The meeting has been convened for consideration of the Dublin Transport Authority Bill 2008, which was referred to the Select Committee on Transport by order of the Dáil on 17 June 2008. I welcome the Minister for Transport, Deputy Noel Dempsey, and his officials. I suggest that we leave open the evening timescale for the moment until we establish what progress we are making.
Business of Select Committee.
Given the importance of the days that are in it, would it be possible to adjourn for the Order of Business?
I second the Deputy's proposal.
I would prefer not to, but it is a matter for the committee.
It would be our only chance to speak with the Taoiseach on a one-to-one basis, which is always helpful.
For whom?
The Taoiseach.
We have been doing it for 11 years.
I would have no difficulty with suspending the meeting but we are anxious to conclude Committee Stage today or tomorrow. If the Bill goes over——
The Minister was ten minutes late but we were on time. We are as anxious as the Chairman and the Minister to get this business done. I support the proposal to adjourn for the Order of Business. We will facilitate debate in every possible way.
I contacted the Bills Office last night, which worked until almost 11 p.m. to prepare the amendments. While it may not be my role as an Opposition spokesman, I want to thank its staff. I am aware of their great efforts. A problem with legislation such as this, despite our agreed support for it, is that it is being rushed through. We will give it as much attention as possible but there is a rush. The staff have worked diligently and I wish to place my appreciation for that on the record.
If we are to break, can we set a time limit?
Yes.
The Order of Business is usually conducted between 11.40 a.m. and 12.15 p.m.
Perhaps we could incorporate the lunch break and a little extra. We would do nothing if we suspended, returned and suspended again. We might as well not restart.
How about a break between 12 noon and 1.30 p.m.?
It would be too long. Will we break from 11.45 a.m. to 1 p.m. to accommodate the Order of Business and to break for lunch?
Is the suggestion to break at or work from 11.45 a.m. until 1 p.m.?
No. Does the Order of Business begin at 11.45 a.m.?
We could leave whenever it starts.
We would return at 1 p.m.
We will never get through the Bill if we break for an hour and a quarter.
I had intended to——
That includes lunch.
Is the suggestion to return at 1 p.m.?
I have a lunch appointment based on the original times, namely, 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. I had hoped that we could suspend from 1.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. because a visitor from Australia is due to meet me. If the members opposite do not mind, I can ask——
Could we go into private session to address this matter?
No, it is fine.
I can ask the Minister of State to take this Stage between 1.30 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. if the members opposite do not mind. They could have their earlier break.
We shall take the break from the beginning of the Order of Business until 1 p.m., at which time we will continue with the Minister of State. If there are issues in respect of which we must revert to the Minister, we will do so when he returns.
I will be present from 1 p.m. until 1.30 p.m. and, if the members opposite do not mind, I will return as quickly as I can at 2.30 p.m.
That will be fine.
My amendment No. 36 has been ruled out of order. Will I be given an explanation when we address this amendment?
We shall deal with it when we reach it.
We shall not reach it because it has been ruled out of order.
Five of my amendments have been ruled out of order because I was trying to make fundamental changes, thereby calling into question the point of Committee Stage. If one cannot make significant changes to the Bill, the Minister can determine the Bill. I am not sure what type of Committee Stage this is if the grounds cited refer to a spurious charge on the Exchequer. Deputy O'Dowd tried something similar.
Some of the amendments go to the heart of the lack of democracy in the Bill. It is fundamental that we not have a HSE on wheels, as I called it on an earlier Stage. We should try to avoid such an outcome at all costs and learn the lessons of the HSE. If we do not, it will be a pointless exercise. I do not know why Opposition members would waste their time attending if this is how business will be conducted.
My amendments would change the advisory board and cost money, but we are discussing establishing a new institution. It will all cost money. Without discussing the amendments in detail, I do not see the logic. While the Minister may argue that he does not agree with my amendments on principle, simply ruling them out of order raises significant questions about what it is we are engaged in and what its point is if the Government is only prepared to pass the Bill. I did not vote against the Bill yesterday, but I will do so from now on and will encourage my supporters to oppose it.
Twice this term I have sat in this room across from Professor Drumm and his colleagues from the HSE. Given that we all know that there is a fundamental problem in the way in which the HSE is run, we should not establish another HSE today that is undemocratic in its organisation and unaccountable to the House. It would be pointless and I would not want to be involved in it.
I thank our colleagues who worked late. My colleague beside me and I, who were in attendance today at 9.30 a.m., are trying to respond to a Bill that concluded at 6 p.m. yesterday. One can take a Bill at half an hour's notice, which I have urged the Minister to do in respect of certain road traffic measures, but one would normally be allowed three or four days to consider and draft amendments. We are at a disadvantage which relates to the fact that the House's recess will begin in two and a half weeks.
I ask the Chairman to reconsider amendments that my colleague and I have tabled to try to make the new body democratic. As the Bill stands, the body will be undemocratic. The message coming from Labour Party members of the two regional authorities concerned and councillors in the eight counties in question, including those in County Louth, the people of which are interested, is that the body would not be acceptable in its proposed form. It is wrong to rule the amendments out of order.
I shall allow Deputy O'Dowd to make a general point.
I appreciate that.
Before I do, I will point out that the Bills Office rather than the Minister has disallowed the amendments because they would incur a charge on the Exchequer.
I accept that, but I wish to make a point. Last night, the Minister indicated that he was prepared to consider increased democratisation of the advisory council. My amendment and those of Deputy Broughan would give effect to this initiative. The Minister's response might be helpful when we address the relevant sections. We could debate and vote on the issue then. I would like my amendment to stand.
Does the Minister wish to make a general response?
It would be best to address the amendments as presented and to discuss them as they arise.
My amendment has been ruled out of order.
Ruling any amendment out of order has never stopped an Opposition spokesperson or other Member from speaking to it.
It stops the Minister from replying to the amendment.
I shall reply to questions on the amendments. I gave a general indication to the effect that I was prepared to listen to comments, take note of them and, on Committee or Report Stage, revert to members on the matter of the advisory council.
There is nothing to stop Opposition spokespersons speaking on the amendments. We can play it by ear as we progress.
A number of amendments related to the areas mentioned by the Deputies have been allowed.