David Norris (Independent)

The arguments were made at the earlier Stage. At that point Senator Bacik raised what I felt was a significant legal point. Her memory is quite accurate. The Minister of State said that he would consult the Parliamentary Counsel and take legal advice. He has not yet had the opportunity to give the House the burden of that information.

My amendment also seeks to facilitate. It introduces a discretionary element so that people will not automatically be ineligible in all circumstances, some of which, that could be imagined, could be unduly harsh and discriminatory.

It does not, on the other hand, remove the power from the local authority, either to evict or to charge arrears. That survives. All that is allowed is a discretionary power. In fact, the language was specifically taken by the agencies that drafted these amendments for all of us from other sections of the Bill. Therefore, the spirit and language of this amendment are already contained in the Bill.

This is an important amendment. The Minister of State said he would take a look at it but I see he has not tabled a similar amendment. There does not seem to be a Government amendment addressing this issue, including the issue raised by my colleague about a possible conflict between two sections of the Bill.

As I mentioned the question of Government amendments, these are usually indicated by an asterisk but an amendment in the name of my colleague, Senator Hannigan, amendment No. 13, was marked with an asterisk as well. Does that mean that it is accepted by the Government or it is being taken over as a Government amendment even though it is in his name? I seek a technical clarification on that.