Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am happy to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate. I agree with my Fine Gael colleague that this is very much a McDowell Bill. I was asked by a colleague what the legislation is about and I replied it is about everything and anything. For good measure, the Minister of State said it is not only about everything and anything, it is about more than that. In the best tradition of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, any Bill passing through the House is seen as a vehicle to which anything can be bolted virtually on any Stage. That is not a good way of making law but the double irony regarding this legislation is that its component parts make reasonable sense and it is not controversial, but the Statute Law (Restatement) Act is in place.

It was intended to consolidate legislation so that practitioners have ready access to current law but through e-government initiatives, every citizen should have similar access. However, as soon as the law is tidied up, the Minister adds bits and bobs in new legislation. It is difficult to know where anybody stands at any given moment because new provisions are being added to both civil and criminal legislation.

This is overarching legislation and a variety of provisions must be addressed, with more to be introduced. The main issue covered, which is important, is the reform of the process of overview of the legal profession, which I will deal with later. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe referred to the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956. One of the characteristics of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is good thoughts that occur to him can be expounded as legislation and, therefore, should be taken seriously on that basis. Unfortunately, he has probably surpassed the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources as a kite flyer who throws ideas in the air and checks how the wind blows. Those that crash crash and those that proceed proceed.

We had the tortuous experience recently of dealing with criminal justice legislation. One never felt that ideas were firmly thought out by the Minister. While I am a great believer in engaging with Members to test ideas, the Minister should have tested them rigorously before contacting the Parliamentary Counsel, bringing memoranda to Government and securing parliamentary time, which is a scarce resource. When his ideas were tested, they were clearly seen to be impractical. That is all too often a feature of legislation introduced by him. He is not great at taking advice and he believes his view should prevail. Occasionally, he is entirely outmanoeuvred, as we witnessed this week, when his own views are of no relevance at all. Perhaps his kite flying days are over because I cannot imagine anyone inside or outside the Cabinet taking his proposals with great seriousness because his moral authority has evaporated. That may not be a bad thing but important work must be done by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform of the day and he must have authority in this regard.

Deputy Jim O'Keeffe mentioned the fiasco that surrounded the recent sexual offences legislation. The Minister's view was clearly that no immediate legislation was required but the force of public opinion required him to do a volte-face. We discovered during the debate on the legislation he had no ideas because his view of the solution had been resoundingly rejected by his Cabinet colleagues. His Department was basically in the hands of others and a Cabinet sub-committee created legislation which was foisted on him. Uniquely, it was introduced with the suggestion that it was not good law and, also uniquely, immediately on enactment a committee was created to review it. That was certainly a first in my time in the House.

That is the attitude with which I approach the Bill. A strong case was made by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe with regard to the Gaming and Lotteries Act. I do not know how his attention was drawn to casinos because, unlike Deputy O'Keeffe, I do not have experience in this area as I have never set foot inside a casino. I do not enjoy gambling as I am not a gambler by nature.

See this speech in context