I do not wish to cut across the timelined focus we have on particular amendments, but it is quite scandalous that we are trying to do this in 30 minutes. It really is not acceptable. As the House will be aware, I brought in the original Protected Disclosures Act in 2014. I wish to ask a particular question, since, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, you have allowed the previous intervention, and that is-----

Sorry.

Yes. I wish to ask a particular question of the Minister about section 13 of the original Act I introduced in 2014, which protects whistleblowers against unlawful detriment by virtue or consequential to making a protected disclosure. The legal advice I have is that the consequence of the amendments the Minister has now tabled is a reversal of the burden of proof such that the employer would not bear the burden of showing that there is no causal connection between the making of a protected disclosure and the sufferi…

We will not reach the section in 30 minutes-----

-----so this is a joke of a-----

I am conscious I did not deal with the Bill as my colleague Deputy Nash did. He is unavailable today because of Covid. I am familiar with the Bill. I will not go through all of the legal advice I have but I will mention some of it. There is a clear distinction between the retroactive creation of a legal right and the retroactive outlawing of a breach of such a right. The latter would offend Article 15.5.1° of the Constitution but the former would not. I can quote legal cases where this has been determined in the co…

I indicated to the Ceann Comhairle’s office that I wanted to raise a point of order at the outset of the debate. It sits into the real concerns that many Members have had with the way business is being conducted. I know it will be a cause of personal concern to you, Sir, as Chairman of this House. Substantial amendments were tabled in the other House that were never debated because it was guillotined. They have come back here and are most unlikely to be reached in the 45 minutes that we have for the debate. I belie…

There was a time when I knew all the Standing Orders but I am afraid that is no longer the case. I ask the Ceann Comhairle to outline the import of that particular Standing Order. Does the square bracket stand or not stand in the legislation?

How is it to be interpreted in the courts?

It is a fundamental concept of law that citizens cannot know whether it is a mandatory code, a voluntary code or just a code. We cannot have that level of ambiguity in legislation and it is fundamentally wrong for the Minister of State to bring this before us. I will link this to another point. I did not deal with the Bill originally; my colleague Deputy Nash did so. He wrote to the Minister of State a week ago on another matter, relating to an amendment we have tabled that is unlikely to be reached, which the Mini…

I do not wish to delay the House further, but this is unacceptable. It is clear this is a drafting phase of the Bill that went through as nobody looked at it because everybody is rushed. The Seanad did not have a chance to look at it and, like a significant number of other amendments, it will never be debated in either House. That is fundamentally making a mockery of our normal legislative process.

I am at a disadvantage to other Members here because I did not deal with this Bill, which my colleague did, and I am not a member of the committee. I was asked to look at these matters because my colleague has Covid. I am deeply concerned. I know the Ceann Comhairle is an advocate for the proper working of these Houses. The previous Dáil, perversely, because it was a minority Government, ensured there was no guillotining of Bills because the Government did not have a majority to do it. Everything was scrutinised an…

We have not debated these amendments.

I have five minutes to speak. It took me longer than five minutes to read the directive. It is a point that I make almost every day now as we go through directives that are important for the lives of people, when we only have a few minutes to participate in the debate. The matter at hand is an important issue because it concerns the functioning of our democracy. I suggest that if we asked people in the street what a strategic lawsuit against public participation, SLAPP, was, the vast majority would have no idea. Ce…

I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following: “Duration of Act and review of Principal Act 2. (1) On the date that is 24 months from the passing of this Act, both this Act and the amendments to the Principal Act effected by this Act (whether or not such amendments have in the interim come into operation) shall stand repealed. (2) The Minister for Justice (“the Minister”) shall, upon the passing of this Act, immediately commence a review of the principles, purpose, operation an…

There is less reason to object to mine.

I do not understand the Minister's argument. How can putting in a sunset clause introduce this level of uncertainty if she has announced that the Bill is finite and that she intends to introduce overarching legislation or is that a fantasy? Does she intend within the next 12 months to bring in replacement legislation, as she told us? If that is the case, this is a time-constrained Bill in any event. We are simply trying to formalise that in law. Otherwise, are we to seriously believe the Minister intends to bring i…

The Government does not operate on the basis of individuals.

That is why we need a definitive timeline.

There was an expectation that there would be a vote. I wonder if we could have a slight delay until-----