Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I do not understand the Minister's argument. How can putting in a sunset clause introduce this level of uncertainty if she has announced that the Bill is finite and that she intends to introduce overarching legislation or is that a fantasy? Does she intend within the next 12 months to bring in replacement legislation, as she told us? If that is the case, this is a time-constrained Bill in any event. We are simply trying to formalise that in law. Otherwise, are we to seriously believe the Minister intends to bring in overarching legislation? Of course, there is uncertainty about this legislation because it is emergency legislation and it is to be overtaken by a more robust comprehensive Bill. The Minister has said the scheme of the Bill must be produced by the end of this year.

I want to make reference to the 24 months. I gave it much consideration and took legal advice from a variety of sources. My initial draft provided for 18 months but I wanted to be realistic. If the Minister needs to the end of year to produce the heads of a Bill, we need to have the formal and structured process of discussion and dialogue that I set out in the Bill with all these bodies. They need to take evidence and they need to make a presentation. That needs to be compiled in report to be presented to us and we need time to have proper scrutiny, bring in witnesses and so on. It is reasonable that it might take longer than a year or even 18 months.

For the avoidance of the cliff edge in order that we are not operating with a gun to our head, I put a 24-month time limit on that and, therefore, there could be no excuse for not doing it within that timeline. If the heads of the Bill are advanced, as the Minister has said, we could have the heads of a Bill followed by a draft Bill by early next year. We can have the consultative process that we set out and we can have hearings and a definitive Bill, hopefully by the end of next year. A 24-month timeline where the shutters simply come down and this is expunged from the Statute Book is a most reasonable approach in my judgment.

I want to make two other brief points. We need consolidation anyway because this is difficult legislation to read in conjunction with the 2011 Act. It is difficult for providers or citizens to know what their privacy rights are or even for An Garda Síochána to have certainly about it. A consolidated Bill should be a priority for the Minister. She should be able to tell us definitively that this will all be done and dusted within 24 months and that we will have a robust consolidated Bill having fully consulted with all interested parties.

My final comment relates to process. The Minister has compared this to an evolving platform as different judgments come in and so on. However, they are all in-house. The Department of Justice shows disregard for this place. When it has done all its consideration and all these time-lined analyses a week before it expects the Bill to be passed into law and sent to the President for signature, it thinks it is good enough to send to us. That is not how democracy works. That is not how important legislation should be formulated. Even when it was in its gestation, we should have had the discussions with the Minister and her officials at the Joint Committee on Justice. That is something the members of that committee have learned. I know the Chairman has been extraordinarily strong on this.

It is simply not good enough to suggest that because these issues are complicated and evolving the Department will keep it in-house. It is then presented to us as unamendable law because the Department has given the final word on it and it does not have time. It then gives us 45 minutes to do our democratic thing down in Dáil Éireann. That is just not a proper way of dealing with it. I hope this will be the last time we have that approach unless there is a true emergency where something completely unexpected surfaces and needs to be dealt with.

If the Minister accepts she will replace this legislation within 18 months or so, I ask her as an act of good faith to accept this amendment. It gives her ample time to have all the consultation. She should ensure she gives these Houses ample time to debate her legislation and then we can be confident that what we are doing now, which is an unsatisfactory job, is at least a time-lined unsatisfactory job that will cease to exist 24 months hence.

See this speech in context