Today we begin consideration of the Planning and Development Bill, 1999. It is an extensive Bill with 245 sections and six Schedules. So far, 647 amendments have been tabled. This reflects the importance of the Bill to planning, development and housing policy in the years ahead. I hope we can conduct our business speedily and make a positive contribution to the Bill. I welcome the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, Deputy Dempsey, and his officials, Ms Moylan, Mr. Quigley and Ms Buckley. We have a difficult job to do and with co-operation we will succeed in doing that.
Business of Select Committee.
We all wish to co-operate but some doubts have been raised about the sittings from 2 to 4 May. The Dáil is not sitting that week. Some Members have expressed reservations to me, as Whip of our group, about sitting every day that week. Perhaps we might sit one day that week or arrive at some other compromise that would facilitate Members being free for part of that time.
I realise the Dáil is not sitting that week. If we can make up the time during the week prior to that, I would have no difficulty. However, it would mean having extended sittings this week and next week.
Is there a time constraint?
No, but there are 647 amendments.
I presume we will sit after that week.
We probably will, but I do not have a difficulty if Members want to revise their schedules and extend the sitting hours for this week and next and not sit that week.
I do not see any difficulty about sitting for a full day that week. However, I would have to discuss the matter with other Members.
Some Members in our group have also raised this issue. We are sitting for 12.5 hours per week. In the event of us extending the sitting time over the next two weeks we would make up the time we would have sat during that week. The Select Committee will sit on 10 and 11 May. If we have not concluded our deliberations we can sit that week. That would accommodate all Members and give them the flexibility they require.
Perhaps we could sit on Tuesday or Wednesday of that week.
I must say out of courtesy to the Minister, Deputy Gilmore and I discussed the schedule as set out with the Minister. He went to some trouble to accommodate us. That schedule suits me. I know the Minister had a problem with one day but we were able to deal with that. I would not like the Minister to think we are reneging on that proposal. Like everyone else, I am in the hands of the committee. However, it is all very fine to say we will extend the sitting hours but it is quite a commitment to sit from 2 p.m. until 5 p.m. on Committee Stage of a Bill. If we decide to alter those times from 2 p.m. until 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. Members will very quickly change their minds about extended sittings. While we are deliberating in committee all our other work is building up. Members will become fractious if they find the committee is still sitting and other matters are not being attended to. That will not be good for a Bill to which there are 647 amendments.
The Minister, Deputy Gilmore and I had another element to our discussions on the Bill. I do not know what the Minister thinks about this. The Bill is complex and important. Various parts of it are interrelated. We discussed, without arriving at a recommendation, the issue that after some days' discussion we might reflect and decide whether it would be agreeable that amendments to the later part of the Bill could be accepted after the deadline yesterday. I do not know if the Minister has given any further thought to that but it is something that might be worth considering. As far as I am concerned, I have tabled all the amendments I could conceivably want to but that does not rule out that, on mature reflection, to borrow a phrase, some other things might not occur.
I have not given it any further thought. We tentatively said we would consider it. There are some amendments from our side that must be tabled either on this Stage or on Report Stage. We had an understanding that we would review the matter after a number of weeks but at the time I did not expect there would be 647 amendments. However, there were no conditions attached to it.
Perhaps at the beginning of next week's session the Minister might consider that.
I agree with Deputy Dukes. It will be necessary to have some degree of flexibility on the acceptance of additional amendments. There are likely to be issues that will prompt new or additional amendments. On the sitting arrangements, as Deputy Dukes said, he and I and the Minister talked about a number of dates to try to move the matter forward. Because of the length of the Bill and the rate at which we are progressing, we will probably be sent to a Dublin hotel for the night to reflect on what we must do. We need to balance what we must do and the length of time we will spend on this with the many other commitments and duties we have as public representatives. If we are changing dates, it will be necessary to have notice of that reasonably well in advance. I anticipated a certain schedule of sittings for this week and next week. We should not go the route of deciding at short notice that we will sit late on a particular night. If we intend to sit late, Members will require advance notice so that they can arrange their diaries around it. I do not have any strong views on this regarding the first week in May. If Members have a difficulty with that, we may have to make alternative arrangements. I do not think we should do that by providing additional time in the next two weeks as that would complicate matters for Members.
The committee may not be able to sit late for an extra hour on a given day because the committee rooms may not be available.
Members have a difficulty with 2, 3 and 4 May. When this matter was discussed with Deputies Gilmore and Dukes, those dates were pencilled in rather than heavily underlined. It would be helpful if the committee would agree to stand by the arrangement made for those two weeks, although Deputy Dukes may not be available on the last day. On that day we could plan the sittings of the committee for after the Easter recess. That could give the committee secretariat some time to prepare for them. It would be helpful if Members would undertake to favourably consider slightly longer sittings in the two weeks following that to make up for the time lost.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
There is some doubt about those weeks.
We will lose approximately 12 hours of debating time on one week and on that basis we will consider sitting slightly longer hours during the following two weeks to make up for that loss. I do not know what section of the Bill we would have reached by that stage but that would allow Members to organise their diaries for 2, 3 and 4 May in that the committee would not sit those days.
We will review progress next week.
At the end of next week.
I thought we would sit one day that week.
No. If there is general agreement on what we proposed, we could proceed on that basis.
Provided we can secure a committee room.
We will rely on the Chair's influence.
I will do my best. I will check if a room is available for next week and for 11 and 19 May.