Marie Sherlock (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the committee for bearing with me when I had to step out there. I also thank the officials from the Department for coming here today. I am conscious that they have an enormous workload and are having to take time out to come to this hearing today. However, to be frank, I am wondering about the purpose of today's hearing. On 26 January, 16 weeks ago, the Tánaiste said he was open to changes to the Bill. When Department representatives appeared before the committee 14 weeks ago on 9 February - Ms Maher was not there that day but Mr. Doheny and Mr. Mulligan were - they talked about looking further at the legal issues with regard to the redress provisions and the right of appeal. They said then it was a work in progress. The statement today says the Department is still examining the redress provision and the right of appeal and is considering the enumerated grounds for refusal. We have been having a conversation about that for the past hour but I am none the wiser as to what the precise intentions of the Department are with regard to these issues.

The Department has a job to do and we as a committee also have one to do here, which is to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny. I have a great concern that our committee is being asked to produce a report in a vacuum because we do not know what the clear intentions of the Department are. I am unsure whether our committee should issue any report in the absence of clear detail from the Department as to what it wants this Bill to look like. This goes back to the question about the precise timeliness. Mr. Mulligan said that he is waiting for us to report back so that he can then decide. He said on 9 February that he is looking at these matters. What update does he have on these? It is not acceptable that so many weeks have passed and we are still not clear as to what exactly the Government is going to produce. The Tánaiste should be here today and the Chairman will be aware that I have said in private session on many occasions that he should be here to give account to the committee. This is not to shoot the officials here but for those officials who are tasked with drafting the legislation, we need to hear more detail because otherwise we are going to be writing a report in a vacuum.