Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Before we commence I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded.

John Gilroy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I hope that does not apply to Senator Darragh O'Brien. He should not be allowed to speak at all.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 1 to 3, inclusive, cannot be moved.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Why?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They are ruled out of order because they were negatived on Committee Stage.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not wish to obstruct the business of the House but I have a question. I have only received notification in writing that one of my amendments is out of order. I refer to amendment No. 3. I received no notification that amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are out of order. That is the only information I have received.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator O?Brien did not table amendment No. 2.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 1 was tabled by me with the Sinn Féin Senators.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was a vote on the issue on Committee Stage.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Did the Sinn Féin Senators receive notification that the amendments are out of order?

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

They moved the amendments.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I just wish to clarify the situation.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I identified on Committee Stage that there would be a number of Government amendments on Report Stage. This amendment corrects two incorrect cross-references in the section. A previous amendment proposed in respect of this included a reference to subsection (16) of section 53. However, this provision should refer to subsection (15) of section 53. Subsection (15) of the Bill, as amended on Committee Stage, makes provision for the appointment of directors to fill casual vacancies on the board.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 19, line 25, to delete ?or voluntary assistant?.

Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It related to exclusion.

Kathryn Reilly (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes. There was some confusion on the matter. I still do not see why volunteers are being excluded from serving their community through membership of the board of directors. That is why I tabled the amendment deleting the words "or voluntary assistant". I also wish to delete lines 26 and 27. The issue has been brought to my attention recently. I accept that employees should not serve as a board member in their own credit union but the amendment relates to employees of a different credit union being a board member in another credit union.

Let us take the example of a volunteer of a credit union who builds up experience and expertise working in a credit union and who has gained employment in another credit union as a result. The Bill as currently set out would exclude such a person from fulfilling a role as board member because he or she works in another credit union. That would result in capable and valuable board members being excluded solely because of their employment. I know of one major credit union in Dublin where that would cause major problems. The provision is unnecessary and I hope the Minister of State will accept the amendment to prevent unnecessary problems.

Darragh O'Brien (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment. To follow on from what Senator Reilly said, perhaps the Minister of State could clarify that the Bill precludes someone who previously worked in a credit union from serving in another one. Today, I received a specific example of that. One of the directors of a credit union who was unemployed managed to secure a position with another credit union. He had been a credit union director for a number of years. The effect of not allowing the amendment to section 15(10)(a) would prevent him from continuing as a director of the credit union unless he leaves his employment. Had he secured employment outside of a credit union he would not be prevented from continuing as a director of the credit union. The board in that instance believes that as the person has not changed, why should his employment prevent him from continuing as a director or working in another credit union. The board also believes that the director, who has been a volunteer and a voluntary director with the credit union for a number of years, is being unfairly treated by the introduction of this restriction and by not passing the amendment tabled by Senator Reilly. The board further believes that the current conflict of interest rules and the proposed fitness and probity rules should cater for any conflict of interests that could occur in this area.

I wish to point out that in the recent past, that is, in the few weeks since this proposal has been mooted and announced, a number of airlines, including United Airlines, Aer Lingus and others, have announced flights into Shannon, which I consider to be highly positive. This had no impact on Knock. I want this to continue and believe this measure will help it to do so. Ultimately, the Government wishes to create an international aviation services sector in Shannon that can generate new non-passenger revenue streams. This is what will ensure that the airport can work.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Minister of State to conclude.

Alan Kelly (Tipperary North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Government already has memorandums of understanding for 850 jobs and is considering the potential for 3,500 jobs. I do not envisage any Member of either House having an issue with that. This is about using Shannon's assets as leverage. Shannon is a unique airport with the longest runway in western Europe. It has preclearance and lands that simply are not available to any other airport in Europe and these advantages must be used as leverage. I ask Members to support this measure, which is a fantastic opportunity for the region. I am from the region and was deeply involved in setting up this process and strategy. It is a new dawn and a new future for an airport for which the worst thing the Government could have done would have been to do nothing.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator O'Sullivan intend to press the amendment?

Ned O'Sullivan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I must do so in full support of Shannon Airport and the initiative.