Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I thank everyone for their kind comments. As I said when I was appointed Minister, it came as a shock to the principal Opposition spokespersons in the Dáil when I took them aside and said that if they produced worthwhile amendments to legislation, I would take them on board. If they are worthwhile ideas that are not well put technically, I will examine how they can be reframed. In the past ten years we had reached a point where Governments had an automatic knee-jerk reaction to amendments tabled by Independent Deputies and Senators and other Opposition Members. It did not matter how valid a proposal was. There was always a reason it could not be taken on board, but too frequently the reason was spurious and it was more about the Minister preserving some sense of personal importance than the legislative process.

I have particularly enjoyed our engagement on this legislation because I have a menu of another three dozen issues I would have liked to have addressed in it, but we did not have the time to do so. The gap between the Seanad and Dáil debates gave us a little more time. It was always my intention that we would address in legislation the issues raised by Senator Katherine Zappone and we had the opportunity to do so. However, we did not have the opportunity to address a few more that I wanted to raise. I am not sure whether another civil law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill will be introduced this side of Christmas, but we will have another one next year. Whether additional family law reforms will be included in it or whether we introduce a family law (miscellaneous provisions) Bill in the new year is an issue on which I have to make strategic decisions. It may be partially influenced by how much time I have available during August.

The changes we are making in the citizenship area and citizenship ceremonies are important as they are symbolic of a new approach in a new Ireland by a new Government. Through this approach we value those who have come to reside on the island with us and their wish to remain part of an Irish community and acquire Irish citizenship. We treat them with respect. The oath used at District Court level is somewhat antiquated and Senators may have missed the fact that I reframed it to extend the wording used. Previously, one made a declaration of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State and that was the extent of what an applicant swore but the 1,350 applicants who between 10 a.m. tomorrow and 5 p.m. on Friday will be sworn in in a series of ceremonies can make a new oath. It will comprise a declaration of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State and also an undertaking "to faithfully observe the laws of the State and to respect our democratic values". That is important and adds meaning to the oath people will take.

Senator Colm Burke again raised issues relating to the Coroners Acts. I am conscious coroners must have discretion regarding when they hold hearings because there can be many background reasons hearings are delayed. For example, a Garda investigation may be under way and a hearing in the Coroners Court could create a difficulty and prejudice a criminal trial. Care needs to be taken in this regard. Toxicological results may also be needed. There is a broad range of reasons for delays, but I am well aware from my days in legal practice that there have been occasions on which for no apparent reason a hearing has been unduly delayed or prolonged or where there has been a partial hearing and an adjournment and I am concerned that the issue be examined. I will consider the general legislation applying to coroners to establish whether it can be updated. I am conscious that one cannot fix a definitive date by which a hearing must take place and a verdict brought in by the jury in the Coroners Court but within the provisions of allowing an exercise of discretion based on background circumstances, there has to be some meeting point whereby it can be ensured where background reasons for delay do not appear to remain that no undue delay occurs because that can cause substantial additional distress to bereaved family members in circumstances where a coroner's verdict is required. It can also create major legal difficulties in addressing issues arising from a person's death.

Senator Denis O'Donovan keeps raising issues and says he does not expect a reply and that he will give me time to reply. I appreciate that, but when I am not aware of something, I will not jump in and reply. I am happy to reply to all the issues the Senator raised, albeit some of them do not arise under the Bill. I hope to bring forward sooner rather than later a comprehensive Bill relating to tribunals of inquiry to replace all existing Bills, update our law in this area and address issues of concern. Based on our experiences of the longevity of many tribunals and their cost, there is an understandable lack of enthusiasm for further tribunals. Some have sat for an extraordinary period. I got into difficulty recently when I tabled motions before both Houses relating to a tribunal that had been sitting for six years without anyone knowing where matters stood or without transparency as to where matters stood in order that we would receive a report. The consequent report was helpful and gave some indication as to what was happening. We cannot allow tribunals appointed to deal with matters described as "urgent and important" to carry on for many years at enormous public expense with the matters having long since ceased to be urgent. They may remain important, but the urgency becomes lost in translation between the time a tribunal is established and hearings are completed and reports published. We need to take much more care of this issue in the future. I hope we can address these issues.

I am conscious that the 2004 Act which provides for inquiry in a manner that is less expensive and prolonged and, in some ways, more efficient than tribunals of inquiry also provides us with an alternative mechanism to which we can resort, when necessary. None of us can anticipate when in the future another tribunal may be required and it is important to bring the laws surrounding them up to date. The legislation governing them is from the early 1900s and I hope to bring forward amending legislation before the end of the year. A substantial amount of work has been done on it in the Department already.

There are, however, several matters making their way through the Supreme Court that need to be clarified before we finalise the legislation. Several comments were made by a member of the Supreme Court in recent days with regard to the impact of tribunals, the importance of the views expressed by them and their costs. A number of people would have some sympathy with the views expressed in Mr. Justice Hardiman's recent judgment.

The criminal law codification project is important and much time and work is required to bring it to finality. The more compact and coherent we can make our laws, the better it is for public access to them and their general understanding by legal representatives and those required to administer them.

While it is straying from the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I thank Senator O'Donovan for raising the matters of giving statutory effect to the Garda vetting bureau, providing for the use of soft information and providing mechanisms as to how organisations will register for vetting purposes and obtain such information. The good news is that today, at 2 p.m. we published the heads of a Bill to deal with these provisions as well as prescribing criminal offences for circumstances in which an organisation fails to deal with or ignores a vetting issue of an employee who may have unsupervised access to children. Each head contains detailed explanations. The Bill will be worked on over the summer by my Department and the Office of the Attorney General.

This afternoon the heads of the Bill will be sent to the chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, Deputy David Stanton, with the request that the committee members receive them for consideration. The Government wants to involve Members of both Houses to assist in the development process regarding the detailed provisions as further consideration is required to bring it into the formal full state of a drafted Bill.

There is sufficient detail in the heads which will facilitate Members and allow them to make their observations on the legislation by the end of September. The objective is to publish the final form by 31 October and to commence Second Stage in either this or the Lower House, subject to parliamentary availability, in early November with enactment before Christmas.

This is long-promised legislation and, as a member of the former Oireachtas committee on children, I recall recommending the former Government publish it by December 2008. A series of promises were subsequently made by the Government about heads of a Bill and so forth but nothing came forward. When we took office, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and I discovered some initial but not substantial work had been done. I agreed with the Minister to take over this work. I promised Cabinet colleagues that I would publish this legislation by 31 July and I am pleased I have managed it four days sooner.

I look forward to people's inputs to the Bill. It is not being published on tablets of stone and I have no doubt more work will have to be done on it. I thank my officials for the substantial work they have done. I reacquainted myself with comparative legislation in other countries. The approach we are adopting is very different to the UK and Northern Ireland, which has recently been the subject of criticism because of the enormous volume of information and bureaucracy it is creating that may make it ineffective. It is a good coincidence that on the day the House is debating the Cloyne report we have published this important and substantive measure in child protection.

I thank Senators for their support for the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and the amendments we brought forward.