Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There is a number of detailed aspects in each of the four Bills being extended here and each time one of them came through we engaged and put forward amendments. In many cases, there was no chance to debate those amendments. In all cases, there was no acceptance of the amendments, even those that came from Government Senators who spotted flaws in the drafting of the legislation. Given the way this Bill is being put through and the fact there is only one hour for this Stage, we have not had the opportunity to give our detailed proposals on every section of each of these Bills and that is not appropriate.

We had to make a choice which is not appropriate in parliamentary scrutiny. We had to say we would only get to make maybe two points about these four large Bills and the operation of the numerous statutory instruments that have been created under them. If we have to choose one thing, let us make sure we at least protect the process for the future.

I have many opinions on many aspects. I support public health measures. I have often called for stronger public health measures on different aspects. This is not about being for or against public health measures. It is about whether one believes it is appropriate, when a Minister is given greater powers than a Minister would normally hold by the Oireachtas, that there should be an appropriate coming back for scrutiny.

We came in in March in an emergency and showed great solidarity across the House. We all supported the measures. The Minister who came in then at least justified and talked about the compromise and why it would expire on 9 November. He gave the justification that it could be in the middle of the night and that we did not yet know how parliaments would operate. It was March 2020. That was the justification for the emergency powers legislation. We did not know but now we know how we operate in a pandemic. It is difficult but we operate. I do not see what the excuse is. The Minister needs to say what the excuse is for not having any future date when this legislation will come back for parliamentary scrutiny. That is the challenge and the key question.

I am not opposing or changing the dates. Our amendments do not change the Minister's date. I sympathise with and will probably support those who are looking for earlier dates because I think earlier review is healthier. Nonetheless, even if it goes to November, the concern is there are resolutions which, given there is a Government majority, can go through without debate. There are often one or two attached to the end of the Order of Business. They will not allow any nuance, any opportunity to say a certain aspect is working well, another aspect has had unforeseen consequences or something needs to be changed. The measures we have on statutory instruments stipulate they can be challenged within 28 days. We have forborne objecting to statutory instruments because we have given trust to and supported the Government. We have done so in the context that the powers to continue to create statutory instruments would eventually be discussed. When we came in in March, there may have been an excuse for a rush. There is no excuse now. This date has been down in Bills and has been coming for a long time. There is no excuse for this Bill to be rushed over one or two weeks. It could have been planned for and this could have been a robust and proper debate, informed by a review or by the insights that elected Members from all parties might have. That opportunity was not given. I urge the Minister to give a final date after which this will not be extended by resolution and allow at some future point, if this is to continue, that the legislation will be scrutinised in detail.