Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appeal to members to switch off their mobile phones as they cause interference, even when in silent mode.

The business to be addressed this morning is Committee Stage of the Courts Bill 2016. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy David Stanton and his officials to the meeting. I also wish to record our appreciation of the Minister of State's work as the former Chairman of this committee.

I now propose to proceed to address, for each of the sections, the amendments before me.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we proceed, may I raise a point of order?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to outline the context in which raise my point of order. This Bill was introduced in the Dáil on 24 October 2016. It went through Second Stage on 15 November 2016. The explanatory memorandum to the Bill explains that the Bill was being introduced to deal with the consequences of the ruling of the Court of Appeal in the case of Permanent TSB plc v.Langan. When the Minister of State commenced his Second Stage speech in the debate, he reiterated that the reason the Bill was being introduced was to deal with the unintended consequences of the decision of the Court of Appeal.

I supported this Bill on Second Stage because of the consequences of the aforementioned court decision and the effect it would have on litigants. However, I learned last week that on 17 November 2016, some two days after the Second Stage debate, the Supreme Court issued a determination in the case of Permanent TSB plcv.Langan stating that the decision of the Court of Appeal in that case could be appealed to the Supreme Court because it involved a matter of general public importance. In that context, this select committee should await the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.

If the Supreme Court allows the appeal in the case of Permanent TSB plc v. Langan, then there will be no necessity to introduce this legislation since the Court of Appeal decision will have been overturned.

Standing Order 153 states:

In considering a Bill, a Standing, Select or Special Committee may at any time adjourn, and a Committee of the whole Dáil may at any time report progress, provided that the necessary motion to this effect has been carried. Any such motion which is deemed by the Chair to be dilatory or obstructive shall not be accepted.

In those circumstances, I propose this select committee should adjourn its consideration of this Bill until the Supreme Court has determined the appeal.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before inviting the Minister of State to respond, I would like to seek clarification. In his preamble to his proposition, Deputy Jim O'Callaghan indicated that it was said that it could be appealed. Will the Deputy advise us if the process has been set in motion?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, it has. The determination I handed to the Chairman is the determination of the Supreme Court dated 17 November 2016. The court has determined that there will be an appeal on the matter. The parties to the case, the appellant in the Supreme Court, PTSB, brought an application seeking the permission of the Supreme Court, which is only granted in exceptional circumstances, to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeal decision. The Supreme Court has ruled that this case will be heard by the Supreme Court.

In light of the fact that the reason this Bill was introduced was because of the unintended consequences of the Court of Appeal's ruling, and out of respect for the Supreme Court and more importantly for this House, why should we proceed to legislate if it may not be necessary?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One final question before inviting the Minister of State to respond. Have we any indication as to the timeframe of when the Supreme Court will address this appeal?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Supreme Court is hearing cases much faster now because of the presence of the Court of Appeal. The decision of the Court of Appeal was given in July. The Supreme Court is giving listings for cases within periods of six months to nine months. It is faster but I cannot be definitive on that. I do not believe we should proceed with this committee hearing when a Supreme Court appeal will be heard in respect of the case that forms the whole reason that we are here.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Jim O'Callaghan. Does the Minister of State, Deputy David Stanton, wish to reply on this?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for bringing this to our attention. I was not aware of this before we started, unfortunately. At the same time, we could possibly proceed with this because it is important legislation, without prejudice to the court. There are other Stages at which this could be suspended or stopped. We cannot foresee the outcome of any court hearing. In the interim, without prejudice, we could proceed with Committee Stage, discuss the issues and then see what happens in the courts. Obviously, it will be up to the Oireachtas as to whether this Bill would finally pass. There is much uncertainty. This is an important Bill with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts, as we have already agreed. We could discuss Committee Stage amendments and proceed without prejudice. It would have no impact on the court. It would be important to do that.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We should not proceed with Committee Stage today. If it is the case that the Supreme Court allowed this appeal, then we will not have to introduce this legislation. This House should be cautious about introducing legislation which is unnecessary. As well as that, the Supreme Court is determining the matter. We do not want parties in the Supreme Court saying that this has been affected or rendered moot as a result of this legislation being introduced by the Oireachtas. Consequently, I would like to put it to a vote that we should adjourn.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before inviting Deputies Jack Chambers and Colm Brophy, when did Deputy Jim O'Callaghan become aware of this? I gather from what he stated that he learned of this sometime last week.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I learned of it last Friday. In fact, it was reported in The Irish Timesthat the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal. I then checked the courts register and website. That is where the determination I handed up to the Chairman is available. In respect of the case, it talks about an important issue of public importance in the case. That is why there is legislation here. We should await the outcome of the Supreme Court appeal.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I echo what my colleague Deputy Jim O'Callaghan has said. The determination from the Supreme Court to allow this appeal to be made stated:

The court is satisfied that the bank has demonstrated that the decision of the Court of Appeal sought to be appealed against does involve a matter of general public importance so that the constitutional threshold for granting leave has been met in this case.

Having regard to the grounds advanced in section 6 of the bank's application for leave there is no basis for forming the view that the bank has no reasonable possibility of succeeding on the appeal if leave is granted. Accordingly, leave will be granted.

Clearly, the thrust of the Minister's speech on Second Stage was to provide and progress legislation which may be impacted by a Supreme Court determination that will be heard soon. The committee has to be cognisant of that when discussing this matter. The central principle of why the Government wants to progress this legislation has been appealed from the Court of Appeal to the Supreme Court. It is important we await that determination and we adjourn as per Standing Orders. The tenet and principle which drive this legislation may not be relevant, pending the decision of the Supreme Court.

It is surprising that the Department of Justice and Equality did not make the Minister of State aware of this decision which is so relevant and central to the legislation. I have sympathy for him because he has been left in a scenario where he is clearly not being briefed on significant cases which have been widely reported in the media. In addition to what Deputy Jim O'Callaghan has said, it is important that we adjourn. Clearly, the Department has not given full and due consideration to what the Minister of State is trying to progress on Committee Stage today.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a two-way process.

Clare Daly (Dublin Fingal, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am not interested in whatever tit-for-tat is going on between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. There are much bigger issues involved. The information is considerable. I was not aware of it, as a consequence of me not reading The Irish Times, of which I am proud.

I agree with the point made by Deputy Chambers. It is shocking that the Department has not come before the committee to inform us of the development and that it did not communicate with us on the matter. This issue has caused considerable concern among members of the public. There is a massive campaign among citizens raising objections and fears as to what this legislation means. We now have information to the effect that the courts will consider the matter again, which changes everything, and the only reason the Bill is before us is on foot of a previous court decision. These are pretty unusual and compelling circumstances and, on that basis, I do not see any reason for the committee not to adjourn. It would be irresponsible not to do so. It would be viewed very poorly by citizens when there is so much concern about the legislation, a possibility that it may not be necessary at all and the certainty that the courts will consider it. We should not get into this terrain. Legislation that was motivated by a court decision will now be reconsidered by the courts. It is entirely proper to await their decision. That was the only reason the Bill was pushed forward on all other Stages. I support an adjournment on this basis. I do not really care about the other mechanics of the Bill. There are issues with the Department that need to be addressed.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Supreme Court is considering the Bill - and it has agreed to do so - is there not an argument that if we now engage in discussion on it and make some play or decision at our end, we are liable to prejudice the case? That was always my understanding of how the system works.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I made the point that we should adjourn until the Supreme Court determination, which may be in a number of months. I have no difficulty with the committee's seeking a shorter adjournment of a week or so to allow the Minister of State to consider the matter and come back before us to discuss it further. However, it is inappropriate for us to proceed to consider a Bill in respect of which there was a Court of Appeal decision that may no longer stand.

Finally, it was unfair of Deputy Brophy to say what he said. Irrespective of what happened yesterday, I have an obligation to raise the matter. If I had not raised it here this morning and we had proceeded in our consideration of the Bill, we would rightly be criticised by others, who would ask why we did not even take into account the fact that the Supreme Court is considering the Bill. I did not raise the matter yesterday. I did not formalise my decision not to do so until late yesterday. The reason I did not raise it yesterday was that we were dealing with other matters. It is not a huge inconvenience when people turn up to a meeting for somebody to make an application to adjourn.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before I invite the Minister of State to respond to the comments made, I must state that, as Chairman, I find it very discomforting that as part of the preparations for today's meeting, which is the first sitting of the select committee in the Dáil Chamber, two parties could have advised me of the situation but did not do so. With respect, I am disappointed that I have only learned of it literally on taking my seat to conduct the business of the meeting. I am equally discomforted by the Department's lack of communication. The Minister of State has acknowledged that he did not have prior knowledge of the matter. Was that also the case with the Tánaiste? I cannot read every detail of newspaper reports on matters of this nature; no member can. We rely, irrespective of whether we are in government or in opposition, on those who have such oversight. I look to the Department for guidance on such matters. It is most irregular that we have been placed in this invidious position. I ask the Minister of State to accept this and I would appreciate his response. If there is an explanation for the situation, it is hardly the case that the entire Department of Justice and Equality and all involved in the preparation of the Courts Bill would be unaware of the developments to which Deputy O'Callaghan referred.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

First, the State is not a party to any proceedings in this regard. Second, I was not aware of the matter raised by Deputy O'Callaghan until I arrived here this morning. I am a little disappointed that the member of the Opposition did not have the courtesy to contact my Department and make us aware of the matter. When we were in opposition, if an issue arose, we would regularly contact the Government side and tease out issues, even when there was no understanding to do so. However, that is neither here nor there. I see no reason not to proceed. Other issues relating to the Bill will need to be dealt with. Personally, I would like to proceed. However, Deputy O'Callaghan has indicated that he will call a vote and I appreciate the reality that the Government can no longer necessarily win such votes. I ask the Chairman to suspend the committee for ten or 15 minutes until I can consult on the matter. Perhaps then we could reconvene and discuss it further. This is unprecedented. Again, I feel that we could and should proceed and discuss these issues and tease them out.

We are not at this point enacting any legislation; that is a little away yet. We do not know when the Supreme Court will discuss the matter or what the outcome will be. I contend that if the Bill were passed, the Supreme Court might have requested that the issue not be discussed because it will be dealt with by legislation here. We need to tease out and consider many issues here. As the Chairman stated, I was previously served as Chairman of a committee. Quite often, these matters rest with the Chairman of the committee to make a decision as to whether to proceed. The Chairman knows my view: I think we should proceed. However, we are in his hands. I ask that we consider suspending for 15 minutes to give me an opportunity to consult our officials and others on the matter, reconvening and then making a decision as to how to proceed.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the circumstances, and given the importance of the cohesion of our committee, I will accede to the request to suspend for 15 minutes, whereupon, with whatever information the Minister of State will then be in a position to share, we can make a full and definitive decision on the proposition that has been duly put to the committee. It is not desirable just to proceed and take the vote. The Minister of State, with respect to him, was clearly and openly as unaware of the situation as the greater number of us. In deference to him, and out of respect for his position and his former role, I will accede to the request to suspend for 15 minutes.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To reiterate what the Chairman stated yesterday, we are an independent Oireachtas committee.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Completely.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not a committee of any Department. However, when a Department and a Minister present legislation to us, it is important that we have up-to-date information and are informed, as per the tripartite separation of powers, one of which is the courts, provided for in our Constitution. A determination has been made by the Supreme Court which is extremely relevant to the central tenet of what the Minister of State proposes today.

Regarding Deputy Brophy's point, the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality spoke yesterday morning about a two-way process and pulled out of her hat Article 17.2 of our Constitution, which was not notified to the committee beforehand. It is important that be noted in the context of Deputy Brophy's statement about the so-called political move by my colleague. That is unfair. This is a very important determination by the Supreme Court, not by anybody else, and that is the important context.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That exact point was well made yesterday and there was clearly no reticence on the part of other members to make it. However, in making the decision to accede to the request for suspension to secure additional information, I am in no way pre-empting the outcome of the proposition put validly by Deputy O'Callaghan. I ask members to accept that this is in my view - I hope also in theirs - the most appropriate and fairest way to proceed at this point

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will the Minister of State address the committee regarding the information he has gleaned during the suspension?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A number of issues have arisen. First, I retract what I said earlier having listened to Deputy O'Callaghan's comments on his thinking and work in this area. I thank him for bringing this to the notice of the committee. He was busy over the past few days and it is right to bring it to the attention of the committee. I acknowledge that and thank him.

Second, we need more time to examine this new revelation and think about it. I thank the Chairman for giving us the 15-minute break but I will probably need more time. The first three sections of the Bill relate to what might happen in the Supreme Court. Would members consider not allowing them to stand? In other words, when we come to put the question on whether the sections stand part of the Bill, we would allow them to fall. They would then be deleted from the legislation. There are other important sections, which are not impacted by possible Supreme Court action, that we could debate and decide on now. That is a reasonable proposition. If it is agreed, we could reinstate the other three sections on Report Stage and debate them then. This would mean we could proceed with the remainder of the Bill, which contains important proposals and at least we would have some work done. That would cover the concerns raised by the Deputy and give us more time to examine them. I am interested in whether members agree with that suggestion.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his comments about raising the issue and I appreciate what he said. It would not be a good idea to subdivide the Bill. I acknowledge there are areas relating to cost but we can be reasonable about that in due course. We are here to deal with this Bill, which is primarily concerned with the consequences of the Permanent TSB plcv. Langan decision. We should adjourn. We should not rush into this and I am happy to take a short adjournment. The Chairman facilitates select committee hearings and perhaps we could meet again before Christmas. I will be bound by whatever members think.

Jack Chambers (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The reason we are here is sections 1 to 3, inclusive. The Bill would not have been progressed if it was not for them. Allowing them to fall and proceeding with the other sections defeats the principle of why we are even here. It is important, therefore, to adjourn. The Chairman has facilitated quick meetings of the select committee when required. If it is necessary, we can meet at a future date but it is important to adjourn.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy O'Callaghan's position. All the members are prepared to meet on a non-sitting day as soon as possible to facilitate the debate when everything is sorted out.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Brophy.

I wish to acknowledge the presence of Deputy Healy, his participation in the preparation of amendments and his consideration of the Bill. Does the Deputy wish to comment?

Séamus Healy (Tipperary, Workers and Unemployed Action Group)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. This is an unusual situation to be in but Deputy O'Callaghan has made a compelling case. I believe this is a particularly draconian piece of legislation. It provides for the fast-tracking of evictions so any delay in enacting the Bill will be helpful to people who face that traumatic situation. Obviously I do not have a vote on this matter but I support the adjournment of the committee and the consideration of the Bill.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his presence and contribution.

With no other members showing I am obliged to put the proposition, that has been duly put by Deputy O'Callaghan, to the committee. I ask the Clerk to the Committee to ring the bell, please.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Has a vote been called?

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I beg the Minister of State's pardon.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was agreement that the meeting be adjourned.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there agreement?

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The meeting should be adjourned. I know that the Minister of State wanted to continue with some sections of the Bill. I have heard the contributions of members and think that the majority of them are in favour of adjourning the meeting. We will facilitate a new hearing date for the select committee after the Department has discussions with the Tánaiste and at a time that suits the Chairman.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very good. Can the Minister of State indicate his position?

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The proposal has been duly put.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Obviously I am disappointed that colleagues here did not see fit to continue with the other sections of the Bill. We are already here and could have disposed of the other sections thus saving time at a later date. Having said that, I acknowledge the reality. I respect the views of committee members even though I do not fully agree with them. I understand them and respect them. In my 20 years here this is the first time I have witnessed this occurrence. This is the first time I have taken Committee Stage of a Bill and I am not sure whether it is a bad omen.

Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is not the Minister of State's fault.

Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister of State can come here again.

David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy.

On a serious note, sections of the Bill are important. As a result of today's decision certain cases will proceed to the High Court instead of the Circuit Court thus imposing extra costs and trauma on the general public whom we represent. The sooner we can sort this matter out the better. Postponement will mean that cases will be held in the High Court instead of the Circuit Court. We need to sort this matter out pretty quickly, Chairman. I still feel we could go ahead with a full Bill as I do not think there is anything stopping us from doing so. In fact, I intend to take advice and shall return here shortly with advice. I apologise for not knowing about this matter. I genuinely did not know about it before the meeting, which is most unfortunate. I am also disappointed that colleagues did not see fit to agree with my request to proceed with the other sections of the Bill. We could have discussed them and dealt with them. Doing so would not have changed the law or had an impact on anything. That is disappointing and regrettable but so be it.

I agree with the Chairman's summation that we adjourn until a later date, hopefully as soon as possible, to return here to deal with the legislation. First, I am disappointed that we did not continue with the full Bill. Second, I am disappointed that we did not continue with part of the Bill even though it would have been impacted by the case. If Fianna Fáil has decided to adopt this view then I have no choice but to accept the reality of new politics and, therefore, we cannot continue. It is extremely serious when a Government Bill cannot be discussed. I agree with the Chairman's proposition as I have no choice.

Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I assure the Minister of State that the committee made every effort to facilitate discussion on the Bill and will do so. In the absence of any dissent I misread the situation earlier. I apologise for suggesting that we needed to go to a vote. That is not the case as there is an acceptance of the proposition. With no further business that we can address I propose that the select committee adjourn until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 December 2016 in Committee Room 2. I thank the members for their attendance and participation here this morning and I also thank the Minister of State. Go raibh maith agaibh.