Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

I agree with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on one issue, namely, his view that the adversarial system in this Chamber is an important dimension of our democratic system, allowing Deputies to probe matters of public interest, scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account. There are rare occasions when behind the robust adversarial exchanges there is a wish on all sides of the House, perhaps unexpressed, to see the Government do well, take control, give wise leadership and exert good authority. The past ten days have been such a period because the parent took over from the parliamentarian on all sides of this Chamber, and all sides, except those elected to Cabinet to serve as Government, appreciated this. That is what was different. Instead of a Government that could grasp what was happening, provide leadership and appreciate public concerns, this Government was seen to be in disarray, at sixes and sevens, unable to understand the import of the unfolding events, and unable to make any coherent response. Members of the House and those outside could not appreciate the response of a Government that told us there was no gaping hole, nobody would walk free, and that we ought to make haste slowly in replacing the struck down section. Meanwhile, the concern on everybody's mind was the protection of our children. This Government showed itself to be more concerned about protecting itself as the crisis evolved than it was about protecting children.

One of the things that makes politics different from other endeavours is that one cannot tell at the beginning of a week how it will unfold and what events will arise. On this occasion, however, it was different. It was not just people on this side of the House who could see what was happening; the backbenchers behind the Minister could see what was happening also. For Government backbenchers, the Minister's response to this crisis was like watching a car crash in slow motion. People could not understand why he could not grasp the import of what was occurring before his eyes. The Minister engaged in laid-back interviews and relaxed exchanges about what could or could not be done. He promised to bring forward a Bill in two weeks' time — not just after the holiday weekend but after the House was going into recess for a week. Then it was proposed that we would meet and if the Bill was ready we would enact it. The public were in disbelief.

Ministers then went into denial. They denied knowledge and said they could not have anticipated the outcome of the Supreme Court decision. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform told us that neither he nor his Department had any knowledge of this. The Tánaiste told us that the Department had been advised of the proceedings in 2002. The Minister told us that the DPP had carriage of this case. The Tánaiste told us that it was the joint responsibility of the DPP and the Attorney General. The Attorney General had no knowledge, according to the Minister and the Tánaiste. That is despite the fact that his office was concerned with the processing of the case.

In the opening paragraph of his speech, the Minister made a remark about the protection of our children. He then went on for the next 22 minutes to talk about the protection of his own position, self-justification for what happened, and what we might or might not have foreseen.

See this speech in context