Gary Gannon (Dublin Central, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I initially put my hand up to speak on this topic out of anger because I spent a large part of this morning going over the amendments and preparing what I was going to say. Then, 20 minutes into the debate we were told the Minister would not be accepting any amendments. That is an extraordinary admission to make that resulted from an insightful question from my colleague, Deputy Cairns.

The Ceann Comhairle mentioned that we live in a parliamentary democracy. I am very new to this Chamber but I believed we were coming in here today to debate, argue, present reasons and to try to convince each other to go in a particular direction, yet that was shut down 20 minutes into the debate. It gives rise to serious questions about our parliamentary process and in many ways undermines it. I constantly hear about an angry, shouty left. I ask the Ceann Comhairle, and anybody who is listening in, whether they can blame us when what we are met with here is obfuscation and people closing their minds to any sort of reason. The level of structural ignorance is appalling.

The Bill has been designed in a manner that is completely counter to the very concept of parliamentary democracy. Where did it come from? Who was calling for it to be brought forward at this particular point? It cannot be emphasised enough that it was brought through without any pre-legislative scrutiny, apparently at the request of the Minister, who told us that it was approved by the Business Committee. That is a play on words because it was not approved by the Business Committee, it was approved by the Government majority on the Business Committee. It was rushed through the Seanad last week and then, within seven days, it came to the Dáil last night, where there was nothing but respectful and engaging communications and everybody across the Chamber, having tabled their amendments, went away convinced that we would fight for them, but that was taken off the table really quickly.

It did not have to be that way. We will tear strips off each other in this Chamber when it comes to issues concerning taxation and expenditure, rightly so, because that is the very nature of parliamentary democracy. However, on an issue such as this, one that is so emotive and that has such meaning for people who have already suffered such trauma and hardship by this State, this could have been a matter on which we could have found some form of unification, but that was not permitted. In whose interest was that done?

I am sorry as I do not wish to personalise this matter, because above all other Ministers, this was a Minister I really had hopes for and was rooting for in terms of the role he has to play and the expectation that he would act in a reforming manner. When one finds oneself in opposition to survivors of extraordinary State cruelty and incarceration and on the wrong end of human rights lawyers and people who have dedicated their lives to bringing light to the injustices of the State, and in opposition to people who mean no hardship to him, one must ask in whose interest the legislation is being introduced. What would be so detrimental about admitting that perhaps we are rushing this a little bit too fast and that perhaps we need to take a little bit more time to go through the Bill, scrutinise it and find togetherness. That is all we are asking for.

Nobody thinks anyone is being malicious in terms of the legislation that has been introduced, but we do think the means by which it is being brought through the Dáil is insulting. All we are asking for is a little bit of time so we can find common direction. This issue is too important for oppositional politics. Even at this late stage, I appeal to the Minister to enable us to find common direction and to demonstrate collective leadership to the people who have been wronged by this State. That is what we are asking for. Those who have been wronged are the most important voices that we can listen to, and at the moment they are feeling that they are being re-traumatised through this process. The absolute antithesis of restorative justice is the re-traumatisation of victims, and that is what we are doing here.

See this speech in context