Page 4255 - Week 14 - Tuesday, 29 November 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
That process protects the community's interest". That is the issue. Because, in the last 72 hours, Mr De Domenico has been prevailed upon to take a different course of action from that which he took on Friday, it should not be a proposition that affects the deliberations of this Assembly. Mr De Domenico has been renowned for taking a short-term, narrow, low view on what should happen. This Assembly should pay no credence to it. It should say tonight, once again - for the second time this day - that you, Mr De Domenico, have got it wrong again.
MS ELLIS (9.15): I want to make a couple of very quick comments, as a member of this committee. To have this amendment circulated today, after the due deliberation that the committee has gone through on this issue, I find more than difficult to deal with. We do not really know what are the implications of the amendment that Mr De Domenico is putting up. What proportion of the original development does this involve? I do not have that information available to me to make a quick assessment. It is a total change in direction from the outcome of our deliberations and the report. Does that change still make the proposition viable?
Mr De Domenico: Yes.
MS ELLIS: I have not had the opportunity, Mr De Domenico, to ask anybody that. The Symonston issue that we went through - where we did, in fact, approve a partial variation - was after long and strong questioning of the people involved. We consider very carefully all of the information put before our committee. I am afraid that I cannot consider such an amendment here without having that information in front of me; but I am then accused of being inflexible. I think that, when talking about being inflexible, the boot may be on the other foot.
The other thing that has been ignored by this amendment is the comments in our report relating to the traffic implications and the further work needed to be done by the committee to satisfy itself on that issue. Mr De Domenico, I do not know what are the implications of this amendment in terms of the traffic. You have not addressed it at all in your amendment. I take it, therefore, that you are assuming that partial development means absolutely no alteration to traffic arrangements. I am afraid that I cannot take that at face value. If I am a responsible member of this committee, having gone through the process that I have gone through, I cannot very well be put in the position of changing my mind on such scant evidence.
MR BERRY (Manager of Government Business) (9.17): First of all, I would just like to say, Mr De Domenico, in relation to my earlier words which offended you so much, that that was clumsy language on my part, I agree; but you do practise very low politics. You are a bit snaky sometimes. I think this effort has been a bit over the top. If you are being leant on by somebody and they have said, "Tony, you have made a big mistake", you could stand up here and say, "Well, I forgot what I was supposed to say. Whoever it was took their hand away from up my jumper, like a little glove puppet. I will do as I am told in future", and that will be fine. But the issue is that the committee has made a decision about the matter, having carefully considered it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .