Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)

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?

See this speech in context