Seanad Éireann

Vol. 241 Tuesday, No. 11 20 July 2015

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Insert Date Here

20/07/2015A00100Order of Business ��2

20/07/2015U00100Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014: Committee Stage��20

20/07/2015CC00100Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages ��28

20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages ��33 SEANAD ÉIREANN

Dé Luain, 20 Iúil 2015

Monday, 20 July 2015

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 12.30 p.m.

Machnamh agus Paidir. Reflection and Prayer.

20/07/2015A00100Order of Business

20/07/2015B00200Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. 1, Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014 - Committee Stage, to be taken at 1.45 p.m. and adjourned not later than 2.45 p.m.; No. 2, Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014 - Com- mittee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 2.45 p.m.; and No. 3 - Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015 - Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2.

20/07/2015B00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: To clarify, will the debate on the Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill be adjourned at 2.45 p.m. if it does not finish before then? Does the Leader intend to carry over the Bill or does he wish to conclude the debate on it before that time?

20/07/2015B00400Senator Maurice Cummins: We will see. It should be finished by then.

20/07/2015B00500Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Leader. I wish to raise a specific case with him. I would not do this on the Order of Business but for the severity of the case. A constituent has made contact with me about a matter that relates to the broader issue of health insurance, health insurance coverage and how health insurance companies such as Aviva deal with their custom- ers. The man’s name is Mr. Colm Callaghan. He has written to the Minister for Health-----

20/07/2015B00600An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should not name people in the House.

20/07/2015B00700Senator Darragh O’Brien: My apologies. He is well known because the case is public, but I apologise for naming him. However, my constituent requires life saving medical attention and an operation that is only available in Canada. This has been confirmed by St. Vincent’s University Hospital. A liver operation is required. What is galling is that this family has health insurance and the insurance policy document which I have with me clearly states “Yes” that the family is covered for benefit abroad for surgical procedures that are not available in Ireland. Obviously, the news the family received about this man’s liver cancer was devastating. They made contact with Aviva at the time and were told verbally that they were covered and that the

2 30 January 2008 matter would be dealt with, except for the cost of flights and accommodation. Then, a couple of weeks ago, Aviva came back to them to tell them that they were not covered and that they would be paid €22,000. The cost of the operation was €200,000. The man concerned has a young family who are distraught. I will be writing to Aviva as it is absolutely disgraceful.

20/07/2015C00200Senator Martin Conway: It is disgraceful.

20/07/2015C00400Senator Darragh O’Brien: I worked in the insurance industry and have the policy documents. We have asked the Minister for Health, Deputy Leo Varadkar, to assist as best he can. The family wrote to him on 16 July. I will give the Leader the details afterwards and ask his office to take up the case with the Minister for Health who I am sure will be sympathetic. It may be that the State will have to step in, but Aviva cannot be let off the hook on this. The man concerned and his family have paid their premiums. It states on the policy document that they are covered and now Aviva is backsliding purely because of the cost. If the man concerned can raise the money, €200,000, he can have a lifesaving treatment in Canada that is not available in Irelan or elsewhere in Europe. It is groundbreaking surgery. Aviva needs to do the decent thing, admit the claim and allow the man concerned and his family to travel to Canada to receive the treatment and have the operation that will save his life. He is 47 years old. As the Leader knows, I do not generally raise specific health cases such as this. It is just the week that is in it because the Dáil is not sitting and we are. I will give him the details. I have written to the Minister, as have the family. I ask the Leader to take up the case with him. With the support of my colleagues, I intend to get on to the chief executive of Aviva and tell him of the Seanad’s disgust at the manner in which the man concerned and his family have been treated. I seek the support of colleagues from all sides of the House on the issue.

20/07/2015C01200Senator Ivana Bacik: In the light of what Senator Darragh O’Brien said about the awful circumstances of the case mentioned, I am sure we could agree a Seanad cross-party motion, although it is very late to do so. We would certainly have time to do it. We can all join in doing so.

I welcome the announcement that the Cabinet will be approving the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill tomorrow. It will give adopted children the right to access information on their birth identity, which is a welcome development. It has been promised for a long time and everyone in the House will be aware of the difficulties in drafting legislation of this kind. Col- leagues on both sides have worked on the issue, as have colleagues in the Dáil. I look forward to the eventual publication of the Bill.

I also welcome the announcement that Máire Geoghegan-Quinn is to chair the Higher Edu- cation Authority gender equality review of third level institutions which is being conducted in the light of the Micheline Sheehy-Skeffington case. I know that other colleagues, including Senator Hildegarde Naughton, have been raising the case and have been concerned about issues around gender inequality following the Sheehy-Skeffington decision. I welcome the setting up of a panel to put forward what the head of the HEA has described as what he hopes will be “impactful” recommendations in the light of the review to ensure greater gender equality at third level.

We have heard a great deal this term regarding children’s health and rising obesity levels. Senator Jillian van Turnhout has established a cross-party group, with the Irish Heart Founda- tion, to look at children’s health and efforts to tackle obesity, etc. It has been suggested to me that we might look to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to institute a bike to school 3 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business scheme, similar to the bike to work scheme instituted by the last Government, which has been so successful in encouraging higher levels of cycling among adults. The introduction of a scheme that would encourage higher levels of cycling among schoolchildren would be very welcome. It would be a really good initiative. I will be writing to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to suggest he take up this initiative, but I ask that the Leader to also support it. We might have a debate in September on how to improve children’s health and the health of the population generally through greater promotion of cycling. We have seen great things such as the dublinbikes scheme working to improve levels of cycling but having a bike to school scheme would also be a great idea. It is always hard for schoolchildren to see back-to-school things at this stage of the summer when September seems so far off, but “bike to school” would be a good play on the words “back to school” and a very welcome initiative for children and parents alike.

20/07/2015C01300Senator Katherine Zappone: I support that idea. I have two questions about the national economic dialogue which I was delighted to attend last week. I was the only Senator present and I am particularly grateful to the Leader for helping me to be there. I am not sure why I was the only Senator present. Perhaps it was because, even though we had things to say about money Bills, we did not have votes on them. As we said during the debate on Seanad reform, we have a great deal of expertise that feeds into how the country sets its budgets and its priorities in that regard. I suppose this leads me to my first question which relates to the issue of Seanad reform. I understand there was a meeting of Opposition leaders and the Taoiseach on the evening of the most recent debate on the Manning report. I heard about it. It seems that at this meeting there was a debate but no consensus. According to the newspapers, the report is going to go to the Dáil for debate and perhaps a Bill might be introduced on the basis of whatever consensus is achieved. I wonder whether this is the best way to do the business of achieving Seanad reform. Perhaps it is a way of doing business while ensuring the Seanad is not reformed. I suppose my question relates to whether we will have a Bill on Seanad reform in the autumn.

I will return to the national economic dialogue for my second question. The matter of the engagement of parliamentarians with the Government in the budgetary process which we have often raised here was raised at the forum. It would be preferable if we could be engaged in pre- budget discussions rather than post-budget discussions. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, indicated at the conference that he had written to every committee in January last year to look for suggestions on the setting of budgets, but that no committee had responded. There was no engagement, at least in that way. I wonder whether that resulted from a problem with the committees or a difficulty with the process. How can we get more pre-budget engagement from parliamentarians as part of a more open, transparent and inclusive process? I enjoyed the national economic dialogue very much. I thought it was terrific. We were able to listen to parliamentarians, members of civil society and representatives of lobbying groups. However, that is not how we should debate our priorities when setting budgets. Similarly, debates within individual committees are not the best way to go about this work. I suggested we might need to keep child benefit where it is and instead invest more money in children’s early years services. Professor John McHale, the director of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, mentioned to me in conversation that the OECD had been asked by the Government to make recommendations to it on how parliamentarians might engage in the budgetary process. Can we hear about what these recommendations are when they are lmade? More importantly, I would be willing to come in to have a debate at a committee meeting in September. I might even participate with the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform in debating priorities for budget 2016. 4 30 January 2008

20/07/2015D00400An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is way over time.

20/07/2015D00500Senator Katherine Zappone: I appreciate the indulgence of the Chair. Will the Leader ask the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, if that is possible?

20/07/2015D00600Senator Sean D. Barrett: I wish the Cabinet well as it goes to Lissadell House for its meeting. As the home of the first woman to be elected to Parliament in Britain or Ireland, it is an inspiring place. It was a source of great inspiration for people such as Yeats who wrote in 1934 that the “real work of legislation” is done in meetings dominated by “old lawyers, old bankers, old businessmen, who ... have begun to govern the world”. I hope the Cabinet’s deliberations in the west will not be influenced by old lawyers, bankers and businessmen.

I echo the support expressed for the chairman of the Committee for Finance and Person- nel of the Northern Ireland Assembly, Mr. Daithí McKay, who has asked for representatives of NAMA to attend that committee’s investigation into a £1.3 billion property deal in Northern Ireland. There are fine relations between the two Parliaments now. Last Friday week we met the new Speaker, Mitchel McLaughlin. The chairman of NAMA, Mr. Frank Daly, is a frequent and valued attender at meetings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expen- diture and Reform. It should be a case of hands across the Border.

I wish our great golfers Paul Dunne and Pádraig Harrington great success this afternoon. I note that yesterday our cricket team qualified for the next Twenty20 World Cup. Our hockey team has also qualified for the World Cup. Those involved represent the island of Ireland and give us great inspiration.

20/07/2015E00100Senator Martin Conway: I wish the Cabinet well in its deliberations in Lissadell House and commend the Taoiseach for his decision to hold a Cabinet meeting there. Lissadell House is a place full of history and tradition and thankfully the battles associated with it in recent history have concluded successfully and it is now open to the public, as the Cassidy family always wanted. I commend the family for what they have done for society. My good friend, Sena- tor Sean D. Barrett, left out one group of people who always deliberate successfully, namely, gentlemen professors.

I also commend Irish golfers, particularly Paul Dunne. Their international success is amazing. We are setting standards worldwide, as I know from the wonderful golf course in Lahinch where the Taoiseach and the Speaker of the House, Mr. John Boehner, played a successful game recently. I sincerely hope an Irish golfer will win the British Open.

Ireland is a centre of excellence in many areas. One such centre is the Irish Financial Ser- vices Centre where the creation of 100 jobs was announced today. I have maintained for a long time that the country should lead the way in mediation, arbitration and conflict resolution services. We should have a hub here in order that we become world leaders in this area. With that in mind, I again call on the Leader to impress on the Minister for Justice and Equality the importance of proceeding with e-conveyancing. We should embrace technology and the concept of e-conveyancing which would save the country millions of euro.

20/07/2015E00200Senator Denis O’Donovan: It is difficult for a Corkman to speak on the Order of Business having been chastened by Kerry the previous weekend. We left the Munster championship behind us two weeks ago.

20/07/2015E00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: The Senator should be used to it at this stage. 5 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business

20/07/2015E00400Senator Denis O’Donovan: When the House returns in the autumn, I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on an issue my good colleague, Senator Ned O’Sullivan, raised last year. Some people scoffed at his remarks that seagulls were endangering society and taking food out of children’s mouths, etc. Some in the media thought they were a bit of a joke, but the Senator is usually very level-headed and seldom flippant in his comments. It is interesting to note that no less a person than the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. David Cameron, has recorded his concern and worry about the behaviour of seagulls. He made his remarks because a tortoise and a child’s pet, a terrier dog, had been killed in the recent past by seagulls. Fish, the normal food source for seagulls, are becoming more scarce and the number in the sea is probably only one third of the level 30 or 40 years ago. Seagulls have killed lambs and rabbits and we are reaching the stage where they are endangering society. Their behaviour is sometimes like that of a rabbit with myxomatosis or a cow with mad cow disease.

20/07/2015E00500An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

20/07/2015E00600Senator Denis O’Donovan: I am asking for a debate on this important issue. Seagulls are becoming a nuisance and pest. We should consider the request made by Senator Ned O’Sullivan last year that we have a cull of this vicious seabird. Seagulls usually live at sea and nest on cliffs, but they are now invading towns and villages.

20/07/2015E00700Senator Denis Landy: There is a seagull looking in the window at the Senator. He would want to be careful.

20/07/2015E00800Senator Denis O’Donovan: This is a very serious issue. One sees seagulls attacking the food of children who are eating fish and chips. I ask the Leader to consider having a debate on this issue in the forthcoming term.

20/07/2015F00100Senator Aideen Hayden: I, too, welcome the news that the heads of the Adoption (In- formation and Tracing) Bill will be adopted by the Cabinet and acknowledge the work of a number of people, including my colleague, Senator Ivana Bacik, and the Adoption Authority of Ireland, on the issue. I also note some of the issues the Adoption Authority of Ireland has noted it considers need to be addressed. We need to be mindful that we go as far as we can with this legislation.

I agree with Senator Katherine Zappone - I have said it already, as has Senator Paul Brad- ford - that we need to and should have a pre-budget debate in this House on the issue of public expenditure and the important headlines for the budget and so forth. Two weeks ago we passed legislation which prevents discrimination against rent supplement tenants in securing accommodation based on their source of income. It was perhaps a little noted part of the Employ- ment Equality (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill, with which we were dealing at the time. May we have a debate on rent supplement? It is fine to put in place well meaning legislation preventing discrimination and I know that the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, is keen that the legislation should be effective. However, I have a number of concerns, the first of which is about the adequacy of rent supplement. It is inadequate to secure or keep accommodation. There are still inordinate delays, although some progress has been made, in processing rent supplement claims and the manner in which the scheme is administered. My problem is that given all these issues, there is no way someone in receipt of rent supplement could not be dis- criminated against on purely legitimate grounds, namely, the manner in which the payment is made. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate with the Minister concerned to look again at the rent supplement scheme on which so many tens of thousands depend for their home. 6 30 January 2008

20/07/2015F00150Senator David Cullinane: I raise the issue of the planned increase in the minimum wage, which I suppose was leaked. It has not been confirmed yet, but we hear that the Low Pay Com- mission, set up recently - we had lengthy debates in this House on the Bill - will recommend a 50 cent an hour increase in the minimum wage. It is interesting that the proposal has received a mixed reaction. Business groups state, wrongly in my view, that this will set the country back economically. They have completely overreacted to the proposal. The trade unions state it does not go far enough and I tend to be on their side. It is interesting that this morning IKEA has stated that not only will it pay the increase in the minimum wage but it will, from next week onwards, pay a living wage to all of its employees.

20/07/2015F00175Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Well done.

20/07/2015F00187Senator David Cullinane: It is pointing the way forward for companies which can afford pay increases. I accept that there are some small businesses for which increased labour costs would be difficult.

20/07/2015F00193Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Exactly.

20/07/2015F00200Senator David Cullinane: The Government can do things to support those companies in the budget. However, very profitable companies can and should be paying better wages. We know who they are. Many of them are making very big profits in this country and should be paying a living wage and, where they can be, they should be supported and encouraged to do so. For me, it reinforces the need for the Low Pay Commission to be a living wage commission and to look at all of these issues. In reality, I do not think we should be looking at the issue solely through the prism of pay increases. For many low paid workers, pay increases are part of the solution, but what they need is access to good quality public services. For many people in low paid jobs the lack of wages is one issue, but the fact is they cannot depend on public services, be they housing support, health or education services, because of the impact of rising costs on them. That is the flaw in the logic of the Low Pay Commission. It is important for us to have a debate on the issue of low pay when we come back after the summer recess. I commend IKEA, something I would not have seen myself doing last week. It has, however, made that move.

I support the words of the Fianna Fáil group leader on the private health insurance company mentioned which has behaved despicably. I will lend my support and that of Sinn Féin to any motion he wishes to table in that regard.

20/07/2015F00300Senator Eamonn Coghlan: It is always a pleasure to talk about sports in the Seanad. I mention world leaders. Perhaps we might look at Ireland as being a world leader in sports tourism. Today I received a number of text messages from people asking, “Who is this guy?”

It is always great to see someone come out of the blue. They were referring to young Paul Dunne who grew up in Greystones, went to school in Blackrock College and the University of Alabama. I did not know anything about him prior to this past week, but I have a great deal of pride in him. I think of Pádraig Harrington as well as Rory McIlroy, Graeme McDowell, Dar- ren Clarke and Paul McGinley. Golf is really an exceptional sport, making Ireland 1 o’clock a leader. Many years ago, the Golfing Union of Ireland received funding from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport for its scholarship programme. The academy in Maynooth has helped to produce all of these great lads. People might ask how this boy, Paul Dunne, is going to do in the final round this afternoon, but it is not his first time playing in the British Open. He played in it last year and just failed to make the cut. Having

7 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business finished fifth in the National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA, he is going to do things. Golf and other sports are very important for tourism. These players are ambassadors when they represent Ireland which is priceless public relations for the country. When I was at the Irish Open in Northern Ireland this year, I got into conversation with some of the leading promoters of golf in the world. They said it would be fantastic if the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and the Government were to really consider the golfing package, promote it and get seriously involved in promoting and putting more money into the Irish Open. Players such as Rory McIlroy, Graeme McDowell and this young lad, Paul Dunne, are huge attractions for the country and can bring in thousands of tourists, as well as attract great publicity for the country. I read John Greene’s column in yesterday’s edition of the Sunday Independent. He usually has his finger on the pulse when it comes to talking about sport and what governments should do. Last week I mentioned €800,000 going into the National Sports Campus development. Only 8% of that overall budget went to sport. It is time to go back ten years, increase the funding for sport and give our sportspeople an opportunity to lead us on the world scene. Let us hope an Irishman wins the Claret Jug this afternoon.

20/07/2015G00200Senator Paschal Mooney: There is a report in the media again today which addresses the issue of child care costs. With others, I have raised the continuing high cost of providing child care. It is now out in the open again. Another report from a child care provider shows that a majority of parents want an extension of the one year free child care as a matter of urgency. They want direct subsidies or tax credits but would prefer direct payments. We have heard a great deal of talk in this House about the Scandinavian models and another new political group- ing last week referred to the Nordic models, yet this all seems to be aspirational. We do not hear about the follow through. It is now agreed that it costs a couple with two children €30,000 a year to provide child care, which is as much as a mortgage payment. Child care costs are now equated with mortgage payments. That shows the seriousness of the issue. Yet again I add my voice to those of many others, inside and outside this House, calling on the Government to act soon in the budget. It must act to address the high cost of child care which is crippling parents. It is not fair in a society that has a developing and improving economy that this issue is not being tackled. Will the Leader use his considerable influence to convey what I believe is the sentiment of all in this House, that child care costs be addressed, meaningfully and effectively, along the lines of the recommendations of the report, particularly in respect of the extension of the extra year’s free child care, and that direct payments be made to parents to help alleviate the already unacceptable financial burden placed on them?

Senator Sean D. Barrett referred to Countess Markievicz as the first woman to be elected to the British Parliament, which she was. She was also the first female Cabinet Minister nominat- ed in Europe, in 1918. In research for a book entitled, Women in Parliament, that I conducted some years back with Maedhbh McNamara, we discovered that Countess Markievicz went to de Valera as President of the Executive Council and said that if he did not make her a Minister, she would join the Labour Party. I am not sure what the reasons for this were.

20/07/2015H00100Senator Denis Landy: On that note, I will proceed. I add my voice to the good wishes to our golfer Paul Dunne. Senator Eamonn Coghlan admitted that he did not know much about him and neither did I until this week. It is fantastic that somebody has come up through the ranks. The president of his club in Wicklow was speaking on radio this morning and described him as the boy wonder. I hope that will prove to be the case today.

Despite all the joviality around the issue of seagulls, to which Senator Denis O’Donovan referred, I heard a piece on radio this morning about it. I have a Jack Russell at home and hope 8 30 January 2008 to God the seagulls do not get him because apparently they have killed terriers across England already.

I raise the issue of funding that was provided last week by the Government for improved road maintenance, public transport, rail stock, rail safety and bus fleets. Also included in that allocation was funding towards community and local improvement schemes which are administered at local authority level. They have been the bane of local councillors for many years because they have been absolutely starved of funding. I am delighted that this round now allows for 10% of maintenance money to be allocated to the local improvement schemes and for 20% to be allocated to the community improvement schemes. This will mean that small improve- ments which will have a big effect on people’s lives, particularly for those who are living on private and public lanes on which the councils are unable to carry out work. With support from the residents and co-operation from the local authorities, these works will be carried out, which is good news for local councillors who are working on the issue.

20/07/2015H00200Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I wish to ask the Leader if he could check a matter with the Minister for Justice and Equality. I read a most disturbing account of what took place in Trim court last Friday. I know that I cannot name names here and will not do so. Apparently, a member of the public was taken from that court on the instructions of the judge with respect to some query about contempt of court. The man was returned to the court an hour later and, from witness reports, he had been badly beaten and his clothes were torn when he returned. Clearly, if this is correct, there needs to be some sort of statement from the Minister as to what happened when he was taken from the court. I will provide the Leader with the name of the man after this session. It is most disturbing that some things might happen in any of the courts.

On a lighter note, my colleague, Senator Martin Conway, was complimenting the gentlemen professors in the House. We should also bear in mind that there are a few lady professors around the House who need to be complimented equally. That is all I have to say.

20/07/2015H00300Senator Michael Mullins: I join colleagues in complimenting the wonderful sportspeople of all codes who gave so much enjoyment to all of us as citizens over the weekend. In particular, I wish every success to our two great Irish golfers this afternoon. I have no doubt that people throughout the country will be glued to the television screens to watch their progress. It is amazing and wonderful that a young person of 22 years would lead the British Open at this stage. A great American golfer referred to him this morning as the greatest golfer he had never heard of. We wish Paul Dunne and Pádraig Harrington all the best this afternoon.

As we head into an improving economic situation, the Government should be targeting additional resources, as they become available, at people with disabilities. I would like to see some of the necessary cuts made during the recession reversed. The weekly payment to people with disabilities should be regarded as a priority. Most important, the respite care grant should be restored to pre-recession rates because the grant is required in that it gives assistance to parents and carers who are under pressure. Another issue that needs to be addressed is making all employment activation programmes available to people with disabilities. As it stands, the Intreo offices are not providing a comprehensive service to people with disabilities. Some of the programmes arising from the Youth Guarantee scheme are not open to young people on disability and illness payments, nor is the Momentum programme. In the light of the fact that one in ten adults of working age has a disability, we need to have a discussion in the autumn with the Minister of State as to how we can target some additional resources to people with disabilities in a way that will make a real difference to their lives. 9 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business

20/07/2015J00200Senator James Heffernan: I will follow on from Senator Michel Mullins’s comments about respite care grants which I agree should be restored. As with all universal payments, those who can afford to do without should do without and those who need it most should receive the payment. The same applies in the case of the children’s allowance. I do not agree with these universal payments. Senator Paschal Mooney spoke about child care and child care costs. It is true that child care costs are exorbitant and they are putting families under serious pressure but instead of giving an extra €5 in the children’s allowance to everybody, why not divert that money into early childhood care as a sensible option?

I was at a public meeting with over 700 people in attendance in Shanagolden hall last Thurs- day night. They are concerned about an American conglomerate which is coming to the area to build a €200 million gasification project. This was signed off by local area councillors from all the parties at local district level and it came before a full council meeting. My issue is that I think local government is being undermined by county management. They are manipulating the systems, pulling very important issues through local district level and putting them before a full council meeting to be voted through with debate lasting five minutes. The disposal notice was voted through without the knowledge of councillors in any of the other districts. We are told the project will bring in €4 million or €5 million per annum in rent for the council. It was signed off without any consultation with locals and without any concern for human or animal health in the area. Gasification does not fit with any of Ireland’s 2020 targets. I would like to hear where Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Sinn Féin, in particular, stand on this environmental issue because they have all gone along with it at local level.

20/07/2015J00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: It must be great to be an Independent.

20/07/2015J00400An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator James Heffernan seeking a debate on thd issue?

20/07/2015J00500Senator James Heffernan: I want to bring it to the attention of the Minister for the Envi- ronment, Community and Local Government because it will become a huge issue. The council will have to renege on the contract signed with this company and it will be in serious financial difficulty as a result. I do not see how the project can proceed.

20/07/2015J00600Senator Mary Moran: I second Senator Michael Mullins’s call to the Leader for a mean- ingful debate on disability issues early in the autumn. I agree with him and fully support the restoration of the rates for disability payments and the respite care grant.

From 25 July to 2 August, 6,500 athletes, 2,000 coaches and 30,000 volunteers, representing 165 countries, will gather in Los Angeles for the largest sport and humanitarian event in 2015, the World Special Olympics Games, and compete in 25 Olympic-style sports. This is the cul- mination of four years of hard work and training on the part of all the athletes, volunteers and participants. Ireland will be represented at the games by 88 athletes, a 40-strong management team and 250 volunteers. Team Ireland will compete in 13 different Olympic sports. I wish our Special Olympians the best of luck as they depart early tomorrow morning for Los Angeles. We all like to get behind our athletes when they compete on the world stage. I do not play golf, but everybody in the country this morning has heard of Paul Dunne. I wish him well as he contin- ues his efforts towards victory today. In the same end-of-term spirit, I take the opportunity to offer my heartfelt good wishes to Dundalk FC as it takes on FC BATE Borisov on Wednesday night in the third round of the Champions League. Dundalk FC has a realistic chance of getting through to the next round, which would be a great thing for the FAI, the SSE Airtricity League and Irish sport generally. It is great to see our home town competing against the big boys. If 10 30 January 2008 the will is behind Dundalk FC, it will not just qualify but win the whole thing.

20/07/2015K00200Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that No. 72, motion No. 18, on the Order Paper be taken today. The motion calls on the Minister for Education and Skills to allocate two teachers to Inis Meáin national school. As it stands, this island school has only one teacher who must teach the entire curriculum, from age four to 13 years, to nine children. Apart from the sound educational grounds on which a second teacher should be appointed, it is fundamentally unsafe for one teacher to be left alone with nine pupils, both in terms of pupils’ welfare and the teacher’s personal safety and ability to take normal work breaks. The Department has already approved five hours of resource teaching time for the school, which is an acknowledgement that children there have special educational needs. However, nobody will take up the post because by the time one funds travel and accommodation, it would not pay to do so. Every island school needs at least two staff if we are to ensure safe practice for both teachers and students. I am seeking the Leader’s support on this matter. When I spoke to my colleague, Senator Cáit Keane, about the issue last week, she pointed out that at preschool level, where there are more than eight children, there must be two members of staff. By the time we come back in the autumn, children will have returned to school and it will be too late for this debate. Let us use Parliament to work for the people and, on this occasion, for the children of Inis Meáin. Either we are either serious about keeping our islands alive and encouraging young families to stay there or we are not.

20/07/2015K00300Senator Colm Burke: I support the proposal made by Dublin Chamber of Commerce to the Minister for Finance that small companies with fewer than ten employees should, for the first three years of operation, be exempt from the requirement to pay PRSI of 10.7% in respect of each worker. Small companies are always reluctant to take on additional employees because of the extra costs involved, one of which is the payment of PRSI. The chamber is suggesting that in the first three years of operation and where there are fewer than ten people employed, start-ups should not be liable for this cost. The chamber of commerce points out that if 80,000 companies were to take on just one additional employee, we could make a substantial inroad into the numbers out of work. This well researched proposal deserves serious consideration prior to the forthcoming budget. As a person who has been involved with a small business for many years, I understand what is involved. Dublin Chamber of Commerce has huge experience in this area and its views should be taken on board and afforded careful examination.

I ask the Leader to organise a debate at some stage prior to the budget on constructive ideas for job creation in order that we can get people back to work and employers are encouraged to take on more people.

20/07/2015L00200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Cuirim leis an mholadh atá curtha os comhair an tSeanaid ag an Seanadóir Fidelma Healy Eames i dtaca le scoileanna beaga ar na hoileáin amuigh ón chósta. Tá 13 scoil i gceist, ocht gcinn acu a bhfuil beirt mhúinteoirí ann agus cúig cinn acu nach bhfuil ach múinteoir amháin ann, scoil náisiúnta Inis Meáin a rinne an Seanadóir Fidelma Healy Eames tagairt di ina measc.

I fully support the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames relating to small island schools. There are only 13 of these schools on offshore islands. In the Gaeltacht areas eight have two teachers but five have only one teacher. From the points of view of health and safety, child protection, teachers’ employment and educational outcomes these kids are not being given an equal opportunity. The scoil náisiúnta on Inis Meáin is in Senator Fidelma Healy Eames’s constituency and the scoil náisiúnta Cholmcille, Oileán Toraí 11 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business in my constituency, is in the same predicament with only one teacher and ten pupils. This is totally unacceptable. The cost of employing an additional new teacher is in the region of €30,000. The school in Inis Meáin has a resource teacher working approximately five hours a week which, when added to transportation costs, comes to €15,000 per year; therefore, it is a minimal cost to the Department of Education and Skills. The employment budget of the overall Department budget of €11 billion is in the region of €7.5 billion. Surely we can find an additional €15,000 for these small schools on Inis Meáin and Toraigh to give our kids the same opportunity. Ireland is assessed internationally by the OECD on the outcome relating to kids at primary and post-primary levels but we are not giving the same opportunity to small island children and that is not fair. I hope the Leader will accept the amendment and compel the Minister for Education and Skills to come to the House to talk about this very important issue before the schools start back again in September.

20/07/2015L00300Senator Terry Brennan: I wish to be associated with the good wishes sent to the Irish Spe- cial Olympics team as they travel to Los Angeles for the Special Olympic Games next week. This is an historic day for Irish sport. Paul Dunne was a complete all-rounder, a footballer, golfer, hurler and swimmer and it is an historic day for Irish amateur golf. For an amateur aged 22 years to be joint leader of one of the four major golf tournaments in the world is no mean feat. He is following in the footsteps of the great Bobby Jones who won the same tournament in 85 years ago in 1930 in a feat that has not been emulated since.

20/07/2015L00400Senator James Heffernan: Did the Senator not go dancing with him?

20/07/2015L00500Senator Terry Brennan: I did.

20/07/2015L00600Senator Paul Bradford: The Senator is dancing with councils all the time.

20/07/2015L00700Senator Terry Brennan: Paul Dunne is following the greatest ever amateur golfer who is synonymous with the famous person who designed the Augusta National Golf Club course. I wish him well today. I have never met him but watching him on television I can see he is a very fine young man and a person for all young sportsmen to emulate. I played at Greystones Golf Club eight or ten years ago. It is in a beautiful location which will encourage visitors to Ireland to play the game. The golfing world is at this young man’s feet.

20/07/2015L00800An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is over time.

20/07/2015L00900Senator Terry Brennan: Paul Dunne will follow in the footsteps of Harrington, McGinley, Clarke, McDowell and so on. He is another fine ambassador for sport in Ireland.

20/07/2015M00100Senator Mary M. White: I support what Senator Colm Burke said, namely, that our priority issue on resuming after the summer recess should be that of unemployment. I remind colleagues that despite the general improvement in employment, we have a 19.8% youth employment rate. It is a very serious issue.

There has been a surge of 8% in the incidence of crime during the past 12 months. Subse- quent to that, last Thursday I held a public meeting entitled, Stop the Burglaries. I was privi- leged to have a former Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality and the current chairman of Crimestoppers, Mr. Tim Dalton, speak about Crimestoppers at the meeting. I am providing information this morning. Crimestoppers should be used more widely; it is not used adequately. Its establishment was not an Irish idea. The concept of Crimestoppers is used throughout the world in the United States and the United Kingdom, including the North. 12 30 January 2008 Crimestoppers is partly funded by the Government - the Departments of Justice and Equality and Health - and partly by the private sector - Ulster Bank, Neighbourhood Watch, the Vintners Federation of Ireland and DoneDeal. It is important to point out that neither the chairman of Crimestoppers nor its organisation committee, representing the interests of the people involved, is paid a fee. It is important to remember that the bottom line is-----

20/07/2015M00200An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

20/07/2015M00300Senator Mary M. White: We need an urgent debate when we resume after the summer recess on the issue of the burgeoning incidence of crime throughout the country. There must be a community response to it. Neighbourhood Watch is about people, regardless of how well off or less well off they are, coming together in communities and working together to protect one another.

20/07/2015M00400An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator seeking a debate on the issue?

20/07/2015M00500Senator Mary M. White: It was a folly to close Stepaside Garda station.

20/07/2015M00600Senator Michael Comiskey: I join my colleagues in welcoming the Cabinet’s visit to Liss- adell House in County Sligo on Wednesday. It will be an historic occasion. The members of the Cabinet will be visiting the home of Countess Markievicz. I pay tribute to Deputy John Perry who was instrumental in arranging the visit and put a good deal of work into it, with the Walsh family. I visited Lissadell in recent weeks since the visit of Prince Charles. It is a great place to go. It used to attract approximately 40,000 visitors who also visited the north-west coast, right along the Wild Atlantic Way. Lissadell House highlights once again what we can offer along the Wild Atlantic Way, taking in counties Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal.

I join my colleague, Senator Denis Landy, in welcoming the funding allocated to all the county councils last week. These allocations will provide funding for the local improvement scheme and the construction industry scheme, something on which we have all been lobbied during the past year to 18 months. It is important that money will be allocated to these schemes.

20/07/2015M00700Senator Paul Bradford: I concur with those speakers who have wished the Cabinet well as it decamps for a pleasurable visit to Lissadell House. The idea of the Cabinet meeting across the country is a relatively new departure. Perhaps when future Cabinet meetings are being planned and thought of in that regard, it might do us all some good if a Cabinet meeting were to take place in some of our urban areas in which there are poverty and homelessness and social deprivation just to show that there is another side to society. I am not making a political point-----

20/07/2015M00800Senator Mary M. White: It is a political point.

20/07/2015M00900Senator Paul Bradford: I said I am not making a political point. There is a second side to society and, notwithstanding the economic recovery, we need to reflect on the many problems such as homelessness, housing and deprivation which still need to be addressed.

I wish to speak about the future care of the elderly. Fortunately, the percentage of people who are growing old will increase in the future. The report on the future of the fair deal nursing homes support scheme is being published today for consideration. I do not know what recommendations it will contain, but we are advised that they will not be acted upon in advance of the general election, which is fair enough. However, I would like to have a debate in the autumn on

13 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business care of the elderly and that we would try to reach beyond the nursing home solution. The very fine organisation ALONE published a report recently which highlighted the fact that up to 30% of people resident in nursing homes should not be in a nursing home. There are many ways of looking after the elderly. It should not be a question of the nursing home solution alone, if Members will excuse the pun. I would like all the options including community care, home care, respite care, carer’s allowance etc. fully debated. We speak about the problem but do not investigate it fully. From the point of view of the taxpayer but, more importantly, from the point of view of the elderly in the community, the community should be the start of the solution for them. I would like the House to debate the issue in detail, alongside the report, at the earliest possible date.

20/07/2015N00200Senator Cáit Keane: I want to comment briefly on the valid point made by Senator Fi- delma Healy Eames. When she discussed the matter with me, I pointed out that according to the regulations, the staff ratio for preschool children aged three to six years was 1:8. The issue is valid and I asked the Leader earlier to take it up with the Minister for Education and Skills, particularly on safety grounds. I am sure he will comment on this, but the Senator should not get excited that it will be dealt with today because, as far as I know, the Minister is not in the House. However, the point is valid and I know people who find themselves in that situation.

I raise the issue of Rural Resettlement Ireland, an organisation set up by Jim Connolly 20 years ago. I have been a supporter of Jim Connolly for the past 20 years but yesterday Claire McCormack wrote a very good article on the organisation.

20/07/2015N00300An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to refrain from naming people on the Order of Busi- ness.

20/07/2015N00400Senator Cáit Keane: I am sorry, although I am sure he will not mind-----

20/07/2015N00500An Cathaoirleach: That is not the point.

20/07/2015N00600Senator Cáit Keane: -----because in terms of rehousing people he is almost a one man band, although he has volunteers. We might consider having a dedicated officer in each county to determine the number of people who are homeless. Mr. and Mrs. Average who find themselves homeless might be interested in moving to the country. We should look anew at the problem. About ten years ago homeless persons were given the option to consider the rural resettlement scheme, but that seems to have died a death, so to speak. Jim Connolly should be helped to examine this issue in an innovative way with a view to having a dedicated officer in each county because there are people in negative equity now who could be resettled. Also, the situation in terms of employment is different now in that many people who are homeless or are on the verge of homelessness can work in rural areas with the help of IT. The rural resettlement scheme might also be a way of ensuring rural schools can remain open. The Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, was mentioned in the article to which I referred. She is proactive in this area also. I call for an early debate on the rural resettlement scheme, which might be an innovative way of creating jobs in the countryside.

20/07/2015N00700Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Tacaím le cuid de na rudaí a bhí ráite ag an Seanadóir Barrett maidir leis an chúis nach bhfuil NAMA sásta labhairt le coiste Comhthionóil ó thuaidh. It should be conveyed to the Minister for Finance and the Government that if anything can be done to exert influence over NAMA to appear before the Committee of Finance and Personnel in the Northern Ireland Assembly, it should be done. It is unacceptable that a democratically

14 30 January 2008 elected forum such as this should be snubbed in this way.

Tacaím go huile is go hiomlán leis an leasú atá molta ar Riar na hOibre inniu maidir le scoil Inis Meáin. Is trua é nach féidir leis an Seanadóir Healy Eames déileáil lena rún sa Seanad an tseachtain seo. Tá sé fíor-phráinneach mar beidh an cheist seo ag teacht chun foirfeachta roimh dheireadh na míosa seo muna mbeidh cinneadh tógtha go mbeidh an dara múinteoir le fáil ar Inis Meáin. Tá daoine ansin atá sásta cásanna cúirte a ghlacadh. The situation in Inis Meáin did not happen yesterday or today. The reason there is such an urgency to this issue is that if a decision is not made before the end of July, the Government and the Department of Educa- tion and Skills could find themselves in a litigious situation where they are taken to court over people’s rights. Serious rights are being impinged upon here, not least the employment rights of the principal in the school. It is totally unacceptable that a principal on an island could teach eight children and not be afforded a lunch break or a toilet break. It is unacceptable in this day and age. Solutions can be found. The amounts of money involved are not insurmountable. The rigidity of the guidelines from the Department of Education and Skills is ludicrous in this situation. They do not take into consideration the fact that this is an island out in the middle of the Atlantic. I wholeheartedly support the amendment proposed to the Order of Business. Even if the senior Minister is not available, any Minister who is in the Houses should be here. It is not acceptable that all the Ministers have decamped and that there is none around.

20/07/2015O00400Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: This is a House of Parliament.

20/07/2015O00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: It is a House of Parliament and it should be shown respect. A Minister should make himself or herself available. I appreciate the Leader’s predicament in this regard, but it is an important issue which, if left to run, will have serious legal and financial consequences for the State.

20/07/2015O00600Senator Paul Coghlan: I welcome the launch yesterday in Killarney of a spiritual tourism project. This is something that could be of benefit to many towns, cities and places throughout the land and could lead to many interesting trails. I compliment Reverend Simon Lumby who has now retitled or expanded the title of his church, St. Mary’s Church of Ireland, Killarney - Cill Airne - the Church of the Sloes, which, as the Irish scholars among us know, is the original name. There are many historic spiritual connections throughout the land, but we in Killarney are particularly blessed that in the town hall opposite there is an ancient well. There was an ancient church on a site somewhere in the vicinity, between the existing church and the town hall. Of course, there is also Innisfallen Island where the annals were written by monks in the 11th century, as well as Muckross and Aghadoe. There are some mountainside shrines. There is the magnificent Pugin cathedral which, by the way, is also known as St. Mary’s. The project will lead people to other places. It will be interesting for the future of tourism.

I support Senator Denis O’Donovan in what he said about seagulls, picking up on what Senator Ned O’Sullivan proposed back down the line. I have noticed that seagulls are now coming inland 20 miles or so from the sea.

20/07/2015O00700Senator John Gilroy: They are a better class of seagull.

20/07/2015O00750Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Is the Senator sure they are seagulls?

20/07/2015O00800Senator Paul Coghlan: We have noticed them on the fairways in Killarney Golf Club and such places. On that point, I also extend my good wishes to Paul Dunne and Pádraig Harrington today. 15 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business

20/07/2015O00900Senator Maurice Cummins: The Leader of the Opposition, Senator Darragh O’Brien, raised the question of health insurance and referred to an anomaly in the policy held by a particular gentleman. Obviously, there is a contract between both parties, which is something that should be addressed. I will certainly bring the matter to the attention of the relevant Minister. I understand the Senator will be forwarding details of the matter.

Senator Ivana Bacik referred to the anticipated publication of the Adoption (Information and Tracing) Bill. As she will be aware, a similar Bill was brought before the House by Sena- tors Averil Power and Jillian van Turnhout not too long ago. All Senators will welcome publication of the Bill and I hope we can have it dealt with in both Houses of the Oireachtas in the next session.

Senator Ivana Bacik also referred to the gender equality review of third level institutions and welcomed the fact that the review would be chaired by Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. The Senator also called for a bike-to-school scheme to be initiated by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, to improve children’s health. I am sure the Minister will look kindly on such a proposal.

Senator Katherine Zappone referred to the national economic dialogue. Obviously, invita- tions came from the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin. It is a pre-budget effort. The has said he is seeking pre-budget submissions and mentioned at the national economic dialogue that committees did not submit proposals to him last year. I will write to him immediately to ask him to come to the House for a debate early in the new session. Let us see whether he will come to debate pre-budget issues. I will certainly put it up to him in that regard.

On Seanad reform, I have no further information other than the fact that the Taoiseach has decided to set up an implementation body with a view to bringing forward a Bill. There is a draft Bill from the Seanad reform group. I do not know whether it will be a Government Bill, but I understand the Taoiseach is setting up an implementation body to consider the reforms that have been proposed.

Senators Sean D. Barrett and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh urged representatives of NAMA to attend the meeting of the Northern Ireland committee on finance. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, to determine whether any influence can be exerted. It is not a matter in which I can have any role.

Senator Sean D. Barrett and others have welcomed the fact that a Cabinet meeting is to be held in Lissadell House which was the home of Countess Markievicz who, as Senator Paschal Mooney, outlined was the first lady Cabinet Minister in the world. The suggestion has been welcomed in general that Cabinet meetings be held outside the Houses of the Oireachtas, where appropriate. I note Senator Paul Bradford’s point in that regard.

Senator Sean D. Barrett and several others lauded the efforts of our golfers Paul Dunne and Pádraig Harrington. Senator Coghlan mentioned golf tourism, which is very important. Our golfers have been punching above their weight in their efforts in recent years and are doing a tremendous job. We wish them well today and in the future.

Senator Martin Conway urged that we proceed without delay on the issue of e-conveyancing. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Justice and Equality.

16 30 January 2008 Senator Denis O’Donovan mentioned seagulls. I do not believe it is a flight of fantasy and note that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has got in on the act also. It is an important issue if seagulls are stealing food from children and damaging animals. I heard on radio earlier that a lady in the Botanic Gardens had had her telephone taken by a seagull.

20/07/2015P00200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Is the Leader sure they are seagulls?

20/07/2015P00300Senator Maurice Cummins: That is a matter that will have to be examined. I can assure the Senator that I do not propose to have a debate in the House on seagulls.

Senator Aideen Hayden referred to and welcomed the adoption Bill. She also called for a pre-budget debate which I will try to arrange with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Re- form, Deputy Brendan Howlin, seeing that he suggested it.

Senator Aideen Hayden also called for a debate on the adequacy of rent supplement and how the scheme was administered. I will contact the Minister for Social Protection to determine whether she will come to the House to discuss the issue.

Senator David Cullinane welcomed the proposals of the Low Pay Commission on the minimum wage. He lauded IKEA for its decision to pay a living wage. The Government is committed to taking those on low pay out of the tax net. It has already taken hundreds of thousands out of it. It has also made a commitment in respect of universal social charge. That is the policy it will continue in its next budget.

Senator Eamonn Coghlan referred to sports tourism and the work of golf clubs and acad- emies around the country in encouraging young people to play golf.

Senator Paschal Mooney referred to child care costs, an issue the Government is certainly committed to tackling, with realising all of the benefits of high quality child care through tar- geted investment in the coming years. Increasing the affordability, quality and accessibility of child care can play a critical role in realising a number of the Government’s priorities which include achieving better educational outcomes for children, as well as for those with special needs; supporting parents in rearing their children while balancing work and family life commitments, and reducing the incidence of poverty among children and families. I welcome Sena- tor Paschal’s Mooney’s comments in that regard. We all await measures to assist people with child care costs in the coming months.

Senator Denis Landy welcomed the transport initiative announced last week by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe. The initiative includes community road improvement schemes which will be welcomed by local authorities.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell referred to a matter being dealt with in the courts. It is one for the Courts Service and An Garda Síochána to deal with and I do not propose to take any role in it. It is known and, as he mentioned, was mentioned in the newspapers. I am sure it has been brought to the attention of the Minister, but ultimately it is one for the Courts Service and An Garda Síochána to deal with.

Senator Michael Mullins mentioned services for people with disabilities and the need to restore the respite care grant in full. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Ex- penditure and Reform will receive many requests, including those made on the Order of Busi- ness this morning, for increased financial resources. They will obviously be considered in the

17 20/07/2015A00100Order of Business budgetary process.

Senator James Heffernan spoke against the making of universal payments and said all payments should be made on the basis of need. I am sure many would share his views in that regard. He also said the gasification plant was agreed to without consultation. It is extraordinary any major project would be undertaken without consultation. I find it strange consultation would not have taken place in that regard.

Like Senator Michael Mullins, Senator Mary Moran sought a debate on disability services. She lauded the efforts of those who would be attending the Special Olympic Games. We wish everybody well in that respect. The Special Olympic Games held in Dublin were probably one of the greatest sports events ever to be held in this country. Senator Mary Moran was also pa- rochial in referring to Dundalk F.C. which we all wish well in the coming week.

Senator Cáit Keane brought the matter raised by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames to my attention before the Order of Business. I will make representations on it to the Minister for Educa- tion and Skills. The argument on the necessity to have two teachers in island schools is valid, but I do not propose to accept the amendment to the Order of Business that No. 72, motion No. 18, be taken before No. 1. I can assure the Senators, however, that I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister.

Senator Colm Burke called for PRSI relief for three years for small new companies employing fewer than ten employees. This has been recommended by Dublin Chamber of Commerce and I am sure the Minister for Finance will also consider it when framing the budget.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill mentioned one-teacher schools, a matter to which I have alluded.

Senator Terry Brennan mentioned Paul Dunne emulating Bobby Jones achievement in 1927 as the last amateur golfer to lead the British Open heading into the final round.

Senator Mary White said unemployment was a key issue. It certainly is. As she rightly pointed out, youth unemployment is still a major problem. While the Government has got the rate of unemployment down from more than 15% to 9%, it is acutely aware of the problem and as such job creation will continue to be a priority.

Senator Mary White also lauded the work of Crimestoppers and called for a debate in the next term on crime. I am sure she welcomes the additional Garda recruits that have come from the Garda College in Templemore in recent months. This will continue for the rest of the year.

20/07/2015R00150Senator Mary M. White: The number of gardaí in Dublin South and Dún Laoghaire- Rathdown is down by 90.

20/07/2015R00175Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Michael Comiskey spoke about the value of Lis- sadell House to the tourism industry in the north west.

Senator Paul Bradford called for a debate on the elderly. The report on the fair deal scheme will be published today. It makes several recommendations, including ensuring there is adequate capacity for those residents who require higher level or more complex care; ensuring value and economy, with the lowest possible administrative cost for the State and providers, and increasing the transparency of the pricing mechanism in order that existing and potential inves- tors can make decisions that will be as informed as possible. The review also recommends the 18 30 January 2008 continued development of home and community-based care services as an alternative to nursing home care. The Government is not considering changes to residents’ contributions.

Senator Cáit Keane raised the issue of the pupil-teacher ratio in island schools, a matter I will take up with the Minister for Education and Science. The Senator also called for an examination of the issue of rural resettlement to deal with the problem of homelessness. Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh has rightly pointed out that the problems in island schools did not just happen today. It is recognised, however, that they need to be solved.

Senator Paul Coghlan referred to a spiritual tourism trail in Killarney and noted the many attractions to be seen. The Senator will always highlight the delights of Killarney.

20/07/2015R00200An Cathaoirleach: Senator Fidelma Healy Eames has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, “That No. 72, motion No. 18, be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?

20/07/2015R00300Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Yes.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 18. Tá Níl Craughwell, Gerard P. Bacik, Ivana. Daly, Mark. Brennan, Terry. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Burke, Colm. Heffernan, James. Coghlan, Eamonn. Mooney, Paschal. Coghlan, Paul. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Comiskey, Michael. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Cummins, Maurice. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Gilroy, John. O’Brien, Darragh. Hayden, Aideen. O’Donovan, Denis. Higgins, Lorraine. Power, Averil. Keane, Cáit. Reilly, Kathryn. Kelly, John. White, Mary M. Landy, Denis. Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Naughton, Hildegarde. Whelan, John.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Fidelma Healy Eames and Paschal Mooney; Níl, Senators Paul Cogh- lan and Aideen Hayden.

Amendment declared lost.

Order of Business agreed to.

19 20/07/2015U00100Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014: Committee Stage

20/07/2015U00100Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014: Committee Stage

20/07/2015U00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State.

SECTION 1

20/07/2015U00400Senator Darragh O’Brien: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, lines 9 to 13, to delete all words from and including “each of” in line 9 down to and including “Seanad Éireann.” in line 13 and substitute the following:

“the office of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann.”.

When we debated the Bill last week, the Minister of State, Deputy Simon Harris, was in the House and today we have the Minister of State, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin. I outlined the rationale for this amendment. I believe the Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill was drafted by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and his Department.

As I outlined on Second Stage the main concern is applying a specific term to three of the posts, the Clerk-Assistant of the Dáil, the Clerk of the Seanad and the Clerk-Assistant of the Se- anad. I outlined the roles the Clerk of the Seanad in addition to the running of the House. That individual sits on SIPO, the referendum commission and the commission that re- 2 o’clock views boundaries for general elections. It is a post that requires detailed experience, not just in the running of the House. When it comes to Seanad elections, that person is responsible for verification of Seanad nominations and whether someone is appropriate to a certain panel. That individual is also the returning officer for the Seanad elections, which, as I am sure the Minister of State is aware, are quite complex and require extensive knowledge.

While the appointment to the post of Clerk of the Dáil is made through TLAC, the others do not and will be appointed by the commission. An unintended consequence of the change the Government has introduced will be that effectively the Clerk of the Seanad will be appointed by and answerable to the commission and the term will be set by it. Subsection (3) states:

A person may be appointed to an office to which this section applies for a term specified by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to be a period of a number of years (or a number of years and months or days).

It puts it up to the commission to set that timeframe which is not done at present. If the commission decided to set it for the term of any given Seanad, that person’s appointment would end before the following Seanad election took place. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State’s views on this issue before I decide to proceed further.

My amendment reads:

In page 4, lines 9 to 13, to delete all words from and including “each of” in line 9 down to and including “Seanad Éireann.” in line 13 and substitute the following:

“the office of the Clerk of Dáil Éireann.”.

The other three posts would remain as they are and a term would not be set for them. My colleague, Senator Paschal Mooney, supports the amendment. I would like to hear the Minister 20 30 January 2008 of State’s views on it. I made a detailed contribution on Second Stage on the rationale behind it.

20/07/2015V00200Senator Paschal Mooney: I support the amendment.

20/07/2015V00300Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin): I thank Senator Darragh O’Brien. Section 1(4) applies with equal force to all four Houses of the Oireachtas officer posts under consideration in the Bill. In taking this approach the Government has in mind that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, under the chair- manship of the Ceann Comhairle, would have the latitude in the future to take decisions on the tenure of the relevant postholders which would be in the best interests of an effective and efficient Oireachtas Service. It does not see any justification for making a distinction between the Clerk of the Dáil and the other three posts. It is very conscious that if the amendment were to be accepted, there would be an anomalous position, whereby the occupant of the Clerk of the Dáil post would have a seven-year tenure, while those appointed to the other three posts after the departure of the existing occupants would potentially have a much longer tenure, until they reached normal retirement age. The Government strongly believes this would lead to much inflexibility in the management of the staff resources of the Oireachtas. It would also be at odds with practice in the public service generally. The Government and its predecessor are on record as wishing to afford the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission the opportunity to operate an homogenised management structure in the service. Explicitly mentioning in legislation the authority of the commission to specify lengths of tenure for the four main officer of the Houses posts is a significant step in this direction.

The Government believes its proposals will amount to a significant transfer of power from the Executive to the Legislature, as in the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The Taoise- ach is heavily involved in the process. The commission is representative of parliamentarians and will be fully attuned to their needs and demands. I draw Senators’ attention to the fact that under the terms of the proposed legislation successful nominees for the posts of Clerk of the Seanad, Clerk Assistant of the Dáil and Clerk Assistant of the Seanad will be confined to serving members of the Oireachtas Service. This gives me very solid grounds for expecting that the successful candidates will have a wide experience of parliamentary and electoral procedure and the work of the various commissions such as the SIPO and the Referendum Commission, with which they are associated. The Government does not share the concerns expressed about adverse consequences for the work of these commissions or the conduct of elections. When the tenure of the holder of any of the three posts I have mentioned ends, the commission will be at liberty to decide whether to maintain the postholder in his or her posting or transfer him or her to a post in the Oireachtas. A significant number of posts in the service are of equivalent rank such as principal officer or assistant principal officer. In the light of the points I have made, the Government is not prepared to accept the amendment.

20/07/2015V00400Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree with quite an amount of what Senator Darragh O’Brien said. I would like to delve into the final sentences of the Minister of State’s reply. If an appointment is made for seven years, why is it not mentioned that the person concerned could serve for a further seven years, five years or whatever the case may be? It is the case where county managers are concerned. Why is it not spelled out that after seven years, for example, the person can apply for and be employed in the position for a further seven years? It should be spelled out now rather than leaving it for the commission to decide whether the person can apply again at the end of the initial period. There is need for clarification on this matter and I hope the Minister of State will throw further light on it.

21 20/07/2015U00100Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014: Committee Stage

20/07/2015W00100Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I cannot believe we are still going down this route. What if we were to legislate to allow a person to serve only once in their life as a Minister? How would that sit with us? It would not sit too well. We are talking about people. Look at the officials who support the Oireachtas. They work here all the hours God gives. They are here for as long as we are here; they are available to provide advice any time we need it and they are here to keep the system on the rails. How dare anyone suggest we should set a term for which they can serve?

For as long as the State has existed people have been appointed to senior Civil Service posts and have retained these posts until they retired. There is no reason for this in the legislation, other than to have some hold over the holder of what should be an independent office. That is the only possible reason I can see for section 3. I ask the Minister to reflect on it. It is clear from what the Leader said that he is not very happy about it. One often hears people say they have full confidence in football managers just before they fire them. Are we going to hear someone say a few years hence that they have full confidence in the Clerk of the Dáil or the Clerk of the Seanad before they end their term of office? It is repugnant to the post to have a time limit set on it.

20/07/2015W00200Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Minister of STate for his response to my initial queries. It sheds a little more light on the response we received on Second Stage. Reference to a seven-year renewable term would make a great deal more sense. The problem is the way in which the legislation is written. It refers to a number of years, months and-or days. That leaves it up to the commission. As the legislation is not prescriptive, the commission could decide to give a term of five years. Section 6A states: “A person may be appointed to an office to which this section applies for a term specified by the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to be a period of a number of years (or a number of years and months or days).” It does not state anywhere in the legislation - the Minister of State can correct me if I am wrong - that it goes back to the commission for renewal.

The Minister of State’s response confirms one of the fears I expressed last week and which relates not just to this Government but to any future Government or future Ceann Comhairle. The Seanad is an independent House of Parliament, but the Clerk of the Seanad position would be decided, effectively, by the Ceann Comhairle as head of the commission. The Ceann Com- hairle is the Ceann Comhairle of the Dáil and the Cathaoirleach is the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, but the Cathaoirleach is not mentioned anywhere in the Bill. The Ceann Comhairle is the head of the commission but we are making a change here. There is no other equivalent principal officer or higher principal officer role of which I am aware - the Minister of State’s officials can correct me on this - where we have set a term limit to it in the service. The difference with the Clerk of the Dáil is that it is the highest rank in that office to which people could aspire to reach.

Clerk-Assistant of the Seanad is at principal officer level and Clerk of the Seanad isat higher principal officer level. Let us take the example of where one sets a term for them of five or seven years and the commission decides not to renew, for whatever reason. Let us say the relations of a future Clerk of the Seanad with a Ceann Comhairle or a commission were difficult, as happened a couple of years ago. Things do happen whereby a clerk must stand up for the independence of the office and the running of the House. The commission could decide that it did not like the way that individual dealt with a matter and decide not to reappoint that individual. It might appoint someone more pliable in that role. This legislation makes it possible to do this. I am not saying it will be done, but it certainly leaves it open to be done. 22 30 January 2008 The Dáil and the Seanad have been at loggerheads in the past such as at the time of the referendum and at the time of nominations for Seanad by-elections. I do not wish to go over old ground but conflict between them does happen. If the Ceann Comhairle or the Government which will have a majority on the commission decided it did not like an individual or the way in which an individual had carried out his or her duties, the commission with its majority of Government members could decide not to reappoint him or her. As it stands, the legislation is deficient because it does not discuss a person’s reappointment. It refers to setting a term. As far as I can see, it does not say anywhere that when that term is committed, the person would go before the commission for re-evaluation and reappointment should the commission so decide. It is a short Bill and perhaps it is there, but I cannot see it. There are genuine concerns. It does not relate to the Government. It is about any future government or any future Ceann Comhairle. We could have a serious problem.

If the Minister of State can respond to these questions, we will see where we go from there. The response he has given today is slightly different from that given on Second Stage which did not mention reappointment. The Minister of State probably just used the example of seven years. That would probably be a sensible term if it were provided for, but that must be specified and it must state “for renewal after seven years” in order that it would not clash with a Seanad election. A commission could come in and state it was just doing it for five years and then there would be a new Clerk or Acting Clerk of the Seanad, as we have had in the Dáil for the past four and a half years. Legislation had to be brought forward because of various issues, of which we are all aware. I would be interested to hear the Minister of State’s response to these further queries.

20/07/2015X00200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I thank Senators for their contributions. I appreciate where people are coming from in respect of this issue.

Senator Darragh O’Brien mentioned the Ceann Comhairle. The Ceann Comhairle is the chairman of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission, not just the Dáil, and the commission is representative of parliamentarians. This Government and the previous one are anxious to give the commission maximum flexibility. That is the motivation behind the Bill. As in every other facet of the public service, flexibility is required, and we are trying to ensure we can maximise the potential for flexibility. In terms of the points being made about fixed terms - I did give the example of seven years - Secretaries General of Departments are also appointed for fixed terms; therefore, there is a precedent for this within the public service.

20/07/2015X00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Minister of State for his response. He mentioned Secretaries General. I have asked whether there is any other grade of principal officer or higher where we have set a fixed term. I am aware of fixed terms for Secretaries General. That is the specific one, because that is the equivalent role. That is the job. What other such positions in the service have a fixed term? I am not aware of any.

I would be much happier if a seven-year term were specified. The Minister of State has mentioned a seven-year term and that could be sensible, but it would be better if he specified it in the legislation and if he specified that after seven years it goes back to the commission and someone could have their contract renewed. However, it is still preferable not to set those term limits. It does not give any additional flexibility. It effectively gives any future commission a stick that has not been there before. It is saying, “I don’t like what you’ve done here, so I’m not renewing your contract”.

23 20/07/2015U00100Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014: Committee Stage The Minister of State says they could go into another role in the Oireachtas, but into what other role could they go? The only other role I can see for someone with that level of experience would be the Clerk of Dáil Éireann. However, that is one post. If it is already filled, where does the person go? If a threshold like that has been set, why in God’s name would anyone want to get into this role? Why would the people with the levels of experience required to carry out this job apply for it when there is a set term limit and someone else is the Clerk of the Dáil and they cannot go any further? There would be nowhere for them to go on their career path. We could end up with people who did not have the requisite experience, knowledge or ability. I have seen in my relatively short period in the Seanad that these are complicated roles. They oversee the running of the House, functions in the House, our constitutional details and legislative functions. We cannot just have anyone coming in from the outside and deciding how this would be done. On Second Stage, it was stated these three posts were open not just to those within the service but also to people from outside, from the private sector. I think that is wholly inappropriate for these particular roles. I am not happy with how it sits. Perhaps the Minister of State might give us some answers in that regard. Have term limits been imposed on any other equivalent principal officer or higher principal officer grades?

20/07/2015Y00200Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I am concerned about what will happen in the case of someone who has been serving as a Clerk-Assistant of the Seanad or the Dáil but whose contract is not renewed at the end of the time period that is being imposed in this legislation for some reason or other. Will that person’s career be over? Where will he or she be going in the public service? Where is his or her future? Such a person will have been constructively dismissed, in effect, by being refused access to the next post up the ranks. From that point of view, I still think everything about this is wrong. The Government promised reform, but this proposal is not reform. It involves picking on a couple of specific posts within the Oireachtas and subjecting them to an appraisal of their performance after a set number of years. From my perspective and that of most reasonable people, this is a proposal to remove a degree of the independence the office requires. As it is an independent office, I do not believe a time period should be imposed on it. I accept what Senator Darragh O’Brien has said and what Senator Maurice Cummins said earlier about setting the period at seven years and making it subject to renewal, all other things being equal at the end of that period. I would see nothing wrong with this. It would not be ideal, as it is not what people expect when they give their lives to the State, but it would be a damn sight better than what is provided for.

20/07/2015Y00300Senator Maurice Cummins: I agree in principle with the proposal made in the Bill to take this issue away from the Executive and give it to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. We should all be in favour of transferring power from the Executive to the Parliament. Can the Minister of State tell me whether I am right to say this will not affect the people who are in these positions? I believe we are talking about what will happen when these positions come up in the future. If that is the situation and I presume it is, I would see no problem with a fixed term at that stage. However, it is not specified in the Bill. There should be a specified period. We have all mentioned the seven-year period that applies to county managers and so on. They have seven years and an option to apply again for a further term or part of a term. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same should apply to these senior posts also. I cannot see why it should be any different in this case from the cases of others within the public service.

20/07/2015Y00400Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I would like to respond to the reasonable questions asked about the office of the Clerk of the Seanad. Under the Bill, there are positions in the Oireachtas to which the Clerk of the Seanad could be transferred. While I appreciate that the Opposition

24 30 January 2008 amendment is intended to be constructive, its effect would be to leave officers in office for life without that mobility. It would leave the Clerk of the Seanad, for example, in office for life. I do not think that is necessarily the intention of the amendment, but it would be its effect.

20/07/2015Y00600Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Minister of State. We are not trying to be difficult. We are trying to tease out this issue. I know that the Minister of State has been asked a number of questions, but I asked whether there was any equivalent-----

20/07/2015Y00700Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: It is my understanding, based on the advice we have been given, that it is not unusual for principal officers in the public service to have fixed terms.

20/07/2015Y00800Senator Paschal Mooney: When I spoke abjout this matter on Second Stage, I said I felt the legislation was sloppy. I still believe that is the case. I do not believe there is any justification for being so vague about these exceptionally important positions in both Houses. It has been pointed out repeatedly that we are not just dealing with higher civil servants; we are dealing with people who are operating at a constitutional level and whose job is not just about administering the Houses. There are also external positions involved, which has wider implications for the entire political system. Considering the calibre of person expected to be appointed, it would not be attractive to someone outside the Houses who considers the possibility of applying for one of these positions if an abstract approach is taken to time periods. While I accept that provision is made for the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission to specify a period, I do not understand the reason a specific period is not specified in the Bill, given the importance of the positions.

The Minister of State indicated that, on the expiry of the term of office of the individuals in question, they may be transferred within the public service. The Bill does not make any such explicit reference. This raises the issue, to which previous speakers alluded, of what will happen at the end of the term of office. I ask the Minister of State to elaborate on how this process will work.

20/07/2015Z00200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I reiterate that it is the intention to fill the posts from within the Oireachtas. The main reason I do not propose to accept the amendment is that the proposal, if implemented, would leave officersin situ for life.

20/07/2015Z00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: There is no way the amendment would set someone up as an officer for life. If that were the case, it would be necessary to introduce term limits for all principal officers and higher executive officers. I have outlined the issue, namely, the failure to specify a term. As Senator Maurice Cummins also noted, if the Minister had proposed a term of seven years to be followed by a review or renewal, I would have accepted the proposal. However, this is not stated in the Bill and, as such, the text is open to interpretation. Could the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission decide to set a term of two years or specify another arbitrary period under this legislation? Could it also specify a term which either does or does not coincide with an electoral cycle?

20/07/2015Z00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Given that the Minister of State will not accept the amendment, I suggest this is a case of “Never the twain shall meet.”

20/07/2015Z00500Senator Darragh O’Brien: Tá brón orm. These are well thought-out amendments and we are trying to tease out the issue, as we are required to do. I am not trying to be difficult and I accept that the Minister of State is doing his best to answer the questions we have put to him. However, I am not happy with this provision because it could cause a problem further down the 25 20/07/2015U00100Houses of the Oireachtas (Appointments to Certain Offices) Bill 2014: Committee Stage line. I am pursuing the matter for this reason, not in an effort to be difficult.

20/07/2015Z00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I am not making light of the amendment or the Senator’s comments, but either the Minister of State is running out of road or the Senator is not accepting his answer. If the Minister of State has nothing more to say, I will put the question.

20/07/2015Z00700Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: The Senator and I will not agree on this issue. To be constructive, I will repeat the advice available to me. The current arrangement under the 1959 Act is left in place, which means that the Clerk of the Seanad can remain until the age of 65 years.

20/07/2015Z00800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister of State has responded. We cannot expect him to repeat the same point indefinitely.

20/07/2015Z00900Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Leas-Chathaoirleach made a very useful point when he indicated that the Minister of State had run out of road on this issue. The question Senators have asked has still not been answered. To introduce legislation that has a cloud hanging over it and could have repercussions throughout the public service would be a very serious mistake to make for the Houses. This legislation could destabilise every Department, as the jobs of all Secretaries General, assistant Secretaries General and principal officers would not be safe. While this is a small Bill, it has serious implications. We must be careful about what we are doing.

20/07/2015Z01000Senator Maurice Cummins: The Minister of State has answered the questions put to him. The issue on which we are at loggerheads is the specific term. If it was specified as seven years, with an option to reapply, I think we would have unanimity in the House or close enough to it.

20/07/2015AA00200Senator Darragh O’Brien: Yes.

20/07/2015AA00300Senator Maurice Cummins: From that point of view, I suggest we proceed and pass Committee Stage, regardless of whether Senator Darragh O’Brien wants to proceed with the amendment, and give the Minister of State a chance to come back on Report Stage to deal with the specific matter of the term and number of years to be specified. That is the point at which we are falling down and for which we do not have a specific answer. I am prepared to amend the Order of Business in order that we deal with Committee Stage only and come back to Report Stage at a later stage and at which time we can have this matter specified.

20/07/2015AA00400Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Leader for that proposal, which I second. It is a sensible approach. We should take Committee Stage now. I will withdraw the amendment with a view to perhaps retabling it on Report Stage as it would give the Department an opportunity to consider it. The Leader’s suggestion is a sensible one, which I support.

20/07/2015AA00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the amendment being withdrawn?

20/07/2015AA00600Senator Darragh O’Brien: Yes.

20/07/2015AA00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It is on condition Report Stage will not immediately follow Committee Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to. 26 30 January 2008 SECTION 3

20/07/2015AA01100Senator Paul Bradford: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“(5) Assigning responsibility for the management of all accommodation functions, including office accommodation for Members elected to the Houses of the Oireachtas, will be within the power of the Secretary General and the assignee will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission who will oversee and direct the management of this function as appropriate.”.”.

Rather than making a speech as to why I want to include this in the legislation, I ask the Minister of State if he could provide me with some justification as to why the fundamental matter of office accommodation for elected Members of the Oireachtas, Dáil and Seanad Members elected on an equal basis by the people or through the various panels, should not be the responsibility of the Ceann Comhairle or the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission? As the Minister of State may know, the current arrangement is that office accommodation is the responsibility of the Government Chief Whip. There is no need to replay some of the difficulties which have arisen in the past few years. Will the Minister of State indicate why the Houses of the Oireach- tas Commission, chaired by the Ceann Comhairle, should not be in charge of office accommodation thus ensuring each Member of the Oireachtas will be treated in an equal and fair fashion? They are elected in that fashion under the laws of the land.

20/07/2015AA01200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I thank Senator Darragh O’Brien and the Leader of the House for coming to an accommodation on the previous amendment. I remind Senators that it is always a benefit to everyone if the hyperbole is kept to a minimum. To suggest this will rock the very foundations of the entire public service is stretching it seeing as the legislation only affects the Oireachtas.

On the matter raised by Senator Paul Bradford, it was discussed when the Bill was proceeding through the Dáil. The Government was not prepared to accept the amendment proposed in that Chamber and is not prepared to do so now. It is because it is not believed there is any justification for transferring responsibility for this matter to the Secretary General. The Houses of the Oireachtas Commission has a statutory function in preparing guidelines for Members in the use of accommodation following dissolutions. The office of the superintendent supports the commission in carrying out its statutory function. Following on from this, the matter of accommodation is for the Chief Whip and the other Whips. In the event of difficulties, the matter is decided upon by the Ceann Comhairle in his capacity as chairperson of the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission. The Ceann Comhairle’s decision is final. The proposed amendment will reduce the powers of the Ceann Comhairle and the commission and the Government would be unwilling to become involved in the matter which is for the Legislature to deal with. In addition, implementation of the proposal would lead to the Secretary General and Clerk of the Dáil being caught up in a political matter. My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, stated in the Dáil:

[T]he proposed amendment would, in my judgment, ultimately reduce the powers of the independently elected Chair of Dáil Éireann to make decisions in the event of disagree- ments or disputes. My honest view of what is right is this is a better way than giving it to any administrator who would be caught in a political controversy ... and this is not a fair or

27 20/07/2015CC00100Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages reasonable place to put any administrator in the House.

This remains the Government view and, accordingly, I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 3 agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

20/07/2015BB00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

20/07/2015BB00600Senator Maurice Cummins: On 23 September 2015.

20/07/2015BB00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 23 September 2015.

20/07/2015CC00100Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages

20/07/2015CC00300Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin): In accordance with Standing Order 136, I wish to direct the Clerk to make a number of minor drafting corrections to the text of the Bill. They are corrections of a verbal or formal nature which are being made in the interests of textual clarity and do not result in any change to the substantive meaning of that text. The changes are as follows: in page 3 of the Bill, line 26, to delete the comma after “respects”; in page 3 of the Bill, line 27, to delete the comma after “insolvent debtors”; in page 24 of the Bill, line 8, to delete “the” where it secondly occurs; in page 33 of the Bill, line 28, to delete the colon after “modifications” and replace it with a dash; in page 33 of the Bill, line 31, to delete the semicolon after “arrangement” and replace it with a comma; in page 33 of the Bill, line 33, to delete the semicolon after “section” and replace it with a comma; and in page 34 of the Bill, line 1, to delete “the” where it secondly occurs.

20/07/2015CC00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: As a matter of record, there has been no notice of these amendments. I am not saying we are objecting to them. We can agree that they are all technically about commas and whatever, but-----

20/07/2015CC00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: On a point of order, I do not have any opposition, but will the Leas-Chathaoirleach clarify the position if the changes have not been circulated in advance? Where do we stand?

20/07/2015CC00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: They would not be circulated. They are just informal. From what I have heard from the Minister of State, it is a matter for the House to agree or not. In the normal course, the Clerk, Members and I would be notified of what was being brought before us. There is no formal amendment. Is it all to do with section 6?

28 30 January 2008

20/07/2015CC00700Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: No; the amendments concern different lines in the Bill.

20/07/2015CC00800Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Is it possible to obtain a copy of what is being suggested in order that we can see what is being discussed? It is not clear from what has been said which sections we are looking at.

20/07/2015CC00900Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: They were actually notified to the Bills Office.

20/07/2015CC01000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: With regard to the submission of amendments at this stage, Fianna Fáil submitted amendments-----

20/07/2015CC01100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: They are technical corrections. The problem is that neither the Clerk nor I as Leas-Chathaoirleach received prior notice of the amendments. They are technical but they affect a number of-----

20/07/2015DD00100Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I suggest we suspend the sitting for a few moments to allow them to be circulated. I do not think there will be an issue.

20/07/2015DD00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: If they are minor and inconsequential amendments, I have the power to direct the Clerk in this regard. We will deal with them and either accept or reject them. Is it agreed that these are minor and inconsequential? I am of that view.

20/07/2015DD00300Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: We can make copies available.

20/07/2015DD00400Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I ask that we suspend the sitting for a few minutes to allow us to have a look at them. The Minister of State read them out very quickly and it was not clear to which sections they applied.

20/07/2015DD00500Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I can clarify.

20/07/2015DD00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I suggest we continue dealing with the Bill. We can look at it before the Bill is concluded. Subject to the above, we will continue. I suggest the suggested amendments be circulated at least to the Members present in order that we can agree on the issue.

Sections 1 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 12

20/07/2015DD00900Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 14, lines 10 to 14, to delete all words from and including “in accordance with” in line 10 down to and including line 14.

I gave notice on Second Stage of my intention to table this amendment. This issue has been raised with us by those working for people in debt. The problem is that making compliance with the MARP code of conduct on mortgage arrears a pre-condition of availing of a court review is actually empowering the banks. The Central Bank recently published a scathing report showing that the banks were failing abysmally to live up to the code of conduct. We must recall that in connivance with the Central Bank, the Government has facilitated a watering-down of the code of conduct at the very time a strong code was needed. By removing this pre-condition which is ultimately a veto for the banks, the playing field would be made more level, which is essential at this stage. 29 20/07/2015CC00100Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages

20/07/2015DD01000Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Amendment No. 1 seeks to delete text from an amendment to section 91 of the principal Act. The effect of the Senators’ amendment is to remove the reference in the principal Act to co-operation with the MARP before a borrower makes a proposal for a personal insolvency arrangement. I thank the Senators for their amendment, but I cannot accept it.

Under the existing section 91(1), a borrower must first co-operate with the mortgage lender under the MARP approved by the Central Bank, before he or she can make a proposal for a personal insolvency arrangement. If the borrower does so, but is not able to agree a restructure with the mortgage lender, he or she is then eligible to propose a personal insolvency arrangement. The current provision does not address the situation of a borrower who has been in mortgage arrears on his or her home, has co-operated with the MARP and has subsequently entered a restructure, whether MARP or non-MARP, but the restructure has failed, or is unsustainable, and the borrower remains insolvent. It is important that a borrower in this situation should be eligible to make a PIA proposal. This section of the Bill is designed to expand the categories of person who can apply under section 91 and to ensure there is no bar to an insolvent borrower in such a restructured mortgage situation being eligible to make a PIA proposal. This section, therefore, already seeks to significantly enlarge the categories of persons who may apply for a personal insolvency arrangement and to ensure a person in a restructured home mortgage will be able to do so. To remove the link to co-operation with the MARP for any borrower wishing to propose a PIA goes well beyond the scope of the amendment and would require very full policy consideration, not least due to its possible negative effects on incentives for borrowers to engage as early as possible with their lenders regarding any repayment difficulties.

20/07/2015DD01100Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: This amendment is at the heart of the issue of personal insolvency or indebtedness. The Bill provides that a debtor makes a declaration in writing that he or she has co-operated for a period of at least six months with the creditor who is a secured creditor and the mortgage is a secured debt. The difficulty is that the banks are holding all the cards when it comes to the definition of “co-operation”. The existing legislation holds that the banks have the right to decide whether the person who holds the debt has co-operated. It is not up to the individual to judge whether the bank is co-operating; it is the other way around. The banks have a clever system in place whereby they periodically send out automated letters to individuals through a computer system. If debtors do not respond to these letters, they may be deemed, after a period of time, to be not co-operating with the lender. That is where the difficulty lies. The banks are taking individuals to court on the basis they have not co-operated even though, in many cases, those individuals are not aware of their obligations under the law. As noted by independent commentators, the banks effectively wrote the initial personal insolvency legislation to suit themselves and not the debtor. They hold all the aces in going to court and produc- ing a paper trail to show an individual is not co-operating. How can debtors co-operate when it is the banks that decide what constitutes co-operation? In a case where a customer’s mortgage repayment is €1,500 per month, say, but he or she can only afford to pay €300 or €400, the bank can refuse to accept that accommodation and the person is deemed to be not co-operating. It is totally unacceptable. Having initially gone after owners of second and investment homes, the banks are now moving on to family homes, as we saw in reports in the newspapers last week. Until there is a level playing field as between debtors and banks, we will not solve this issue. Of course, there are defaulters and debtors who are playing games with banks, but that is an entirely separate issue. I am referring to individuals who genuinely cannot afford to pay and where their bank decides they are not making a fair contribution. How dare banks demand that people reduce shopping bills and other necessary expenses in order to make full repayment? 30 30 January 2008 I support the Sinn Féin amendment which deals with a key area within the legislation. In so doing, I am not in any way pointing the finger at the Minister of State who was not in office when the initial legislation was brought forward. That legislation was enacted by way of a rushed process wherein the Government facilitated the financial institutions to protect their own interests. That was wrong. We will not stand in the way of this Bill, but what is really needed is to go back to the drawing board. The banks are laughing all the way to the courts. They are rushing people out of their homes because they know property prices are increasing. People trapped in secured debt situations will lose their homes as a consequence of the banks’ veto.

20/07/2015EE00200Senator Aideen Hayden: This is an issue on which I hold very strong views, as colleagues know, but it seems some Members are confused about what is set out in the Bill. The lines that are proposed to be deleted relate to the provision whereby a debtor may make a declaration in writing that he or she has co-operated. In other words, it is the person who owes money who determines, by way of declaration, whether or not he or she has co-operated. It is a judgment call on the part of the person who is seeking to use the insolvency process. I regard that as an improvement on the previous situation where it was the lending institution that determined whether somebody had co-operated with the process. While the amendment is very well meaning, it perhaps misses the nuances of the relevant provision.

There is an issue in insolvency legislation generally regarding the independence of the process. As I said to the Minister of State on Second Stage, there is scope for amendment in that regard.

As a member of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, I have been at numerous hearings at which banks have been present and we have heard from a number of them that they do not have an independent process to determine whether a debt is sustainable. We have all acted for people in mortgage arrears, but a number of the pillar banks have said they do not have a difficulty with an independent body to determine what is 3 o’clock and is not sustainable. The issue of whether somebody has co-operated should be within the remit of the Financial Services Ombudsman. The legislation relating to the Financial Services Ombudsman is much too weak and this is an area we could very much do with looking at again. It should be a priority of the Government to amend the legislation to include provisions relating to the independence of the process and the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. In the context of this particular amendment, however, I do not believe there is an issue with this section.

20/07/2015FF00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Aideen Hayden has clarified the matter. Will the Min- ister of State confirm that her clarification is correct?

20/07/2015FF00300Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I can confirm that.

20/07/2015FF00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We dealt earlier with corrections, and on page 24 and 34 advance notice was given. I am satisfied that the corrections are all of a minor or formal verbal nature and are appropriate to be made by the Clerk under the direction of the Cathaoirleach. Having reflected on it, I so direct that such amendments be made. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 12 agreed to.

Sections 13 to 20, inclusive, agreed to. 31 20/07/2015CC00100Personal Insolvency (Amendment) Bill 2014: Committee and Remaining Stages SECTION 21

20/07/2015FF00900Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 25, to delete lines 15 to 24.

This amendment seeks to remove the temporary nature of the court review procedure. We were promised that the banks’ veto would be gone. Instead we have a review of it, and only in certain circumstances. The biggest get-out clause for the banks is that this court review can only happen if the arrears were built up before 1 January. That means if I fall into arrears tomorrow the bank has a clear veto. I do not believe that matches what we were promised. The Government will argue that those who are in arrears but who had a restructured arrangement will qualify, but that is a mean approach when we consider how a family may have just avoided arrears or restructuring by prioritising a mortgage above all other costs. Such a family will find itself excluded from ever having the chance to avail of this review if things even go slightly wrong and they find themselves in arrears having just avoided a restructuring, possibly for years. I hope the Minister of State supports this amendment. If he does not, I fear we will be back here in six, 12 or 18 months to correct this flaw.

20/07/2015FF01000Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Amendment No. 2 seeks to delete section 21(18) of the Bill, which defines “relevant debt” for the purpose of a court review. The effect of the Senator’s amendment would be to remove the definition of the type of debt that may be the subject of an application for the new court review. I thank the Senator for his amendment, but I cannot accept it. First, this amendment risks creating legal uncertainty. Subsection (1) already provides that the new court review refers to a person with a relevant debt. Removing the definition would risk leaving it unclear who could apply for a review. This uncertainty has to be avoided, particularly given the urgency of making the review available to borrowers in long-term arrears who urgently need solutions.

Second, the definition of “relevant debt” in subsection (18) targets the review at those who are most in need - people who are in mortgage arrears on their home or in a restructure of such arrears which has not returned them to solvency. It is the Government’s policy to prioritise this group. Removing the definition could open up the review to any person proposing a personal insolvency arrangement, including a person whose difficulties relate, for example, to five buy- to-let properties. This may seem superficially attractive. However, it would carry a risk of legal uncertainty.

I strongly underline that the Government’s proposal has been very carefully designed and balanced to take full account of the very difficult legal territory of potentially providing for imposed solutions which could impinge on the property rights of secured lenders. Following extensive deliberation and legal advice, the Government believes the Bill is constitutionally robust. An important element, however, is that the Bill concentrates on risk to the borrower’s home where the social policy justification for Government intervention, both regarding the borrower and the implications for public housing and other public policies, is at its strongest. To make the changes proposed by the Senators would disturb this careful balance and risk opening up the Bill to legal challenges. That would be extremely damaging to the situation of hom- eowners in serious mortgage arrears who are in urgent need of solutions. For these reasons, the Government cannot accept the proposed amendment.

20/07/2015GG00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: An bhfuil tú sásta leis an bhfreagra sin?

32 30 January 2008

20/07/2015GG00300Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Nílim.

20/07/2015GG00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is the Senator pressing the amendment?

20/07/2015GG00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Yes.

20/07/2015GG00600Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Sinn Féin amendment has merit. Presuming that the legislation will be signed into law by the President in the next number of weeks if approved by the House, it means one’s mortgage has to be at least in excess of seven months in arrears for one’s debt to qualify as a relevant debt. Therefore, anyone who has gone into arrears since January is excluded. What is the reason for this? Why would there be legal challenges, as the Minister of State mentioned? What would be the legal consequences? What is the advice from the Attorney General on this issue?

20/07/2015GG00800Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I thank the Senator for his contribution. I am advised that the review is limited to arrears before January 2015 or restructures of such arrears to prevent negative implications for new mortgage lending. Extending the new review to arrears built up from this year onwards would risk increasing mortgage interest rates on new lending, something we are determined to avoid.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Section 21 agreed to.

Sections 22 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages

SECTION 1

Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015HH00400Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: We made it clear on Second Stage that we had huge issues with this Bill. We believe it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing to a certain extent. Its only mitigating factor is the section dealing with people not being imprisoned for non-payment of debts, but the rest of the Bill is being used to cover up the Government’s failure in regard to water charges. It is clear to us that the way this Bill and the Environment (Miscellaneous Pro- visions) Bill were brought before the Houses is a panic reaction from the Government because there is huge lack of buy-in on the part of the public to the issue of water charges when only 43% of people have signed up at this stage. It is clear to us the number of people who will pay their water charges in the future will decrease rather than increase. It is a failed Government policy. This is the Government’s fourth attempt to bring legislation through the Houses to bring through a flawed entity, Irish Water, Uisce Éireann. We opposed it on all other Stages and still oppose it here. We oppose the way the Government is trying to give sweeping powers to an entity such as Irish Water to pick-pocket Irish citizens who have shown their distaste for the way the Government has set up Irish Water as a utility. We call on the Government, even at this stage, to withdraw the Bill and to rethink its position on Irish Water in line with public opinion. 33 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages It is in that tone that we oppose almost all sections of the Bill.

20/07/2015JJ00200Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin): I will stick to my speaking note, even though I am very tempted to move off script.

I understand Senators are opposing this section. I understand they are ideologically opposed to the provisions of the Bill which deal with attachment of earnings and deductions from social welfare payments. I will briefly outline the purpose of section 1.

Section 1 is the definitions section of the Bill. Among the terms defined is “net scheme payments”, which is required for the purposes of dealing with deductions from certain social welfare payments. “Debt” is defined as not including debts arising from the repayment of loans to a debtor made by a bank, credit union, moneylender or credit card debt. It is important to note that “net scheme payments” is a definition which protects those on social welfare because it ensures the deductions from a social welfare recipient’s payments do not dip below the basic social welfare rate.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 2

Question proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015JJ00600Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Working on the basis that the Government knew the low-payment figures released last week were disastrously low for it, it is plain to see that this is why it decided to rush this draconian legislation through at the earliest possible opportunity and is trying to push the issue of water charges off the political agenda for September. Ensur- ing it will remain on the agenda, there will be further civil disobedience and protests before the end of the summer. In all ways, we oppose the way the Government is approaching this issue.

20/07/2015JJ00700Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I note that Senators are also opposed to section 2. Section 2 is a standard provision relating to the making of regulations under the Bill when enacted.

The Minister for Justice and Equality will be making a commencement order under the provisions of section 27. Under section 7(4), the Minister for Social Protection may, by regulations, prescribe the verifying certificate. In sections 24(1) and (2) the Minister for Social Pro- tection, with the consent of the Minister for Justice and Equality, may, by regulations, prescribe a social welfare scheme for the purposes of deductions under this legislation.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 3

Question proposed: “That section 3 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015JJ01100Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: For the reasons outlined, my party opposes this section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 4

Question proposed: “That section 4 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015JJ01500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: For the reasons outlined, my party opposes this section. 34 30 January 2008 Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 5

Question proposed: “That section 5 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015JJ01900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh in a similar position?

20/07/2015JJ02000Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Yes. For the reasons outlined, my party opposes this section also.

20/07/2015JJ02100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator’s position is noted.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 6

Question proposed: “That section 6 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015JJ02500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh in a similar position and opposed tot he section?

20/07/2015JJ02600Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Yes. For the reasons outlined, my party also opposes this section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 7

Question proposed: “That section 7 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015KK00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The process as outlined in the Bill means that a creditor will first have to have obtained a judgment against a debtor in respect of a debt and may then make an application to the District Court for an attachment of earnings order or a deduction from payments where the judgment concerned is for a liquidated sum of not less than €500 but no greater than €4,000. The debtor will then have to furnish the court with a statement of means and information on dependants and liabilities for it to be able to determine the protected earnings rate of the debtor. Section 7 deals with the statement of means. The statement of means to be provided by a debtor is a burden given the amount of information required to be provided. On top of the worry of personal debt, it is unreasonable to have imposed on a debtor the burden of preparing such an extensive number of information documents for the court. The possibility of the details provided being inaccurate as a result of the sheer volume of information sought is high. This will undermine, through no fault of the debtor, the protected earnings rate to be determined by the court.

On Second Stage there were some very valid concerns raised, including by Senator Jillian van Turnhout, about the fact that one would be washing people’s dirty laundry in public. All of their financial details would be discussed in open court. Considering the amounts of money in question, this seems to be going too far. Therefore, we have serious concerns about the section and hope the Minister of State will reconsider, even at this late stage.

20/07/2015KK00600Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: This section, on statements of means, also boils down to ability to pay. Questions have been raised by organisations such as FLAC about how the Dis- 35 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages trict Court will determine whether a person can afford to pay the debt on enforcement and the various types of enforcement procedure, including deduction from salary through the PAYE or social welfare system. A debtor in employment, for example, will be obliged to provide a statement of means for the court, which will then be used in assessing his or her capacity to pay. Where the debtor is receipt of social welfare payments, the statement of means will have attached to it a verification statement from the Department of Social Protection. Therefore, issues arise regarding employment which we will deal with in other sections and the relationship with the employer.

Judgment debtors are invited to provide a statement of means in regard to instalment order applications, but many do not do so. According to FLAC, although the legislation is in place, many do not do so in some instances due to a fear of the court process and the public nature of the court appearance. Any journalist or individual can obtain information in a public courtroom on the means of an individual. There are no safeguards in place and there is none built into the legislation.

It will be an offence not to comply with this section without a reasonable cause and convic- tion carries a potential class C fine to a maximum of €2,500, which is another potential debt for the debtor. The debtor will be afforded the opportunity to make representations to the court on his or her own behalf, but many judgment debtors do not avail of this opportunity, given the public nature of the courtroom. The ordinary individual on the street would not have the confidence, means or wherewithal to make a case for himself or herself in court without hiring a solicitor. That costs money, money which he or she does not have in many cases. The Law Reform Commission has raised this issue. The Bill makes no reference to any service or support that might be available to debtors, particularly distressed debtors, who appear in court to support their cases on inability to pay. Opportunities have been missed. There are two issues. The first is that there is no support for the debtor who may have to appear in court to present a case. That support might be legal or emotional, just having someone with them. Many of these debtors are isolated and living in poverty. While there are people who may default on debts, even though they can pay them, many others default because they cannot afford to pay. These people need support and help. The issue was raised by the Law Reform Commission, but it has not been addressed in the Bill.

The second issue concerns the openness of the courts’ procedure and process. As Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh said, individuals have to give their information in a public setting and then effectively make it available to the world, which is wrong. There should be a different process, particularly for small debts. An opportunity has been missed to establish some kind of out of court system that would be private but which would probably yield better results for the lender than going through the public courts system. It would also cut down on legal expenses.

A process is being established that will ultimately benefit the legal profession, which is unregulated. The European Union and the IMF raised it as one of the Government’s failings, that is, not bringing in regulation to a shielded sector within the economy. This sector will benefit from this legislation because individuals will need legal representation, but that is wrong. Small debts of up to €4,000 should be dealt with privately in a different manner outside the court setting. Both debtors and lenders would obtain better outcomes if that were so.

The Minister of State will probably read the departmental line he has been given in whatever answer is coming from on high. I must accept that, but an opportunity has been missed in not dealing with the public courts setting. Individuals should not have to wash their linen in public 36 30 January 2008 and let the world see what their means are. That is wrong. No one should have to justify why he or she was not in a position to pay a small debt. We should not put people in that position and we would not have done so if this legislation had been drafted otherwise, with different think- ing and new methods, such as what is done in Britain and other jurisdictions. We could have established a debt office to mitigate for both sides and come up with a compromise. Everyone would have benefited from that, but instead we will fill the courts system again which is already clogged up. We know that the courts are working in overdrive with debt cases, but this legislation will only exacerbate the problem, while supporting the legal profession.

20/07/2015LL00300Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I understand Senators are opposed to the section which deals with the statement of the debtor’s means. I appreciate that they are trying to be as constructive as possible.

Section 7 sets out the requirements in relation to the information to be provided to the court by the judgment debtor on his or her financial circumstances. In order for the court to establish the debtor’s capacity to pay, it must have sufficient information on the debtor’s circumstances, including his or her financial circumstances.

The judgment debtor, on receipt of a notice under section 6, is required to complete a statement of means providing details of his or her income and financial commitments. Where the debtor is a social protection recipient, he or she will be required to request a certificate from the Department of Social Protection verifying his or her payments. This ensures the court has ac- curate information on the debtor’s social protection payments to assist it in coming to a view on affordability. This certificate will outline, in particular, what portion of the payment is personal to the debtor, what portion is in respect of his or her dependants, and whether there are any deductions being made from the social protection payment. The certificate will not be disclosed by the court to the judgment creditor.

The court is empowered to request further supporting documentation from the debtor, or his or her employer, if so required. The statement of means provided for the court and the verifying certificate from the Department of Social Protection shall be admissible in evidence.

Senators also referred to the statement of means. The statement of means will be drawn up under rules of court. It will be along the lines of the forms in use in family maintenance cases and those which will be introduced in the context of attachment of earnings orders for the payment of criminal fines.

The debtor’s personal public service number, PPSN, will not be shared with the creditor or the court. This was made clear in the amendments the Minister tabled on Report Stage in the Dáil.

It is not possible for these matters to be dealt with in camera. The legal system operates on the basis that justice must be seen to be done in public. Accordingly, there are limited circumstances in which court hearings may be held in camera.

It is not the case that an employer will see all of a debtor’s private financial information. The employer will be served with the court order by the creditor. It will set out what deductions must be made over a specified period, as set out in section 10(6). It will not give the debtor’s financial information.

Is the debtor having to provide a copy of his or her completed statement of means to the 37 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages creditor, as well as to the court, a breach of the debtor’s privacy? It is normal in civil cases to have an exchange of documents between the parties concerned. However, the statement of means which is to be prescribed under the rules of court and the verifying certificate which is to be prescribed by the Minister for Social Protection will have to be drawn up carefully in order that sensitive information on the debtor is not disclosed.

I appreciate the sensitivity of these issues and hope I have clarified matters for the Senators.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 8

Question proposed: “That section 8 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015MM00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: As outlined, Sinn Féin opposes the Bill in its general sense. Accordingly, it opposes this section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 9

Question proposed: “That section 9 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015MM00900Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Section 9 is, in no way, a safeguard, as it has been labelled by some Government Deputies and Senators. It states no order deducting money from a person’s hard-earned wages will be concurrent. The truth is that this means that there will, therefore, be consecutive deductions. The Minister for Justice and Equality, at the launch of the annual report of the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, stated:

People want to pay their debts. Those who can pay them will pay them. No reasonable person will resent seeing someone who has fallen on hard times benefit from proportionate debt forgiveness.

There is, however, no debt write-down involved. Instead, this is merely a ploy, labelled as a safeguard, to keep people in debt for a longer period to make sure every last cent is squeezed from their pockets. This section will only prolong the hardship and it is not a safeguard.

20/07/2015MM01000Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Section 9 provides that an attachment of earnings order and a deduction from social welfare payments order cannot be run concurrently in respect of the same judgment debt. In the event that a debtor is in receipt of a social welfare payment and earnings, the court can only make an order in respect of one income stream.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 10

20/07/2015MM01300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 11, to delete lines 19 to 30 and substitute the following:

“(3) For the purposes of making an order under this section, the court shall be guided by the Insolvency Service of Ireland reasonable living expenses as required under section 23 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012.”.

38 30 January 2008 This amendment relates to the attachment of earnings order and the role of the court. The Bill does not offer any guidance on how a court is to discharge its functions, particularly if the debtor is not present in court to make representations in person. It makes no reference to the reasonable living expenses guide to which the Insolvency Service of Ireland and the official assignee must have regard under the personal insolvency and bankruptcy legislation to ensure a debtor’s income does not fall below an acceptable minimum income standard.

What is happening is that the courts will have to make a determination of that standard. Why try to recreate the world? Reasonable living expenses are already dealt with under section 23 of the Personal Insolvency Act 2012. This should be used. It should not be determined by a court. Even FLAC has raised this issue and has stated the courts in general do not have the wherewithal or financial assistance to be able to make such a financial determination. The courts are there to oversee the legal system, not to carry out financial analysis. If it was the case that the court was expected to carry out a specialised financial task, the only way it could do so would be to hire financial and budgetary experts to deal with people suffering from over- indebtedness, and that is not part of the Bill either. The only solution here is the amendment. Perhaps there is some reason, but I would like to hear what the Minister of State has to say about why we are going down a different path in providing the court with exclusive power instead of working with the Personal Insolvency Act’s determination of reasonable living expenses.

20/07/2015NN00200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: Before I deal with section 10, I understand a correction by the Clerk is required under Standing Order 136. On page 12, line 9, paragraph (f) of section 10(6), as it stands, contains an incorrect cross-reference to paragraph (c). It should, of course, be paragraph (d). I would be grateful, therefore, if this typographical error could be corrected by the Clerk.

Amendment No. 1 seeks the deletion of the existing subsection 10(3) and its substitution with new text which seeks to provide that the court shall be guided by the Insolvency Service of Ireland’s reasonable living expenses guidelines when making an attachment of earnings order. I can understand the Senators’ concerns around this issue. As I said on Second Stage, there is nothing to prevent the court from having regard to those guidelines if they so wish, but there is no need to make such a provision in the Bill. When I spoke about this matter on Second Stage, I said I thought it was preferable to allow the court full discretion in assessing a debtor’s capacity to repay a debt. Individual circumstances will vary from debtor to debtor, and the court should be allowed to make its own decision relating to these matters. While I understand the motivation of the Senators who have proposed the amendment, they may well find that the court has more latitude in determining living expenses and may be more generous to debtors if it is not obliged to have regard to the Insolvency Service of Ireland’s guidelines.

As I said during the Second stage debate, reasonable living expenses have a different context in respect of personal insolvency. The Bill deals with the debtor’s capacity to pay money that he or she owes to a creditor. Its provisions ensure the court will have sufficient information available to it relating to the person’s financial circumstances. The court is also obliged to take into account any representations the debtor may make in relation to his or her circumstances. It is important to remember that the courts already have a body of expertise relating to this matter and they will approach it in a sensible manner. There is nothing to prevent a court from having regard to the Insolvency Service of Ireland’s guidelines, if it so wishes. There is simply no need to make an explicit provision for this in the Bill.

20/07/2015NN00300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I agree with the Minister of State. The court may well deter- 39 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages mine more favourably in respect of a debtor. However, there is no minimum threshold within the legislation and I would like to see something that would protect the debtor. We would accept as a minimum floor or threshold the reasonable living expenses outlined in the Insolvency Service of Ireland’s guidelines. I appreciate where the Minister of State is coming from, but we are giving latitude. It is our job to make the law. We cannot criticise judges afterwards. We should at least have a guiding principle in the legislation that would guide the judge in making a determination. Judges will be in a difficult position with people coming before them and representations on both sides. There should be a floor and the floor should be the Insolvency Service of Ireland’s guidelines. If a judge wants to be more reasonable than the guidelines, that is within his or her jurisdiction. However, the legislation should set a minimum level. I am not sure whether the Minister of State would be willing to examine it and revisit it on Report Stage or if he is moving on with it as set out.

20/07/2015OO00200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: While I appreciate that the Senators are coming at this from the point of view of being constructive, we will have to agree to disagree.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question proposed: “That section 10 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015OO00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: We oppose the section which provides for an attachment of earnings order and a protected earnings rate. As I have previously outlined, the protected rate is flawed. The Bill creates a situation in which companies can use the courts to take money from the pockets of debtors who owe a small debt in the grand scheme of things. It will mean whatever little safety net a debtor and his or her family have to rely on, after liabilities are ac- counted for, will be removed.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 11

Question proposed: “That section 11 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015OO00900Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: We oppose the section in line with our opposition to the Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 12

Question proposed: “That section 12 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015OO01200Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Sinn Féin opposes the section. Section 12 places an obligation on employers to comply with attachment orders. Under the section, employers have to smash the relationships they have had with employees and collect the money. Otherwise, the courts will fine them. Not satisfied with burdening employers with the role of debt collector, the Government is stipulating employers will have to go to courts as part of normal employment behaviour. For an employer to determine whether particular payments are earnings, he or she will have to make an application to the courts under the legislation and may also be required to provide to the court a statement of specified particulars of his or her employees’ earnings and expected earnings. As if employers did not have enough to do already, they must now deal with court documents and procedures. 40 30 January 2008 When an employee against whom an attachment order has been made changes employment, the new employer must notify the court in writing that the person is now his or her employee and include in such notification a statement of the debtors’ earnings and expected earnings from the relevant employment. Both the existing and future employer must submit a notification. If a future employer were looking for staff, and a prospective employee had an attachment order, the employer would be sucked into a bureaucratic nightmare when enforcing the Government’s policy. Would an employer choose a potential staff member who has an attachment order, or somebody else? A person against whom an attachment order has been made becomes less em- ployable under the legislation. The attachment order probably arises through poverty and the Minister has reduced the affected person’s ability to earn in the future.

Setting aside the excessive administrative burden the Government is imposing on employers, imagine the impact of the measure on employee-employer relationships. In a difficult economic environment, many such relationships are already fraught and difficult, given that both sides of the employment contract are being pulled in different directions. This will cause more difficulty for employee and employer. We must ask whether the Government consulted any employers on the legislation. My colleague, Deputy Peadar Tóibín recently contacted the Small Firms Association and learned his call was the first it had received on the matter. It has never been discussed at an Oireachtas committee. As far as I know, the issue has not been broached with any employer and yet employers will have a new role under the Government’s proposals.

20/07/2015OO01300Senator Martin Conway: The point made about a person against whom an attachment order has been made changing jobs is fair. A person with an attachment of earnings order could dispute it and genuinely believe he or she was right, but the system might genuinely believe he or she was wrong. We have all been in a position in which we did not want to pay something because we had an issue with it, even though we could have been wrong. That does not mean the person is not capable of doing his or her job to a very high standard. I do not know how that can be dealt with, but it is a fair point. Perhaps under employment legislation it might be deemed illegal to ask a person at interview if he or she has an attachment of earnings order or to expect a person to declare that he or she is the subject of such an order. It should be just a formality, like paying tax. It certainly should not stand against people in changing jobs, improving their skills or applying for positions that may put them in a better position to pay their fines, bills and so on.

20/07/2015PP00200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: This issue will have major consequences for employees. Given that the attachment of earnings order applies to PAYE workers, it will cause difficulties in the general workforce. This has been examined in other jurisdictions - for example, in the United States and European countries, including the United Kingdom. The conclusions drawn from those examinations show the potential for an attachment of earnings order to have an effect on the employment prospects of the debtor. According to the examination of this practice in other jurisdictions, where an order is directed at the debtor’s employer who is obliged to make the prescribed deductions, it can have an adverse effect on the employee’s opportunities for promotion and advancement. It may even have an impact on the debtor’s employment prospects, with employers in some cases drawing conclusions that trustworthiness, particularly regarding money matters, may be an issue for that particular employee. They are very serious consequences.

The recent FLAC submission to Members of the Oireachtas indicated that many countries have dealt with the issue through legislative schemes. FLAC recommended that an attachment of earnings order should only follow a debtor’s failure to meet the terms of an instalment order, 41 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages in other words, as a last resort. Varying the instalment order downwards due to a debtor’s inability to pay should be examined before any attachment of earnings order is made. Any attachment of earnings order should be capable of being suspended in order to allow the employee to make the payments voluntarily. If a debtor comes into some money, he or she should be able to clear the debt. It is very important for this to be included, but it is not included in the Bill, which is surprising.

Where an attachment of earnings order is made, substantial employment protection measures should be put in place. In this regard, the Law Reform Commission’s 2009 consultation paper recommended that the Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 1993 be amended in order that dismissal on the grounds of being subject to an attachment of earnings order might be added to the list of unfair reasons for dismissal. In its 2010 report the Law Reform Commission recommended that legislation should prohibit not only the dismissal of an employee on the grounds that he or she had become subject to one or more attachment of earnings orders but that it should also prohibit any other adverse action from being taken against the employee on this sole ground. It also recommended that the employer be guilty of an offence under this heading. However, the Bill does not take any of these issues into account. It even allows a District Court judge to make an attachment of earnings order without first requiring the creditor to apply for an instalment order. There is no protection for the debtor against adverse treatment by his or her employer. These are major issues which will affect employees either openly or without an employer having to be so open about it. It may affect promotional opportunities and there may be hearsay within companies. We can imagine that in the public or private sector an attachment of earnings order would become the story of the office and this is very wrong. The order should only be used, as was highlighted by the Law Reform Commission, as an absolute last resort. We are opening a Pandora’s box, the effects of which no one can anticipate. The Bill has been brought forward as being based on recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, but the fundamental rights contained in the Law Reform Commission’s paper have been excluded from the legislation. The only rights included are for creditors to obtain their dues without even having to present a case. This is wrong and it should be examined. This is a human rights issue as much as anything else, and it is a grave mistake to go down this road without taking on board all of the recommendations contained in the Law Reform Commission’s research and examination of this area in other jurisdictions. We do not want to see the same consequences emerge here as have emerged in other jurisdictions.

20/07/2015QQ00200Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin: I appreciate the motivation of Senators in tabling the amendments. It is fair enough and these issues should be examined in detail when dealing with legislation of this nature. I have no difficulty with this whatsoever. The section deals with compliance with an attachment order. The employer is required to comply with the order but is not liable for non-compliance during the first ten days. This is to allow for a situation where the person served with the order is not the person’s employer, in which case the person concerned is required to notify the court accordingly. Provision is also made in subsection (4) for a situation where the debtor changes employment. Subsection (5) provides that the lapse of an order under subsection (4) does not prevent it remaining in force for other purposes.

With regard to employer and employee relations, employees are protected by unfair dismissal legislation and other employment law. The Attorney General has advised that unfair dismissal issues are already covered in Irish law and protections are adequate to deal with any issues which might arise regarding any attempt to discriminate against somebody solely on the basis of being the subject of an attachment of earnings order or, as the Senators mentioned, the

42 30 January 2008 possibility that a prospective employer might not employ someone because he or she is subject to an attachment of earnings order. We will monitor the situation very closely because we appreciate the statements made by Senators. Should any difficulties of this nature emerge we will take action to ensure it does not continue. It is important to say attachment of earnings orders are common in other countries such as the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and Australia. Irish employers are already required to implement attachment of earnings orders for family maintenance and recovery of social protection overpayments. This is not necessarily new ground.

20/07/2015QQ00300Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I thank the Minister of State for his response, but it does not give me much succour and it will not give many employees much succour. We must look at the context in which we are working. In recent years we have had a number of high-profile industrial relations disputes involving workers in a number of companies in the State, particularly those in lower paid jobs and on zero-hours contracts and the minimum wage. We have seen some very unscrupulous tactics used by those employers against any workers they see as stepping outside the norm, anybody looking for union recognition in the workplace or anybody standing up for the union recognition that they have. Unscrupulous employers have been very quick to take away people’s hours and give them less favourable working standards. These are quite hard to prove in court because of the nature of the contracts allowed under the legislation we have in place. This is one reason we fear an employer, particularly in the lower pay bracket, will possibly wonder whether people coming with an attachment order on their wages are trou- blesome and whether the order will cause any hassle or mean the employer will have to send a manager or assistant manager to court, which would cost money. This legislation and this section will have knock-on effects. Although the Minister does not intend it, there will be these unintended consequences about which I am very fearful in the climate in which we are working given the way employers have been treating employees in this country over the past number of years. I do not take any comfort from the Minister of State’s comments in this regard.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 13

Question proposed: “That section 13 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015RR00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Sinn Féin opposes this section in line with its opposition to the Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 14

Question proposed: “That section 14 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015RR00900Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Sinn Féin opposes this section in line with its opposition to the Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 15

Question proposed: “That section 15 stand part of the Bill.”

43 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages

20/07/2015RR01300Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Sinn Féin opposes this section in line with its opposition to the Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 16

Question proposed: “That section 16 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015RR01700Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Section 16 provides for the deduction of civil debt from a person’s welfare payments. This is the most Thatcherite provision in the Bill. We are talking about the most vulnerable in society - pensioners, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed. It is particularly difficult for young people looking for their first employment or older workers who are made redundant through no fault of their own after the firm in which they worked for most of their lives closes without notice. It would be understandable if such individuals fell into debt. The debts do not need to be large because the legislation has a minimum threshold of €500 for court orders for attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare payments.

Let us take the case of an unemployed young person with limited work experience who in the normal run of things will already struggle to find secure employment. How much harder will it be for that person to get a job if the first question in the interview is whether he or she has a court order that may require attachment of earnings to clear a civil debt? I imagine such a question would dampen the young person’s enthusiasm and blunt his or her willingness to learn. The question may render meaningless his or her qualifications, or admirable references, because of the fact that he or she built up a modest debt. As it is difficult to repay even modest debts when one is unemployed, an order may have been made to deduct the repayments from his or her welfare payments. What chance will individuals have of securing their first job with attachment orders hanging over their heads?

An older person who becomes unemployed already faces certain obstacles in finding a new job. Sadly, age in itself becomes an obstacle in some cases. Employers may consider those who are highly qualified as overly skilled for the position while others have worked for 20 or 30 years in a trade or job for which there is no longer a demand. The longer they stay unemployed, the older they get and the less relevant their qualifications become. It is not difficult to imagine such citizens falling into debt. As deduction orders made from their social welfare would translate into attachment of earnings orders if they are lucky enough to get a job, how realistic are their chances of finding gainful employment? Will the employers want the hassle of dealing with that scenario? I do not think the Government has given serious thought to the way in which these orders could impede future employment prospects. On that basis, we oppose the section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 17

Question proposed: “That section 17 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015RR02100Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Sinn Féin opposes this section in line with its opposition to the Bill.

Question put and declared carried.

44 30 January 2008 Section 18 agreed to.

SECTION 19

Question proposed: “That section 19 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015RR02600Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Section 20 deals with the provision of a variation order. This, again, has been hailed as a safeguard by the Government. This is not a safeguard and is definitely not an appeals mechanism, as some have suggested. Another major flaw with the Bill is the lack of an appeals mechanism. Sometimes courts can get it very wrong. An attachment of earnings or the so-called protected earnings rate may be incorrect. It may be so incorrect that it merits a new hearing, but the Bill does not allow for this. Instead, a debtor can have the order varied.

Given that it is not good procedural practice, we oppose the section.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 20

Question proposed: “That section 20 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015SS00500Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The section deals with the provision of a variation order. The Government has hailed this as a safeguard. It is not a safeguard and it is definitely not an appeals mechanism. As I said, another major flaw of the Bill is the lack of an appeals mechanism given that the courts can get it wrong. Of the 27 sections in the Bill, there is only one section of merit, namely, section 26, which repeals Parts I and IV of the Debtors 4 o’clock Act (Ireland) 1872 and is the only section of the Bill we support. We agree with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission to provide for the abolition of imprisonment of debtors except in the case of maintenance arising from family law. It is in line with international best practice on human rights. The fact this has been sneakily attached to a section at the very back of the Bill is cynical and disguises the entire Bill as a step forward. For the reasons outlined, we object to the section.

Question put and declared carried.

Question, “That section 21 stand part of the Bill,” put and declared carried.

Question, “That section 22 stand part of the Bill,” put and declared carried.

Question, “That section 23 stand part of the Bill,” put and declared carried.

SECTION 24

Question proposed: “That section 24 stand part of the Bill.”

20/07/2015SS01800Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: We oppose the section in line with our opposition to the Bill. Of the 27 sections, only two sections are of merit, namely, sections 25 and 26, which make necessary technical amendments. We agree with the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations to provide for the abolition of the imprisonment of debtors except in the case of maintenance arising from family law, which is in line with international best practice on human rights. For the reasons outlined, we oppose the section.

45 20/07/2015HH00100Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill 2015: Committee and Remaining Stages Question put and declared carried.

Sections 25 and 26 agreed to.

Question, “That section 27 stand part of the Bill,” put and declared carried.

TITLE

20/07/2015SS02400Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 5, lines 5 to 7, to delete all words from and including “to” where it firstly occurs in line 5 down to and including “circumstances;” in line 7.

This is a necessary technical amendment in line with our overall opposition to the Bill.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Question, “That the Title be the Title to the Bill,” put and declared carried.

Bill reported without amendment.

Question, “That Report Stage be taken now,” put and declared carried.

Question put: “That the Bill be received for final consideration.”

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 13. Tá Níl Bacik, Ivana. Craughwell, Gerard P. Brennan, Terry. Daly, Mark. Burke, Colm. Leyden, Terry. Coghlan, Eamonn. Mooney, Paschal. Coghlan, Paul. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Comiskey, Michael. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Conway, Martin. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cummins, Maurice. O’Brien, Darragh. Gilroy, John. O’Donovan, Denis. Hayden, Aideen. Power, Averil. Higgins, Lorraine. Reilly, Kathryn. Keane, Cáit. White, Mary M. Kelly, John. Zappone, Katherine. Landy, Denis. Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Naughton, Hildegarde. O’Brien, Mary Ann. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise.

46 30 January 2008 Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Trevor Ó Clochar- taigh and Brian Ó Domhnaill.

Question declared carried.

Question,”That Fifth Stage be taken now,” put and declared carried.

Question put: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Trevor Ó Clochar- taigh and Brian Ó Domhnaill.

Question declared carried.

20/07/2015WW00100An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

20/07/2015WW00200Senator Maurice Cummins: At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.25 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday, 21 July 2015.