Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Legislation and Security debate -
Tuesday, 4 Apr 1995

Occupiers Liability Bill, 1994: Committee Stage.

I welcome the Minister for Committee Stage of the Occupiers Liability Bill, 1994. This is an important Bill, which has been eagerly awaited by Members since the committee was reconstituted some weeks ago. The Bill arises from much public discussion on the question of occupiers' liability. The Law Reform Commission produced two substantial reports on this area and it is significant to note that the Minister acted very quickly following the publication of the commission's final report in early summer last year.

The Bill before the committee this afternoon is small, but it is highly technical and legally very difficult. From the contributions during the private session earlier, I have no doubt that the Bill will generate intense but constructive debate. The Minister is changing the old law on occupiers' liablity by dispensing with the former concept of invitees, licensees and trespassers to a more modern and simple process in the context of visitors and trespassers.

In relation to the amendments, I am in the hands of the committee as regards how long the committee sits this afternoon and tomorrow. The Minister is available until 7 p.m. this evening, but I am not sure whether Members of the committee wish to break for the Order of Business at 4.20 p.m. I am in the hands of the committee in that regard. Perhaps we should proceed with the amendments and see what progress we can make between now and 4.30 p.m. or 5 p.m. However, I am anxious that the important amendments tabled by Deputies are fully debated. With the consent of the committee, I formally welcome the Minister and call Deputy Helen Keogh to move amendment No. 1 to section 1.

Before we start dealing with the amendments, we wish to be as helpful as possible to the Minister in relation to procedure. The Chairman accurately described the Bill, which has been improved. We would like to get through it quickly, but it is very complex. It is related to other pieces of law and these are the issues upon which judges have differed over the years. There has been a good deal of confusion in that regard.

Although we are anxious to be as helpful as possible, we only received the draft amendments yesterday evening to this complex Bill. We received the amendments proper this morning; but for a Bill of this nature one needs more time to consider the Government amendments in particular, never mind the others. This is unfortunate. I considered the amendments last night and I will deal with them now as best I can.

However, given the complexity of the legislation and the fact that its implications are so wide, we should in the future have some notice of Government amendments. The Minister tabled substantial amendments to this Bill yesterday. For example, some of the committee Members had spoken about the situation in relation to minors, but these points were removed from the Bill yesterday. There has been a great deal of discussion about such issues and we need better notice to enable us to deal with those areas properly.

Why were such matters included in the Bill in the first place? Members discussed these areas and most felt it would be better if section 4 (3) and (4) were not included in the Bill. On Second Stage, the Minister was not convinced in that regard, but they have now been removed from the Bill. My concern is that what is done this afternoon does not leave other issues hanging. The Bill should be dealt with thoroughly and for this reason we should have better notice of the Minister's amendments. I received the Minister's draft amendments yesterday, which included some matters which are not on the sheet this morning. For example, one amendment proposed to delete and extend the Title——

I do not wish to intervene, Deputy Woods, but I am bound by the rules of Committee Stage debate, as in the Chamber. I cannot allow a general debate on the amendments as a whole.

I am not debating them generally. I am just saying that I received a list of amendments yesterday afternoon for discussion today. Some of the first amendments on that list are gone. Where did they go? Has the Minister decided not to proceed with them? I am not entering a general debate. I am just saying, as a technicality, that this affects the running of Committee Stage. I am not making a big issue of it. I am sure the Minister will explain the position with regard to the amendments.

For the purposes of Committee Stage of legislation we can only deal with amendments which are before us. Any amendments which are not before us are not part of the committee's function. I take the Deputy's point about advance notice, but I understand there has been no change in this regard.

They come in at the end.

If they are at the end, they will be up for discussion this afternoon. I assure all Deputies that there will be no restrictions. There will be a comprehensive debate on the highly technical points in the amendments and the Bill. The sooner we can proceed to deal with the amendments and sections, the more time we will have for the type of debate sought by Deputy Woods. However, it is also important to note there has been no change in the level of notice afforded to Deputies on the publication of ministerial amendments or otherwise. I agree that the maximum time available to the committee should be afforded to allow for discussion and briefing. There has been no change as far as this legislation is concerned.

I am only dealing with this legislation and what happens when we are finished considering it. A lot of people are concerned about this legislation. I am highlighting what is happening. The Minister can consider the points made in the course of these discussions for Report Stage and changes could then be made. I do not want this Bill to go from the committee without having had reasonable discussion and time devoted to it. I am happy to go through it as quickly as possible.

What the Deputy is saying is superfluous to the debate. Is he saying that the committee will rush through legislation or amendments? Is he advising the committee Members to be extra vigilant?

I am simply saying that we get a series of amendments which have wide ramifications and we really do not have adequate time to consider them before we decide on them. I do not have any difficulty in dealing with it, but at the back of my mind I am concerned that in doing so we may not be doing justice to our work. I just want to make that point.

That would be regrettable, but there has been no departure in that we are adopting the same procedure in its entirety as has been adopted by the committee since its inauguration. We will have to move on.

We had a discussion as to how long we would sit today. Will we be sitting until 7 p.m. and without a break for the Order of Business?

I am in the hands of the committee in that regard.

A report from this committee is going before the Dáil today and some Members will have to absent themselves from the committee to go to the House for the discussion. In fairness to them we should clarify the sitting arrangements.

If we are going to break we will be breaking for the Order of Business and perhaps take a break in the course of considering the amendments. I am in the hands of the committee. We can adjourn for the Order of Business from 4.20 p.m. until 5 p.m. if Members agree.

Would 4.15 p.m. not be better to give us a chance to get to the House?

And adjourn at 7 p.m.?

It is proposed to break from 4.15 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. and adjourn at 7 p.m. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Top
Share