Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

The Oireachtas consists of three organs, namely, the Dáil, the Seanad and the President. In order to be valid, primary legislation must be examined and considered by all three. The rationale behind this requirement is to ensure that the democratically elected representatives of the people are afforded a sufficient amount of time to give detailed consideration to every provision of every Bill. The application of the guillotine defeats this intention. The late introduction of voluminous Government amendments defeats this intention. The very actions of this Government have defeated and continue to defeat the intention of Article 15° 2.1 of the Constitution.

When a Bill is forced through these Houses, it is contrary to the spirit of Article 15° 2.1. The Bill is put through each Stage in name only. A Bill which has been pushed through with the force we have seen on the Immigration Bill 2004 would be vulnerable and likely to succumb to constitutional challenge.

A number of features distinguish primary legislation from secondary legislation. The main distinction between primary legislation and secondary legislation lies in the level of parliamentary scrutiny which these enactments receive. Scrutiny by the three organs of the Oireachtas is fundamental to primary legislation. Substituting secondary legislation where primary legislation is really what is required has been frowned upon by the courts.

In the Liu Chang case, the courts were severely critical of the Government for purporting to give statutory weight to secondary legislation. It seems this Government is about to make the same mistake again by making an order amending primary legislation by secondary legislation in a desperate attempt to introduce electronic voting. There is little in my mind to distinguish the Immigration Bill 2004 from a piece of secondary legislation. The level of scrutiny it has received denigrates its status as primary legislation. It may become an Act, but in title only.

The Laurentiu case first highlighted flaws in our immigration laws in 1999. The then Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government sought to rectify those problems through section 2(1) of the Immigration Act 1999. That section was struck down in recent weeks by the High Court in the Liu Chang case. However, five years after the High Court first highlighted the problems in this area, the Minister is on his third attempt to fix the problem. Will this legislation be a case of third time lucky for the Minister? History has a habit of repeating itself. Rushed legislation makes for poor legislation. It is an abuse of the legislative process which does not solve problems but creates many more.

The volume and frequency of Government amendments to this Bill is symptomatic of a greater problem. This Bill was drafted at speed with the result that every day the Bill lay in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, more errors and flaws were spotted. In the case of the controversial disability provision, one version appeared in the proof of the Bill, which was circulated to us, then the Bill initiated in the Seanad contained an entirely different disability provision and the Bill before us today contains yet another version of the disability provision. In a few days, one provision has been changed three times. This is not an isolated occurrence — many other mistakes in the Bill have been rectified and amended by the Minister. How many more mistakes will be identified when this Bill is enacted? If we were afforded proper time to consider the Bill, I have no doubt that a considered debate and constructive amendments would have ensured that it was stronger and better. I watched the Minister in the Dáil reject Opposition amendments one after another in a style more appropriate to the Four Courts. Amendments are proposed by the Opposition with the intention of improving the Bill. The Opposition is eager to ensure that the Minister gets this Bill, more than any other, right. It is in that vein that amendments were proposed. To say we are gravely unhappy is an underestimation of our opposition to the Bill. I will show my discontent by opposing the legislation when it is put to a vote.