Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, after line 13, to insert the following new section:

"20.—(1) This Act shall cease to be in operation at the expiry of 12 months from the date of its coming into operation unless a resolution has been passed by each House of the Oireachtas resolving that the Act shall continue in operation.

(2) The operation of this Act may from time to time be continued in force by the passing of a resolution by each House of Oireachtas while the Act is still in operation.

(3) Where a resolution referred to in subsection (2) is passed pursuant to that subsection the Act shall continue in force for the period specified in such resolution, which shall be a period of not more than 12 months.".

Having heard the Minister's response, I realise that both he and those who prepared the Bill recognise the enormity of what we are getting ourselves into. That is my thinking behind tabling this amendment. The Minister will recognise that this sunset clause was lifted in its entirety from the 2001 Act.

The Minister has included a requirement that a ministerial order would be laid before the Dáil every 12 months, but that does not amount to Dáil scrutiny. The opportunity to scrutinise the material, while being in possession of all the information, is missing from the Bill. I do not feel we have that provision in the legislation.

I have not moved this amendment for the reason it appeared in the 2001 Act when it was anticipated that circumstances would change and that perhaps insurance would become available again. I do not think that will happen and the Minister is right in that respect. I have moved the amendment, however, to force the issue in this debate for a number of reasons, first, to give it the proper scrutiny and, second, to do so in the context of knowing what other countries have done in the meantime.

We do not know if these countries provide the same kind of insurance. In particular, we should know what the European Commission is doing in this regard. If accepted, the amendment would force the Minister to put pressure on the Commission to bring forward its solution to this problem. It seems perverse for the Commission to require the taking out of an indemnity now, which cannot be purchased. It is therefore putting an onus on each State to provide something that could be calamitous. In many cases in the past, such an indemnity system was not even required in the aviation sector — for example, concerning the radioactivity indemnity.

The amendment aims to bring the debate on this matter before the House when we are in possession of all the information, as well as putting pressure on the European Commission to come up with a solution by establishing a fund. After all, this matter has obviously been on the Commission's mind for a while. It has been thrust on us suddenly, although not overnight, and has been in gestation for a number of months. It is up to the European Commission to provide this fund if it feels this kind of cover is essential. I want that pressure to come from us, as I am sure it will come from other EU member states if they are doing the same as ourselves. We are making a major commitment in this regard.

See this speech in context