DOCSLIB.ORG

Review of Petitions of Concern

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Assembly and Executive Review Committee

Review of
Petitions of Concern

Together with the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee Relating to the Report,
Minutes of Evidence, Written Submissions and Research Papers

Ordered by the Assembly and Executive Review Committee to be printed 25 March 2014
Report: NIA 166/11-15 (Assembly and Executive Review Committee)

REPORT EMBARGOED
UNTIL COMMENCEMENT OF
THE DEBATE IN PLENARY

  • Mandate 2011/15
  • Fifth Report

Powers and Membership

Powers and Membership

Powers

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is a Standing Committee established in accordance with Section 29A and 29B of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and Standing Order 59 which states:

“(1) There shall be a standing committee of the Assembly to be known as the
Assembly and Executive Review Committee.

(2)

(3)
The committee may - (a) (b) exercise the power in section 44(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; report from time to time to the Assembly and the Executive Committee.
The committee shall consider - (a)

(b) such matters relating to the operation of the provisions of Parts 3 and 4 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 as enable it to make the report referred to in section 29A(3) of that Act; and

such other matters relating to the functioning of the Assembly or the Executive Committee as may be referred to it by the Assembly.”

Membership

The Committee has eleven members including a Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson with a quorum of five. The membership of the Committee is as follows:

■ Stephen Moutray (Chairperson) ■ Pat Sheehan (Deputy Chairperson) ■ Alex Attwood1 ■ Roy Beggs ■ Paula Bradley2 ■ Gregory Campbell ■ Paul Givan ■ Trevor Lunn3 ■ Raymond McCartney ■ Seán Rogers 4 5 6 ■ Caitríona Ruane 7 8

  • 1
  • With effect from 4 September 2013 Mr Conall McDevitt resigned as a Member; with effect from 7 October 2013

Mr Alex Attwood replaced Mr Conall McDevitt

23456
With effect from 3 February 2014 Ms Paula Bradley replaced Mr Simon Hamilton With effect from 1 October 2013 Mr Trevor Lunn replaced Mr Stewart Dickson With effect from 26 September 2011 Mrs Sandra Overend replaced Mr Mike Nesbitt With effect from 23 April 2011 Mr John McCallister replaced Mrs Sandra Overend With effect from 04 March 2013 Mr Seán Rogers filled the vacancy created by the departure of Mr John McCallister from the Committee

78
With effect from 12 September 2011 Mr Pat Doherty replaced Mr Paul Maskey With effect from 10 September 2012 Ms Caitríona Ruane filled the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr Pat Doherty from the Assembly

  • i
  • ii

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Review of Petitions of Concern

  • Executive Summary
  • 1

  • 3
  • Introduction

The Committee’s Approach to the Review Committee Consideration
57

  • Committee Analysis and Conclusions
  • 16

Appendices

Appendix 1

  • Minutes of Proceedings
  • 23

47

Appendix 2

Minutes of Evidence

Appendix 3

Options Paper on Petitions of Concern:

  • Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements
  • 113

Appendix 4

  • Options Paper — Party Responses:
  • 127

128 130 131 133 134
Alliance Party Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) Sinn Féin (SF) Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) Ulster Unionist Party (UUP)

Appendix 5

  • Correspondence and other papers relating to the Review
  • 137

181

Appendix 6

Assembly Research Papers iii

Review of Petitions of Concern

iv

Executive Summary

Executive Summary

  • 1.
  • The Assembly and Executive Review Committee is a Standing Committee of the Northern

Ireland Assembly that was established to:

■ make a report to the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the Executive Committee, by no later than 1 May 2015, on the operation of Parts III and IV of the Northern Ireland Act 1998; and

■ consider such other matters relating to the functioning of the Assembly or the Executive as may be referred to it by the Assembly.

2.

3.
On 14th January 2014, the Committee agreed the Terms of Reference for its Review of Petitions of Concern.

The Committee considered relevant sections of the evidence received from its previous

Review of D’Hondt, Community, Designation and Provisions for Opposition, as part of this

directly addressed the Review of Petitions of Concern. One of the conclusions in the

Committee’s Report on this Review stated that ‘further detailed work on Petitions of Concern

needs to be carried out’. The Committee also commissioned and considered three Assembly Research Papers that informed Members’ discussions and views on the issues arising from this Review.

  • 4.
  • As set out in the Terms of Reference, the Review considered evidence on Petitions of

Concern in relation to:

■ provisions for voting on an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements prior to the vote on a Petition of Concern.

■ the possibility of restricting the use of Petitions of Concern to certain key areas, and mechanisms that might facilitate this.

■ whether the current threshold of 30 signatures required for a Petition of Concern should be adjusted.

■ whether the Petitions of Concern mechanism should be replaced with an alternative mechanism, such as a weighted-majority vote.

The Committee concluded that:

5.

While there was support among some Parties on the Committee for the use of the alternative mechanism of a weighted-majority vote for matters subject to a Petition of Concern, there was no consensus on this issue. Therefore, in this context, the Committee reaffirmed the following conclusion from its previous Report: “…there was no consensus for replacement of community designation [and Petitions of Concern] by, for example, a weighted-majority vote in the Assembly of 65%.”

6. 7. 8.

Although there was some support among the Parties represented on the Committee for restricting the use of Petitions of Concern to key areas, there was no consensus among the Committee on how that would operate.

The Committee agreed that, should the number of MLAs in the Assembly be reduced, there should be a proportional change in the number of MLA signatures required to trigger a Petition of Concern.

While there was some support among the Committee for taking a vote on the establishment of an ACER only when a Petition of Concern relates to legislation, there was no consensus on this issue.

1

Review of Petitions of Concern

9.

Even though there was some support for the establishment of a Standing Committee on Equality and Human Rights Conformity to replace the Ad Hoc Committee mechanism referred to in Standing Orders 35 and 60, there was no consensus on this issue.

10.

It is important to highlight that although the Committee did not achieve consensus for most of its conclusions on this complex subject, the Report sets out in some detail the options considered together with the individual Party positions on specific options. The Committee therefore sees that this Report provides valuable information for the Assembly to reach a way forward on this matter.

2

Introduction

Introduction

Background to the Review

  • 11.
  • In September 2013, the Committee agreed that its next area of work would be a Review of

Petitions of Concern. The Committee then spent some time considering the scope of the Review and key issues related to the Review – in particular, the issue of Ad Hoc Committees on Conformity with Equality requirements and Petitions of Concern.

12.

13.
In January 2014, the Committee agreed the Terms of Reference for its Review of Petitions of Concern. The terms of reference and the Committee’s approach to the Review are set out in the next section of this Report.

The Committee had raised the issue of Petitions of Concern in the course of its ‘Review of

D’Hondt, Community Designation and Provisions for Opposition’, which was published on

18th June 2013. In the ‘Community Designation’ section of the ‘Call for Evidence’ paper for that Review, which was issued on 12th February 2013, the Committee asked:

Do you believe that there should be changes to the “rules” governing Petitions of Concern? If so, what changes do you propose?

There were 22 responses to this ‘Call for Evidence’, and respondents included Political Parties, academics and others. Relevant extracts from these responses can be found at Appendix 5.

14.

15.
There was a wide range of opinions expressed regarding the Petitions of Concern mechanism and a number of responses on specific issues are highlighted in the ‘Committee Consideration’ section of this Report. Professor Cochrane, from the University of Kent, stated

that the “Petitions of Concern provide some much needed room for manoeuvre in my view and should be retained in their current form . ” In contrast, the TUV response to the ‘Call for Evidence’ described the mechanism as “a perverse instrument which is open to abuse . ”

Several of the stakeholder responses referred to how the Petition of Concern mechanism was used. The UUP observed that the Petition of Concern mechanism was “being used on an increasingly frequent basis”, and that statement was echoed by the Centre for Opposition Studies, which suggested that the Petition of Concern “seems now to be a feature of

regular Assembly politics, rather than a signal of exceptional concern . ” However, Professors McCrudden and O’Leary et al argued that “the procedure has been used relatively sparingly . ” Nevertheless, they also observed that “the Petition of Concern has occasionally been abused to block decisions which have nothing to do with community-specific vital nationalist or unionist interests . ” This concern was echoed by Professor Cochrane, who highlighted “the continuing danger that Petitions of Concern are being over-used for the purpose of obstructing the business of government”.

16. 17.

Professor Galligan stated that “There is some disagreement as to the extent to which the practice of employing Petitions of Concern has conformed to the underpinning intention of the provision . ” The UUP response also referred to “the original intent of providing this mechanism”,

and the Centre for Opposition Studies suggested that “The invoking of community

designations on a regular basis in this way reinforces sectarian divisions, and seems to go beyond the intended purpose of the mechanism . ”

During the ‘Review of D’Hondt, Community Designation and Provisions for Opposition’, the

Committee also received correspondence from the Committee on Procedures dated 22nd April 2013 (see Appendix 5), which highlighted an important issue relating to Petitions of Concern. This information referred to the issue of whether a “measure” against which a

Petition of Concern is tabled “can proceed or should be referred to an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements (ACER) every time there is a Petition of Concern . ”

3

Review of Petitions of Concern

  • 18.
  • Given the complexities involved and the range of issues raised in the ‘Call for Evidence’

responses and in the information from the Committee on Procedures, the Committee agreed

the following conclusion in its Report on the ‘Review of D’Hondt, Community Designation and Provisions for Opposition’ (see Appendix 5):

Following the evidence that was presented to the Committee regarding Petitions of Concern, the Committee concluded that further detailed work in relation to Petitions of Concern needs to be carried out.

  • 19.
  • The issue of Petitions of Concern also arose during the House of Commons consideration of

the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013. During the Report Stage of the

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013 in the House of Commons on 18th November 2013, Mr Mark Durkan, MP, proposed an amendment (see Appendix 5) that would:

“… amend the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to reflect the terms and intent of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of strand 1 of the Belfast Agreement. It would qualify the exercise of veto powers, via petitions of concern in the Assembly, through the consideration of possible equality or human rights implications . ”

  • 20.
  • During the debate, Mr Durkan stated:

“The new clause and amendments are intended to return the position to what was intended in the Good Friday, or Belfast, agreement of 1998. New clause 2 seeks to reflect properly what was in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the strand 1 paper, which provide for a petition of concern in respect of a measure or a proposal in the Assembly. Those paragraphs make clear that the petition of concern was not meant to be used as an open veto to be played like a joker at any time . ”

21. 22.
A further amendment (see Appendix 5) was proposed by the DUP, which would:

“… apply to Northern Ireland, the clarification provided in the Equality Act 2010 to restrict the good relation duty being cited against fulfilling equality obligations based on objective need . ”

During the debate, Mr Nigel Dodds MP stated:

“I understand that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee is dealing with this matter, among others, and I believe that that is the right and proper place for the issue to be decided on. It is for the parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly to agree or disagree to such matters relating to petitions of concern. I understand that 40% of the petitions of concern tabled in the Northern Ireland Assembly have been tabled by the nationalist parties, so this is not a question of one party tabling petitions in a way that abuses the process. This has happened right across the board . ”

  • 23.
  • It was acknowledged during the debate that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee

was undertaking a review of Petitions of Concern, so the proposed new clause was withdrawn, as Members expressed a hope that the issue would be resolved through the Assembly (see Hansard report of debate: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/ cm131118/debtext/131118-0003.htm#13111834000098)

4

The Committee’s Approach to the Review

The Committee’s Approach to the Review

24. 25.
In September 2013, the Committee agreed that its next Review would look at Petitions of Concern, as one of the conclusions in its June 2013 Report on its ‘Review of D’Hondt,

Community Designation and Provisions for Opposition’ stated: Following the evidence that was presented to the Committee regarding Petitions of Concern, the Committee concluded that further detailed work in relation to Petitions of Concern needs to be carried out.

At its 24th September 2013 meeting, the Committee heard evidence from the Assembly Research and Information Service and Assembly Legal Service. Following these briefings, the Committee discussed its initial approach to the Review and agreed to draft a specific ‘Options Paper’ (Appendix 3) to be sent to the Leaders of the Parties represented on the Committee to directly inform its Review of Petitions of Concern. The Options Paper related specifically to the issue of voting on the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements (ACER) prior to a vote on a Petition of Concern.

26.

27.
The Options Paper was issued to the Leaders of the Parties represented on the Committee on 22nd October 2013, and the Committee considered and discussed the Party responses (Appendix 4) at its November and December 2013 meetings.

The Committee considered whether it wished to focus its Review specifically on the issue of Ad Hoc Committees and Petitions of Concern, or whether it wished to conduct a wider Review of Petitions of Concern. At its 10th December 2013 meeting, the Committee agreed to have a wider review of Petitions of Concern, and the Terms of Reference for this Review were agreed at the 14th January 2014 Committee meeting.

28.

The Terms of Reference for the Review are as follows:

The Assembly and Executive Review Committee will review Petitions of Concern, taking into account how the Petition of Concern has been used to date and the fact that the mechanism was designed as part of the safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community are protected and can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions. The Committee will:

1.

Examine provisions for an Ad Hoc Committee on Conformity with Equality Requirements in relation to Petitions of Concern, including alternative procedures, e.g. the Westminster Joint Committee on Human Rights.

2.

3. 4.
Examine the possibility of restricting the use of Petitions of Concern to certain key areas, and consider mechanisms that might facilitate this.

Consider whether the current threshold of 30 signatures required for a Petition of Concern should be adjusted.

Consider whether the Petitions of Concern mechanism should be replaced with an alternative mechanism, such as a weighted-majority vote.

  • 29.
  • Rather than issuing a fresh ‘Call for Evidence’ for this Review, the Committee agreed that

it would consider relevant sections of the submissions to its Review of D’Hondt, Community

Designation and Provisions for Opposition to inform this Review of Petitions of Concern (see Appendix 5 – ‘Call for Evidence - Extracts of Relevant Responses’), as the ‘Call for Evidence’

paper for that Review specifically addressed the issue of Petitions of Concern (see paragraph 13 above).

5

Review of Petitions of Concern

30.

Similarly, the Committee agreed to consider relevant sections of the Hansard reports of

the oral evidence sessions taken during the Review of D’Hondt, Community Designation

and Provisions for Opposition to inform the Review of Petitions of Concern, as some of the evidence directly referred to this issue (see Appendix 2).

31.

The following oral evidence sessions were held as part of the Review of D’Hondt, Community Designation and Provisions for Opposition: Professor Rick Wilford, Queen’s University Belfast on 26th February 2013, Professor Christopher McCrudden, University of Oxford and Professor Brendan O’Leary, University of Pennsylvania on 5th March 2013, Professor Derek Birrell, University of Ulster on 19th March 2013, Professor Yvonne Galligan, Queen’s University Belfast on 23rd April 2013 and Dr Robin Wilson and Ms Eileen Cairnduff from Platform for Change on 7th May 2013. The Minutes of Evidence (Hansards) for these oral evidence sessions are at Appendix 2.

32. 33.

All Minutes of Proceedings relevant to the Committee’s Review are included at Appendix 1. As part of the Committee consideration, at the Committee meeting of 24th September, the Assembly Research and Information Service (RaISe) presented a briefing paper, ‘Additional information on Petitions of Concern’ which provided information on Petitions of Concern, which had previously been presented to the Committee on 7th May 2013 (including an extract from

an earlier briefing), as part of its Review of D’Hondt, Community Designation and Provisions for

Opposition. This Research Briefing Paper included various analyses of Petitions of Concern submitted since the establishment of the Assembly in 1998, with Table 3 giving the subject and date of each petition, whether it was brought by a Nationalist or Unionist and the Party or Parties who signed the petition. Further Research briefings were provided to the Committee on 14th January 2014 and 11th February 2014, providing information on conformity with human rights and equality issues. The Research Briefing Papers listed below are set out in full in Appendix 6 (and can also be found at: http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/assembly-business/

research-and-information-service-raise/research-publications/publications-2012/).

■ Opposition, community designation and D’Hondt – Extract (4 December 2012) ■ Additional information on Petitions of Concern (2 May 2013) ■ Standing Committees that examine conformity with human rights and equality issues in legislatures in the UK and Ireland (9 January 2014)

■ Human Rights and Equality Proofing of Public Bills (10 February 2014)

34.

The ‘Committee Consideration’ section of this Report — immediately below — is structured into four subsections that specifically address in turn the four key issues set out in the Terms of Reference of this Review. Similarly, the ‘Committee Analysis and Conclusions’ section is divided into these four subsections, with four specific Committee Papers on each issue drawn up to assist in the Committee’s deliberations. The four papers include options for draft conclusions of this Review, which were considered by the Committee at its 11th, 25th February and 11th March 2014 meetings — the papers can be found at Appendix 5.

Recommended publications
  • C/O FPA 23-28 Penn Street Hackney London N1 5DL Laurar@Fpa.Org.Uk

    C/O FPA 23-28 Penn Street Hackney London N1 5DL [email protected]

    c/o FPA 23-28 Penn Street Hackney London N1 5DL [email protected] The Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP Department of Health Richmond House 79 Whitehall Westminster London SW1A 2NS 27th June 2017 Dear Secretary of State, NHS England funding for women from Northern Ireland seeking abortion services This year marks 50 years since the passing of the 1967 Abortion Act. Although this landmark legislation granted reproductive rights to women in Great Britain, it also marks 50 years of differential treatment for women in Northern Ireland. As you will know, on 14th June 2017, the Supreme Court narrowly decided to dismiss an appeal that challenged your Department’s policy not to fund abortion services in England for women who are normally resident in Northern Ireland. The court was divided 3-2 against the appeal; while expressing their sympathy for women in Northern Ireland, they stated that they are restrained by your argument that the decision is out of “respect”’ for the democratic decisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As MPs, peers and MLAs, we are dedicated to campaigning for a change to this unfair and discriminatory law. However, while our advocacy in this area continues, we would like to highlight the Court’s ruling which states that, as Secretary of State, you hold the legal authority to change your policy on funding abortion services in England for women normally resident in Northern Ireland. We urge you to use this authority and reduce the significant financial burden women travelling from Northern Ireland face. The situation for women normally resident in Northern Ireland The Supreme Court case was brought by a young woman, A, who in 2012 as a pregnant 15-year-old girl travelled with her mother, B, from their home in Northern Ireland to Manchester for an abortion at a cost of £900.
  • Programme Here

    Programme Here

    Conference Programme 13th Inter-Parliamentary Meeting on Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency DUBLIN, IRELAND 2013 In association with Contents Conference overview 3 Programme 4 Speakers’ list 8 Information on side activities 18 Map 21 Useful contact numbers 22 Kick-off of the North Seas Parliamentary Platform The Renewable Energy Directive - Are we on track? The new Energy Efficiency Directive - What will it bring? Cover picture by © Houses of the Oireachtas Design by double-id.com Dublin 2013 Conference Overview THU 20 JUN. Informal get-together for early-arrivals 20:00 - 22:00 MINT Bar, Westin Hotel, College Green, Westmoreland Street, Dublin FRI 21 JUN. Inter-Parliamentary Meeting – Day 1 8:30 - 17:30 Conference Centre Hall, Dublin Castle, Dame Street, Dublin FRI 21 JUN. Gala dinner and tour Houses of the Oireachtas 18:30 - 22:00 Houses of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament), Leinster House, Dublin 2 > Meeting point at 18:15 at the Main Entrance of the Irish Parliament SAT 22 JUN. Inter-Parliamentary Meeting – Day 2 9:00 - 13:30 Conference Centre Hall, Dublin Castle, Dame Street, Dublin SAT 22 JUN. Site visit to the Diageo Guinness Brewery Warehouse and 15:30 - 19:30 EIRGRID Power Grid Control Centre > Meeting point at 15:15 at the Westin Hotel, bus leaves at 15:30 sharp SAT 22 JUN. Traditional Irish dinner dance show at Johnny Fox’s Pub 19:30 - 23:00 The Dublin Mountains, Glencullen, Co. Dublin 20 - 20 - 20 in 2020! ...and then? 3 — EUFORES IPM13 Programme THURSDAY 20 June 20:00 - Informal get-together for early-arrivals > MINT Bar,
  • CULTURAL and EDUCATIONAL PANEL (A) Provisional Nominating Bodies Sub-Panel

    CULTURAL and EDUCATIONAL PANEL (A) Provisional Nominating Bodies Sub-Panel

    SEANAD GENERAL ELECTION _________________ APRIL, 2016 _________________ PANELS OF CANDIDATES PREPARED BY THE SEANAD RETURNING OFFICER ACT, 1947, AS AMENDED BY THE SEANAD ELECTORAL (PANEL MEMBERS) ACT, 1954. CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL PANEL (a) Provisional Nominating Bodies Sub-Panel Name Address Description Qualifications of candidate for inclusion in the Name of body by whom Candidate was Panel as determined by the Seanad nominated Returning Officer Brabazon, Tom 75 Lóiste Mhic Reachtain, Baile Comhairleoir Cathrach, Conradh Na Gaeilge Átha Cliath 13 Aturnae Burke, Deirdre Orchard House, Templelyon, Solicitor The Law Society of Ireland Redcross, Co. Wicklow Carey, Declan 116 The Strand, Donabate, Co. Mental Health Social Worker Dental Council Dublin Collins, Michael Ballinvallig, Newcastle West, Public Representative, Theatre Forum Limited Co. Limerick Musician, Comhaltas Ceoltoirí Eireann Connolly, John 12 Gort na Bró, Millers Lane, Primary School Teacher Irish National Teachers’ Organisation Rahoon, Galway Conway, Joe ‘An Druimín’, Roselawn, College Tutor, Public Aontas Múinteoirí Éireann/Teachers’ Union of Tramore, Co. Waterford Representative Ireland Crowley, Liam Killorglin, Co. Kerry Solicitor The Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland D’Arcy, Jim 12 Sandygrove Close, Senator Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Blackrock, Dundalk, Co. Louth Finucane, Jim 3 Cloondara, Tralee, Co. Kerry Member of Kerry ETB Education and Training Boards Ireland Howard, Mary Claureen House, Ennis, Co. Member of Clare County The Drama League of Ireland Clare
  • 25 Seanad Éireann 371

    25 Seanad Éireann 371

    25 SEANAD ÉIREANN 371 Dé Céadaoin, 20 Márta, 2013 Wednesday, 20th March, 2013 2.30 p.m. RIAR NA hOIBRE Order Paper GNÓ POIBLÍ Public Business Tairiscintí: Motions: 1. ‘‘Go ndéanfar an togra go gceadaíonn That the proposal that Seanad Éireann Seanad Éireann an Stát d’fheidhmiú an approves the exercise by the State of the roghnaithe nó na rogha faoi Phrótacal option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 Uimh. 21 maidir le seasamh na Ríochta on the position of the United Kingdom and Aontaithe agus na hÉireann i dtaca leis an Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, limistéar saoirse, slándála agus ceartais, atá security and justice annexed to the Treaty i gceangal leis an gConradh ar an Aontas on European Union and to the Treaty on Eorpach agus leis an gConradh ar the Functioning of the European Union, to Fheidhmiú an Aontais Eorpaigh, gur mian take part in the adoption and application of leis a bheith páirteach i nglacadh agus i the following proposed measure: bhfeidhmiú an bhirt bheartaithe seo a leanas: Togra le haghaidh Rialacháin ó Proposal for a Regulation of the Pharlaimint na hEorpa agus ón European Parliament and of the Council gComhairle lena leasaítear Rialachán amending Council Regulation (EC) No. (CE) Uimh. 1346/2000 ón gComhairle 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, maidir le himeachtaí docmhainneachta, ar leagadh cóip de faoi bhráid Sheanad a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann an 9 Eanáir, 2013, a tharchur chuig Éireann on 9th January, 2013, be referred an gComhchoiste um Dhlí agus Ceart, to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence Cosaint agus Comhionannas, de réir and Equality, in accordance with Standing Bhuan-Ordú 70A (3), agus go ndéanfaidh Order 70A(3), which, not later than 28th an Coiste sin, tráth nach déanaí ná an 28 March, 2013, shall send a message to the Márta, 2013, teachtaireacht a chur chuig an Seanad in the manner prescribed in Seanad ar an modh a fhorordaítear i Standing Order 73, and Standing Order mBuan-Ordú 73, agus go mbeidh feidhm dá 75(2) shall accordingly apply.’’ réir sin ag Buan-Ordú 75(2).
  • Seanad General Election, April 2011 and Bye-Elections to 2007-11 Seanad Seanad General Election 2011 Rev16 19/12/2012 10:02 Page 1

    Seanad General Election, April 2011 and Bye-Elections to 2007-11 Seanad Seanad General Election 2011 Rev16 19/12/2012 10:02 Page 1

    Seanad Election Cover 19/12/2012 09:36 Page 1 Olltoghchán don Seanad, Aibreán 2011 agus Corrthoghcháin do Sheanad 2007-11 Seanad General Election, April 2011 and Bye-Elections to 2007-11 Seanad Seanad General Election 2011_rev16 19/12/2012 10:02 Page 1 SEANAD ÉIREANN OLLTOGHCHÁN DON SEANAD, AIBREÁN 2011 agus Corrthoghcháin do Sheanad 2007-11 SEANAD GENERAL ELECTION, APRIL 2011 and Bye-Elections to 2007-11 Seanad BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH ARNA FHOILSIÚ AG OIFIG AN tSOLÁTHAIR Le ceannach díreach ón OIFIG DHÍOLTA FOILSEACHÁN RIALTAIS, TEACH SUN ALLIANCE, SRÁID THEACH LAIGHEAN, BAILE ÁTHA CLIATH 2, nó tríd an bpost ó FOILSEACHÁIN RIALTAIS, AN RANNÓG POST-TRÁCHTA, AONAD 20 PÁIRC MIONDÍOLA COIS LOCHA, CLÁR CHLAINNE MHUIRIS, CONTAE MHAIGH EO, (Teil: 01 - 6476834 nó 1890 213434; Fax: 094 - 9378964 nó 01 - 6476843) nó trí aon díoltóir leabhar. ------ DUBLIN PUBLISHED BY THE STATIONERY OFFICE To be purchased directly from the GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS SALE OFFICE, SUN ALLIANCE HOUSE, MOLESWORTH STREET, DUBLIN 2, or by mail order from GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS, POSTAL TRADE SECTION, UNIT 20 LAKESIDE RETAIL PARK, CLAREMORRIS, CO. MAYO, (Tel: 01 - 6476834 or 1890 213434; Fax: 094 - 9378964 or 01 - 6476843) or through any bookseller. ------ €12.95 Seanad General Election 2011_rev16 19/12/2012 10:02 Page 2 © Government of Ireland 2012 Seanad General Election 2011_rev16 19/12/2012 10:02 Page 3 CLÁR CONTENTS Page Seanad General Election - Explanatory Notes … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 4 Seanad General Election, 2011 Statistical Summary- Panel Elections …
  • PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND NEWSLETTER Your Essential Weekly Guide to Legislative, Regulatory and Public Affairs in Ireland Issue 303 February 24 2014

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND NEWSLETTER Your Essential Weekly Guide to Legislative, Regulatory and Public Affairs in Ireland Issue 303 February 24 2014

    PUBLIC AFFAIRS IRELAND NEWSLETTER Your essential weekly guide to legislative, regulatory and public affairs in Ireland Issue 303 February 24 2014 Oireachtas Update This week the legislation being considered in the Dáil includes the report and final stages of the County Enterprise Boards (Dissolution) Bill 2013 and the second stage of the Protected Disclosures Bill 2013 on Thursday. The Seanad will consider the Upward Only Rent (Clauses and Reviews) Bill 2013 on Wednesday and the establishment of a Community Courts system in Ireland. The Transport and Communications Committee will meet on Wednesday to hear concerns about the sustainability of the existing Post Office network with Mr Brian McGann, General Secretary of the Irish Postmasters’ Union. Appointment Update Appointment of Interim Government Chief Information Officer Michael McGrath has been appointed as Interim Government Chief Information Officer (CIO) for a six-month period, commencing on 24 March 2014. Mr. McGrath joins the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) from his position as Executive Vice-President of IT at ICON plc, where he was a member of the Executive management team reporting to the CEO. ICON plc is a $1.2B Irish headquartered company and a global provider of outsourced drug development services to the pharmaceutical industry. The first Government CIO, Bill McCluggage, resigned in December after just seven months in the role for personal reasons. Mr Mc.Grath previously worked as Head of Group IT and Director of IT for Europe in ICON. Prior to this he held key senior IT roles in GE Capital and Woodchester Bank, as well as ESBI Computing Ltd.
  • News 24Th Seanad the Election of Senators for the 24Th Seanad Took Place on Friday, April 29. While the Taoiseach Has Yet To

    News 24Th Seanad the Election of Senators for the 24Th Seanad Took Place on Friday, April 29. While the Taoiseach Has Yet To

    News 24th Seanad The election of Senators for the 24th Seanad took place on Friday, April 29. While the Taoiseach has yet to announce his 11 nominees, all other members have been elected. These include; 5 to the Cultural and Educational panel; 11 to the Agricultural panel; 11 to the Labour panel; 9 to the Industrial and Commercial panel; 7 to the Administrative panel; 3 to the Trinity College panel; and 3 to the National University of Ireland panel. In terms of party membership, 18 of those elected are from Fine Gael; 14 from Fianna Fáil; 9 are from the Labour party; 3 from Sinn Fein; and 5 are Independents. A list of all those elected according to their panel is included below. Trinity College Ivana Bacik Sean Barrett David Norris National University of Ireland John Crown Fergal Quinn Ronan Mullen Agricultural Paul Bradford Paddy Burke Michael Comiskey James Heffernan Trevor O’Clocartaigh Brian O’Domhnaill Denis O’Donovan Susan O’Keeffe Jim Walsh Pat O’Neill Paschal Mooney Terry Brennan David Cullinane Labour Maurice Cummins Fidelma Healy-Eames Cáit Keane Marie Moloney Terry Leyden Tony Mulcahy Darragh O’Brien Ned O’Sullivan John Whelan Industrial and Commercial Colm Burke Jimmy Harte Imelda Henry Paul Coghlan Marc MacSharry Catherine Noone Averil Power Kathryn Reilly Mary White Administrative Martin Conway Mark Daly Michael Darcy Diarmuid Wilson John Kelly Denis Landy Tom Sheahan Cultural and Educational Michael Mullins Labhras O’Mhurchu Thomas Byrne Deirdre Clune John Gilroy PAI Directory 2011 The political changes that have taken place in 2011 have created a need for an accessible reference point on government, the civil service and parliamentary representatives.
  • Find Your Local MLA

    Find Your Local MLA

    Find your local MLA Mr John Stewart UUP East Antrim 95 Main Street Larne Acorn Integrated Primary BT40 1HJ Carnlough Integrated Primary T: 028 2827 2644 Corran Integrated Primary [email protected] Ulidia Integrated College Mr Roy Beggs UUP 3 St. Brides Street Carrickfergus BT38 8AF 028 9336 2995 [email protected] Mr Stewart Dickson Alliance 8 West Street Carrickfergus BT38 7AR 028 9335 0286 [email protected] Mr David Hilditch DUP 2 Joymount Carrickfergus BT38 7DN 028 9332 9980 [email protected] Mr Gordon Lyons DUP 116 Main Street Larne Co. Antrim BT40 1RG 028 2826 7722 [email protected] Mr Robin Newton DUP East Belfast 59 Castlereagh Road Ballymacarret Lough View Integrated Primary Belfast BT5 5FB Mr Andrew Allen UUP 028 9045 9500 [email protected] 174 Albertbridge Road Belfast BT5 4GS 028 9046 3900 [email protected] Ms Joanne Bunting DUP 220 Knock Road Carnamuck Belfast BT5 6QD 028 9079 7100 [email protected] Mrs Naomi Long 56 Upper Newtownards Road Ballyhackamore Belfast BT4 3EL 028 9047 2004 [email protected] Mr Chris Lyttle Alliance 56 Upper Newtownards Road Ballyhackamore Belfast BT4 3EL 028 9047 2004 [email protected] Miss Claire Sugden Independent East Londonderry 1 Upper Abbey Street Coleraine Carhill Integrated Primary BT52 1BF Mill Strand Integrated Primary 028 7032 7294 Roe Valley Integrated Primary [email protected] North Coast Integrated College
  • Dáil Éireann

    Dáil Éireann

    DÁIL ÉIREANN AN COMHCHOISTE UM DHLÍ AGUS CEART, COSAINT AGUS COMHIONANNAS JOINT COMMITTEE ON JUSTICE, DEFENCE AND EQUALITY Dé Céadaoin, 18 Samhain 2015 Wednesday, 18 November 2015 The Joint Committee met at 9.30 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deputy Niall Collins, Senator Martin Conway, Deputy Alan Farrell, Senator Tony Mulcahy, Deputy Anne Ferris, Senator Denis O’Donovan, Deputy Seán Kenny, Senator Katherine Zappone. Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Deputy Gabrielle McFadden, Deputy Finian McGrath, In attendance: Senators Mark Daly and Mary M. White. DEPUTY DAVID STANTON IN THE CHAIR. 1 RURAL CRIME: IRISH FARMERS Association Rural Crime: Irish Farmers Association Chairman: The purpose of this part of the meeting is to have an engagement with the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, on the issue of crime affecting rural communities and farmers. I warmly welcome its president, Mr. Eddie Downey, whom I will ask to introduce his colleagues. The format of the meeting is that I will invite him to make a brief opening statement lasting approximately five minutes, after which we will have a question and answer session with mem- bers. We find this to be a highly effective approach. I ask everyone present to switch off his or her mobile phone or set it to airplane mode or another in order that it will not interfere with the recording system. By virtue of section 17(2)(I) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by ab- solute privilege in respect of their evidence to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence.
  • FOI 11-20 Travel by Mlas the Following Abbreviations Have Been

    FOI 11-20 Travel by Mlas the Following Abbreviations Have Been

    FOI 11-20 Travel by MLAs The following abbreviations have been used in the report BIMR Commonwealth Parliamentary Association British Islands Mediterranean Regions BIPA British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly CLRAE Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe April 2015 to March 2016 Costs Recovered / Paid by Third One Name of MLA From To Destination Cost Centre Air Fare Purpose Party Way/Return Mitchel McLaughlin MLA 04-May-15 06-May-15 Cardiff Speaker's Office £157.57 Return Visit to Welsh Assembly Brenda Hale MLA 23-May-15 27-May-15 Cyprus - Did Not Travel Engagement £593.00 Return BIMR Conference Jo-Anne Dobson MLA 23-May-15 27-May-15 Cyprus - Did Not Travel Engagement £160.00 Return BIMR Conference Adrian McQuillan MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh - Did Not Travel Committee for Finance £69.98 Return Committee Visit Daithi McKay MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh Committee for Finance £69.98 Return Committee Visit Dominic Bradley MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh - Did Not Travel Committee for Finance £88.00 Return Committee Visit Jim Wells MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh Committee for Finance £175.00 Return Committee Visit Judith Cochrane MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh - Did Not Travel Committee for Finance £69.98 Return Committee Visit Leslie Cree MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh Committee for Finance £102.98 Return Committee Visit Paul Girvan MLA 27-May-15 27-May-15 Edinburgh - Did Not Travel Committee for Finance £48.34 Return Committee Visit Peter Weir MLA 27-May-15 28-May-15 Edinburgh - Did Not Travel Committee for
  • Potential Outcomes for the 2007 and 2011 Irish Elections Under a Different Electoral System

    Potential Outcomes for the 2007 and 2011 Irish Elections Under a Different Electoral System

    Publicpolicy.ie Potential Outcomes for the 2007 and 2011 Irish elections under a different electoral system. A Submission to the Convention on the Constitution. Dr Adrian Kavanagh & Noel Whelan 1 Forward Publicpolicy.ie is an independent body that seeks to make it as easy as possible for interested citizens to understand the choices involved in addressing public policy issues and their implications. Our purpose is to carry out independent research to inform public policy choices, to communicate the results of that research effectively and to stimulate constructive discussion among policy makers, civil society and the general public. In that context we asked Dr Adrian Kavanagh and Noel Whelan to undertake this study of the possible outcomes of the 2007 and 2011 Irish Dail elections if those elections had been run under a different electoral system. We are conscious that this study is being published at a time of much media and academic comment about the need for political reform in Ireland and in particular for reform of the electoral system. While this debate is not new, it has developed a greater intensity in the recent years of political and economic volatility and in a context where many assess the weaknesses in our political system and our electoral system in particular as having contributed to our current crisis. Our wish is that this study will bring an important additional dimension to discussion of our electoral system and of potential alternatives. We hope it will enable members of the Convention on the Constitution and those participating in the wider debate to have a clearer picture of the potential impact which various systems might have on the shape of the Irish party system, the proportionality of representation, the stability of governments and the scale of swings between elections.
  • Coffeeclub @ #AP2017

    Coffeeclub @ #AP2017

    #CoffeeClub @ #AP2017 Alliance Party Conference 25 March 2017 Contents 1. #CoffeeClub Agenda 2. Photographs 3. #CoffeeClub Supporters 4. The Politics of Poverty 5. Unlocking our Social Economy 6. Polls, election results and referendum outcomes 7. Social Media Report 8. List of Attendees 1. #CoffeeClub Agenda 3. #CoffeeClub Supporters 4. The Politics of Poverty Julia Buchanan (Barnardo’s) raised the issue of child poverty and said that children were often overlooked in the debate. She pointed to the importance of childcare and education as a means to end educational underachievement and close the attainment gap. Seamus Lynch (Age Sector Platform) agreed that child poverty was a problem that could lead to a very real stigma and lack of confidence but also called for a renewed focus on older people, 20 percent of whom live in poverty. He suggested that relatively easy solutions like automatic pension credit payments and discounts on energy bills would make a considerable difference. Kate McCauley (Housing Rights) talked about the correlation of housing and poverty. She said that affordability issues are increasing across all tenures but particularly so in the private rented sector which has seen a demographic change in those who live there. She referenced reports that identified that “by 2020 the expected gap between housing benefit and private sector rents will grow by 300 percent” which is clearly unsustainable. Kate said work to address financial exclusion and to ensure the voices of those impacted by poverty are heard in policy decisions was important in ensuring people could access and sustain housing. Andrew McCracken (Community Foundation NI) queried the current approach to poverty.