Mary O'Rourke (Fianna Fail)

The Order of Business is No. 1, the Road Traffic Bill 2006 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 3 p.m., spokespersons have 15 minutes each and other Senators have ten minutes, and the Minister will be called upon to reply not later than ten minutes before the conclusion of Second Stage.

I beg the indulgence of the Leas-Chathaoirleach and the House to make a short statement. I heard yesterday's Order of Business but I had arranged for Senator Dardis to fill in for me. The Senator admirably fulfils the role of Acting Leader when I am not present.

I wish to clarify a point and come to the defence of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, who may have been wrongly accused during yesterday's Order of Business. Deputy McDowell gives great support to this House. It is never necessary to drag him in here, he comes willingly and often, giving of himself fully. Other people had the chance to give their opinions yesterday so I am giving mine now. The Minister engages fully with Senators and has great regard for this Chamber. I wish every Minister was as free with his or her time, debating skills, spirit and effervescence. That is my opinion and the opinion of my party.

No one referred to the fact that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform gave us two hours the night before because Senator Brian Hayes had asked for him to come to the House. He came for a two-hour, pre-legislation debate. That did not happen in the Dáil, which was the subject of comment. The debate in the Dáil was four hours long and there were four hours in this House, not three as some have claimed, plus the two hours the previous night. We had six hours of debate.

The point was rightly made yesterday and on Friday that the Dáil had adjourned and, therefore, if an amendment had been deemed suitable in this House it could not have been accepted because the other House had adjourned. I would be dismayed about that, although we managed the legislation so it did not matter. The debate was extended three times. It was due to finish at 6.30 p.m. but it continued to 6.45 p.m., then 7.15 p.m. and then 7.30 p.m. The point remains, however, that even if an amendment had been debated for four further hours, it would not have been made because the other House had adjourned.

The urgency of the Bill remains. We all knew, as we do now, that the Bill can be deemed to have its own lacunae. I call it the "Joe Duffy Bill" as it came about because of huge public pressure to which we all succumbed. Senators will today receive a detailed memorandum on the issues of child protection as outlined by the Taoiseach in the other House yesterday. It is in every Senator's pigeon-hole so there is no need for me to read it out.

I do not want to see such a situation occurring again. It would not have been my wish that the other House rose before we gave detailed scrutiny to any particular amendment, which could then have gone to the other House. That could not happen, however, as the Dáil sitting had been adjourned. There was a demand for urgency in dealing with the legislation, which we fulfilled as legislators. To those who feel they did not get time to put forward fully their amendments I would say — not as an excuse but as an answer to the point — it did not matter if we debated the Bill until midnight. It could not go anywhere because there was also a motion for earlier signature by the President.

I accept that we are here to scrutinise legislation. Of all the Ministers, Deputy McDowell has often taken amendments in this House. If he has not been able to accept an exact amendment, he has interpreted its spirit in Government amendments he has tabled later.

I thank you, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, for allowing me to say all that. I am not apologising for what happened but I am explaining the situation. We must ensure that the situation which arose does not recur. I wish to warn Senators in advance that the House will be debating the criminal justice legislation, which has been greatly altered from the Bill as originally initiated. I am seeking to have two weeks to debate it but it has not yet come through Report and Final Stages in the other House. It is a major Bill which will be like a bound volume. Justice spokespersons will find their plates full in dealing with it in the last week of June and the first week of July. They should be prepared for it and may wish to consult the record of the relevant debates on Committee and other Stages in the other House.