Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I do not understand the first point made by the Minister. My amendment simply proposes to insert a new definition in the definitions section.

The word "presence", which occurs throughout the Bill, is to be interpreted in the way I have indicated in this definition. That is the purpose of the amendment, so I have no idea what the Minister means when he says it has no effect. For the purpose of the Act, the reference to the presence of any person in the State, or cohabitation in the State, shall include a presence or cohabitation abroad in the service of the State. It is amendment to the interpretation section, I want to reinterpret the world "presence" as it occurs in the Bill.

We can have a further debate regarding "domicile", as we did on Committee Stage on a different point, where I was concerned about the requirement for a one year domicile in the State for certain provisions. The Minister was strongly of the view that domicile is a hard thing to lose. I have taken advice on this and I am not sure the Minister is correct. There are people whose domicile might be outside the State who would be precluded from taking advantage of the provisions of this enactment. I do not see how it does a disservice to the Minister - I welcome his commitment that officers of the State will be included in this while serving abroad and that their service abroad will not affect their entitlement to the provisions of this Act. There are, however, people whose formal domicile is abroad, and they can be abroad for many years in the service of the State, on double tours for instance. If the Minister agrees with me these people should be covered by the legislation, why do we not say so specifically?

See this speech in context