Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

It is very difficult to countenance supporting the Government on the Bill in its current form. I would characterise its passage as one of sowing additional confusion and obfuscation and having the effect of traumatising further the many women who look to the House and expect us to legislate on the basis of reason. The manner in which the Bill was brought before the Seanad and now this House leaves one utterly disappointed because the subject matter is so sensitive that the least we would have expected, and that the women would have expected, is that we would give it proper and due consideration and time to reflect on all the issues in order that we could all move with one voice.

The effect of the Government's stance, position and approach to the Bill will be to divide the House. A minority of us will vote against the Bill, as it is currently constituted, while the majority will vote for it. I expect that many on the Government benches will privately agree with the positions we are adopting, because we do so on the basis of reason and, one hopes, intelligence, but will still walk through the lobbies and vote Tá with the Government. I understand that happens even at the best of times, because I followed the Whip many a time when I was in government, but on an issue such as this, there has to be time and consideration. I wrote to the Ceann Comhairle earlier to express my disappointment at the way in which certain Bills are being dealt with and to see whether we could find some mechanism to ensure that a Bill as sensitive as this would find a better way of progressing through both Houses in order that we could interrogate further what the Minister proposes.

The Minister, in his contribution, stuck rigidly to the 30 October deadline.

I have been confused by this and perhaps the Minister will give us the benefit of his wisdom but it is my simple understanding that there is nothing injurious to the Constitution such that the Minister could not provide for an extension of time for the passage of this legislation or even an extension of time for the commission. Is it overly simplistic of me to put forward the argument that there is nothing that says we as a legislature could not amend the Commission of Investigation Act 2004 to make provision for the very sensitive issues that are inherent within this Bill and for which the Minister is arguing he cannot move beyond the 30 October deadline? That is the first point I will make and it is one on which I would love to receive an answer when the Minister is responding to this debate.

The second issue is that the Minister sent us a note by his advisor or staff earlier in which he says:

Finally, with regard to the unfortunate urgency of this legislation, the Commission is due to submit its final report and stand dissolved in law by 30th October. At present, that timeframe can only be amended where the Minister receives a request for an extension from the Commission which is grounded in an interim report. This request then has to be considered and approved by Government. To date, no request for an extension has been received. As such, if this legislation is not enacted by 30th October, then we will have failed to preserve the unique database developed by the Commission and provide for its use in line with data protection and other existing law.

Forgive my blinding ignorance and I seek the assistance of the Ceann Comhairle and the Minister on this but I would have thought, having served in government, that there are lines of communication between the commission and the Government such that, if the Minister's argument is that he has not received the request and therefore has to adhere to the law, there is some mechanism that could be found to allow for us to give further consideration to this and some formal or informal line of communication can be established such that the Minister stands up in the House and says he would like more time to deliberate and that he would like an extension beyond 30 October. How can we develop a mechanism or a protocol to be able to do that? I am sure something could be found to do that and to facilitate both Houses of the Oireachtas to be able to give more time to the passage of this legislation. Will the Minister please respond to that question because it is not just about me? More important, it is about the people outside of these walls who are looking to us, who have written to us, who are traumatised and hurt, who want to ensure that whatever happens in here happens in a way that is sensitive to their needs. Right now, the way they feel is that they are being traumatised again and we need to address that as a legislature. If some mechanism can be found to find an extension then it should be found. I think it can be found and that can be done easily.

The third point I will make is in respected of the Minister's speech where he says:

I intend to request the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Children, Disability, Equality and Integration to lead on this re-examination in a format that would allow for survivors and their representatives, expert legal opinion and other leading academics to explore thoroughly the major principles underlying the debate on access to personal information in the commission's archive and to make a set of recommendations aiming to resolve the very real difficulties which the passage of this legislation has highlighted.

I am a member of that committee and my interpretation of that statement is that the Minister is asking me, as a member of that committee, to do the work the Minister should be doing as a Minister regarding the process of pre-legislative scrutiny and giving more time to deliberation of these issues such as the balance of rights between seeking information and of personal privacy and the issue of agency. These issues should all be sorted before we come to the House to legislate, not after the fact, because Deputy Funchion, who made an astounding contribution to this debate earlier on, is chair of that committee and there is now an expectation being foisted on the committee that we would deal with and deliberate on these and come up with a set of recommendations. Given the history of that committee under a previous mandate and not under the chairmanship of Deputy Funchion we have made umpteen recommendations through umpteen reports, as have many Oireachtas committees, which are gathering dust on shelves. It insults my intelligence for the Minister to bring that before me as a Member of this Oireachtas when there is a mechanism and that is pre-legislative scrutiny, which was waived in this instance, and proper consideration in committee of all of these issues so that we can legislate properly, there is no request afterwards and we do not legislate in haste such that we are correcting errors after the fact. It has permutations for how we do our business but it is an insult to the people who have been traumatized. It is insulting to them to bring legislation in this way. This should be non-partisan and it should dealt with in a way that ensures it progresses and every Member of this House agrees on it.

See this speech in context