David Norris (Independent)

I support Senator White. It is absolute madness and legislative lunacy to allow this amendment be put forward, although we are all glad it has been allowed. Subsection (2)(a)(iii) states: "by placing him in a suitable trade, calling or business and paying such fee or sum as may be requisite for that purpose". God almighty, if that does not clearly spell it out that we are creating a charge on the Exchequer, nothing else could. It is obvious a charge is created and allowing the amendment be proposed highlights the absurdity of what happens here. I hope this reaffirms my colleagues on the need to bring this issue to the attention of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges again.

This issue also gives rise to another matter and causes one to wonder why there was no objection to the amendment. In other words, are only certain amendments objected to on this ground and is the creation of a charge on the Exchequer used for political purposes because the Department does not particularly like someone? Does the Department sometimes agree to let it through, even if it creates a charge on the Exchequer? The situation seems daft. We could not possibly have a better example of the situation than Senator White's amendment which clearly specifies that money shall be paid. If the Minister of State can put forward a situation where this amendment does not create a charge on the Exchequer, I suggest that knowledge and wisdom should be passed on immediately to the board, directors and chief executive of NAMA, because that would solve the whole problem there. We could squiff away all the billions we liked and not create a charge on the Exchequer. It would cost nothing. That is wonderful. It is magic.

Amendment No. 27, in my name, suggests replacing the word "may" with the word "shall" and, like Senator White's amendment, deals with the issue of aftercare. Aftercare is very important because there must be follow through for people. It is inhuman to contemplate a situation where young people, having suffered a period of distress and having been rehabilitated and helped feel better about themselves, are then dumped out into the world without any transition period. People would not be happy to do that to their own children and it is an issue we need to examine. I understand the Minister of State has given an assurance this will take place and stated it is virtually implicit in the Bill. Does a directive to the HSE in this regard exist? Various groups have tried to ascertain from the HSE whether there is a directive but they have been unable to get that information. Will the Minister of State tell the House whether there is such a directive? It would require a directive from him to ensure this provision is consistently applied. Is there such a directive and, if not, will he commit to making such a directive? We would all be satisfied with that.