Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 1: To ask the Taoiseach the progress made by the Office of the Attorney General in implementing the Sullivan Report following the A Case in 2006; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16717/10]

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 2: To ask the Taoiseach if he will report on the implementation of the Sullivan Report; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17726/10]

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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

The Attorney General has informed me that all of the recommendations of the Sullivan report have been fully implemented.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One of the developments that occurred in the aftermath of the Sullivan report was the establishment of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children. The committee, which was chaired by Deputy O'Rourke, reported in September 2008 and recommended that legislation to deal with so-called soft information should be introduced as a matter of urgency. Why has such legislation not yet been published? What is the Government's intention in respect of the legislation?

At the beginning of this year, the committee recommended that there should be a constitutional referendum on the rights of children and it published an agreed wording to be put to the people in such a referendum. What is the Government's position regarding the holding of a referendum on the rights of children?

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy's second supplementary is somewhat outside the scope of the original questions.

Eamon Gilmore (Dún Laoghaire, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, it relates to progress relating to the Sullivan report. The report in question dealt with the A case in 2006 and the matter to which I refer is one of the follow-ons from it.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The recommendations in the Sullivan report relate to the internal workings of the office itself and were designed to ensure that matters of a sensitive nature would be brought to the urgent attention of the Attorney General. All of those recommendations are being implemented.

On the other matters to which the Deputy refers, I have outlined to the House on a number of occasions the position with regard to the proposal for a referendum on children's rights. Work in that regard is continuing. I understand that legislation relating to soft information is being dealt with by the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach is well aware of the Taoiseach that must be followed with regard to the preparatory work that must be done to facilitate the holding of a referendum. The all-party Oireachtas committee did its work well and its members, on all sides, agreed on a wording, which was forwarded to the Minister of State with responsibility for children. There is a process with must be undergone when information of this nature arrives on a Minister's or Minister of State's desk.

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That matter is not contemplated by the two original questions.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It relates to the holding of a referendum on children's rights, which emanated directly from the Sullivan report. If the Ceann Comhairle has a difficulty with that, I am sure I could probably be of assistance to him.

What stage has the work of the Minister of State with responsibility for children, Deputy Barry Andrews, reached? Does the Taoiseach envisage that the process involving the Minister of State to which I refer will be concluded before the House rises for the summer recess? The latter will have a bearing on whether it will be possible to hold a referendum on children's rights this year. I hope it will be possible to hold such a referendum.

What is the current position with regard to vetting people who work with children? It appears the HSE has placed some children with certain foster parents who have not been vetted. That is intolerable, particularly when one considers what could happen. Will the Taoiseach comment on that matter?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The recommendations in the Sullivan report make no reference whatever to a constitutional referendum on children's rights. Instead, they relate to risk assessment procedures, the co-ordination and allocation role of the advisory counsel, management of the office and information technology. There is no reference whatsoever to the referendum on children's rights in the Sullivan report. I have outlined to the House the progress in regard to that matter. Specific questions that are the line responsibility of the Office of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs can be addressed there; I do not have the information to answer those questions.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All of these matters dealing with children - the Sullivan report and every other report - have to be taken into account in the context of holding a referendum on children's rights. What is the position in regard to that?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect, the questions relate to-----

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Taoiseach know the answer?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These questions ask me to report on the implementation of the Sullivan report. That report made specific recommendations in the areas set out in the report. The reply, as I am informed by the Attorney's General's office, is that all the recommendations of the report have been fully implemented. All of the supplementary information I will have in regard to this matter relates to the Sullivan report.

Enda Kenny (Mayo, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

So the Taoiseach does not know.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Putting down a specific question will elicit the answers.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Taoiseach will recall that the Sullivan report arose from a situation that developed when the Government had not been advised that a constitutional challenge had been taken by somebody who was convicted of child rape and was then released from prison. That is my recall of the context in which it arose - the Government had not been informed of the constitutional challenge to the statutory rape law and the self-confessed child rapist was released from prison. In the context of the Sullivan report, which was published in 2006, can the Taoiseach give us any sense of certainty that we will not face a similar situation again? Can he, in whatever response he may have had prepared for this sequence of questions, give the House any assurance that we are not likely to see a recurrence of the situation that pertained to the Sullivan report in 2006?

In regard to the centrality of the Office of the Attorney General to the Sullivan report and all that maintained leading up to it, does the Taoiseach accept there would be greater confidence in that office if there were greater transparency and openness in regard to its role? Excepting the confidentiality relationship between the Attorney General and the Cabinet, does the Taoiseach agree there are matters on which the Attorney General advises that would allow for greater openness and contribute to a greater understanding in the first place, as well as a better acceptance of decision-making on the part of the Attorney General and the Government where confidentiality is not required? As an example, the Taoiseach was not overly pleased about my questions at the time but this might apply in regard to my queries on the advices the Attorney General had given vis-À-vis the HSE and the reports on the deaths of children in State care. That is just one example.

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The review conducted by Mr. Eddie Sullivan, former Secretary General in the public service section of the Department Finance, arose in the context of an information and notification deficit that occurred in the Attorney General's office over the handling of a particular judicial review case known as the CC case. The case was first notified to the Attorney General's office in November 2002 by the Office of the Chief State Solicitor by way of a minute referring to the case listed on 16 December 2002 and requesting the nomination of counsel. A declaration was sought in the CC case by way of judicial review that the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1935, section 1(1), was repugnant to the Constitution. The respondents in these cases were Ireland, the Attorney General and the DPP. The report sets out the background, explains what happened and gives the overview of the office. It goes on to make certain recommendations regarding governance arrangements and so on. All of the recommendations arising from that review are being implemented.

Regarding the question of transparency in respect of the Office of the Attorney General, the Attorney General's functions derive from the Constitution. His position is described in Article 30 of the Constitution as the advisor of Government in matters of law and legal opinion. The functions, powers and duties of the Attorney General are to be found in the Constitution, in legislation, primarily section 6 of the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924 and in judicial decisions delivered prior and subsequent to the founding of the State. The Attorney General is assisted by advisory counsel in the discharge of this wide range of functions. The four principal legal functions carried out by the office as a whole may be summarised as the provision of legal advice, legislative drafting, the processing of litigation and conveyancing and other transactional services through the Office of the Chief State Solicitor.

In regard to the policy that applies, I am answerable for this in the House. The Attorney General, in terms of legal advice, has the confidentiality of Cabinet. It is important we respect his independence and that his advice is given based on the merits of the case. It is a matter for Cabinet or Ministers to decide what they wish to do thereafter. I believe there is transparency consistent with the Attorney General being allowed to carry out that independent role effectively.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have not had an opportunity to ensure certainty in terms of my point in this regard. I understand the individual at the centre of the CC case went on to commit a further heinous act some years later, with tragic consequences for people. The Taoiseach and I may differ on this. If it is the case that there is no precedence in regard to the release of advices by the Attorney General, it becomes ever more difficult to argue the case. The Taoiseach may or may not accept there is an element of questionable uncertainty or lack of confidence in the role of the Office of the Attorney General in regard to this and other matters. I suggest that confidence could be restored if in certain situations where clearly there is not a serious confidentiality issue involved the advices could be made known and offered to Opposition parties and spokespeople as appropriate. This would perhaps provide for a greater understanding of decisions taken by Cabinet and in regard to advices given by the Attorney General.

Would the Taoiseach consider such a proposition and will he explore any merit in this regard in due course?

Brian Cowen (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue arose when the importance and sensitive nature of the case was not brought in a timely fashion to the attention of the Attorney General. Therefore, the question that arises is not in regard to the merits of the advices subsequently provided by the Attorney General or advisory counsel but in regard to the timeliness in this regard based on the fact that the system did not respond in the way one would have expected when this important and sensitive case arose. Amidst all this confusion, the matter went to court and was dealt with independently by the courts. There were lessons to be learned for the future to avoid a recurrence of the set of circumstances in which this issue arose from the Attorney General's knowledge of the stage the case was at and what was being done on an operational basis regarding it. This would have been one of hundreds of cases that would have been ongoing at any given time. Lessons must be learned from that and it is to the credit of the office that all the recommendations outlined in the report are being implemented. That is what the House would expect and I am glad to report that is the case.

On the wider issue of where there are often different points of views about the merits or otherwise of the advices of any particular legal officer, any government can only rely on, and is constitutionally required to deal with, advices based on the Attorney General's advice. Otherwise, one would get advices, and possibly contrary advices, from a range of people which would not necessary add to the coherence or understanding of the legal aspects of a particular decision that needed to be incorporated by Cabinet on a particular subject.

There are good reasons for that being the case. The independence of the Attorney General must be respected. His office is not a political office in that sense. He is a member of the Government but he retains that independent legal function. It serves Government well to have it that way. The matter for resolution in respect of advices he gives are resolved in the courts, not here. The advices he gives, for example, on the preparation of legislation are discussed here. There is good reason he is not brought to the centre of political controversy or debate and in that way politicisation of the office is avoided.