Seanad debates

Wednesday, 2 December 2015

10:30 am

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Order of Business is No. 1, Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2015 - Committee Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and to adjourn at 2.55 p.m.; No. 2, Legal Services Regulation Bill - Report Stage (Resumed), to be taken at 3 p.m. and adjourned not later than 4.30 p.m., and to be resumed on the conclusion of No. 6 if not previously concluded; No. 3, Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken at 4.30 p.m. and to conclude not later than 6 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other speakers not to exceed five minutes, and the Minister to be called on to reply to the debate not later than 5.55 p.m.; No. 4, Residential Tenancies (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2015 - Motion for Earlier Signature, to be taken at 6 p.m. without debate; No. 5, National Cultural Institutions (National Concert Hall) Bill 2015 - Report and Final Stages, to be taken at 6 p.m.; and No. 6, International Protection Bill 2015 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 5 and to conclude not later than 8 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed ten minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed seven minutes, and the Minister to be called upon to reply to the debate not later than 7.55 p.m.

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

I welcome the fact that Committee Stage of the Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2015 will adjourn at 3 p.m. if it has not already concluded. I put Members on notice that I have tabled a number of significant amendments regarding pensions. These amendments would ensure that what happened in the case of the Irish airlines superannuation scheme, whereby a Government cut promised benefits by up to 60%, is not allowed to happen to any other worker in the State. I ask Members from the Government side and from the Opposition to have a look at those amendments in advance of the debate. I welcome their support because I believe the Seanad can do a job here today by passing at least one of those amendments, which would give protection to pension scheme members and their benefits.

To deal with Second Stage of the International Protection Bill 2015 this evening and Committee Stage tomorrow would require that amendments be tabled pretty much one hour after the conclusion of Second Stage. This would not give Members sufficient time to reflect on the Minister's presentation or other Second Stage contributions before tabling amendments to this important piece of legislation. I suggest that Second Stage of the Bill be moved to tomorrow, Thursday, 3 December, and that Committee Stage be taken on Monday 7 December. This would allow Members sufficient time to table amendments on Friday. I propose, by way of a formal amendment to the Order of Business, that No. 6 not be taken today and that it be listed for tomorrow.

In advance of the passage of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2015 through the House, I ask Members to note that earlier on this year I presented the Local Property Tax (Management Fees) Relief Bill 2015. Because it is a money Bill it could not be moved in this House and it was moved in the Dáil. This Bill would have given some relief to people who are paying management fees. There are 200,000 households - apartments and houses - paying both full local property tax and management fees. Many of these people are paying the local property tax for services they do not receive from the local authority. The report of the expert group chaired by Dr. Don Thornhill recognised this issue. I proposed a modest change that would give up to €300 relief, or a third of the local property tax, whichever was lower, to take into account the fact that these 200,000 households are effectively paying on the double - full local property tax and full management fees. This measure would only be for principal private residences and only for those whose management fees were paid fully to date. The full cost of the measure would be €15 million. This Bill was moved in the Dáil by Deputy Sean Fleming but unfortunately was defeated by the Government. In advance of the Finance Bill Members can only table recommendations, and I will be putting forward a recommendation. I ask the Leader, in advance of Second Stage tomorrow, to inform the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, that we intend to move this again. This is in the interests of fairness, and I believe most would agree that people should not have to pay for services they do not receive. An element of common services can be paid for, but this is an issue of fairness in regard to how the local property tax is actually levied on properties. I intend to table a recommendation on this matter on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. In advance of that I ask the good office of the Leader to raise it with the Minister for Finance.

I am formally proposing the amendment that No. 6 not be taken today.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Leader will respond to Senator O'Brien's comments about the International Protection Bill 2015, but I remind colleagues that Members received an e-mail from the Bills Office on 27 November informing us that the deadline for submitting amendments to the International Protection Bill 2015 was one hour after the conclusion of Second Stage.

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

With respect to Senator Bacik, that means they must be prepared in advance of the Second Stage speeches.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That was in anticipation of the conclusion of the Bill last night, so we will wait. I presume it will be same when the Bill concludes tonight. What I mean is that there is no change. I agree with Senator O'Brien - those of us who were here until midnight last night have made this point many times - that this is an unfortunate feature of every year. In December, Members are faced with a huge glut of legislation coming through the House that has to be rushed through, while earlier in the year we have to search high and low for legislation. It is bad practice. It seems to be a perennial issue and is not confined to this term. I recall it from previous sessions also. I know colleagues will agree that we need to be conscious of this.

I am holding a briefing at 12.30 p.m. today with members of the "RTE Investigates" team which produced the powerful documentary on prostitution and sex trafficking in Ireland. It contained some shocking findings which should feed into our debate on the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015, which is due to resume in this House next week on Committee Stage. This Bill will make significant changes to the law on prostitution, and I have invited all colleagues to the briefing about the Bill and the change in prostitution laws.

I support those colleagues who called for a debate on school admissions policy, especially on the need to end the practice of allowing schools to discriminate on the basis of religion. I have worked on this for many years with the multi-denominational schools patronage group and Educate Together. I am glad to speak at the Education Equality launch at the end of next week. Education Equality is a new organisation set up by a group of parents who are concerned about this issue. I know that the Tánaiste, Deputy Joan Burton, has made a welcome commitment on behalf of the Labour Party that we will seek to end the baptism barrier for school entry and to double the number of multi-denominational schools. Some of the ground work has been done by the current Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, and the former Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, in establishing the national Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector. However, it has been very slow and I hope we will see a change in that. I support colleagues who call for that debate, although I am conscious that it will not happen until 2016.

Photo of Jillian van TurnhoutJillian van Turnhout (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur with Senator Bacik with regard to the timing of legislation and giving considered process. I thank the Leader for moving Report Stage of the International Protection Bill 2015 in the revised agenda. I see that it will be taken next week or later.

It is sad to see a series of reports about the Bessborough mother and baby homes by the journalist Conall Ó Fátharta in the Irish Examiner. In the initial articles, Mr. Ó Fátharta wrote of his concerns about the number of reported deaths. His articles cover the over-reporting of deaths, and we can only conclude that some of those children who were reported as having died in the homes were most likely adopted in the United States and their records were falsified. It is the only conclusion one can come to.

I was particularly startled by today's article about child rape victims between the years of 1954 and 1987 who, as young pregnant girls, were brought to the Bessborough institution. Two cases stood out. One was in 1968, the year I was born. A child aged 12 who was a rape victim had a child in the home. That woman would now be 57. In 1982 there was a birth mother who was 14 years of age. I was 14 in 1982. She would now be 47. Her record states "Premature, 33 weeks, gasped and died." I want to know if these cases were reported to the Garda. Did the home, or the predecessor of Tusla, report these cases? The Irish Examinerput a series of questions to the Sisters of the Sacred Heart and to Tusla regarding the reporting of these cases and they declined to answer. They said they would deal directly with the commission of investigation into mother and baby homes. The reality, as we know, is that the commission cannot use any of the documentation or information in relation to criminal proceedings. Rape is a crime. I want to know whether these cases have been reported and what is actually happening. These women are still alive today, and I do not trust what has happened in these homes. The reports and figures uncovered by Mr. Conall Ó Fátharta show us why it is vital to have an audit. The State has a responsibility. These were children who were raped. What are we doing for them now? We can talk about times being different then, but one of the cases I mentioned was in 1982, which was not such a different time. What are we doing now with the full knowledge that we have? Are we ensuring that they will at last get justice? These women, very likely still alive today, were mistreated horrendously by the State. By our actions now we can show we have learnt the lessons of the past.

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to take No. 16 before No. 1.

I regret that I must oppose taking the Legal Services Regulation Bill today. We were here until well after midnight last night. I have no problem with that, but the Bill is a shambles. Page 41 of the Minister's own Bill was amended by her 105 times. That must be a candidate for the Guinness Book of Records. The page has 38 lines. Frequently, she sought to delete amendments on Report Stage that she had tabled on Committee Stage.

There is no definition of "mentor" in the Bill even though the Minister apparently believes it to be an important position. The conveyancing monopoly is not addressed despite the recommendations of the then Competition Authority ten years ago. The right to see a barrister without having a solicitor present is not addressed. All of the implementers of these restrictive practices are being moved across to work for the new authority, which we are led to believe is supposed to be pro-consumer. This is appalling legislation and how it is being put through the House is appalling. We need a properly printed version of the Bill before we take it any further. For instance, we voted - no doubt due to fatigue on the Government side - to remove the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, from his role in examining remuneration, expenses and superannuation. These are the people in the Law Society and the Bar Council who refused to disclose their incomes as part of the IFA scandal. We are telling them that they do not need to tell us their incomes and inviting them to work for the State and get State pensions as well.

We must stop this Bill. I oppose the order that it be taken today. As legislation, it is appalling and a shambles. We all know that. It involves amendments on amendments on amendments, including what must be a Guinness Book of Recordsentry. The Oireachtas should not submit to this type of treatment. The barristers and solicitors controlling the Bill have shunted out the Minister, Deputy Howlin, who has a job in every Department to ensure that we get value for money. He was removed under section 80. The Government side should reflect on why this happened. It happened because these people do not want to answer for their costs. They do not want him there, but society as a whole needs him there. The Government side should not have voted no confidence in its own Minister, which is what we drew to the Senators' attention. This Bill should not be allowed to proceed today.

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

At some stage, we should have a debate on State bodies and the like. I was amazed, shocked and somewhat amused when, while listening to RTE's "Drivetime" on Monday evening and "Morning Ireland" yesterday, I heard the leader of the Green Party and someone from An Taisce giving their opinions on the climate change conference in Paris. There is a great responsibility on the Taoiseach and the Government officials attending the conference, but what I heard on the radio was amazing. The leader of the Green Party proposed that we should not expand our dairy or beef herd due to carbon footprints. I would remind him that we have the lowest carbon footprint of any food producer, as we have a grass-based system. He stated that we should concentrate on increasing prices and quality, but this country has the highest quality food and price is dictated by the world markets. We only have 4.5 million people and 80% of our food is exported. We cannot eat it all ourselves.

The contribution from the person from An Taisce yesterday morning was laughable. He proposed that not only should Ireland not increase its herds, but we should get rid of all of our animals and plant forests over the entire country. He wants to revert to a pre-Ice Age state. What will he do with the 275,000 people who are employed in agriculture, be it as farmers or direct employees? That represents 10% of total employment. Some 12.3% of total exports, amounting to €10 billion, come from the agricultural trade. Is An Taisce proposing that farmers and employees should be given chainsaws and pruners and told to look after all of the trees that we will sow? That is ludicrous. Anyone in receipt of State funding should be responsible in what he or she says on the nation's airwaves. All of the media has a responsibility to ensure that both sides of an argument are put forward. Planting the entire country under trees was a crazy suggestion.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I second the amendment proposed by my colleague, Senator Darragh O'Brien, as well as the amendment proposed by Senator Barrett, if I am permitted.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Barrett's amendment is the main topic that I wish to discuss. He touched on my concern, in that the legislation is one of the most convoluted and difficult Bills that I have ever seen. When I spoke on Second Stage some time ago, on principle I addressed what the Bill tried to achieve and so on, but the Minister, for whom I have great respect at a personal level, has tabled five amendments to the same part of the Bill. As originally drafted by Deputy Shatter, the Bill was to be a lion in tackling the difficulties with the legal profession, dragging it kicking and screaming from the pre-Victorian era of the 19th century into the 21st century through reforms, but we have ended up with a little lamb. The lion is gone, leaving a convoluted Bill.

Two weeks ago on Committee Stage, the Seanad agreed a raft of amendments - no one called a vote - tabled by the Government to its own Bill. Last night, I called votes because we were asked several times to agree to amend or delete the amendments that the Minister introduced two weeks ago. How can we have faith and trust in this legislation? It is supposed to be one of the most reforming Bills that has ever been laid before the House. As spokesman on justice, I rarely make such a strong point, but before we make a major blunder with this legislation, I ask in support of Senator Barrett that the Minister withdraw and reconstitute it so that we might know which amendments we are debating. Last night, we had a large list of amendments that was a book in itself, but we also had a supplementary list of amendments to those amendments. Once the Bill is amended, it must return to the Dáil. Last night was like a maze, with people wondering what page to read and to what amendments or deletions the Minister was referring, yet reasonable amendments from Senator Barrett, Sinn Féin and others were brushed aside as irrelevant.

The legislation is intricate and difficult, but before we make a major mistake in rushing it through, the Minister should stand back and get her act together on Report Stage. One day would suffice to get everything ready. There would be more co-operation from this side. As matters stand, I find it difficult to support amendments on Report Stage that delete amendments to which I agreed two weeks ago. It is like the three-hand trick - is it this, that or the other? I am confused about where we are going and I believe that the Minister is as well.

The drafting of this Bill leaves a lot to be desired. It has been four years in the ether. This is an important issue even though I know that the Cathaoirleach is anxious for me to sit down. This Bill commenced four years ago and everything is being rushed through now because we are coming closer to the recess and the Government wants it enacted before the next election. If it is enacted in a rushed fashion, it will do major damage to the Seanad. I have respect for this House, but what happened last night and is about to happen today is not good for legislation or democracy.

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

On a point of clarification, my understanding is that Senator Barrett moved an amendment to the Order of Business so that No. 16 would be taken before No. 1 and that he is opposing the Order of Business because it includes No. 2.

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

He can table an amendment as well.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If there is any confusion, I propose a separate amendment that we-----

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

Could we get clarification from Senator Barrett, please?

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am opposed to taking No. 2 today.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is opposed and is moving an amendment.

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

Senator Barrett has already proposed an amendment so that No. 16 would be taken before No. 1.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He is also opposing the Order of Business.

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

In which case, Senator O'Donovan must propose an amendment.

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Senators.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I propose an amendment to the effect that the Legal Services Regulation Bill be withdrawn and resubmitted in a more acceptable fashion.

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

That No. 2 be deleted from the Order of Business.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Separate from the Order of Business.

Photo of Aideen HaydenAideen Hayden (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome yesterday's announcement that we will have new bankruptcy legislation enacted before Christmas. It will reduce the period of bankruptcy from three years to one year for new applicants, and to 18 months for those who are already in the system. There are good reasons for the introduction of this legislation. For starters, it will provide equality between the North and South of Ireland. It will end the bankruptcy tourism that we have seen whereby some people who have the means to declare themselves bankrupt in Northern Ireland or Britain did so to avail of the shorter period of bankruptcy there. I also think, however, that people who are forced into bankruptcy have suffered enough. A one-year period is more than enough. More importantly, it will encourage lenders to behave more reasonably when they are being offered settlements by people who find themselves in difficulties. I also welcome the fact that there will be bona fide requirements in the legislation - in other words, a carrot and stick approach - so that people who hide their assets from the official assignee will have their period of bankruptcy increased to 15 years from eight years.

The mortgage arrears crisis is far from over, as we all know. This legislation will improve the situation for those who suffer, as well as forcing banks to come to the table, which will bring this dreadful period of our history to a faster conclusion. I ask the Leader to arrange for a debate, whenever possible, on the continuing mortgage arrears situation in this country and the various facets relating to it, such as the mortgage-to-rent scheme, which has not been embraced by the financial institutions, and a number of other measures such as debt to shared equity. We need to have a wider discussion on such matters.

I wish to congratulate my colleague Deputy Willie Penrose, who initiated this legislation by way of a Private Members' Bill last March. The Labour Party has played a role in bringing this to a successful conclusion.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was a trifle surprised that there was no media coverage whatsoever of the debate on the Legal Services Regulation Bill last night. I think they missed the real story. We spent six hours here dealing with 25 pages of amendments. We went from six o'clock until midnight. I commend the Leader of the House, Senator Maurice Cummins, because he stood up for parliamentary discipline. Despite the intentions and wishes of the Minister, which were made very clear indeed, either to guillotine it or continue on until four or five in the morning, Senator Cummins remanded the Seanad at midnight, and quite right too. Well done to the Leader. We had 23 pages of amendments to one page of the Bill. We had amendments to amendments that were made last week. It was bizarre. I have never, in my entire time in the House - nearly 30 years - seen anything remotely comparable.

I suggested that because of this concentration of amendments on page 41, the logical thing would have been to reprint page 41 in full. I also suggested that we should reprint the Bill with the Committee Stage amendments. The Bill had already been amended, but we were not given an amended Bill to work off. We were therefore working off five documents at the same time, including lists of grouped amendments, Committee Stage amendments, Report Stage amendments and the Bill itself. It was an absolute nightmare and there was great dissatisfaction on all sides of the House.

Serious issues were raised. I raised the question of the total absence of a definition of "monitor", which was a significant area. The Bill defines what a CEO is. Everybody knows what a CEO is, but nobody defined the responsibilities, duties and functions of the monitor. It was just left there as a new word.

I would like to second both Senator O'Donovan's amendment that this Bill be withdrawn and Senator Barrett's amendment that we take item No. 16 first.

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

Senator Barrett's amendment has already been seconded.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. That is fine.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

But mine was not.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are coming up to an amendment very soon - it is about the third or fourth one - which says that a member of the public may discuss with a barrister non-controversial or non-contentious items. How bizarre can one get? One talks to a lawyer because one wants him or her to do something about a controversy that is raging and one is involved in legal proceedings. One does not go to a senior counsel and say: "Isn't it a nice day? Look at the clouds in the sky and the little patches of blue. But I don't want to talk to you about the action that I'm involved in, in which you're representing me." It is like saying that Seanad Éireann can discuss anything it likes of a non-political nature.

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

The Senator can make those points during the debate.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is that?

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

The Senator is way over time.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have been instructed by my ventriloquist, Senator Crown, to propose that we take item No. 52 before item No. 1. I am happy to do so. It looks as though we will have a fair amount of amendments to the Order of Business today, but there we are.

I compliment the Leader of the House, Senator Cummins, who has handled the matter with adroitness and skill. Despite the fact that he was on the Government side, he defended the integrity and rights of Seanad Éireann.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It could be a crowded stage today, a Chathaoirligh. I want to briefly congratulate the Haven in Killarney, which won the best commercial building award for 2015 at the Brick Awards in London, which recognise achievements in design and construction. The Haven is a beautiful place, as is Killarney. It is a truly disciplined building that works at all levels, and it won the award on that basis.

Coming back to the Legal Services Regulation Bill, I accept the good faith of everybody concerned. There is no doubt that it is complex and intricate. As Senators have acknowledged, the Leader has done his very best and will continue to provide ample time. Let us all calm down and get through it. We need and urgently want the regulation that it provides for, so let us not unduly force it.

Photo of Denis O'DonovanDenis O'Donovan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we were any calmer we would be ineffective.

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, we are not being ineffective. We were here last night until midnight and, if necessary, we can be here until midnight and beyond again tonight. Let us do our business properly. Senators were very good they way they got into it last night. I listened to much of it.

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

Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Photo of Paul CoghlanPaul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. I just want to join with Senator Norris. I cannot enter the stage as he is capable of doing, but I do want to compliment the House. We all have respect for the House. The Leader is doing his damnedest and I agree with Senator Norris's remarks concerning the Leader.

Photo of John CrownJohn Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When I made my acceptance speech in Seanad Éireann in 2011, I stated that I would never again run for the Seanad under the existing electoral system, which I described as an affront to democracy. It was, is and remains an affront to democracy. It is unacceptable that we still have not had Seanad reform. We recently had a statement from the Taoiseach, two years after the referendum campaign, saying that we would not have Seanad reform. There is something seriously wrong here and I do not believe it is ever going to happen unless people push to make it happen.

I and others have proposed Seanad reform Bills which were well thought out and argued. Some would agree with some of them, while others would disagree. The reality is, however, that they were an attempt to do what we promised, which was to try to reform the Seanad.

I am not trying to be disruptive - I have done the arithmetic and I know that another vote is coming through today - but I am probably adding an extra four minutes to the business of a busy day by calling for a second vote. I second the proposal by my colleague Senator Norris to amend the Order of Business such that item No. 52 be taken before item No. 1.

It is wrong that Bills get through two Stages and are then allowed to die. It is a pyrrhic victory. If the Government wishes to oppose my Bill, which I know it does, I would ask as a courtesy that it give us 30 minutes for a Committee Stage debate. There are no amendments tabled for Committee Stage of the Bill, which has been on the books for two years. It is quite clear that nobody is ever going to introduce any amendments. That is because the way business gets done around here is based on "Ah sure, that fellow will be happy that it got through two Stages, even though it died on the Order Paper of the Oireachtas." That is dishonest, however, and it is not why I proposed the Bill. I proposed that it either be passed or defeated. I would like to see it passed or defeated.For that reason, I will persist in asking that we try to get it on the Order Paper either by seeking an amendment to the Order of Business on a daily basis or by having the Government agree to allowing Committee Stage to proceed at a mutually suitable time. In truth, the least we owe to democracy is that we actually try to stand by our principles.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Darragh O'Brien referred to the International Protection Bill. As he knows, that Bill was to be taken last night or this morning. It could have been taken at approximately 4 a.m. or 5 a.m., which would have been ridiculous. That is why it was rescheduled for today. Committee Stage was always to be taken tomorrow. Therefore, I have no problem taking Second Stage today. The schedule has not changed very much from that communicated to Senators last week. I am certainly going ahead with the legislation as per the Order of Business I announced. Senator Darragh O'Brien also referred to mortgage changes and property tax. He said the relevant legislation was ruled out of order in this House. I do not propose to comment further on that but I am sure the Senator will make the point to the Minister when the Finance Bill comes before the House.

Senator Bacik raised a number of matters to which she referred yesterday in the context of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Bill. She also referred to schools admissions policies. I responded in respect of these issues yesterday.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout referred to the appalling findings in the report on rape victims in the Bessborough institutions. The Government has had to face many legacy issues. Obviously, this is another that will have to be dealt with. I agree with the Senator that this is an appalling set of circumstances that will have to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Senator Sean Barrett proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, that No. 16 be taken before No. 1. Is this to enable him to publish the Bill or is it so the Bill may be taken now?

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is to enable us to publish it.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have no problem with that. I will accept that amendment to the Order of Business.

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leader.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Many Members raised the issue of the Legal Services Regulation Bill. I appreciate the problems Members from all sides had in that regard. In my time in the House, I have never seen 300 amendments being introduced on Report Stage. Many of them are amending amendments made on Committee Stage. My job is to facilitate the passage of Government legislation through the House. We do that as best we can. I did not believe that it was in the interests of the legislative process, Members or staff to sit until 3 a.m., 4 a.m. or 5 a.m. in order to complete the Bill.

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Photo of Maurice CumminsMaurice Cummins (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, we will be completing it today, as intended. We will allow the time necessary for this. Therefore, I cannot accept the proposal that we remove the Bill from the agenda outlined in today's Order of Business.

Senator O'Neill referred to the Green Party and the position of An Taisce on climate change. He made very strong, cogent points in this regard. The Taoiseach said we are to have more legislation on climate change as a result of the Paris talks and I am sure the Senator will have the opportunity to make his points when it is introduced.

Senator Aideen Hayden welcomed the new bankruptcy legislation, a Private Members' Bill originally introduced by Deputy Willie Penrose. In the five years in which the Government has been in office, the bankruptcy term has decreased from seven years to three years and it is now to be one year. We have made significant progress on this matter, which is to be welcomed. Senator Hayden also called for a debate on the ongoing issue of mortgage arrears. We will try to facilitate that but I cannot see it happening before Christmas.

I note Senator Norris's point on the number of amendments to the Legal Services Regulation Bill. I agree with him in that regard. He proposed that item No. 52, Senator Crown's Bill, be taken before No. 1. The Senator is seeking half an hour before Christmas to the debate the Bill. I will certainly try to facilitate that.

A number of other Bills have but two or three seconds to go on Second Stage. If I could be notified that Senators want to finish them, I will facilitate it. Only two or three seconds will be needed in order to complete the Bills. Let us vote them down or retain them, which is what Senator Crown wants. Let us do the same with all the Bills in this category. I will facilitate the debates in the next couple of weeks if we want to get them off the Order Paper.

Unfortunately, as I said, I cannot accept the amendment to the Order of Business regarding the Legal Services Regulation Bill. I appreciate the difficulties that Members have over the number of amendments involved but I must facilitate the passage of Government legislation in the House.

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

Senator Darragh O'Brien has moved amendment No. 1 to the Order of Business, "That No. 6 be deleted from today's Order Paper." Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 21.



Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.

Amendment declared lost.

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

Senator Sean Barrett has proposed amendment No. 2 to the Order of Business, "That No. 16 be taken before No. 1." The Leader has indicated that he is prepared to accept this amendment. Is the amendment agreed? Agreed.

Photo of Sean BarrettSean Barrett (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Leader.

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

Senator Denis O'Donovan has proposed amendment No. 3 to the Order of Business, "That No. 2 be deleted from today's Order of Business." Is the amendment being pressed?

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 22.



Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O'Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.

Amendment declared lost.

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

Senator David Norris has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business, "That No. 52 be taken before No. 1." Is the amendment being pressed?

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the light-----

Photo of John CrownJohn Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

May I speak?

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, you cannot; you can speak after me.

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

Is the amendment being pressed?

Photo of David NorrisDavid Norris (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In the light of the Leader's gracious acceptance of what is basically Senator Crown's amendment I will not press the amendment but I will leave it to my learned colleague to decide whether he will press it.

Photo of John CrownJohn Crown (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are not pressing the amendment but I acknowledge that the Leader has undertaken to do his best. I understand, with the vicissitudes of the scheduling between now and the Christmas recess, he will give us time, hopefully the week after next, to debate that Bill.

Question, "That the Order of Business, as amended, be agreed to", put and declared carried.