enda Kenny asked the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Sullivan report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32692/08]

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin

Ceist:

5 Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach if the Sullivan report has been implemented in full; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43736/08]

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, together.

In replies to parliamentary questions in both November 2006 and November 2007, the former Taoiseach reported comprehensively on the progress being made in the implementation of the findings of the Sullivan report. The Attorney General has now informed me that all of the recommendations have been fully implemented.

The House will recall that the Sullivan report arose from what was described as the A case in 1996, where the constitutionality of the Sexual Offences Act 1935 was challenged and a man was released from prison who had sexually offended a minor. There was great hue and cry about it at the time and eventually the Supreme Court overturned the High Court decision. The issue that arose and which gave rise to the Sullivan report was the question of how the Government had been caught unawares by this case and how a case with constitutional implications was proceeding through the courts and the Government did not know about it or how the Attorney General had not been personally advised of it at the time.

The Sullivan report recommended a number of procedures which the Taoiseach now says have been fully implemented. If they have been fully implemented, how did the same happen again recently? On 13 October the House was informed that a decision had been made in the High Court in respect of the Mental Health Act and the House had to convene very quickly to pass amending mental health legislation. The health spokespersons were informed about it only a few hours before the legislation was brought in. If the Sullivan report has been implemented and there are now procedures in place, apparently, to deal with circumstances where there is a case in the court, how did a replica situation arise in respect of the mental health legislation? How was the Government caught unawares a second time by a court action that presumably should have been flagged to the relevant Minister at an earlier stage?

The question is general in nature but the question the Deputy has now asked by way of a supplementary is specific and it is the responsibility of another member of the Government. I do not know whether the Taoiseach can assist with it as he would not have notice of it.

I take that point. I was going to say in my initial reply that I would like a specific question put down on that matter in the interests of accuracy so that we could put on the record of the House the exact circumstances that arose in the case of the specific instance referred to. I recall that issue but I do not have exact recall of the circumstances of it. I recall in general terms the point made by the Deputy.

I will make two points. Sometimes a decision arises out of a court case which may be quite surprising and has not been predicted and which requires an immediate move by the Oireachtas to close any lacuna or loophole that is identified and which could have a wider policy implication by way of third party judicial review or ex parte application by others in similar circumstances, which was precisely the issue that arose in the CC case when other people who saw themselves as in similar positions as to the state of their detention were taking on the legal opportunity of seeing if they could fit through the precedent set in the CC case.

The question refers to the recommendations made in a report conducted by the then Secretary General of the public service management and development division and whether those have been implemented. My information is that they have been implemented. The report found that the reason the Attorney General was not notified or consulted on the remaining milestones as to how that case was progressing — this was regarded as an important and sensitive case — arose as a result of administrative error. It should be noted that the report also stated that no perfect system could be designed to deal with such administrative errors but Mr. Sullivan was satisfied that the initiatives under way, the new measures which were being proposed and the recommendations arising from the review, would further enhance the operations of the Attorney General's office and reduce the risk of such an event recurring. It does not eliminate the possibility of risk since human error, administrative error, cannot be excised no matter how robust a system is devised but a system could be devised to reduce the risk to the greatest extent possible.

I cannot recall with certainty that the issue the Deputy has raised now arose in the same set of circumstances as the one that gave rise to the report in the first place. I will ask the Attorney General's office to give me a note on the circumstances of that occurrence and Deputy Gilmore can in the correspondence decide whether that point stands up.

The Taoiseach in his first reply to me said that all of the recommendations of the Sullivan report had now been implemented, which I welcome. The purpose was to avoid a situation where the Government finds itself flat-footed by a decision of the High Court, that the Government is apprised of cases coming down the track in the courts that could have constitutional implications or implications for the striking down of key legislation.

A number of procedures were recommended by the Sullivan report, including personal notification to the Attorney General of cases that have constitutional implications. There was to be a three-person expert committee to be established which would do some kind of risk assessment and there was also to be regular briefings by the Attorney General to the Secretary General to the Government. Is the Taoiseach aware of any significant cases currently in the courts that may have constitutional implications and may require, depending on the outcome, legislative changes? Are contingency plans being made by the Government in respect of any such cases?

The Sullivan review arose in the context of an information and notification deficit that occurred in the Attorney General's office over the handling of the CC case. The review's purpose was to ensure that in those cases that met the criteria of being important and sensitive, there would be arrangements in place whereby the Attorney General would be informed and consulted on their progress. This would ensure the Attorney General would have a personal knowledge of them and the system would not allow for an administrative error where the Attorney General was not consulted when he should have been because of the sensitivity and importance of such cases.

In the CC case, the Deputy will recall the report identified seven milestones in the evolution of the case about which the Attorney General ought to have been informed or consulted. The Attorney General had been consulted on only one of those, the nomination of counsel in the case. The report instanced the various relevant procedures and protocols already in force in the Attorney General's office at the time. It also instanced the policies in operation to ensure staff were aware of the requirement that it would be brought to the Attorney General's attention as important stages of the case progressed and the existing office co-ordination arrangements that provided further mechanisms to assist in the observance of the requirement.

Nineteen measures were recommended for adoption by the Sullivan report to minimise the risk of a reoccurrence of such events. These would not eliminate entirely the possibility because that cannot be guaranteed fully. The new measures related to enhanced risk assessment procedures, including external reviews etc.

Up to 120 cases of constitutional action are being taken against the State. When linked cases are taken into account, approximately 250 cases are being taken as challenges to the constitutionality of Acts of the Oireachtas and statutory instruments. Ireland has a strong judicial review procedure. Parties and citizens can apply to court to seek declarations or orders in respect of the constitutionality, or otherwise, of any aspect of statute law. The secretary to the Government is notified of the progress of these cases. If there are any particular issues which would act as an early warning system for the secretary, the Attorney General would bring these to his attention. This would be in a minority of those cases, as others trundle along, some important, others less important for public policy implications.

Following the collapse of the CC case on statutory rape, I made the point that there was a gap in the law in the protection of children from sexual predators and the need for a constitutional amendment. Has an amendment been considered by the Government or has it been given priority? The case arose because of a breakdown in communications between State agencies.

It has been suggested to me on several occasions that there has been a serious reduction in prosecutions of allegations of statutory rape being pursued by the Director of Public Prosecutions because of concerns over a defendant claiming he made a mistake about the victim's age. Is there any substance to these allegations?

The supplementary information I have on foot of the questions tabled relates generally to the Sullivan report rather than the present legal status of statutory rape laws as a result of the CC case. I would have to check whether any lessons are to be learned or reviews drawn up to further amend the law, or perhaps a question should be tabled to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has stated that quantifying comparative numbers of prosecutions for sexual offences involving children in the years before and after the CC v. Ireland case in 2006 may give a misleading picture due to the unusual circumstances surrounding the loss of section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935 as an option.

Cases which were pending when CC v. Ireland was decided were examined. Where other charges were appropriate, they were brought. In a small number of cases, no other charges were appropriate and in some cases injured parties no longer wished to proceed.

Substitution of sexual assault on other charges for section 1(1) charges muddies the waters from a statistical perspective in the years both before and after the finding of unconstitutionality. Further complications arise in that the Director of Public Prosecution's files are assigned on the basis of the year in which they are received in that office. Such files may relate to offences which took place months, years or decades previously. They may not reach the courts for months and years afterwards. This creates further difficulties from a statistical standpoint if what is sought is a year-by-year comparative analysis.

Accordingly, the Director of Public Prosecutions cannot definitively say that he is prosecuting either more or fewer child rapes than he was previously. There is a comparison between unlawful carnal knowledge and defilement, appropriate as the new offence under the 2006 Act is broader in its scope than the old section 1(1) of the 1935 Act.

Has any decision been made on a constitutional amendment?

No, I do not have any information on that. Tabling another question to that effect would be the better option.

When the Sullivan report was published into the handling of the A case in the Attorney General's office, I recall the Green Party making a case for a fully independent inquiry to scrutinise the workings and channels of communication between the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. What was the Taoiseach's response to that call from his coalition partners? Has that strong demand been maintained by the Green Party since?

Will the Taoiseach reconfirm all the recommendations of the Sullivan report have been implemented? Is he satisfied sufficient checks and balances are in place between the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

As I stated in the original reply, I am informed by the Attorney General that all the report's recommendations have been implemented. A three-person panel of experts, a risk management group, also made recommendations which were referred to in the Sullivan report. Appropriate action has been taken to implement that group's recommendations and its members have been informed.

A legal management advisory committee has been established. It met on 9 April, 9 July and 28 October 2008 to consider reports on legal issues, to draft memoranda to the Government on sensitive cases etc. The annual report for the Office of the Attorney General, currently being finalised, is expected to be submitted to the Government shortly and will be published as soon as possible thereafter. Members will have an opportunity to examine it then.

To answer Deputy Gilmore's earlier point on the recent emergency Bill in the health area, the Mental Health Act shows that the office could still be taken by surprise. The issue that gave rise to the need for emergency legislation in the form of the Mental Health Act arose in the course of a hearing that commenced on 7 October 2008 as a result of evidence given. The issue was not pleaded in the original statement of the case and was raised by the High Court judge. It became a preliminary issue during the hearing of the judicial review on 14 October. As soon as the issue was raised in the case, the need for emergency legislation was raised with the Department of Health and Children by the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General prepared draft legislation on the instructions of the Department, which was enacted on 30 October, within two weeks of it being raised in the case. This was the day before the delivery of judgment in the case. All appropriate procedures concerning the sensitivity of this file were followed and the issue in the case was handled as a matter of urgency. It was dealt with in the shortest possible time and the question raised by Deputy Gilmore reinforces the fact that procedures were operating quite well as the reply, which I have just uncovered in the series of supplementaries attached to the question, suggests.

Regarding the memory of Deputy Ó Caoláin about the position of the Green Party at that time, I can only presume that the comprehensive recommendations of the Sullivan report provided the public interest response and the subsequent full implementation reinforces the fact that the confidence was well placed.

They do not look very happy.

I thank the Taoiseach for coming back to that issue. His answer demonstrates the procedures are working well but the Government is not working very well. If the Minister was told by the Attorney General on 14 October that the case in the High Court required amending legislation, the Minister did not tell the House or the spokespersons until the day before the legislation had to be brought in. Procedures may be working but the Government is not.

I cannot let that pass, it is an unjustified criticism.

In the context of the issue, the need to deal with the drafting of that legislation and obtain approval of the Government is the time in which one can proceed. If one indicated publicly before then, one could have prejudiced——

The Minister only told us when the judgment was about to be announced.

It was raised on 14 October during the case. It had serious public policy implications. It was important that new law be put in place before the matter was heard and adjudicated on. That happened within a two week period from when the point was raised by the High Court judge. The counsel representing the Attorney General brought it to the attention of the latter, who brought it to the attention of the Minister for Health and Children. The response was appropriate and met wider public policy concerns raised.

She came in here in a panic and the House had to sit on a Friday to pass the Bill.

That is only fair. Any fair-minded person would regard that as a speedy and comprehensive response.

Barr
Roinn