Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move: "That Report Stage be taken now."

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed?

Emmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not agreed.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to move a motion that the Garda Síochána Bill 2004 be recommitted in its entirety.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That motion is not in order at this point because the House has not yet decided to take Report Stage now.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am merely trying to move things on.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

When the House decides to take Report Stage, it will be in order for the Deputy to move his motion to recommit the Bill. There is nothing before the House to be recommitted at this stage.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to outline briefly why the proposal to take Report Stage now is not agreed. I do not accept the proposal to rush the Report Stage debate on the Bill. The Minister expects the Dáil to pass this legislation in the next 36 hours. As I was coming to the Chamber this morning, I was still being given further lists of amendments to be moved on Report Stage. We do not even have a composite list of the amendments to be considered on Report Stage. I have calculated that 44 pages of amendments have been tabled already. It seems that approximately 400 amendments will be moved.

The Minister has suggested that some of his amendments represent a dramatic response to the second report of the Morris tribunal. I do not oppose some of his proposed amendments. If his approach is as dramatic as he has suggested it is, however, the amendments need to be teased out and debated properly. Therefore, we need to adopt Deputy Costello's suggestion of recommittal to Committee Stage, or we should pause for reflection and allow adequate time for debate.

Established parliamentary procedures, dating back to the 19th century or before, are in place to enable legislation to be considered properly over different stages. Such procedures have been followed as long as we have participated in parliamentary democracy on this island and on our neighbouring island. Under our procedures, issues of principle are considered on Second Stage and issues of detail are dealt with on Committee Stage. We have gone beyond those phases of the process in our consideration of the Garda Síochána Bill 2004. The new proposals will not be the subject of that critical process of examination because they have been introduced with unseemly haste and a short amount of time has been allowed for debate on them.

We need to pause for reflection if we are to ensure that the public can have confidence in the final Garda Síochána legislation. The Bill we are considering deals with issues which affect the positions of more than 12,000 members of the Garda. Some of the Minister's proposals may affect such people. It may be popular to trample on the Garda in some ways in the aftermath of the second report of the Morris tribunal, but I will not stand for that. The Garda Síochána has to answer certain questions and certain changes need to be made. We need to be firm and fair in our dealings with this legislation. Some of the changes the Minister proposed may not pass the fairness test. I would like them to be amended so they can pass that test.

I do not believe the Minister, Deputy McDowell, is adopting the right approach to this legislation. I have made clear that Fine Gael will co-operate with the Government to ensure that a good Garda Síochána Bill can be passed this year. The leader of Fine Gael, Deputy Kenny, has proposed that the Bill be stalled during the summer recess so that it can be reviewed independently and brought into line with the recommendations of Mr. Justice Morris. The leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Rabbitte, has made a proposal that would give Deputies further time to consider the Bill. The House could sit well into July, if necessary, to achieve that. I will accept either of the approaches, which seek to ensure that the public can have confidence in the legislation and the Garda can be happy with it.

The process pursued by the Minister is a recipe for legislative disaster. It is absolutely inevitable that this legislation will result in a court challenge. I do not want that to happen. I want a good Bill to be put in place this year. Fine Gael will co-operate in that process, but it cannot co-operate in a process that might result in bad legislation.

Rory O'Hanlon (Cavan-Monaghan, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Before I call Deputy Costello, I remind him that we have not yet reached his proposal. We are still discussing the Minister's proposal to take Report Stage now.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am aware of that. I share Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's concerns about the manner in which it is proposed to take Report Stage today. As my party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, has said, Mr. Justice Morris's main recommendation was that the Oireachtas should review the Garda Síochána Bill 2004 in the light of his report. The House took four hours of statements on this matter on Friday, but Members were not given an opportunity to debate the issues with the Minister or to ask him questions. The Labour Party tabled a motion last night, on which discussion will resume tonight, in an attempt to further that debate. Clearly, in the two weeks since the Morris tribunal report was published, there has not been a proper opportunity to tease out the full implications of the report's findings and recommendations. The Minister has responded, in the way he does, with amendments which are off the cuff and off the top of the head. He is changing his mind on the nature of the amendments not just from hour to hour but from minute to minute.

For example, already in the course of this Bill we have seen what happened with the first proposal two years ago for an ombudsman, which, when the heads of the Bill were published, was to be an inspectorate. That was then changed to an ombudsman commission. If we consider the proposals before us, that has been changed to what in effect is an ombudsman chairman with all the powers of an ombudsman. The Minister has done a full circle in the course of this legislation and, with pressure now on him, is beginning to see the light.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is very arrogant of me.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has already accepted one substantial amendment before us and has agreed to change. Regarding the other substantial amendments due to come before us, we got no warning of any kind about the Minister proposing to give power to the Garda Commissioner to dismiss Garda officers from sergeants right up to the rank of inspector. That is a substantial power which the Minister will now give to the Garda Commissioner. We have no opportunity to tease that out or to hear the views of people who will be directly affected by it. The Minister intends to force that issue through on Report Stage so that we cannot debate the matter, but merely listen to what the Minister has to say, speak once in reply and then hold our peace. That is no way to do business. It is ridiculous to introduce substantial amendments on Report Stage.

There are other substantial amendments involved. The Labour Party has prepared an entire Bill on the whistleblowers' charter. The Minister is at last beginning to recognise that such a charter is desirable and is incorporating it into the legislation before us. We need to tease out that matter too. It is a major issue, especially as one of our colleagues, Deputy Howlin, will appear next week in the High Court with regard to his being charged by the State and the Morris tribunal because he will not reveal his sources of material to the tribunal.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is not being charged by the State, it is a tribunal matter.

Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

These are all serious issues and I am dissatisfied with the manner in which the Minister is conducting his business. He too should be dissatisfied. As a law officer, an adviser to the Government and a former Attorney General prior to becoming Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, he should know better. He should hang his head in shame and agree with the proposal by the leader of the Labour Party this morning that we delay the progress of this legislation at least for a week, until July, to have a much more comprehensive opportunity to discuss the amendments the Minister is proposing, and others. We have major amendments to table with regard to a policing commission, a Garda authority, which we would like to see incorporated in the legislation.

I am strongly opposed to considering Report Stage of the Bill in the manner proposed.

Ciarán Cuffe (Dún Laoghaire, Green Party)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I echo the comments of the previous two speakers. Normally, the Government proposes a Bill and the Opposition puts forward amendments. However, in the past few days we have received amendments from the Minister and have received notice that the Minister intends amending his amendments to his proposed legislation.

Over the past few days, my fax machine has been overheating as a result of the Minister's amendments. Like others, I have not even had a chance to count those amendments, let alone read them in detail. This makes a mockery of the parliamentary process. There should be a pause for reflection so that we can all come to grips with the proposed amendments. It is at best infuriating and at worst impossible to deal with the complexity of the amendments before us.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On the basis of the Government document, Regulating Better, we should not now continue to Report Stage. That document allowed for the different Stages and encouraged Ministers and Departments to publish heads of Bills and to inform Opposition spokespersons of their intentions. In the main, the Minister has not done so in terms of his amendments. On Committee Stage, the Minister indicated some of those amendments, but we are only getting to see them today. I did not receive a faxed copy of those amendments yesterday. This is not in line with the Minister's obligations under the Good Friday agreement that legislation which has implications in terms of human rights be seen by the Human Rights Commission. That has not been done because the substantial amendments tabled by the Minister go beyond the original terms of the Garda Síochána Bill. While some of them are to be welcomed, we have not had and will not have the time to properly consider them to see if they are correct. Anything done in haste in this House has usually come back to haunt it.

This is not the first time the Minister has produced substantial amendments — Bills within Bills — at the last moment. That habit of his continues. It is not correct procedure and it should be rejected. At this point, we should not carry on to Report Stage. We should take the time to look properly at the legislation and take full heed of what was in the Morris tribunal report and in the Minister's amendments. We can then take the time to support, amend or reject them, in full knowledge of what exactly is intended by the Minister.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have major concerns about what is happening this morning. Have we not learned from past experience that rushed legislation has great potential to be flawed legislation?

With my colleagues, I am totally opposed to proceeding in this manner. The Minister must realise that this is a serious matter. Of course we all want reform and efficiency, but the Garda Síochána Bill is a serious matter and we must get the amendments right and get them in order.

Considering the details of the amendments proposed, it is clear that there must be a broader debate. I urge the Minister to reflect again on this issue.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to be provocative or confrontational. I published the heads of this Bill two years ago. The Bill has been the subject of extensive public discussion, including preliminary discussion before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Equality and Law Reform. It was the subject of a Human Rights Commission report and was then brought to Seanad Éireann. It went through five Stages in the Seanad in great detail. It then came back to this House, where it had one of the longest Second Stage debates in modern legislative history. It then went to Committee Stage. The committee sittings were lengthy and numerous, and on many occasions I told the committee that I would, if necessary, sit until dawn to get on with the work.

Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We would have been prepared to do so too if we had all the amendments at the time.

Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At that stage, the Opposition parties asked to postpone the holding of Report Stage until they had an opportunity to discuss the Morris tribunal report.

That was the sequence of events. We are now in a position to get this legislation on the Statute Book so that the implementation oversight body, chaired by Senator Maurice Hayes, can ensure that reform of the Garda Síochána gets going and is not long-fingered, as has been suggested by others, until we have another commission to look at the Garda, or the like.

The public expects us to legislate on this matter, not just to talk about legislation. The one item on which there is a major difference in principle between some of the parties in this House and others is whether there should be an independent police authority. In 1982, the Labour Party put that proposal into a programme for Government, but nothing happened in the following five years. The Labour Party resumed office in 1992 and was in office for another five years, but nothing happened. I intend to bring change, I am not interested in posturing about change.