Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I will address a number of points that were raised. According to the Minister of State, the right to strike of An Garda Síochána - it was decided that Ireland was in breach of the European Social Charter because this was denied - raised serious issues. I accept this in terms of the security of the State. Deputy Calleary went further and ruled it out as being incompatible with the security of the State. I accept that the State needs to be secure and public order maintained at all times, but I doubt that this concern did not occur to the European Committee of Social Rights when making its clear decision. We need a health service that functions at all times, but nurses can go on strike. We do not have the LDF, the FCA or enlisted members of the Army handing scalpels to surgeons in theatres because essential services are maintained through strikes, as they are in Germany and many other countries. The two are not incompatible; maintaining a health service while allowing people who work therein to go on strike are not anathematic. It is possible. Maintaining the security of the State while allowing gardaí to go on strike is equally possible.

I take issue with the reference to a strong dissenting opinion. There was a strong dissenting opinion, but there was also a strong dissenting opinion last week in the Supreme Court by Mr. Justice Hardiman. Does this mean that evidence illegally obtained, albeit inadvertently, by An Garda Síochána will not be used in prosecutions from now on? Of course it does not, as judgments stand. Strong dissenting opinions are exactly that, but nevertheless a majority decision is reached and stands.

I take issue with the idea that the decision is not legally binding. I am reminded of Deputy Creighton - I was here at the time and I believe she was over there - when she stated that the A, B and C judgment was not legally binding in Ireland. There is an expression in Clare: what is good for the goose is good for the gander. We did not tell the Committee of Ministers that this decision was not legally binding. That is just for domestic consumption. Rather, we stated:

We can assure this Committee however that Ireland takes careful note of the findings of the ECSR on these issues and they will be fully considered. In this regard, Ireland is committed to engaging with all relevant parties on these issues with a view to seeking solutions which respect the Charter.

We have a binding international legal commitment to respect the charter even when decisions are made against us. This is the rule of law. We signed up to commitments in that regard and, therefore, must respect them.

The Minister of State discussed the constitution of ICTU and the requirement to carry out all actions compatible with the performance of trade union functions. I take issue with Deputy Wallace's comments, in that it is not proposed that gardaí be allowed to join trade unions. The European Committee of Social Rights specifically stated that Ireland was not in breach because they could not join trade unions. Rather, it stated that the associations that they could join must be given greater powers of collective bargaining, to affiliate with ICTU, etc. It did not state that their organisations had to become trade unions. I am not proposing that PDFORRA be allowed to become a trade union. An inevitable part of a trade union is that it strikes. Sometimes, there is a tendency, particularly with Private Members' Bills, to conflate or slightly misrepresent - I appreciate that it is not intentional - what is proposed. I am not proposing that RACO be ordered or made to affiliate with ICTU. That would be contrary to freedom of association. The contrary or inevitable part of that freedom is the freedom to dissociate oneself. If RACO does not want to affiliate with ICTU, it should not be forced to. However, if PDFORRA wants that, it should be facilitated in doing so. It would act responsibly if allowed to join. If there are particular concerns, those could be addressed on Committee Stage.

I thank Deputies Clare Daly and Wallace for their contributions. At the beginning of the latter's contribution, he referred to "our experience". For a while, I wondered who "our" was, whether there was a royal prerogative emanating from Wexford or whether the purple T-shirt might be swapped for a purple gown at some point with a little bit of ermine on the hem. Anyway, I am glad that what he meant became clear as he went through his contribution.

Turning to more serious matters, the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers stated that Ireland would undertake a review of its law and practice with a view to bringing it into compliance with the charter. Where does a review of laws take place? There is a principle in this State, that being, laws are made exclusively by the democratically elected representatives of the people. This principle is contained in Article 25.2.1° of the Constitution. Arguably, it was for the right of democratically elected representatives of the people to make law that this State obtained its independence. The First Dáil recalled that the Irish Republic was proclaimed on Easter Monday 1916 by the Irish Republican Army. The First Dáil proclaimed: "We ordain that the elected Representatives of the Irish people alone have power to make laws binding on the people of Ireland." It was for this principle that the Irish Republican Army fought a war of independence. It is important to bear in mind that the only successors to the Irish Republican Army are the members of the current Óglaigh na hÉireann, who patrol Leinster House over the weekend and every night and will defend and guard it, with their lives if necessary, because that is what armies do. However, they do not do this to be second-class citizens. They do it to be citizens in uniform. There is a major difference in that regard.

Armies all over the world protect democratic institutions, but this Parliament is a little different from parliaments everywhere else. Laws are not debated and decided upon in this Chamber. They are debated and decided upon in Cabinet. I appreciate that the Government has a position on this Bill, but maybe we should have a Legislature that legislates and an Executive that executes that which the Legislature decides.

Mr. Barry Desmond, a former Labour Deputy and Minister, had this to say:

The public has had little solid information on how the Cabinet reaches major decisions, except that the motivating influence is usually short term political expediency. In effect the fifteen Cabinet members singly and sometimes severally 'run the show'. There is a grave need for some parliamentary device whereby the Dail is clearly in a position to debate Cabinet decisions.

I will omit a couple of paragraphs of what he wrote because of time constraints.

He continued:

I have rarely met a Government Minister who, once in office, has shown any urgent personal concern about Dáil reform. Of course, some Ministers, when in Opposition, showed a lively interest in the topic. Dáil Éireann is, therefore, to many observers a sleepily middle class, quasiprofessional, male dominated, conservatively deliberative, poorly attended debating assembly. Deputies play less and less a role in the formulation and enactment of legislation and more and more occupy their time in the pretence of political favour peddlers, consumer representatives, and clerical messenger boys on behalf of constituents.

What is surprising is that he wrote this in 1975. It is a case ofplus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.This Dáil was going to change all that. We were not going to merely change Government; we were going to change the system of governance. We had a mandate from the people of Ireland to make these changes. The programme for Government begins with the following statement:

On the 25th February a democratic revolution took place in Ireland. Old beliefs, traditions and expectations were blown away. The stroke of a pen, in thousands of polling stations, created this political whirlwind. The public demanded change and looked to parties that would deliver the change they sought.

One of the most fundamental changes concerned the way in which legislation was debated and enacted. The Dáil was empowered as the democratically elected representative of the people. That is what freedom was about. We had the power to elect our own representatives who would make the laws. It was not the intention that they would defer their power to 15 wise - or mostly wise - men and women. The programme for Government states that to carry out this task of Dáil reform,

we must identify the fundamental goals of a properly functioning Dáil. These include: to legislate; to represent the people on issues of national concern and more effective financial scrutiny. It states that on each of these headings the Dáil falls short, sometimes far short, of what is required and that the Government would institute a programme of short-term and urgent Dáil reform, within the existing Constitution, to make the Dáil fit for purpose.

Among the reform proposals, we committed to the following. We proposed to break the Government monopoly on legislation and the stranglehold over the business of the Dáil, by providing that the new Friday sittings will be given over exclusively to committee reports and private members business except where urgent government business must be taken. We are here today because the Government allowed that to happen. We stated that we would also deal with the related problem of legislation being shunted through at high speed and will ensure that Dáil standing orders provide a minimum of two weeks between each stage of a Bill, except in exceptional circumstances. The latter commitment needs no further comment.

I thank the Minister of State for acknowledging the purpose of this legislation and accepting that we need to engage with these issues. However, I am not aware of any Bill initiated by a backbencher that was enacted to date. Deputy Shatter managed in a previous Dáil to enact Private Members' legislation. Where is the revolution? I will conclude with the following quote from Barry Desmond:

The public pressures to-day for such reform is drearily dispirited. Where is that pressure which the Labour Party continuously showed when in Opposition? The discredited amateur approach of most of the Fine Gael parliamentarians to reform and the contentment of the Fianna Fail Party in Opposition with the status quo is almost disturbing.

That comment is 40 years old. I do not want to digress any further from the Bill, which I have discussed in detail. The Minister of State accepts some of the proposals made in it and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context