Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Nobody wants to delay this unnecessarily but the Minister of State is already talking about amending legislation. This legislation has not even passed and the Minister of State is already talking about amending legislation. We want to work with the Minister of State. I was content to waive pre-legislative scrutiny on the basis that this is urgent. This has happened before. We were under tremendous pressure to pass the termination of pregnancy legislation. I received correspondence from the National Women's Council of Ireland and other lobby groups. We were battered with messages to get it done. We went ahead and pushed it through. It was necessary legislation we were committed to ensuring was brought in but it did not provide for safe access zones and we did not have time to discuss it. Every time I drive past Holles Street hospital and see one of those vile, disgusting protests outside it, I wish that we had got that legislation right instead of bowing to pressure.

I appreciate this is necessary. It does not give me any comfort when the Minister of State says he has a range of reasons for rejecting the amendments, with it being due to a lack of time in some cases while there are other reasons for rejecting others. It makes a mockery of the democratic process. It is not about what side of the House you sit on. We are trying to engage with amendments I and others have tabled in good faith. We are not messing. We are trying to help, to strengthen the legislation and to ensure we benefit from the wisdom that emerges from debate. It is disappointing. I know SMEs and microbusinesses want and need this legislation to pass. That is why we waived pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister of State cannot dispute that we have been more than accommodating. We were debating a Bill before this where we had waived pre-legislative scrutiny on the basis it was necessary. I will not be found wanting when it comes to being accommodating and doing the right thing. I do not propose amendments for the craic but because I think they have merit.

I welcome that the Minister of State will engage with me about this and I look forward to it. The Minister of State has to recognise that when the first response to an amendment is he cannot accept it because of time, it does not matter what the reasons for rejecting any other amendments are. He has come in and is not accepting any amendments. It is a fait accompliwhich, I am assured by those who know, is French for a ready-up. That is what it is. There will not be any amendments or changes. Even if a substantial flaw is identified in the legislation despite all the consultation, it simply will not be accepted. There may be some other reasons but ultimately it is about time. That is disrespectful to the democratic process. We do not want to stand in the way unnecessarily. We want this legislation. We know people are waiting for it and that it is necessary but there is precious little point in us rushing through something that will not work. The last thing SMEs and microbusinesses need is for us to pass legislation that will not work for them.

I welcome that we will engage on this and I look forward to doing so. I think there is some merit in it. The Minister of State recognises that. It may be possible to make changes through a code of conduct or such. I am gravely disappointed that the first response to the first amendment is about time.

See this speech in context