Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

We all pay tribute to the Bills Office but we should ensure that it is not put under such pressure by giving it intolerable deadlines. The people responsible for that should be departmental officials. Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle will examine this matter and discuss it with the Bills Office. It is unsatisfactory.

The main reason given by the Minister for rejecting the amendment is that every regulation that is made cannot be laid before the House. Members can see the regulations on demand. The Minister mentioned that the regulation could be about the size of the buttons or the brass for the uniform of an officer. However, I am not referring to the regulations made by the Commissioner but to those made by the Minister. The amendment refers to "every order or regulation made by the Minister". An order made by the Minister would not deal with the daily operation of the Garda or the design of the uniform but would refer to important matters.

I have in mind Part 6 of the legislation which deals with regulations and miscellaneous provisions. A raft of disciplinary and organisational matters are subject to the provisions in Part 6. The Minister will be responsible for drafting and approving those regulations, with the approval of the Government. Section 115 covers many matters of extreme concern to members with regard to rank, pay, allowances, training, use of facilities, penalties and the retirement of members. Volunteer members are governed by the disciplinary regulations as well. Part 6 deals with many serious matters relating to the code of conduct and the organisation and discipline of the Garda Síochána.

I do not understand why the Minister should object to regulations on these matters being put before the House or into the Oireachtas Library. We will not have a debate on them but we will have the opportunity to peruse them and, if appropriate, object to them within 21 days. It is standard practice. It would not be difficult for the Minister to do that. If the regulations or orders must be drafted and printed and put in somebody's cupboard somewhere, why can they not be laid before the House? I do not understand why we cannot adopt a standard way of dealing with regulations drawn up by a Minister. They can be annulled, if necessary, after 21 days but they should be laid before the House for scrutiny.

Suggesting that we are dealing with buttons and brass is not helpful. We are dealing with the implementation of this legislation and the important issues that will be dealt with by regulation. These are the issues that will determine whether this legislation is effective. Much of the work will be done under the oversight of Senator Maurice Hayes. The Minister will work on it too. Obviously, if the justice committee could assist, it would. However, what is not required is that regulations be drawn up in secret. If the Minister states that certain regulations should not be in the public domain, so be it. He can put his case and establish the caveat that matters that deal with the security of the State will be withheld from public scrutiny.

However, that is not the same as refusing to put disciplinary and organisational regulations before the House for the scrutiny of Members. That is particularly so when the Minister has refused us the opportunity to have a full and thorough debate on the provisions of this legislation. The fact that we did not have the opportunity to have that debate means we will be reliant on the roll-out of this legislation by regulation. The secondary legislation will be as important as the primary legislation in that respect but the Minister does not intend to give us the opportunity to examine either. We have seen these enabling provisions but the Minister will deny us the opportunity to see what they will enable the authorities and the agents of the State to do or how they propose to deal with the organisation, work and discipline of the Garda. We are entitled to see that.

The Minister says he will let us see some of the regulations and refuse to let us see others. He then gave the most menial example imaginable. That is no way to conduct business and it is not an acceptable explanation. The Minister must accept this standard form of accountability. It is, as Deputy Jim O'Keeffe said, a low threshold of accountability. It is not a proactive threshold whereby the regulations could be put on the Order Paper for debate or referral to a committee. It merely provides that they will be placed in the Oireachtas Library and that Members will be made aware of them and will have 21 days to exercise their option of responding to them. The Minister considers this too much work, involving too much paper. It is too much of a problem. In reality, however, no extra work or paper is involved and it would cause no greater difficulty. It would provide a level of oversight by the House that would not otherwise exist.

It is not a major task to make these regulations available to the House. I do not know if the Minister thinks he is concealing something or if he wishes to put everything under the broad brush of security but it is not good enough. Certain matters come within the ambit of security but, by and large, they are few and far between. They do not involve many regulations. The Minister could accept this amendment and thereby establish a precedent for every order or regulation made not just by this Minister but also by other Ministers, pursuant to the legislation in place. If they are important enough to be included in the legislation, they should be sufficiently important to be laid before the House in some format so Members can exercise oversight of them. Perhaps the Minister will change his mind and save us putting this issue to a vote by accepting this amendment, which has the support of all parties on this side of the House.

See this speech in context