Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

That certainly is beyond the remit of this question but I will answer the first part of the Deputy's question and respond to the second as best I can.

In regard to the first part of his question, promoting Dáil reform is a shared responsibility of all Members and parties in this House. We will seek to play a constructive role in that effort. I have commented in the past that too often Dáil reform has been characterised by questions of where the balance of advantage lies rather than the merits of the reforms themselves. If everyone kept to the idea that we are trying to improve the working of the House and protect its good name and reputation as we proceed with our business, we probably could make better progress in this area than we have traditionally done. Too often, ideas have floated around or been implemented but the original intention then started to stray, things became specific and questions were asked for which no notice was given but on which people were expected to have answers beyond what was originally intended. In other words, the practice of the House often strays from the original objectives of the reform, which is not sensible either.

The Government and the Chief Whip will play a constructive role in exploring how we can improve procedures for the benefit of imparting knowledge and information to the wider public, as well as improving the interplay between Members as we try to discharge our responsibilities. Unfortunately, rather than having that effect, the reforms often provide further opportunities for a descent into theatrics from the substantive discussions and dialogue which would benefit the public in terms of listening to the various ideas people have and the convictions they hold. Let us hope we will continue to try to improve the situation. Too often, progress is not made because that, unfortunately, turns out to be the outcome rather than the aspirations which were the genesis of the discussions on improving the workings of the House.

In regard to the referendum, I have not studied the statement made by the DPP last Friday, although I will consider it in the context of the continuing debate on this complex question. My understanding is that he did not say he could not do his job but spoke instead about difficulties and the prosecutorial role. The prosecution of offences is an issue that arises in terms of how the crime can be fitted to the various warrants and how it can proceed in the courts. I have not studied the statement but I understand that is what he was talking about.

The statement will have to be studied and I do not want to say any more until consideration has been given to the DPP's remarks. However, the statement makes a contribution to the debate. The debate by the all-party committee is proceeding. People are finding out just how complex these issues are in the course of these discussions.

On the problem of sexual predators, as referred to by the Deputy, the question of strict liability applying can have an effect way beyond that particular category of crime. For example, to what extent should young people engaged in sexual activity be brought within the ambit of the proposals in a way not contemplated in the first instance? When one examines all these issues, one finds one has to carefully circumscribe what it is one is trying to achieve while ensuring it does not have an effect and consequence way beyond the particular legitimate issue to be examined and sorted. It is hoped this will be done by way of constitutional amendment based on consensus between the parties. However, it remains to be seen whether the parties can reach a consensus on this issue.

It is true to say that varying views on the matter are emerging within the committee and among its members, regardless of party affiliation. It is a matter for the committee to find a solution to which everyone can subscribe. That may or may not occur. Much depends on where the debate takes us. There are reasons that matters have not been concluded. It is precisely because, as I have just outlined, a proposal which, on the face of it, might solve the initial problem could create other problems further down the line.

See this speech in context