I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting. We are here to consider the Local Government (Planning and Development) Bill, 1998 [Seanad]. Members have been circulated with copies of the Bill and the list of amendments. Subject to the agreement of the committee, I propose that we continuing consideration of the Bill up to 4 p.m. I understand there is another meeting due after that. Is that agreed? Agreed. If we do not conclude consideration of the Bill this afternoon, I propose that we resume on Wednesday, 19 May 1999. Is that agreed? Agreed. I would remind members that each amendment must be formally moved before it can be decided on. Each amendment and section is decided on separately.
Business of Select Committee.
Acting Chairman
What time do you propose for the meeting next Wednesday?
Acting Chairman
10 a.m.
Since we are dealing with procedural matters now, there is a procedural matter which I want to raise before we debate the detail of the Bill. I have received a letter from you in which you inform me that you are adjudging a number of my amendments to be out of order because you consider that they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. I have only had a couple of minutes to look over the amendments concerned. I dispute your ruling on this and I want to raise it with you before we debate the Bill. It is, in my experience, the most restrictive interpretation of the rule on whether amendments are in order because they are considered to be a charge on the Exchequer. If an amendment proposes to commit expenditure, clearly I understand that it is out of order. However, to interpret some of these amendments as being out of order for that reason is unacceptable.
For example, I propose in amendment No. 11 to amend the Bill so that buildings in their own right, and not just because of where they are located, will be covered by the Bill. That is a valid amendment to be considered and responded to by the committee. I do not accept that it should be ruled out of order. I could make a similar case on the other amendments - I do not want to deal with those - but I am raising this matter now because I am asking the Chairman to reconsider the ruling. When we reach the amendments concerned I will have more to say about the matter. It will stifle debate and it is an over-restrictive interpretation of the rule and is setting a dangerous precedent for the way in which Bills will be considered by the committee.
I wish to make similar comments to Deputy Gilmore. Three of my amendments have been ruled out of order because it was felt they would involve a potential charge on the Exchequer. I cannot understand how that can be the case; it is merely extending the definition of works that would have to be done by the owner of the property. I do not see how it involves a charge on the Exchequer. I challenge the removal of these amendments from the agenda.
I have the same complaint as Deputies Gilmore and Clune. I was informed by the secretariat of the committee yesterday that one of the amendments I had proposed, and some consequential amendments, would be ruled out on those grounds. I regret that but I understood there was a good reason in that case. However, the same ruling has been applied to a seriesof other amendments of which I have just been informed and I cannot understand how they can be interpreted as involving a charge on the Exchequer. In some cases, they probably widen the scope of the Bill. They cannot all be claimed as involving expenditure on a greater scale than such expenditure as might be entered into on foot of the provisions of the Bill. In respect of others, I cannot understand how it can be claimed they represent a charge on the Exchequer. It has not been my experience, although I may be wrong, that amendments are ruled out of order because they could impose a charge on authorities other than the Exchequer. We regularly pass legislation that involves charges on bodies other than the Exchequer in that we are laying obligations on them to do certain things. I cannot understand the reason amendments that entail that result should be out of order because of our rule. I understood that the rule here was that we could not propose amendments that involve extra charges on the Exchequer, but the link with the Exchequer in many parts of the Bill is not obvious.
I want to ask another question of the Chairman so that this is clear and that there are not any recriminations subsequently. May I take it, Chairman, that when we discuss amendments, members of the committee have a right, if they are so minded and there is disagreement, to put an amendment to a vote and to divide the committee on the amendments, and that we are not constrained in any artificial way to accepting amendments we have not debated until the end of this procedure? Can we carry on this work with confidence on the basis that if the committee divides, we can have a vote that means something?
Acting Chairman
I reached my decision on the best advice available to me from the Department and from my own experience. My decision is final. It does not prohibit Deputies speaking on the amendment even though it cannot be formally moved. It must be remembered that the amendment involves a "potential" expense on the Exchequer; it may not be immediate. I can read out the official advice available to me as we reach each amendment which has been ruled out of order. If the committee desires, we could reconsider the matter in the context of Report Stage, depending on the progress we make.
Chairman, I suspect you will find yourself making that explanation on each occasion but I would ask, with every confidence and expectation that this will be the case, that you will do so in an open-minded manner.
Acting Chairman
Absolutely. We will move on to the Bill.