I propose to take Questions Nos. 167 and 172 together.
There is no doubt that recent events have highlighted communications issues between my Department and the Offices of the Attorney General and the Chief State Solicitor. An examination of communications within the Office of the Attorney General took place some years ago that resulted in some administrative changes in that Office and as indicated by the Taoiseach to the Dáil yesterday a further examination by an official from the Department Of Finance is now due to take place. My Department will, of course, cooperate in every possible way with that examination. While communications and recording of correspondence within my own Department are being reviewed to see if they could be improved, I am satisfied that on this occasion procedures were carried out correctly.
As the Tánaiste has told this House, on 29 November 2002 my Department was informed in writing by the Chief State Solicitor's Office of an application seeking judicial review to challenge certain provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1935. (The "C.C." proceedings). An official promptly phoned the Chief State Solicitor's Office to ascertain whether they needed any response from the Department in relation to the application. The answer was in the negative. In January 2003, the Chief State Solicitor's Office repeated its undertaking to advise the Department of any development in the proceedings. No further communication was received in my Department from the Chief State Solicitor's Office or any other source concerning the "C.C." proceedings. Neither I nor my Department were notified of the hearing or outcome of the High Court case, which the State won, or the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court.
In response to the Supreme Court decision of 23 May 2006, I published the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2006 on 1 June 2006. It passed all stages in the Dáil and Seanad and was signed into law by the President on the following day. I would emphasise that even had we been aware of the impending Supreme Court judgment, nothing could have been done which would have prevented the application to the High Court which resulted in the temporary release of one convicted sex offender. No legislation, even if rushed through the Oireachtas the same day, could have influenced subsequent events. It would not in any case have been practicable to rush in pre-prepared legislation as it is simply not possible to anticipate the terms of a Supreme Court decision, let alone the decision itself.