Cian O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay North, Social Democrats) | Oireachtas source

I raise very similar concerns to others on process. This week we received 24 pages of new amendments from the Minister that have nothing whatever to do with archaeology or heritage and everything to do with seven existing pieces of legislation which are entirely outside of the existing scope of this Bill.

We received a verbal briefing on this for one hour a couple of hours ago. I have not received any written briefings yet, although there are written detailed notes on which a lot of work was put in. I know we will receive those. Committee Stage starts tomorrow at 1 p.m. and that is the level of preparation we are able to have on these 24 pages of amendments. I am all for working efficiently and working fast but it is simply not possible for us to do our job of scrutinising these amendments with that level of information being lobbed in. These should be in separate legislation altogether. They should not be tagged onto this Bill. It does not do these amendments justice. Many of these things are very complex and, as legislators, in order to scrutinise these, we need to be able to get external expertise to be able to assist with them and get another view point on it. With the best will in the world, along with the interpretation from the Department, which writes the amendments we need other interpretations which are independent of that. That goes for all legislation. While those involved in drafting the legislation will have their own good faith interpretation of those amendments and what they need, we need other views and inputs. When they are complex technical amendments, as many of these are, then it is impossible for us to do our job as legislators without that advice. The point of having an Oireachtas or Dáil is so that we can do our job and scrutinise legislation. We want to do that but to be able to do that, we have to have a little bit of time and not do it right at the end.

Furthermore, as an Oireachtas, we have agreed a process around legislation, including pre-legislative scrutiny to improve our legislative process. These 24 pages of amendments have nothing to do with the Historic and Archaeological Heritage Bill and completely escape any level of pre-legislative scrutiny. They were never part of the original Bill and how could they be? They have nothing to do with archaeology or heritage. It is quite frustrating when we have done very good pre-legislative scrutiny on this Bill. The Bill has not been rushed. As a committee, we have been ready and waiting for the last few months to deal with this Bill and with the amendments. We were asked to submit amendments five or six weeks ago, which we did. We have been ready and waiting. We were told at the briefing today that one of the issues, around Lough Corrib, has been outstanding since 2009. Given that there is little rush around some of these, why as elected Members to the Dáil are we not being given the minimum amount of time we need to be able to scrutinise these?

At yesterday’s Order of Business, the Government Chief Whip said they were just technical amendments and therefore, somehow, it was okay. Most amendments can be described as technical but many of these are complex amendments about technical issues which require more scrutiny, input or expertise. Simply saying these are technical and, therefore, there is no issue so here is 24 pages of amendments and Members do not need time for it to get external expertise does not wash as all.

I am particularly concerned about the detailed amendments around maritime planning. They need to be looked at in detail. We cannot have them rushed through. I absolutely share the Minister of State's objective on these. I want to see the most robust planning framework in place, so we can deliver as quickly as possible the offshore renewable energy that we desperately need while at the same time protecting our marine biodiversity. We are on the same page there. However, the same thing happens every year at the end of every term. We did think it was not going to happen this year and we thought, fair play, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage is not going to do it this year. Every year we have this process of this stuff being rammed in at the last minute. It has become practice in the Department to do that. It is not acceptable. It is disrespectful of the democratic process. Even if there was just a little bit of time given for this to be scrutinised, it would be something.

That said, this should be in separate legislation. It should be going into a separate Bill and being properly scrutinised. We have shown in the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage that we can do that efficiently, fast and co-operate on that. There are no issues on that. I will not support the motion and appeal for this practice to stop. It does not do justice to the huge amount of work officials have put into the process and to the amendments either. We are asking that we are given the amount of time we need to do our job on this. Without that, the chances of more flaws in legislation increases. We ask the Minister of State in the strongest possible terms that this practice stops and we are allowed do our job properly from hereon.

See this speech in context