As I indicated on the Order of Business, I propose that the Bill in its entirety be recommitted under Standing Order 120. I will explain the reasons for this. Three amendments have been tabled on Report Stage which were only circulated late last night which propose to amend the Criminal Justice Act, 1994. They are substantial amendments, especially amendment No. 11. Given that the time allocated to this debate is very short and that there will be a guillotine, it is likely we will not discuss these proposals and that we will be asked to amend substantially other completely different legislation, the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, without discussing these amendments. This is unacceptable in terms of our duties as parliamentarians. The entire Bill should be recommitted.
Amendment No. 11 transfers the onus of proof on to the person accused by amending legislation with which we are not dealing. We are discussing the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Bill, 2000. It is proposed to amend substantially the Criminal Justice Act, 1994, without any substantive debate in the House, by transferring the onus of proof on to the person accused. It is not appropriate that we should do this and I expect the Minister of State to agree with me.
I also question whether these amendments are in order on Report Stage because they do not arise from Committee proceedings and bear no relation to what was discussed then. If either I or Deputies Timmins or Enright tabled amendments which did not arise from Committee proceedings, we would be ruled out of order. To my knowledge, these amendments have not been ruled out of order.
It would be a dereliction of our duties as parliamentarians to amend completely without discussion or debate other legislation not being discussed by the House and, in effect, change a fundamental principle of justice relating to the onus of proof. Therefore, I propose, in the interests of our parliamentary duties to scrutinise legislation, that the entire Bill be recommitted.