Seanad debates

Wednesday, 31 May 2006

10:30 am

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Order of Business is Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 23, motion 22. No. 1 is a referral motion, to be taken without debate, whereby the subject matter of No. 14 on today's Order Paper is being referred to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for consideration. It is primarily a judicial arrangement whereby the judicial authority in a state requested to execute an arrest warrant would recognise a warrant issued by the judicial authority in Norway or Iceland. This information was inadvertently given yesterday to the House in respect of the motion back from committee which was passed by the House.

No. 2, Employment Permits Bill 2005 — Committee Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 2.30 p.m.; No. 3, National Economic and Social Development Office Bill 2002 — Committee and Remaining Stages to be taken at 3.30 p.m. and to conclude not later than 5 p.m.; and No. 23, motion 22, to be taken from 5 p.m. until 7 p.m. There will be a sos from 2.30 p.m. to 3.30 p.m.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am duty bound to oppose today's Order of Business given the Leader's commitment on yesterday's Order of Business that a debate would be provided for today on the implications of last week's Supreme Court decision. It would be wrong of this House to go about its business today without providing an hour or two for such a debate. We would prefer to have a debate with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but if that is not possible we will debate the matter ourselves.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All sides of the House share this view. Since yesterday's High Court decision the blame game has started. It is extraordinary that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was blissfully unaware of the Supreme Court case pending in last week's list. I find it difficult to believe that the Minister, who was a leading criminal lawyer, was for a time Attorney General and has sat at the Cabinet table for the past seven years, was unaware that this case was coming up, despite, as he admitted yesterday, the existence of channels of communication between the Director of Public Prosecutions, his office and the Office of the Attorney General.

The Minister has significant questions to answer about the Government's handling of this case. Those questions and answers need to be aired in this House. The Minister needs to show some leadership on this issue and tell people he knows what he knows, as he famously said of himself. He has characterised himself as the great "I am" of Irish politics. It is time for him to be frank with this House and the other House and tell us why such a major decision, that had implications for many cases before the courts was not brought to his attention and that of his Department at an earlier stage.

Let us not forget that the Minister told Pat Kenny on the radio last Thursday that there is no gaping black hole in the legislation. That changed yesterday afternoon. He needs to come to the House today to explain himself.

Photo of Joe O'TooleJoe O'Toole (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In line with what I said yesterday when I seconded Senator Brian Hayes's proposal, I agreed to its withdrawal on the basis that the Leader would do her utmost to get a debate on the issue today. She has failed to do that. I accept that she said she would try her best, however, she did not succeed.

I wish to be clear on this without playing politics. It would be seriously irresponsible and an abrogation of our responsibility as public representatives to leave the House today without having a discussion on this issue. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that we have the debate in our gift. Even if there is no Minister available, I want to go on the record and I am certain people on the Government side of the House feel as strongly about the issue as Members on this side. It is only fair to have a debate to allow our constituents see that we know what is going on and that we are connected enough to their concerns to at least put our views on the record.

Yesterday, I asked for three things. I asked the Government to outline its plan on this issue so that we can at least answer the question as to what will happen next. I also asked about closing the loophole and about the age of consent. It is even more difficult today to see our way through from where we are now. I called yesterday for immediate legislation to close the loophole and suggested we wait for a time before dealing with the age of consent. As I am not a legal mind I do not know now whether the constitutional appeal being lodged by the DPP, the Government or the governor of Mountjoy Prison, impacts on the situation or on whether we should bring forward the legislation to close the loophole. However, I want to hear the case one way or the other.

The crucial issue is that ordinary people want to know who is affected. I cannot answer that question. I know there are six people in prison who are clearly affected to some extent, but I do not know whether they can simply take their case to court and walk free. Is it possible for the State to bring alternative charges and if it does, is there an issue of double jeopardy? People need to know the answers to these questions. Where cases are currently being investigated, what charges are available to the DPP? Can he bring forward charges of serious sexual assault that attract the same incarceration penalty as the charge of statutory rape? Can the old charge of rape, as opposed to statutory rape, be brought? I want to know the answers to these questions.

Also, if cases are currently due before the court on particular charges, can those charges be changed now to reflect the new circumstances? With regard to the Supreme Court decision, what date of implementation are we tied to? Are we tied to the date of the Constitution or are we tied to the date the law was enacted by us? If the law enacted by us is wiped from the Statute Book, does that mean amendments to it which changed previous legislation are also wiped and that the previous legislation stands?

I have exceeded my time, but I want to make the case for a debate on the issue. I do not want the debate now, but I want it today. I think I am making the case on behalf of all Members of the House. I spoke to Members on the Government side last night and they are dismayed by what is going on. We are answerable to the people and must be able to answer their questions. I demand some opportunity to put our views forward today. If the Government chooses not to send in somebody to talk to us, we can interpret that as we like. I want to go on the record on the issue. All Members are entitled to do the same so that they can show afterwards where they stood on the issue and what proposals they made. We can then measure or benchmark ourselves against that.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would not disagree with a word Senator O'Toole has said, except to add that while it is extremely important that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform should come to the House to explain the situation, it is more important that something be done immediately to protect our children. It is important to separate the issue of the protection of our children from the more complicated issue of the age of consent.

It is for that reason the Labour Party has published a Bill to deal specifically with the issue raised by the Supreme Court. As leader of my group I would have the right to introduce that Bill, but even if I signed it today, under Standing Orders it would not appear on the Order Paper until next week. The situation is that we could not deal with it for a fortnight. Therefore, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to the effect that notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, leave be hereby given to immediately introduce a Bill entitled Sexual Offences (Age of Consent) (Temporary Provisions) Bill 2006, and that the aforesaid Bill be debated in Seanad Éireann at the conclusion of all other business today.

It is important that the people, who are extremely concerned about this issue, know the level of sexual predatory behaviour commonplace in the country. They are aware of the vulnerability of children and want action immediately. I and other Members were summoned back from summer holidays on one occasion to bail out a well-known businessman.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A beef baron.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was here too when amendments to the Offences against the State Act were rushed through both Houses in hours because an individual was suspected of having hot money. I do not understand why the limited amending legislation to deal specifically with the issue raised by the Supreme Court could not have been passed through the Houses of the Oireachtas by now. Therefore, I appeal to the Government to take the unusual step and allow the Labour Party to publish its Bill today and debate it tonight so that if no other solution emerges, it can go to the Dáil and be passed tomorrow.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

First, we must ensure that the Judiciary is independent. Second, I understand Government lawyers lodged an appeal to the Supreme Court with regard to the Mr. A case and requested the judge not to release Mr. A until the appeal was heard. Therefore, it has taken very quick action——

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of order, it is proper and right that this House would debate decisions of the Supreme Court. It is the only court of interpretation in the land.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is likely both Houses will be recalled next week to deal with emergency legislation. The Government has taken whatever action it could take in the circumstances.

I wish to make a request to the Leader of the House. This is the 100th anniversary of the death of Michael Davitt, the great founder of the Land League from County Mayo.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should be ashamed to mention his name.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the circumstances, I call for a debate on the ninth progress report on private property produced by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution chaired by Senator O'Donovan. It would be appropriate to discuss this at this time, the 100th anniversary of the death of Michael Davitt and 160 years since his birth in Straide, County Mayo. This important report deals with private property and its use. I ask that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government come to the House to outline what progress has been made on the implementation of the report. The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Bill, which arose from the report, is now progressing through the Houses. That is good, but the question of the use and cost of private property and housing should be addressed in the context of the ninth report. I understand a constitutional amendment will not be required.

The "Prime Time" programme of 29 May referred to a legal shambles. As long as solicitors are allowed to police themselves the public will suffer. I take exception to a document I received from the Law Society with regard to my Private Members' Bill, the Registration of Wills Bill 2005. The document stated that the Society is concerned that my Bill may become law. The Bill will introduce restrictions on the abuse of the system operated by solicitors with the support of the Law Society. The society is trying to impede the work of the Oireachtas by opposing the Bill on a number of grounds, including its practical implementation.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Senator seek a debate?

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I want Committee and Remaining Stages of the Bill, which the Law Society wants withdrawn, to be debated. The Law Society is suggesting there is an infringement of certain legal principles. The only infringement is that they will have to comply with a regulation of this House to ensure that wills are properly registered and implemented. It is the unanimous wish of this House that the wills Bill should be passed.

Photo of Frank FeighanFrank Feighan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Government has the numbers to vote it through.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I resent the actions of the Law Society of Ireland in trying to thwart the democratic rights of this House. I intend to ensure, with the support of my colleagues, that the Bill is finalised. The matters which were exposed on "Prime Time Investigates" on Monday night were scandalous.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator, you have made your point.

Photo of Terry LeydenTerry Leyden (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some people from the Senator's own county were implicated in that programme as well.

Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support Senators Brian Hayes and Ryan in calling for this important issue to be debated in this House today. We are all extremely concerned about the ramifications of the recent court judgments for the young people of this country. When I listened to the radio yesterday afternoon and this morning, I sensed the concern, anger and fear of parents and the other law-abiding citizens of this State. They are angry that their legislators — all of us here, especially the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — allowed this to happen. We need to have faith in ourselves as legislators. In particular, we need to have faith in the Minister, Deputy McDowell, who always seems to claim to have knowledge of everything but has let us down in this instance. The Government has let the people of this country down by failing to foresee what was about to happen on foot of the Supreme Court decision last week. We now know that it should have been aware of the problems which existed. One has to question whether it was aware of them but decided instead to bury its head in the sand. I fully support those who have called on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to this House this afternoon to outline exactly how we arrived at this stage, to state whether it is possible to try to alleviate the problems we face today and to explain how the children of this country will be protected.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Farming is still an important activity in this country. Our public service broadcaster should be asked, if necessary, to make sure that an adequate farming news service is supplied not only to farmers but also to those who depend downstream on farming activity in any way. There are several business news items in every news bulletin. It is not too much to ask that there should be one item of farming news in at least one bulletin.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There would not be much good news.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support my colleagues who have called for an urgent debate on the implications of last week's Supreme Court decision and yesterday's decision in the Mr. A case. The man involved has admitted and acknowledged that he fed drink to a 12 year old girl before violating her. The State has failed to protect the young girl in question, who has said she is in fear as a result of the release of this man. We have known about this problem since the publication of a Law Reform Commission report 16 years ago. I wonder whether this is yet another example of the Government using the commission as a long-fingering device.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wonder whether the members of the Government read the reports of the Law Reform Commission. If so, do they act on them? They seem to do so in a pathetically small number of cases. If what I read in the newspapers is correct, it seems, with the greatest respect to the Supreme Court, that there is a little degree of timidity in that court. It could have struck down one section of the legislation and left the rest of it intact, but it indicated that it did not want to engage in something akin to legislation. I understand that and I understand the separation of powers, but a more important principle is at stake. Under the Constitution, individuals have the right to go to court to get justice, but the girl in the A case did not get justice. It would be a mistake, however, to think we can use a sticking plaster solution to resolve this difficulty. I will support Senator Ryan's excellent attempt to cure the situation through legislation. I am sure most Senators, including those on the Government side, will do likewise, at least in principle.

We cannot just leave it there, however, because some important, difficult and complex issues need to be faced. I raised the question of a principle of consent in this House a number of years ago. When an age of consent is nakedly instituted in legislation, there will be people who will be caught. There is a case on record of a teenage youth who was sent to jail for having a consensual sexual relationship with a girl who was slightly younger then him. We need to ask questions about such a case. For example, we should re-examine the question of a principle of consent even though this may be a difficult area. When I made this argument previously, some of the more scurrilous elements of the media suggested that I was supporting paedophilia, which I was not doing. I was trying to find a way of protecting the rights and well-being of young people. As legislators, it is our responsibility to face this difficult issue with a certain amount of moral courage. This kind of problem gives everyone a chance to score points but it would be a mistake to do so. I do not think this should be a partisan issue.

Senators:

Hear, hear.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not think the media should engage in the kind of commentary I heard this morning, when a responsible broadcaster read what was described as a very important comment, which was "we are being governed by a crowd of eejits in Leinster House". That is not responsible commentary, in my opinion. We should examine the issues in a calm manner, not in the interests of political advantage but in the interests of the welfare of the citizens of this State, particularly its young people and children.

Senators:

Hear, hear.

Photo of Jim WalshJim Walsh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I fully concur with almost everything Senator Norris said about this matter, which involves some complex legal issues. There is no monopoly of concern on either side of the House. We are concerned because a loophole has been opened and needs to be closed as quickly and effectively as possible. It is important that we have a debate on it. It is equally important, given the complexity of the issue, that a member of the Cabinet should be present for the debate. I would like to think we could put party politics aside, speak with one voice and give some leadership on this issue. While there is widespread public concern about recent developments, we do not need to follow some of the alarmist and knee-jerk comments which have been made. This House often examines issue of public concern in a constructive manner and I would like to think we can do so in this case. I join those who have asked the Acting Leader to endeavour to have a debate on this subject at some stage today, if at all possible. I hope the legislation which is now necessary to deal with this problem can be brought to the House as soon as possible.

11:00 am

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator Walsh's comments. I ask him, in the context of his remarks, to support the Private Members' Bill that was mentioned by Senator Ryan. I would like to formally second the proposal to debate that Bill in the House today. Like other speakers, Senator Walsh rightly pointed out that complex legal issues arise from last week's Supreme Court decision. The simple legislative issue at the heart of this matter can be dealt with quickly, however. We can start that process today. People see this as an urgent issue and I hope Government Senators see it as an urgent issue. The country is outraged not at the Supreme Court decision but at the failure of the Government to anticipate this problem — it has known for a considerable time that it might happen — and to deal with it. People are also outraged that there seems to be a "blame game" going on, as Senator Brian Hayes said. I can inform those who are trying to work out who is responsible that the Government is responsible — that is why it was elected. The Government needs to act quickly.

It is not enough to state that this matter will wait until next week. A man has been released by the High Court who is known to have offended in a particular manner. This has outraged people throughout the country and cannot be allowed to continue. This is a serious issue and I hope Government Senators will take it on board. In the spirit of putting politics aside, as Senator Jim Walsh put it, they should support this Bill, which would permit the public to see that as legislators, Members take their duties seriously and share people's outrage on this extraordinarily serious matter.

Maurice Hayes (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Most of what I had wished to say has already been said by Senators Jim Walsh and Norris, both of whom I strongly support in this regard. It would be a pity if the House divided on this matter, because I sense that the same sense of shock and concern is felt on all sides. Nevertheless, it would give a strange signal to the public, which is convulsed by this matter, if this House, of all the fora in which it might be discussed, were to take a vow of silence. It would send an even worse signal if it were seen that Members were even divided as to the manner in which this subject might be discussed. For that reason, I appeal to the Acting Leader to establish whether it is possible to accede to the wishes of a large number of Members to at least have a debate on this matter today.

No matter what is done, I do not believe it will be possible to recapture or lasso people who, because of a defect in the legal process, have been found to be wrongly tried and convicted. That is water under the bridge. However, it is important that Members seek to protect children. An informed debate in this House might be helpful, in which Members did not try to score points, but perhaps tried to reassure the public that by and large, children are not in greater danger today than they were yesterday and that people are not waiting to harm every 15 year old. While it is important that the law is in place, I am unsure that predators, rapists and people like that go around with a copy of the Constitution or the criminal law in their pockets.

Michael Finucane (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

All Members have listened to some of the programmes broadcast which have galvanised and concerned the entire nation. Everyone acknowledges the Minister's legal ability and he has a quite significant stature, both as a senior counsel and as a former Attorney General. The matter which concerned people when he appeared on the "Today with Pat Kenny" radio show after the Supreme Court judgment is that he stated there was no black hole and no urgency with regard to legislation. This surprised people, because everyone realises the implication of what happened yesterday, with the release of Mr. A, as he has been described. It will be followed by similar releases of other people who have been jailed.

I will remind Members of what is happening at present. In my native County Limerick, the gardaí had prepared a case and the book of evidence in respect of a person who had carnal knowledge of a person under 17 years of age. However, they have been instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions to drop the proceedings. Hence, the stories which Members have read are only the tip of the iceberg. This is happening on a national basis and a gaping black hole does exist.

I acknowledge Deputy McDowell's legal ability. However, while I do not read the Law Society Gazette, I presume it is the bible for those engaged in the business of law-making and in the October 2005 edition, it warned about the implications of this issue. I would be surprised if the Minister did not read it. I have also been surprised that in recent days, Deputy McDowell has stated that neither he, the Attorney General nor the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform was aware of what was happening, but that some people in the Office of the Attorney General may have been aware of developments. I find this incredible and it reminds me of the time when Deputy Martin was Minister for Health and Children and did not remember anything regarding nursing home charges either. Therefore, urgent action is required. I am pleased that the House will return next week and that there may be legislation with which to plug the existing gaps.

However, I wish to raise briefly another issue, which is probably closer to home. I am aware that the chief executive of the Health Service Executive will receive a bonus of €32,000. While I heard a Member mutter something, perhaps he will permit me to finish. I remind the house that the starting salary for a junior nurse is €28,000 per year, rising to €32,000 after four years. Much is heard about primary care and the importance of keeping older people in our community. I wish to illustrate the hypocrisy of the situation by way of an example. I know a man from my own locality who is 85 years of age. Although he has a medical condition, because he has a second pension with the county council, he is debarred from even a single hour of home help. I argue this point with the Health Service Executive because I hate such hypocrisy. Because he has a second pension, that poor man from a rural area cannot get a single hour. This is why I do not accept that an individual deserves a bonus of €32,000. Moreover, the Taoiseach spends something like €500 per week on make-up. Members should cop themselves on and should consider the reality of rural Ireland.

Tom Morrissey (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business in order that First Stage of No. 7 on the Order Paper may be moved. I seek the House's permission to have this Bill printed. The Bill is entitled Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support all my colleagues who have raised the matter under discussion on foot of yesterday's High Court decision. As Members are all aware, yesterday's High Court decision was merely consequential to the Supreme Court decision. Hence, there has been an amazing gap and breakdown in communication. Undoubtedly, while the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is an eminent and capable senior counsel, I do not understand how he could have been in the dark to such an extent.

However, as several speakers have noted, Members must get on with the matter. As legislators, they have a duty to close the loophole off quickly and effectively. I agree with Senators Maurice and Brian Hayes and others, that the House should have a debate today, even if the Government is unable to provide the Minister or a Deputy. However, even if the Minister is unavailable, I suggest that a deputy could be provided. It would be desirable, if possible, to hear from the Government in respect of the advice it has received from the Attorney General and others. Hence, I wish to be supportive.

Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to share in the sense of outrage, horror and deep shock which all Members feel at the potential consequences arising from the recent legal decisions of the Supreme and High Courts. I wholeheartedly support the principle behind the approaches of Senators Maurice Hayes, Jim Walsh and Norris.

Members on the other side of the House are making one of the most fundamental mistakes possible at present. To proceed hastily——

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are protecting our children.

Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——to address what is being described as a potential licence for predators to rush out and continue the kind of despicable practices——

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are out there.

(Interruptions).

Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I invoke the protection of the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Senator Maurice Hayes has rightly described them as predators. However, to depict a story whereby such people——

Photo of Ulick BurkeUlick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are out there.

Kathleen O'Meara (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator is in denial.

Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

—— armed with a licence arising from these two decisions, would inflict such despicable practices on the children, juveniles and minors of the nation is not only untrue and wrong, it is scaremongering.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Senator should consider what Mr. A admitted to.

Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A Leas-Chathaoirligh, may I speak? The House should invoke the wisdom of Senators Maurice Hayes, Norris and my good friend and colleague, Senator Jim Walsh and should hasten slowly. While this should not be a shot in the dark, Members should hasten slowly with a partnership approach.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When Larry Goodman was in trouble, the Government had no difficulty in bailing him out.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Ryan should allow Senator Fitzgerald to speak without interruption.

Liam Fitzgerald (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am about to finish. Red herrings from Senator Ryan do a serious injustice to him and the concern he has articulated about the matter. We should proceed immediately but carefully to invoke a partnership approach to address an issue that goes to the very core of society, the value and dignity we place on each individual human being and, in particular, on the protection of our minors. I plead with the House to fully support the approaches articulated by my three colleagues.

Photo of Ulick BurkeUlick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I find it difficult to accept what Senator Maurice Hayes said earlier. He said there are victims in the world who are not in danger from predators.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He did not say that.

Photo of Ulick BurkeUlick Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We can check the record. It is important that the victims are protected immediately. Whatever legislation is necessary should be introduced. Following the High Court decision, Mr. A has been released. It is difficult for me to accept that this person, who was found guilty, will now be removed from the register of sex offenders, which is appalling. If all the others are supposedly to be released, will they not represent a danger to the victims and the public at large? If something is not done immediately to curtail the situation, many people will continue to live in fear.

Where does the register of sex offenders exist? Other than with a particular Garda district on the PULSE system, is there a physical register of these offenders? If it exists, some people do not know where it is or how to get access to it. I would be grateful if the Acting Leader could confirm that there is a physical register of sex offenders.

Michael Brennan (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I second Senator Morrissey's proposal regarding No. 7, the Defence of Life and Property Bill 2006. I agree that householders should not be penalised for acts of self-defence carried out on their own property.

Over the past 12 months all sides of the House have welcomed the €5.1 billion water services investment programme. I call on the Acting Leader to invite the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to the House for an update on the schemes scheduled to start in 2006 and 2007. Local authorities and the community in general are dependent on those developments taking place. Where development has not taken place, it is time for the Minister to review the situation and take remedial action.

Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was going to raise the point made by Senator Finucane, whereby not alone has Mr. A been released from prison, but the DPP has dropped cases that were pending because of the ruling, which is of great concern to the families concerned. All they received was a phone call from the DPP and no counselling or advice was given to them. I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to give whatever facilities are needed to the families who were facing very traumatic court cases and now face the horrible scenario of being in no-man's land due to this fiasco.

I would not have confidence in the Minister. Last Saturday's Irish Independent reported that the Minister had leaked a Fine Gael document.

Senators:

Hear, hear.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is true.

Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fine Gael went to the bother of producing a Private Members' Bill on the matter and as a matter of courtesy and precedent, gave it to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for perusal. The Minister, Deputy McDowell, leaked the document to the Irish Independent to try to damage Fine Gael. Meanwhile he was doing nothing on the issue and I understand he did not even have the heads of a Bill prepared for the Cabinet meeting yesterday. A debate would be very welcome. I would like to hear from the other side of the House as to whether Fianna Fáil has full confidence in the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Private utterances would suggest otherwise.

Following the release of Mr. A, we face the appalling scenario of pending court cases being dropped and people named, which should be on the register of sex offenders, being removed from it. It is also possible that people will now sue the State for wrongful imprisonment which is outrageous, especially in the case of Mr. A who raped a 12 year old girl and admitted having done so.

On a related issue, I am aware that in cases of legal ambiguity some barristers may suggest that one has a good case while others may suggest that one has a bad case. The difficulty is that one does not know where one stands until the case goes to court. We had the same scenario with nursing home charges. While the Government felt they were legal, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Does the State have the ability to take a test case in the courts? For example, when it received advice that there was ambiguity over the section of the Act, could the State have taken a test case, rather than leave it to an actual case that has resulted in the current scenario?

Photo of Michael KittMichael Kitt (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would welcome a debate on the outcome of the Supreme Court and High Court decisions. There is widespread concern about these issues and we need legislation, which I hope can be brought to the House soon. The worst thing we could do would be to remain silent on two very serious decisions that have been handed down and an informed debate would be very welcome.

Approximately two weeks ago we discussed the availability of parish radio. I was under the impression that the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Communications, Marine and Natural Resources would deal with the matter on 14 June. However, I understand this is not the case. Many issues need to be raised regarding the legality or illegality of the present service. Are people supposed to close down the radio service? Do they need new equipment, which is expensive for parish communities? I would hope the Minister could come to the House to discuss the issue and that new regulations could be made as quickly as possible to allow a radio service to be provided in every parish wishing to do so.

Photo of John Gerard HanafinJohn Gerard Hanafin (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I share the view that we need legislation very quickly. However, as a very inadequate student in the Kings Inns for the past two years, I would not dare to go into the detail of the legal course of action undertaken. It has been suggested that the DPP put certain cases forward ahead of others. I understand the DPP would have had no choice but to take these cases first because an order of habeas corpus would be issued on the basis of conviction under faulty legislation. It is inadequate for people to elaborate beyond their capability on legal matters.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Approximately one third of the membership of the House have spoken seeking a debate on the issues arising from the Supreme Court decision. While I could deal with the matter at some length, for the purposes of brevity the following Members spoke on the matter: Senators Brian Hayes, O'Toole, Ryan, Leyden, Terry, Norris, Jim Walsh, O'Meara, Maurice Hayes, Finucane, Coghlan, Fitzgerald, Ulick Burke, Browne, Kitt and Hanafin. While there has been a wide divergence of views, there is unanimity that the matter needs to be discussed. Nobody in the House has a monopoly on outrage. We are all outraged by what has taken place.

Photo of Mary WhiteMary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Considerable blame has been distributed by those who claim they do not want any blame game.

Photo of Martin ManserghMartin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Quite true.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am as anxious as anybody to have the matter discussed. The Leader gave a commitment yesterday. Serious efforts were made overnight and again this morning to ensure the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform would come to the House. The Minister has always been amenable to coming to the House. As recently as five minutes before the Order of Business, he indicated to me personally that he would attend if at all possible. People must understand that the priority is to rectify the matter. He must have a lead role in this matter. It is a simple issue in one sense but, as Senator Hanafin pointed out, it is an extremely complicated legal issue. The Minister's primary focus must be on that. If he can at all, he will come to the House and I give the House an assurance that I will endeavour to ensure that he comes here. I will set aside an hour between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. to discuss the matter on the basis of contributions by one spokesperson for each group. Hopefully the Minister will be present to put his point of view but I cannot guarantee that. I will make every effort to ensure that happens.

The will of the House is clear and it would be wrong not to be in accord with it. A lady who represents the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre stated on radio earlier it would be wrong to be reactive about this matter. There is a great deal of truth in that and we need to be calm and reflective. The House has a very good record of debating difficult issues such as Northern Ireland and abortion in a calm, reasoned and non-partisan way and I hope that will be in evidence again during the discussion on this matter later. Clarity is needed but I do not agree with the proposition that there is a black hole. The issue hinges on section 11 of the 1935 Act, which concerns whether a person knows his or her victim is under age and everything flows from that. It is obvious to every Member that it must be rectified quickly. The Dáil will deal with this matter next Wednesday. We have no control over that House and I do not know how long the legislation will take but if it comes out of the Dáil next Wednesday or Thursday, the House will sit to deal with it.

There is no disagreement about the need to protect our children and all parties have done that over the years. The legislation in question has stood for 70 years without challenge and the Constitution is in place almost as long. As Senator Maurice Hayes stated, we are where we are for good or ill and we must deal with this issue. I hope this proposal is satisfactory. Victims must be protected and there is no disagreement about that. The Minister has primary responsibility to rectify the problem together with the Government and the Oireachtas. I am sure the Houses will dispose of the legislation as expeditiously as possible.

I am in the Leas-Chathaoirleach's hands regarding Senator Ryan's amendment because I am not sure about the procedure involved but it is not my intention to accept it.

Senator Leyden referred to the 100th anniversary of the death of Michael Davitt, which is an important occasion. I was a member of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution that issued a report on private property, which should be debated. The committee's primary responsibility is to report to the Taoiseach and, therefore, I am not sure about the role of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in the matter but that can be teased out. However, the issue could be usefully debated by the House. The Senator also referred to the Registration of Wills Bill 2005 and the Law Society. Similar to other groups in society, if legislation is passed, the society has a responsibility to implement the will of the Oireachtas and I am confident that it will do so.

Senator Mansergh raised the issue of the broadcasting of farming issues. I must declare a vested interest, as I broadcasted about farming for quite a while. It has been evident over a long period that the attention our national broadcasting station pays to the industry is declining rapidly. Numbers in the industry have also declined but it is central to our economy and society. It would be regrettable if the work of Michael Dillon, Joe Murray and others in RTE was not sustained into the future. The Senator has made a good point and I will communicate his views to the RTE Authority.

I share Senator Finucane's distaste on the matter concerning the chief executive officer of the Health Service Executive. It is a matter of contract and the executive must decide whether it awards bonuses but, in the context of what the Senator described, it is difficult to take. The best people deserve the best pay and that is the way to attract them but that is a separate issue.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach must decide whether No. 7 can be moved.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It must be decided whether it can be included in the Order of Business.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It can be.

Senator Brennan raised the water service investment programme and it would be useful if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government were to come to the House to discuss it.

I do not have an answer for Senator Browne regarding test cases but, in general, citizens who are contesting matters against the State take such cases rather than the Government. I will find out the answer for the Senator.

Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It should be examined

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Ulick Burke raised a matter relating to the sex offender's register but I am not sure about it and I will check it for him.

I agree with Senator Kitt's comments on parish radio. We are all keen that this facility be expanded because it is important for elderly people and those who are ill. I will see what I can do to progress the matter.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Acting Leader proposing an amendment to the Order of Business, given his commitment to a debate between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., which I very much welcome?

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose that we discuss the issue raised by the Senator between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m., hopefully, in the presence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

Photo of Brian HayesBrian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am grateful for that.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are two amendments to the Order of Business. Senator Ryan has moved amendment No. 1: "That the following motion be taken today: 'That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, leave is hereby given to introduce a Bill entitled Sexual Offence (Age of Consent)(Temporary Provisions) Bill 2006 immediately and that the aforesaid Bill be debated in Seanad Éireann at the conclusion of all other business today'.". The amendment is out of order, as the Chair cannot accept a motion that seeks to introduce a Bill in a manner contrary to the established procedure. The Chair has not been given an opportunity to examine the text of the Bill and rule on its admissibility. The House cannot be required to debate a Bill that has not been subjected to that scrutiny. The Bill should be lodged in the manner provided by Standing Orders.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I moved an amendment to the Order of Business that the motion be taken. The Chair did not rule——

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have explained the terms of the motion and I have ruled it out of order. If the Senator would like to meet me in my office afterwards, I will oblige him.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Chair should rule on the material in the motion and not on my amendment to the Order of Business.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I must rule on the terms of the motion and I have refused the amendment on that basis.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was being courteous by providing a written copy of the motion.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have ruled on this. I did not have an opportunity——

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It should surely be the position that we would decide to amend the Order of Business, at which stage the Chair would rule the motion was out of order rather than rule on something that is not properly before the House.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have ruled on the terms of the motion.

Photo of Brendan RyanBrendan Ryan (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate that but I want to record my dismay.

Photo of Paddy BurkePaddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator Morrissey has moved amendment No. 2 to the Order of Business: "That No. 7 be taken before No. 1". Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed.

It is further proposed to amend the Order of Business to take statements on the legal loophole created by the recent Supreme Court judgment between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m.

Question, "That the Order of Business, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.