The Minister for Transport has indicated his intention to move to recommit the Bill in its entirety and on the assumption that his motion will be agreed by the House, the accompanying brief has been prepared following procedure for Committee Stage. For that reason, amendments Nos. 1 and 2 on the published list, the amendments to the Long Title, shall be dealt with last.
Railway Safety Bill 2001: Motion to Recommit.
I would like to speak to that motion.
The Minister has made known his intention to recommit. Will Deputy Shortall speak to it?
He is proposing a recommittal.
That is correct.
I would like to speak to that motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Standing Order 128(1), directs that the Railway Safety Bill 2001 in its entirety be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.
I am conscious that a lengthy period has elapsed since the select committee completed its examination of this Bill in 2003 and that many of the amendments tabled today did not arise directly from the debate in the select committee. Under Standing Orders, the Bill must be recommitted in respect of such items. Taking into account the significant new matters being introduced and the number of amendments involved, I consider it appropriate to recommit the Bill in its entirety for consideration today and I have proposed such a recommittal. It might be helpful for everybody to hold the debate in that atmosphere rather than Report Stage.
It is not at all helpful. It had been my intention to propose a recommittal to Committee Stage at another date. The Minister is now merely discussing a procedural matter which shows no consideration for the importance of this legislation or the fact that people have received no notice of many substantial amendments. This is a shoddy and unprofessional way to conduct business in this House.
This Bill has been in existence since 2001. It went through Committee Stage a full year ago. At that time, the Minister published 159 amendments which have been in existence for the past year. Last night, he published a further 17 pages of amendments, many of which amended his own earlier amendments. We received no notice of these. It is completely unwieldy and makes it impossible for us to keep track of his actions. It is entirely inconsiderate and another indication of the shoddy workmanship of his Department. He has a record of not following proper procedures. I object to the manner by which it is proposed to take this important legislation. There is no book of amendments and the number and grouping of amendments is inadequate. That makes it impossible to do business correctly in this House.
I appeal to the Minister to consider what he is proposing. He should bear in mind that people need notice of what is proposed, time to read through proposed amendments and obtain legal advice in respect of them. The Minister has not allowed us that time. This is unacceptable and I object to his proposal.
I agree with Deputy Shortall. The Bill was originally published in 2001 and withdrawn in 2003. We received Report Stage amendments to this Bill in October 2004. Those amendments were published again on 30 September 2005 and we received them earlier this week. This morning we received 17 pages of amendments to amendments. I was not spokesperson on transport when the original Bill was taken and, therefore, this Bill is new to me. I went to considerable trouble to understand the groupings of amendments. I was furnished last week with a list of the groupings of amendments and, on that basis, I prepared to deal with the Bill. I have now been handed another list of groupings of amendments which is different from and bears no relationship to the first list of such groupings. I am, therefore, not equipped to deal with this Bill. This treatment of the Oireachtas is unfair to the Opposition and to members of public because it makes the job of Opposition members, which is to analyse legislation, impossible.
My colleague, Deputy Naughten, who originally dealt with the Bill on Second Stage, suggested when the first 52 pages of amendments were brought before the House that a new Bill should be published. I am of the view that this is the way to deal with the Bill.
I appreciate that everybody concerned is anxious that the Bill be passed but what has been presented to us is unsatisfactory. I speak for all Members on this side of the House when I say that we are ill-prepared to deal with these amendments. We have been handed a list of groupings of amendments that is different from the list we were given earlier in the week. We have two books of amendments, a green book and a white book and it is impossible to deal with both of them. Some day the Minister will be on this side of the Chamber——
Not for many years to come.
——and he will have to deal with amendments on this basis. The situation is unfair.
I agree with the previous speakers. What is proposed is unacceptable. I look forward to the Minister's explanation of what is proposed. This legislation was published a number of years ago. We were told on Committee Stage that it had to be rushed through but then it appeared to go into a black hole for 12 months. We subsequently received a series of amendments and we received further amendments this morning. Will the Minister explain whether he knows what is happening regarding this Bill? No one has objections to considering amendments to a Bill that will improve it. It seems that the Minister and his Department are all over the place in regard to this legislation.
We accept that legislation is needed and that what is proposed in the Bill should be done, sooner rather than later. I do not understand from where the Minister and his advisers are coming. The Minister might explain the delay in circulating these amendments. Perhaps he should consider deferring, even for a day or two, the taking of this Bill to give us an opportunity to consider some of the more substantive amendments.
I wish to add to what has been said by Deputies Shortall, Olivia Mitchell and Crowe. While I was briefed by the Minister's Department in terms of an indication of some of the changes proposed, I was unable to table amendments to the Bill in regard to the issue about which I was particularly concerned because I did not have a copy of what the Minister was proposing. It was difficult for me to amend Report Stage amendments that were only being tabled. All I knew about them was the intent of what was proposed.
I do not believe the issue at stake or to be discussed is contentious politically. It is not an ideological divide that will frame a debate on the Bill. It is more important to err on the side of caution when dealing with a rail safety Bill and to ensure that it is dealt with in a manner that allows time for consideration. As an Opposition Deputy, I could not amend an amendment being framed at the time I was considering the wording of my amendment. I found that an impossible task. I ask that the Minister listen to what people on this side of the House are saying, namely, that we need time to consider his latest amendments. If he allows us that time, such consideration would only improve the Bill. I do not believe this is a particularly contentious Bill. What is at issue is a matter of getting it right but if the Minister proceeds the way he is going, he will not get it right.
I agree with colleagues that this is an important and substantive Bill. I have made great efforts to have it brought before the House. The book of 159 amendments to this Bill, which are the substantive ones, was published 12 months ago. The only changes I have made are technical amendments concerning dates and timeframes but there is nothing substantive in any of the recent amendments.
Six substitute amendments were published last night.
The amendments published last night comprise 13 amendments to amendments, with which I have no issue, tabled by the Deputy yesterday. When Opposition members table amendments to amendments, the procedure is that the Bills Office reproduces the full text of the amendments. All the Deputies have received is a reproduction of what was already published.
A number of these are substitute amendments.
They are the Deputy's amendments?
No, a number of the Minister's amendments are substitute amendments.
My understanding is that when amendments to amendments are tabled, as in this case to the Deputy's amendments, the Bills Office reproduces in full the amendments that have been published. In this instance, that is all that has been published.
In reply to Deputy Olivia Mitchell's comment on the groupings of amendments, I understand that there are only one or two changes proposed and that they are only technical amendments.
On one list there are 38 groupings and on the other there are 15 groupings. The groupings have been completely changed.
I have allowed considerable latitude.
The list from which I am working contains 37 groupings. I understand there are only one or two changes to accommodate some of the technical amendments. I would not come before the House and propose that we proceed if I had published substantive amendments to the Bill yesterday. The amendments were published 12 months ago and the Deputies have had those 159 amendments for that period. Those amendments cover all the substantive issues. Due to the delay in taking the Bill, many technical amendments have been required in regard to dates and times. Given that we knew the Bill was coming before the House today, one or two additional amendments were required but they merely concern dates and times. Nothing substantive has been included in them to throw the Deputies off, so to speak.
An 11-page amendment that was published last night. It states this amendment is in substitution for amendment No. 153 on the principal list dated 30 September 2005. Six of the amendments published are substitute amendments.
They are amendments to amendments.
I do not want to give Deputy Shortall incorrect information but I am informed that those amendments are reproductions in full as a counter to the effect of her amendments which were tabled previously. That is the procedure followed by the Bills Office. My understanding is that I have not produced anything new of a substantive nature in the past 24 hours. However, the Bills Office follows the procedure whereby it reproduces the entire amendments on the basis of the amendments the Deputy produced last night. That is fine and I will deal with them.
Surely there is something substantive in the Minister's 11-page amendment to Part 15, which is a substitute amendment to an amendment published on 30 September 2005?
I have answered, in large measure, the Deputies' views on this matter. All of us accept that we would like to deal with the Bill since it has come before the House. What I have tried to do is add substantially to key safety provisions in it. We have engaged in considerable negotiation with the various bodies involved and they are correct in what they put forward in terms of safety issues. We need to pass this Bill within a reasonable time.
I am not trying to put a restrictive timeframe on dealing with this issue. It is an important matter with which we must deal.
A contentious matter has arisen and I am showing latitude. Deputy Shortall may proceed if she wishes.
I will not take up too much time.
I also wish to raise a point of clarification.
All we have is the printed material before us. The 17-page document we received last night contains six amendments in the Minister's name, all of which state they are substitute amendments to the Minister's amendments tabled last week. What are we to make of this?
On a point of clarification, both the green list of Report Stage amendments and the book of amendments published today refer to Report Stage. We are now back on Committee Stage. Is it technically correct to have these amendments headed "Report Stage"?
Yes. I have moved to recommit the Bill to give all of us time to deal with the issues before us. I accept that they are substantive in nature.
It is not a question of facilitating the House in any way. The Minister is legally obliged to recommit because the amendments were not discussed on Committee Stage.
I know that but I went further. I thought it would be helpful to recommit the entire Bill rather than to keep doing so only for particular amendments.
That is of no help. It is just procedural.
I thought I had moved this in a motion yesterday and that there was no objection to it. Was this motion agreed on yesterday's Order of Business? I moved it at that point.
Question put and declared carried.