Seanad debates

Wednesday, 24 May 2006

Road Safety Authority Bill 2004: Report Stage.

 

4:00 pm

Photo of Paschal MooneyPaschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

Reflecting on the last few remarks of our friend and colleague, Senator Feeney, how could the Minister of State possibly ignore the flattery of such a distinguished Member of the House? She has put forward a passionate argument in favour of the amendment, to which I add my voice. Senator Jim Walsh's comments reminded me that I was present in this House when a previous Government withdrew a similar amendment in the face of similar passionate arguments from all sides. The fact that the then Government was a rainbow Government, and did not have all the numbers in the House, may certainly have focused its mind. Nonetheless, it could have made an issue of it subsequently, as we all know, but graciously accepted there was an overwhelming argument. Like Senator Jim Walsh, I thought this matter had been put to bed.

It reminds me of the computer term "default" with which we are all familiar. It is an automatic entry whenever one presses a particular button. It seems to me that, in the absence of a contrary viewpoint from the Minister of State, this is not a Government policy written in stone. It is a default operated by the parliamentary draftspeople who insert this section automatically in most Bills on the basis of precedent. In other words, we do it because we do it. There is no particular reason it is done but we do it anyway because it has been there from the year dot. In this day and age, however, that argument does not hold up any more.

Without labouring the point, there is an extra dimension to this issue. When one considers the amount of expertise available to a local authority, why will it be denied not just to this authority but to every other authority whose legislative establishment is debated in this House? Like Senators Wilson, Jim Walsh, Feeney and, I presume, Senator Dooley, I will be marching through the lobbies to vote against something with which I fundamentally agree. We do it because, in the main, we are all party politicians who sign up for the good and the bad. If the Minister of State refuses to accept this amendment, it will be a bad day.

In anticipation of what he may or may not say, I understand the Minister of State's position in that he must discharge his own responsibilities in this regard. While none of us would suggest that his heart does not lie where ours do, I hope he will have something positive to say about this matter. If the amendment falls, the plea that has been made on both sides of the House will hopefully ensure this type of section will not appear in future legislation.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.