The first item on the agenda is the Immigration Bill, 1999. Before the Select Committee examines the Bill, it may be necessary to establish the position with regard to amendments which the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform undertook to bring forward which have yet to be circulated. I call on the Minister to clarify the position.
Business of Select Committee.
I would like to clarify the position in regard to amendments to the Refugee Act, 1996. I undertook to bring forward amendments to that Act with the aim of bringing the procedures envisaged by it into effect as soon as possible. That has been sought by many Members of the House for some time. I also indicated that, if possible, I would use the Bill before the committee as the legislative vehicle for those amendments. I am pleased to inform the committee that I expect within days to be in a position to submit those amendments to the Bills Office for circulation to Deputies. The intention is that they would be contained in a single section to be inserted before section 11 of the Bill.
These amendments require an instruction to the committee. There is no question of the committee being able to debate them until the House has passed the appropriate motion. I propose to move such a motion at the earliest opportunity.
In fairness to the committee, and having regard to the extent and content of the amendments to the Refugee Act which I will propose, considerably more is required than the one line amendment which Deputy Howlin suggested on Second Stage. There should be an interval of at least a week between publication of the amendments and their being debated.
I will be guided by the Chairman in endeavouring to arrive at a suitable procedure which will enable the committee to deal with as many of the amendments as possible today.
We can deal with sections 1 to 10 of the Bill without encountering any problems.
I welcome the clarification from the Minister on this matter and his intentions. I came to this meeting with a sense of frustration. At the end of Second Stage the Minister gave a commitment that the Immigration Bill would be used to amend the Refugee Act, a different legislative measure. This was characterised as an emergency measure to plug a loophole by allowing a mechanism for the validation of deportation orders. The enactment of the amendments to the Refugee Act is urgent. All sides of the House want to facilitate the earliest possible enactment of such amendments which would enable the Refugee Act to come into force.
Since the conclusion of Second Stage, however, more than one date has been fixed to consider Committee Stage amendments and the Minister has not produced the amendments to the Refugee Act. It was, therefore, with a sense of frustration that we were about to commence the Committee Stage debate on the Bill without sight of the Minister's amendments which, by his own assertion, are substantial.
I find it unacceptable to proceed by dealing with Opposition amendments only. Amendment No. 3 has been ruled out of order because it refers to refugees and this Bill does not deal with refugees until such time as the Long Title is changed by a ministerial amendment. We cannot deal with a Bill in a piecemeal fashion - we would be dealing with two separate Bills, as it were. For proper consideration of the Minister's amendments, to see how they dovetail with those already tabled, I suggest that we report progress today and meet to consider a comprehensive set of amendments at an early date.
It is for the committee to decide, but it is possible to move forward to section 10 today if the committee so wishes.
I propose that we take whatever steps are necessary.
I have great reservations about proceeding with the Bill. We were assured in the House on more than one occasion, by the Minister and the Taoiseach on the Order of Business, that we would be given the ministerial amendments in good time. Most of us were in a state of shock when we saw the ministerial amendments because they did not contain the legislative changes promised in the House and which the Minister promised at the conclusion of Second Stage - that the sections of the Refugee Act, 1996, which had not been implemented would be integrated with this Bill, giving us a new item of legislation.
The key ministerial amendments, which change the thrust of the Bill, are not available. They may reflect on previous amendments, which have been ruled out of order and the thrust of the Bill. The idea behind establishing select committees is that matters are teased out in as much detail as possible and the greatest possible degree of consensus is achieved following rational debate.
It is unacceptable that such a substantial change is not before the committee and it is expected to embark on a voyage of discovery. The Minister may say that the amendment will be a new section to be inserted before section 11, but the change fundamentally alters the thrust and content of the Bill. It is most unsatisfactory that we should start without the complete list of amendments. From time to time further amendments, mainly of a technical nature, are brought before the committee. However, to withhold the major change until the committee has embarked on Committee Stage is most unsatisfactory. In the interest of consensus, the committee should adjourn proceedings, as Deputy Howlin suggested, having noted progress to date.
I appreciate the arguments put forward by Deputies Howlin and Higgins. Listening to what the Minister said, taking into account the amount of work before the committee between now and the end of the year - the Immigration Bill, the Children Bill and the National Disability Authority Bill - and given that there are amendments that can be discussed, we should proceed to do the work, which is what the people expect of us. Will the impetus and thrust of the Bill be changed by the Minister's amendments? If that is the case there may be an argument for postponing discussion of the amendments, but if the thrust of the Bill will not be substantially altered we should go ahead and discuss the amendments before us.
The proposed amendments which will enable me to give effect to the Refugee Act in its totality are self-contained and distinct. In those circumstances the committee has the opportunity to make progress today on a substantial number of amendments which have been tabled. Of the 77 amendments, 75 can be proceeded with. The amendments to the Refugee Act do not affect the thrust of the provisions in the Bill. Deputy Howlin suggests that we report progress, but before we do so we can make substantial progress.
Only one amendment is affected. The other will not be allowed because it would incur a charge on the Exchequer.
May I make a point in a positive spirit? We could raise a major objection to the discourtesy which has been shown to the committee by the Minister. At the conclusion of Second Stage he made a commitment to make a ministerial amendment available to us. I am not making a song and dance about this matter but I consider the Minister's action very unfair to those of us who, with far fewer resources than are available to the Minister, try to draft amendments. We have received submissions on the Refugee Act amendments and we would like to see how they dovetail into this Bill. We would like to deal comprehensively with them.
It is more than discourteous and ungracious of Deputy Ardagh to suggest that the taxpayer might not like to see those of us who work very hard to prepare amendments skiving off, as he implies, because the full set of amendments is not before us.
It is not our fault if the ministerial amendments are not before us. We want to see them so that we can deal with them comprehensively and seriatim. The committee system is designed to allow us to spend as long as we need to deal with a Bill so that we pass the best possible legislation. That calls for co-operation on all sides. It has been my experience, in Government and in Opposition, that committees work very well because there is enormous co-operation and understanding.
I intend to continue that tradition. I have given an undertaking that the amendments to the Refugee Act will be available. I have stated that there will be a decent interval, of a week or more, if Opposition spokespersons require it, before we discuss those amendments, which are distinct and self-contained. The amendments before us today are different from those so it is possible to proceed with them. That is my opinion and it is a matter for opinion.
Even if the amendments were prepared at this point it would not be possible, in the absence of a resolution of the full House, to proceed with their consideration. I assure Deputies that no discourtesy is intended. I know better than most that one would require notice of amendments in order to prepare oneself and I fully appreciate the considerable amount of work involved in drafting amendments and responding to them. I also appreciate the difficulties presented by the lack of resources. It is no cliché for me to say that I was that soldier.
I did not wish to suggest that Deputy Howlin wished to skive off. That was an unfortunate term to use.
We will proceed to section 10. We have an enormous workload and I suggest that we deal with that section.
As an Opposition spokesman I find myself disadvantaged and I propose that we report progress now.
I second that. This is not an attempt to frustrate, delay or hamstring the Government on this matter. We will insist on having as full a debate as possible and when it is decided to take the Bill we will co-operate in ensuring that its progress through Committee Stage is expedited, assuming availability in advance of the substantial amendment which the Minister proposes to table and which will change the thrust of the Bill. It is most unfair to introduce a substantial change during progress of the Bill which casts it in an entirely different light and which may have implications for previous and subsequent sections and amendments.
We have given the Minister adequate breathing space and the Department has failed to draft the substantial amendment which results in an entirely new Bill. That is unacceptable. It has never happened before that a debate was foisted on a committee when the Opposition has genuine and conscientious objections to conducting the debate against their will. We could debate the amendments which have been drafted but that would not be a proper debate. We have not seen the substantial amendment and in that light we propose we adjourn the proceedings.
I support Deputies Howlin and Higgins. We are all aware of the amount of legislation coming before the committee and it is most important that we deal with the legislation before us in a proper way. There is a great need for checks and balances in the legislative process and if Members do not know what is coming at a later stage it is difficult to deal with the early part of the Bill. There is a strong argument for having all elements before us before proceeding with Committee Stage.
I have been informed that it is proper to proceed with section 10.
I have made a proper proposition.
The matter is in the hands of the committee. It has been proposed that the committee adjourn.
I oppose Deputy Howlin's proposal. I see no reason we cannot proceed. The other amendments are self-contained and distinct.
It would be most unusual for the Government to insist that Committee Stage proceed against the combined will of the Opposition parties. It would be discourteous to us, considering that the fault lies entirely with the Minister and his Department.
There is no question of fault. Amendments have been tabled which can be discussed. Deputy Howlin's and Deputy Higgins's amendments can be discussed in isolation from the other amendments. No substantive argument has been put forward to the effect that that cannot be done. I am strongly advised that there is no difficulty in proceeding.
We are not dealing with a piece of lego; we cannot deal with the Bill in bits and pieces or do a sticking plaster job on it. This is a substantial Bill and we are talking about a substantial amendment which we have not yet seen. It is ridiculous to expect us to agree to the legislation on the basis of a promise that the Minister will bring in a huge tranche that will effectively change the thrust of the Bill. We will not take this as a stand alone item. Such a procedure is not acceptable and it has never happened before. It ruptures the spirit of consensus that has generally prevailed at committee level. We reserve our right to table amendments and call votes. Generally we have had constructive consensual debates, but that practice will be changed by a most unorthodox handling of this Bill by the Minister and his Department and it is not acceptable
We are dealing with a substantial Bill which should be dealt with in a constructive manner. We want to see the entire work and presentation of the Government before we proceed with this legislation.
We have two different opinions, both to the effect that it is in order for us to proceed to section 10 of the Bill.
Of course it is in order but that misses the point. It is in order for us to pass the Bill without debate. However, that is not the proper way to make law. The Minister's attitude is contemptuous of the Opposition's attempt to constructively deal with an issue of grave public concern and interest, that is, the issue of refugees and the treatment of non-nationals here.
Question, "That the committee adjournsine die” put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 7
7; Níl, 7.
Tá
- Ahearn, Theresa.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
Níl
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGuinness, John.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Wright, G.V.
As there is an equality of votes, the question must be decided in the negative.
Question declared lost.