Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I presume I am in order to oppose the taking of Second Stage.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

During the course of the Deputy's contribution he will be in a position to do that and to force a vote at the end of the debate.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With respect, Sir——

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Deputy asking if he is in order to oppose the taking of Second Stage?

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right, Sir.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He may if he wishes.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is right. Thank you, Sir.

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Order for Second Stage must be moved first. It has not been moved yet. I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to move that Second Stage be taken now.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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

John O'Donoghue (Kerry South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed?

Deputies:

No, it is not.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I oppose the taking of Second Stage at this time. The reason the Labour Party does not consider it appropriate to take the Bill at this time has been well dealt with on previous occasions. It is not that we take issue with the substantive Bill. There is a need to update and modernise the law on public inquiries. We are in favour of doing that, but we believe it is inappropriate to introduce this Bill at this time when the Taoiseach is due to make an appearance again before one of the tribunals.

It is plainly wrong for the Taoiseach to say, as he did in response to Deputy Gilmore, that this Bill has no application to existing tribunals because it does. Section 10 of the Bill before the House provides for the dissolution of tribunals. Section 42, providing for transitional phases, makes that section relevant to existing tribunals. Therefore, there is no question but that this Bill applies to existing tribunals. As I understand it, both the Moriarty and Morris tribunals are in their concluding stages. Therefore the only target of this Bill would be the Mahon tribunal. It seems it is exceptionally ham-fisted, assuming there is no ulterior motive, that the Government would seek to bring forward this Bill at a time when the timeframe for the remaining duration of the Mahon tribunal has been clearly set out and when the highest officeholder in the land is awaiting a further summons to appear before the tribunal.

It is not appropriate in our submission that the Bill be taken at this time. We will signal broad support for the principles of the Bill when it comes before the House at a more appropriate time.

If the Minister was to agree to the excision of the provisions that make the Bill applicable to current tribunals, we would have no difficulty facilitating its passage. If the Minister contends, as he did all weekend, that it does not have application to current tribunals, why is he persisting with this Bill, section 42 of which makes it applicable to existing tribunals? If the Minister is agreeable to excising the reference to existing tribunals, we will facilitate passage of the Bill. Otherwise, it is our submission that it is not appropriate to take it at this time. That is not to make any comment one way or the other on matters that have brought the Taoiseach before the tribunal or any evidence that he might give.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to make a similar point in support of not taking this legislation today in view of its timing. It has been said in recent days by a succession of Ministers when asked about the timing of it that this Bill made no reference to and had no import on tribunals currently in existence. I draw the attention of the House to an amendment in the name of each member of the Fine Gael Party that would have the effect of ensuring that this legislation did not have effect until such time as the tribunals currently in existence and with work under deliberation would have that work programme completed and dealt with and would have reported to this House.

It seems that there is something sinister afoot and that this legislation is being brought forward between now and Christmas with a view towards ensuring that this House reflects a big stick approach against those engaged in the tribunal. These tribunals were set up by orders of this House, as voted upon. They were given certain terms of reference and told to set about doing the work that perhaps in other circumstances would have been done by this House. This House chose not to do that work. It chose to vest certain powers in tribunals and now legislation is being introduced that will allow the Government a draconian power, in the form of a sanction by resolution of this House, and given that our parliamentary democracy is such that the Government will have a majority, that the Government, a Minister or the Taoiseach, at the stroke of a pen, can not only suspend but dissolve in its entirety a tribunal of inquiry set up by this House. We believe this is fundamentally unjust and unfair. We ask that this legislation not be taken until such time as the Mahon tribunal in particular has concluded its business and reported to this House, which is what we asked it to do.

Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome Deputy Rabbitte's statement that he welcomes the purpose of this legislation. Deputy Charles Flanagan neglected to do that, although the legislation reflects recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission, not recommendations dreamt up by a Government or political interest to pursue any particular end.

Regarding the application of the legislation to tribunals, I have made it clear, as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, that it is not my intention to apply this legislation to the tribunals within the envisaged timeframes——

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not worth the paper it is written on.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——that they have set themselves for their completion, and not alone the Morris tribunal but the Mahon tribunal has communicated to the Government a definite timescale within which they will bring their proceedings to a conclusion. It is intended to apply this legislation to them.

Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The law does not deal with intention, as the Minister is aware.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, but I am giving an undertaking, as Minister, in that regard.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If that is not good enough, I am sorry for the Deputies. I want to make another point clear.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That was then, this is now.

Pádraic McCormack (Galway West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course, it was.

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Rabbitte indicated that it was inopportune to consider the legislation at this time. Of course, it was inopportune in the period leading up to the general election at the end of the last Dáil and it is now inopportune at the beginning of a new Dáil. There is no time, apparently, when this legislation can be considered. However, there is no intention to rush it. What is required is a considered debate on Second Stage. There is certainly no intention to rush the legislation before Christmas, or before next summer. However, it is legislation which is required and which has been recommended on foot of the report of the Law Reform Commission. The public would expect us to ensure any future tribunals established by the House would proceed in an expeditious, cost effective and efficient manner. As I understand it, that is the purpose of the Law Reform Commission's recommendations. On that basis, I see no reason the Opposition has to take issue with the presentation of the Bill to the House on Second Stage.

As regards the matter raised by Deputy Rabbitte, the power of dissolution of a tribunal, it is certainly not my intention to bring any proposals before the Government to dissolve the tribunals. However, the public could ask us the question as to what would happen were a tribunal to trespass beyond its brief and continue endlessly. The question might arise, but as I said, it does not because the tribunals have indicated timeframes for their completion. If Deputy Rabbitte wishes to explore the issue further on Committee Stage as to whether the power of dissolution would apply to tribunals already established, I am open to considering an amendment in that regard. The purpose of this legislation, however, is not in any way to interfere with the current tribunals. Its purpose is to reassure the public that were the Oireachtas to resolve to establish tribunals in the future, they would perform under a modern code of legislation which regulated their operations.