Mairéad Farrell (Galway West, Sinn Fein)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cheann Comhairle agus leis an Aire Stáit.

This is my third week in a row speaking on a Private Members' Bill from the Opposition which, on a Thursday afternoon, is being pushed back or declined by Government. This feeds in to a narrative and the opinion that this is a slow-moving do-nothing Government.

First of all, I commend Deputy Bacik and the Labour Party on bringing forward this Bill. Most of us would be in agreement that, of anybody in the House, Deputy Bacik probably has the most understanding in relation to these matters. It is quite astonishing, to be perfectly honest, that the Government is going against this Bill.

It is also very rare that we see amendments to the Ministers and Secretaries Act, despite it probably being one of the most important pieces of legislation in the State. Sometimes I think people do not realise how important this particular legislation is. Indeed, it is one that establishes the relationship between Ministers and their Secretaries General.

The Bill deals with the relationship between Ministers and the Attorney. In particular, it requires the publication of the Attorney General's advice.

I have seen how often the Government tells us that it cannot do X or Y because of Attorney General's advice. It is almost used to hide behind. It is often the case as well that we are told that something is far too complex for us to understand and that is another reason something cannot be done. Our little minds would never understand. That hiding behind that advice means that they do not pursue a given course of action. One clear example, that is, the most recent example that is on everybody's lips at present is in relation to the unpublished Attorney General's advice on the occupied territories Bill. Consistently, we were told that cannot be done because of legal reasons because the Attorney General's advice. Then, it was seemingly leaked and published by The Ditch, which stated that issues of including services in the Bill was a political decision and it had nothing to do with some insurmountable drafting issues. It was simply a matter for the Government to decide. I have done my fair share of interviews about the occupied territories Bill and the first question I am always asked is that as the Attorney General's advice is that it cannot be done, is insurmountable and that services cannot be included, how possibly therefore can I go against it. Every single time, I reply that according to advice that seemingly was published by The Ditch, it says it is a political decision. Again, every single time we have this kind of debate, we are told that this is not possible. This example alone, especially given that it is so politically charged and is so much within the political vernacular at present, speaks to the merits of this Bill.

More broadly, I have a real issue with the state of transparency in the State and I have raised this on a number of occasions. Transparency and openness are fundamental to faith in political life, political decisions and people's ability and willingness to participate in all of those things. Often, however, transparency and openness have come to be seen as burdensome in some quarters. I see a lack of ambition when it comes to improving oversight. Only last night, my Transparency and Social Value in Public Procurement Bill 2024 was kicked down the road for 24 months. I have seen that happen to other Bills and in my view, that just means that it is not going to happen.

The Minister of State has stated the Government is voting against this Bill and maybe that is a more clear-cut answer from the Government than this crack of delaying it for 24 months. I am the only person I know who got a 24-month ban on the Bill. I got an awful slagging that I got mine a 24-month delay when most Members get nine months to a year. However, I will continue and in two years' time, I will make sure to raise it again.

We need to see the publication of the Attorney General's advice when it is given. It should not be used as a shield, a crutch or a curtain. The Minister of State might say that is not what is happening but then the Government should publish it. It should not be used to deflect from legitimate criticism, should not be a crutch to lean on in times of instability and should not be something to hide behind when the Government is unable to marshal meaningful arguments for its own positions.

If Deputy Bacik's Bill was accepted, we would address all of these issues. It is the kind of Bill that would genuinely improve the functioning of Government which, unfortunately, is probably why it is being voted against.

Legislation and reform of this type only seems to happen in the moment of a crisis. That is what I have seen over the past five years. If a person been here for much longer - it is a shame that Deputy Bacik's former colleague, Brendan Howlin, is not here as he could talk about all of these issues at length - I am sure he or she could have a lot more to say about that too and could speak of the shortcomings that exist within our legislative process. Sometimes we need to see a lot more reform and one should not only reflexively shoot down Opposition Bills because one can. We need to have far more reform. We need to see within the Department of public expenditure a far more reformist zeal. Rather than merely going through the motion, it should really deal with reform which is in the title of that Department.

I commend Deputy Bacik on bringing forward this Bill. This particular legislation is very interesting. There is so much that can be done in this House. I can see that a lot of thought went into it and it is targeted and designed to address a specific issue of transparency in a neat and tidy manner. If the "Dr. No" approach of the Government changes and were it to do more than delay or vote down this Bill and were it to see that we need to see reform, I would welcome that. I have no problem welcoming things. In the previous Dáil, sometimes we had Ministers with whom we worked well in changing certain aspects of certain Bills, etc. I am always willing to welcome that when it happens but in this particular Government, we are seeing very much a "Dr. No" approach. That is unfortunate.

I commend the Labour Party on bringing forward this Bill.

See this speech in context