Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Among the officers designated for the taking of recognisances is included, in subsection (3)(c), "a peace commissioner designated for that purpose by order of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform". I assume this does not refer to a regular peace commissioner as we understand it. While the Minister said he was restoring the status of peace commissioner for the purposes of the taking of recognisances, it seems this provision refers to a designated as opposed to an appointed peace commissioner. Does this signify the introduction of a further stratum of peace commissioners, that is, the common or garden commissioner on the one hand and, on the other, the peace commissioner who is designated specifically for the purpose of taking recognisance? Is this effectively a new office of super-commissioner with special responsibility?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a fair question. The provisions of the Bill apply to existing peace commissioners. However, for any particular commissioner, or class of commissioners, to be able to exercise this function, there must be a designation either of the class or the particular commissioner. I inserted this provision on the advice of the Attorney General. There have been certain difficulties in regard to the status of peace commissioners in the Dublin area because of the creation of new administrative counties. I was anxious to ensure any difficulties that might be occasioned thereby would be covered by the legislation and that we would not face into fresh difficulties.

There is a need to look at the position of peace commissioners in general to consider what useful functions they can perform in the assistance of the legal system. It is important that lay people should be associated with the administration of justice and that it should not be exclusively the prerogative of the legal profession.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said he became aware of this difficulty on 11 October. Does any question arise in the matter of a person authorised to take recognisance between 1 July and 11 October? Do any issues arise in this regard in terms of the lacuna identified in this legislation?

I welcome the Minister's undertaking in respect of his Department to observe good practice in this House in terms of the taking of legislation in the months and years ahead. However, I am not entirely sure I see the world as he does in terms of the other remarks he made. It would be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the quality of legislative commentary in the Upper House. However, I have brought legislation to that House and noted the contributions of Members. I occasionally take the opportunity to read the transcript of a debate. I would not say it is an equal success in terms of the depth to which legislation is probed. There is undoubtedly the occasional shaft of sunlight but it is not the generality of the case.

The Minister suggested that the 20-minute speaking slots ought not to be exhausted in the case of every minor Bill. However, when I first became a Member of this House, there was no stricture in terms of the length of time allowed for Deputies' contributions on Second Stage. The time slots are a more recent innovation. I am not sure the Minister is on solid ground on this issue. Before the development of the committee system, a far greater amount of legislation was dealt with in this Chamber, where Deputies who might not be spokespersons for their parties could nevertheless contribute on legislation of interest to them. That opportunity no longer obtains. While observing all due respect for the Upper House, I am not sure the Minister's vision of how it deals with legislation with dispatch is something on which I would confer approval. The restricted number of sitting days in this House should be reviewed rather than the suggestion that time is wasted on the Second Stage of legislation.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the Deputy's specific question, the recognisances in question have been entered into and the bond has been made or the cash paid. We have not been advised by the Attorney General of any identified difficulty in respect of those recognisances accepted before 11 October.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What would the situation be, however, if there was no authorisation by law to accept the recognisances?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The answer at this stage is that we have the recognisance. This legal question, like many others that arise in the context of an invalid practice, is best settled on receipt of advice from the Attorney General, which I will seek.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have a question on the designated prison officer. Can I take it from a reading of the Bill that this provision refers to a prison officer of any rank, or does it relate to a specific rank? Is there predesignation? In other words, on the passing of the legislation will it be incumbent upon a prison officer in a prison institution to have an appropriate number of designated officers or will this be done on an ad hoc basis? For example, if an officer was to move away, could he or she make a designation on the day, who could be anyone from the prison staff, without reference to order or rank?

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It could be any officer, but in general the practice is to delegate this power on an occasional basis to deputy governors.