This meeting has been convened for the purpose of consideration by the committee of the Water Services Bill 2003 which was referred to it by order of the Dáil on 3 February 2005. I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and his officials to the meeting.
Business of Select Committee.
I wish to make a point on procedural matters.
I will come back to the Deputy. I suggest we consider the Bill until 2 p.m. and that we have a sos from 2 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. If Committee Stage has not been completed by 5.30 p.m. today, I propose we adjourn until Wednesday, 29 November when we will resume our consideration of the Bill from 10 a.m. to 1.30 p.m.
As the Chairman said, this Bill was referred to the select committee by Order of the Dáil on 3 February 2005. An unusually long period has elapsed since the time the Bill was referred to the committee and its coming before the select committee for consideration.
First, I would like to hear the Minister's explanation for why it took almost two years for the Bill to come before the committee. Second, we were presented yesterday with the green book of consolidated amendments, of which there are almost 300. The vast majority of the amendments, which are ministerial amendments, were circulated last Thursday. Most of the amendments are complex and some are lengthy and detailed. One of the Minister's amendments is six pages long. These amendments require changes to the Long Title of the Bill and as such extend what the Bill is about. They involve amendment to a number of existing enactments, namely, the Environmental Protection Agency Acts, Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, Housing Finance Agency Acts and quite a number of others. The committee has been presented with what is, in effect a new Bill. It is substantially changed from the Bill initially considered on Second Stage.
The Chairman will recall that two weeks ago during our consideration of the Electoral Bill other colleagues and I proposed a number of amendments that he considered to be outside the scope of the Bill as originally considered on Second Stage. We now have before us a large number of ministerial amendments that are outside the scope of the Bill as originally presented on Second Stage. This problem has been addressed by the Dáil. There are practical considerations involved. One cannot present members of this committee or members of the Oireachtas with complex amendments and expect them to deal adequately with them at such short notice. This issue was considered by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges and, on 7 November last the Dáil amended its Standing Orders to deal precisely with this type of situation. Paragraph (2) of Standing Order 125, as amended, now reads:
(2) The Dáil may, following debate of not less than 60 minutes as the House may order on motion made by the member in charge of a Bill, give an instruction to a Committee to which a Bill has been committed empowering it to make amendments, the nature of which shall be specified, provided that the amendments be relevant to the general subject matter and not in conflict with the principle of the Bill.
The new procedure provides that where a Minister wants to make the type of changes now proposed by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and local Government, he or she is required to put before the House a motion that will then be debated for 60 minutes following which the House will make a new order on the amendments to be put before the committee. This has not been done on this occasion. I submit, therefore, Chairman that the committee adjourn its consideration of the Bill to allow the Minister to bring before the House the required motion in compliance with the new Standing Order.
I support Deputy Gilmore on the substantial nature of the amendments and the short lead-in time afforded to members to examine and scrutinise them. It is impossible to avoid repetition. The principle of Deputy Gilmore's contribution should be accepted by the committee. The requirement on members to examine what is in effect a new Bill and to cross reference the amendments with the original Bill is an almost impossible task given the time afforded to members.
I concur with the views expressed by Deputies Gilmore and Morgan. This is important legislation. We need more time to reflect on the changes proposed by the Minister. I ask that the committee adjourn.
The committee secretariat went to a great deal of trouble to notify Deputies of amendments ruled out of order.
I thank the Chairman.
It is a pity I was not notified of members' concern before we convened to consider the Bill. We could have postponed the meeting had we been aware of members' concern prior to the meeting. I do not know if the Minister would like to comment on the situation.
Members have made a fair point. What was the date of the change to the Standing Order?
It was changed on 7 November.
It was changed only this month.
Yes, a couple of weeks ago.
The Deputy is speaking about a change to Standing Orders since the Bill was introduced. I do not wish to be inflexible but it is a difficult issue. I regret the Deputy did not communicate with us on the matter.
The Deputy is correct when he states that this legislation is extremely complex and that it touches on a whole network of other bodies. It dates back to the 1870s when most of these bodies were not in place. One or two of the technical amendments relate to the Environmental Protection Agency and other bodies. However, I would like to make a general point. There are approximately 300 amendments to the Bill, 100 of which have been tabled by the Opposition. I was disposed to accepting a substantial proportion of the Opposition's amendments. A small number of technical amendments touch on the EPA and one or two other bodies but all other amendments are germane to the Bill. I suggest they would not be encompassed by the change made to Standing Order 125 three weeks ago. In the circumstances, it would not be reasonable to put off our consideration of this legislation.
Deputy Gilmore referred to the length of time that has passed since the Bill was referred to the committee. The reason for this is the technical nature of some of what is being done. Many of the amendments improve existing provisions and put on a statutory basis many issues never contemplated in the 1870s when the original legislation was enacted. I am prepared to be flexible on this. However, I do not believe the Committee on Procedure and Privileges arrangements introduced three weeks ago can reasonably be applied to this, given that one or two of the technical amendments in regard to the EPA seek only to transpose EU directives. That would not be a ground for allowing a further delay under the Standing Orders arrangements which were agreed three weeks ago. I am in the hands of the Chairman but do not think the Standing Orders arrangements made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges were intended to contemplate this Bill. The legislation has been subject to extraordinary delays and, as the day progresses, we will find there is a high degree of agreement between us on the 300 amendments proposed. It is a very large number of amendments, but they are intended to improve matters. A small number are required to transpose EU directives. The Bill should not trespass on the spirit of the arrangements made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on 7 November.
As the day progresses, members may think some of the amendments are difficult to contemplate. I accept that they are very complex. One of the challenges for the Parliamentary Counsel was to craft terminology and phraseology which would express what we have taken for granted. We have spoken about pipes in the ground and other matters, but these provisions must now be included in law. In no sense do the vast majority of the amendments violate the spirit of the changes made by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges on 7 November. It would not be in the public interest, therefore, to further delay contemplation of the legislation. If an amendment gives the Opposition pause for thought, we can return to deal with the issue of concern on Report Stage.
I have looked at the 100 amendments tabled by the Opposition, many of which are technical in nature, and I am disposed to adopt the general rule that if any of them would even marginally improve the Bill, I will accept it. If an amendment would be merely neutral in its impact, I will also be disposed to accept it. Given that very few amendments will be rejected, it would be far better to make progress on the Bill, especially as we can revert to any issue which arises on Report Stage.
The Bills Office advises that the amendments proposed come within the scope of the Bill. That is where I take my advice from.
I received advice on the matter only last night and it was not possible to provide advance notice for the Chairman of my intention to raise the matter this morning. I sought the advice because I had found myself confronted by a substantial list of amendments, many of which are technical and on which I would like to receive advice. I have not been able to receive it in the period provided. If we are to take our duty to scrutinise legislation seriously, we must have a reasonable opportunity to examine the proposals made rather than subject them to speed reading, which is the most it was possible to do in this instance. The amendments began to be circulated on 16 and 17 November and eventually ran to seven lists. It was not possible to study them until one had received the entire batch in consolidated form as one did not know where one was going with them. While the consolidated list may have been placed in my pigeon hole on Monday, I did not receive it until yesterday, which left me with insufficient time to consider the amendments before discussing them today.
The Committee on Procedure and Privileges considered such circumstances because a practice had been developing in the last couple of years, whereby some Ministers brought forward at short notice on Committee and Report Stages substantial amendments which changed Bills as presented on Second Stage. The Bill as presented on Second Stage has been changed substantially by the amendments submitted by the Minister and we require a ruling under the relevant Standing Order, with which we are required to comply. We should adjourn the meeting to allow the Minister to put the motion that he is required to put to the House to obtain the necessary ruling.
The Minister says he is anxious to proceed with Committee Stage, but the Bill was originally referred to the committee nearly two years ago on completion of Second Stage. I inquired a couple of times on the Order of Business in the Dáil and at the committee why the legislation was not being brought before us. It is not our fault the Bill has not appeared before now. The Standing Order is very clear and was introduced with precisely this scenario in mind, whereby a great lump of ministerial amendments are presented at the last minute, denying members an opportunity to consider them. I ask the Chairman to adjourn the meeting but I will table a formal motion if I must.
Until when?
Until the Minister puts his motion to the Dáil and a debate occurs there on the presentation of these amendments. The issue may then be referred back to the committee.
Since this debate started, I have received further advice to the effect that the scope of the Bill has not been widened. Therefore, the change in the Standing Order does not apply in this case. The change in the Long Title of the Bill is intended to cater for an omission and does not add anything to the legislation. If the Deputy wishes to suspend the sitting for half an hour, we can clarify the advice we have received.
Deputy Gilmore has asked for two things. He has asked for an adjudication on whether the legislation is in line with the amendment agreed to by the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to Dáil Standing Orders. If the Deputy doubts whether the committee is in compliance with a Standing Order of the Dáil, we must take a short adjournment to ensure that it is. I would not wish to press the matter to a division on an assertion which was out of line with a Standing Order of the Dáil, as we have a great deal of pressing business to which to attend.
Deputy Gilmore is right; it has taken an inordinate amount of time to get the Bill through the drafting process. My anxiety is no less acute than the Deputy's to enact the legislation which is designed to make necessary improvements. If the committee wishes to suspend to seek an adjudication, I am happy to agree.
We will suspend the sitting for half an hour to seek clarification of the Standing Order to which Deputy Gilmore referred.
Sitting suspended at 10.30 a.m. and resumed at 11 a.m.
I have examined the points raised by Deputy Gilmore before the sitting was suspended. I have been advised that all of the Minister's amendments were examined to ascertain whether they were within the scope of the Bill, or relevant to its provisions as read a second time. They have all been held to be within the scope of the Bill. Accordingly, an instruction to committee motion under the new Standing Order 125 would not be appropriate, as such a motion would be needed only if the amendments were not within the scope of the Bill, as it stands. I appreciate Deputy Gilmore's difficulty — he was notified at short notice of long and complicated amendments. I hope we can make a start on the Committee Stage debate at this stage, in the interests of the efficiency of the committee.
I have not changed my view on the matter, although I accept the Chairman's ruling, in deference to him and in order to be co-operative.
I thank the Deputy.
Can we agree the times for the debate? It is proposed that we consider the Bill until 2 p.m. and that we have a sos from 2 p.m. until 3.30 p.m. It is further proposed that if Committee Stage has not been completed by 5.30 p.m., we will resume our deliberations on Wednesday, 29 November at 10 a.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I offer my apologies in advance because I will have to leave at approximately 11.45 a.m.
I wish to inform the committee that in about three minutes' time, I will have to leave the meeting for approximately 15 minutes. I propose that Deputy Cregan take the Chair. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I ask members to note that the numbered amendment list should state amendment No. 1 involves the deletion of section 1 of the Bill. It is just a technical notice.