Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

The Minister speech states, "the water-related amendments mentioned here were announced by my Department on 6 May, all of nine weeks ago at this stage". First, it is eight weeks ago today, so the Minister should get his speech corrected. Second, Committee Stage of the Bill, that was and not as is, was held on 26 May 2015, 20 days after the Minister's so-called announcement. The Committee Stage lasted all of half an hour. Deputy Stanley was there that day and he had the only amendment tabled on that Bill.

During the Committee Stage, the Minister of State, who took the Bill on the Minister's behalf, said:

I want to point out to the committee that while the Government is not presenting any amendments to the Bill at this stage in the process, it intends to propose a number of amendments on Report Stage in the Dáil. This will require a motion to be tabled to amend the Long Title and scope of the Bill. These amendments will cover a range of issues, including further amendments to waste legislation and provisions relating to water services legislation. While I am not in a position to go into more detail about the amendments at this stage, they will be published in good time ahead of Report Stage so that Deputies will have time to consider them in advance of the debate on the floor of the House. I refer to the debate on the amendments on Report Stage.

Deputy Catherine Murphy, a lady we all have to credit with great sharpness and understanding of procedure, then said:

We have been told that this is a technical Bill. I am often watching for Bills to which I can table amendments ... I would like to ask about the amendments that are coming to us. I have to tell the Minister of State that I do not like stuff coming to us on Report Stage. I know it can happen when things are worked on late in the day. It is nice to see the totality of what we are doing on Second Stage [well said]. The Minister of State has said that a motion will come before us. What is the nature of that motion? Will it be debated in the Dáil? If so, will that debate precede the Report Stage debate? I am aware that a certain system applies if a quite substantial change is being made to legislation. I remember that a legal services Bill introduced by a former Minister, Michael McDowell, had increased in size by two thirds by the time it got to Report Stage. The Minister of State might tell us about the nature of the changes she is proposing in this regard, with specific reference to the nature of the motion that will come before the Dáil.

The Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, replied:

The motion that is to be tabled will amend the Long Title and scope of the Bill. The amendments will be introduced thereafter. I am not in a position to give any details of the amendments at this stage [even though the Minister has said they were announced 20 days earlier], other than to say they will be made available at an early stage so that the Deputies will have plenty of time to look at them.

Deputy Catherine Murphy asked:

Are we looking at technical amendments to existing waste legislation? The legislation in question is pretty significant in its own right. Indeed, anything to do with water services legislation tends to be controversial.

The Minister of State replied:

This Bill is quite technical. There are some typographical issues. It will really be a question of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. The scope of the Bill does not allow for the Bill to be changed in any huge way. The Bill itself is very technical. We will be proposing amendments. The Deputies will have plenty of time to consider them.

Deputy Catherine Murphy asked: "Is the Minister of State telling us that these changes are essentially technical and that the Bill is not going to be amended significantly?" The Minister of State replied:

The Bill itself is a technical one. We intend to make further amendments to waste legislation and to include provisions relating to water services legislation.

That is in the Official Report of a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Does the Minister think that reflects what is included in these amendments? Does he think committee members were properly informed that amendments that would be more substantial than the Bill were going to be made on Report Stage? He has given no reason for doing his business in this way. I have no doubt that he was advised by his public servants that it would be handy to put it through in this way, to get it done quickly, take a cold shower and get it over with. It would equally have been easy for him to take all of these amendments and publish a new 2015 Bill and bring it through the House in the normal way. There would have been no extra work involved beyond adding amendments. Had he done this the downside would have been that the proper Oireachtas scrutiny that should happen in this House would have taken place. There would have been debates on Second, Committee and Report Stage. Surely, that is what we are elected to do and that is the purpose of the Legislature. Surely every Bill should be scrutinised in that way unless there is an emergency need when we would all understand the Minister had to take a shortcut.

When the Government came to power, particularly when the Labour Party entered government, we were told there was going to be a democratic revolution, that the shortcuts of the past would not be taken and that power in the Dáil would not be misused to rush legislation through. Those of us with experience of being in government realise that when a Government rushes legislation through, in the long term it is the one who rushed, the proposer of the legislation, who finds that it has created a boomerang. The longer I was Minister the more I realised thorough scrutiny by the Oireachtas benefited the Government and the Opposition equally. Between now and 4 p.m. this evening the Minister should reflect on the very serious mistake he has made in trying to rush through changes that it would have been more appropriate to include in a totally separate Bill and in respect of which there is no need for the urgency he seems to think there is.

We are in the last three weeks of this Dáil term, if it is not extended beyond the proposed date. There will, of course, be late sittings, Bills that will be rushed and mistakes. I thought part of the changes that were going to be made and part of the Haddington Road and Croke Park agreements was that we would avoid what always seemed to happen – I know that it happened when we were in government and it annoyed me – that a Minister would suddenly be presented with all sorts of proposal coming up to the end of term and told they were very urgent. There is nothing urgent about this Bill. The Minister has an opportunity between now and 4 p.m. to reflect on what is a big mistake and not to repeat the mistakes of his predecessor in rushing legislation through unnecessarily, to withdraw the amendments, to ask the Whip to postpone the debate on the parts of the Bill agreed to on Committee Stage, without amendment, and to recommit the Bill on Report Stage, with the parts included in the original Bill, and to publish a separate Bill to be brought before the House. The Minister will, however, be advised not to do this. He will be given all sorts of reason, none of which will fit any logic. There are times in life when the courageous and right thing to do is to say, “I should not have done this; I made a mistake. I was wrong. I tried to take a shortcut. I realise it was a bad decision. I realise I have to be my own man and make my own decisions as a politician. I have to answer for the political consequences." The Minister has an opportunity between now and 4 p.m. to respect this House, the Oireachtas and all those of us elected equally to this House, irrespective of which side we are on and to enhance his record by facing up to the fact that he made a mistake. We will all recognise that it takes a big person to recognise he has made a mistake. The Minister should do that today rather than try to bulldoze through, with a compliant backbench population, amendments that would be better debated in a stand-alone Bill.

See this speech in context