David Norris (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for the trouble that he has gone to. He has obviously consulted widely on this issue but I suggest that perhaps he has consulted with people who have a commitment to tradition, precedent and so forth. The fact that the use of the phrase goes back to 1831 does not mean anything as far as I am concerned because there was an awful lot of trouble in this country at that time. A lot of very bad legislation and very bad phraseology was introduced then so the argument with regard to precedent is not, in my opinion, convincing. In fact, one of the reasons I tabled this amendment is that I thought it would be a good idea to get rid of the phrase. Whatever about the interpretation of the courts, there is a difference between necessary and expedient. Necessary covers every single aspect. If something is necessary, then it is necessary. Not even the maddest court in the land would find it any other way. I defy anybody, including the Attorney General, who is a very charming person, to prove that this would affect a judgment. I do not believe that for one second because if a thing is necessary, then it is required to be done for the good of the people and the good of the legislation. Expedient means something very different. It is close to what, in theological terms, we call situational ethics. In other words, one does what is easiest and most advantageous from a partisan point of view. I believe it is very bad to continue to use this term in legislation. If the effect of this was to remove or to cause to be reconsidered 834 uses of the word, which is one which brings politics into disrepute, I would be absolutely delighted. I am afraid, despite the Minister's relatively emollient tone as compared to his very vigorous broadcast this morning, I will be pushing this to a vote because I believe it is very important. I do not think we should be hidebound.

People do not like change, by and large. If one is part of a large operation in bureaucracy, there is a tendency to resist change, particularly if there is a long tradition behind something. However, that is no reason. No reason has been given to me by the Minister that convinces me, even though I do accept his goodwill. He has taken advice but I believe he has swallowed that advice a little too hastily. I maintain that the term "necessary" covers any appropriate situation whereas expediency leaves the Bill tainted. It emerges from a time when politics was unrepresentative and undemocratic, when we had no parliament in this country.

The Minister said up to 1922 there were 834 uses of the phrase. That was when we were ruled from Westminster. On numerous occasions they refused to consider the Irish question, including famine, in the Queen's speech. I have just been reading a superb book about Parnell by Mr. Brian Cregan, a member of the Law Library. It is a wonderful book. The obstructionism of the British Parliament at that point is made absolutely clear. I would not be terribly concerned about upsetting a precedent that comes from that time, which had no respect for democracy, when women were not allowed the vote and Ireland was, not always but generally, walked on by an imperial parliament that produced this noxious phrase, "good republicans". I am not a republican really at all. I would love to have the O'Conor Don back. I suppose we could not push the President, Michael D. Higgins, out of Áras an Uachtaráin but we could get him somewhere nice and have him as a king. That would be wonderful. That is light-hearted, but I will press the amendment to a vote.