Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1996

Vol. 461 No. 8

Domestic Violence Bill, 1995: From the Seanad.

The Dáil went into Committee to consider amendments from the Seanad.

Minister for Equality and Law Reform (Mr. Taylor)

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:

Section 4: In page 10, subsection (1) (a), line 5, "and serious" deleted.

Amendment No. 1 is a drafting amendment in respect of section 4 (1) (a). Section 4 provides for the making by the court of an interim barring order pending the determination of an application for a barring order. Section 4 (1) (a) specifies a main condition with which the court must be satisfied before granting the interim order — that is, that there is "an immediate and serious risk of significant harm" to the applicant or any dependent person if the order is not made immediately. The granting of an interim barring order must be subject to strict conditions for the reason that it is an order made in the interim pending full determination of the case made for a barring order.

The barring order remedy is draconian at any time and it is important to recognise there must be conditions and safeguards attached to the making of such orders by the courts, particularly so where the order is being made on an interim basis without a full hearing of the case and where the court must come to an early decision on the facts before it. It must also be recognised that the interim order may in some cases be granted on an ex parte basis, that is to say in the absence of and without notice to the other party. These circumstances must demand that conditions and safeguards of the kinds provided for in section 4 be in place to enable justice to be done to all parties concerned.

The effect of the amendment is that the need as it stands in section 4 for the court to be satisfied that there is an "immediate and serious risk of significant harm" to the applicant, becomes a need only to be satisfied that there is an "immediate risk of significant harm". On that basis the need to establish a serious risk as such will not arise. I am satisfied the amendment will improve the drafting of section 4 (1) (a) without departing fundamentally from the conditions and safeguards contained in that section.

Dr. Woods

The Minister said that this will not substantially alter the position. We will not object to this change but we have reservations about it. The section deals with the granting of an interim barring order and, traditionally, that has always been on the grounds that there was a serious risk. There is a danger of confusing "significant harm" with "immediate and serious risk"— they are two separate things. "Significant harm" concerns the violence or threat which may be involved. The risk, as defined at present, must be immediate, and, therefore, has to be dealt with.

There is also the question of the level of the risk. One can argue that any risk means there is a possibility of immediate harm. However, there is a substantial difference between a serious risk and a risk. For instance, a person who has had psychiatric treatment may be living in the community, as such people often do. There is certainly a continuous and an immediate risk in such cases but there may not be a serious risk in that it may be an acceptable and accepted risk in normal community life. This provision marks a departure from present practice, so that even where there is a low risk of violence or abuse, a husband can be barred.

Groups like the Coolock Law Centre who made presentations to us wanted to keep a fair balance between the granting of a barring order — especially an interim barring order, which is an immediate arrangement — and the equilibrium between the two partners, whether they are husband and wife or cohabitants. There is a danger that this balance would be upset. A barring order or an application for one can also be used in the context of family breakdowns. From that point of view I have some concern about how open this makes the position and how the change from serious risk will apply in practice, because it is theoretically at least a substantial change from current practice and could lead to incidents which none of those involved in the area want to encourage. We support the Minister's proposed change with this caveat— we are concerned that it tips the scales towards low risk areas.

I had to examine this provision carefully to see what it would mean in practice. The question of significant harm is totally separate and one must be clear about that in logical terms. It is defined separately and will be treated as such in court, as will a fear of such harm. The other aspect is the immediate risk. Removing the "serious" element of the risk leaves scope for different interpretations in comparison with what happened previously.

Deputy Keogh tabled an amendment on Committee and Report Stages about the seriousness of the risk. At that point the Minister was not disposed to accept the amendment. Perhaps he could elaborate on his change of mind, as we went through lengthy discussions on Second, Committee and Report Stages and the Bill has now come back from the Seanad with this amendment.

It is a question of being careful in the changes made. We will go along with the Minister in making the change but we have a slight reservation about the practical implications which could arise from the reduction in the level of risk involved. This could become a subjective area in any event and we would not want to see anyone placed at risk by having to prove it was so serious that it had gone too far by the time the interim barring order was granted. The Bill also provides for a safety order, which improves the position. That is our only concern and otherwise we are happy to accept the Minister's amendment, which echoes an amendment put forward by Deputy Keogh in this House.

Ms Keogh

This aspect of the Bill was discussed on Committee Stage when the Minister stressed that these are quite draconian measures and that we must have a balanced approach. My view is that if we are to err, we should err on the side of being overprotective of women. On one significant aspect of the Bill I disagree with the Minister. Throughout the Bill the Minister has been too cautious but, in fairness to him, he has tried to arrive at some degree of compromise on the question of the impact of the word "serious".

The Minister should not be criticised for erring on the side of women, and if this affords extra protection for women it is an amendment I would accept. Although I understood the Minister's logic, I was disappointed that he did not accept my initial amendment which was directed towards the complete protection of women. I noted the debate in the Seanad. The Minister has tried to achieve a balance. I accept the amendment.

Mr. O'Dea

I too support the amendment in the Minister's name. I agree with Deputy Woods on the need for balance. As somebody who has practised law, the Minister will be aware that it is no small thing to be barred from one's home. With the Minister's amendment this provision will allow the court to grant an interim barring order if there is an immediate risk, however slight, that significant harm may occur to the applicant. The Minister has achieved the right balance because we are only talking about an interim barring order, a temporary measure, an emergency provision to prevent the possibility, however slight, that significant damage may occur to the unfortunate applicant. Therefore, I agree with the proposal as put forward.

Mr. Taylor

I thank Deputies Woods, Keogh and O'Dea for their comments. Deputy Woods in particular gave a very detailed and erudite exposition and analysis of the factors involved in the deletion of those two words. One has to bear in mind that at the end of the day the matter falls to the discretion of the judge hearing the application who will take a pragmatic and sensible approach to what is at stake. I would refer the Members of the House to paragraph (b) where it is stated that, apart from any other consideration, the judge also has to be satisfied that a protection order would not be sufficient to protect the life and limb of the applicant or her family. If the court came to the conclusion that a protection order would be sufficient, the question of an interim barring order would not arise. The matter was considered on an amendment from Deputy Keogh in the Dáil, but that amendment was more extensive than what is proposed here.

Dr. Woods

It proposed retaining the word "serious" and dropping the words "immediate and significant".

Mr. Taylor

That would have been a more extensive amendment. What is proposed here is more reasonable and balanced. It is adequate to protect the position of an applicant who may be in danger of life or limb and, at the same time, reasonably protect the position of a respondent. Proof would still have to be given and the court would still have to be satisfied that there was an immediate risk. The court would have to assess that question. If there is a risk and it is immediate — and we are talking about significant harm also — and the court comes to the conclusion that a protection order would not suffice to protect the applicant from assault and injury, then in those limited circumstances the court may make the interim barring order. It is a departure from the existing legislation which makes no specific provision in any circumstances for interim barring orders, although it has been the practice in some of the district courts at least to grant interim barring orders if the court comes to the conclusion that nothing else would protect the bodily integrity of the applicant.

On balance this is a reasonable compromise which meets the needs of both the applicant and the respondent. I thank the Members for their support for it.

Dr. Woods

I must apologise to the Minister for my commitment to logic which stops me in my tracks at times. Hence my concern about the word "serious". When I looked at my notes and saw that the eminent lawyers and spokespersons of the Progressive Democrats at one stage also considered the word "serious" to be important I had some concern about it. I know the Minister means well and is trying to find a balance and, as Deputy O'Dea said, he has come close, but I am somewhat concerned about that area. We will just have to see how it works in practice. If it does not work well, it may have to be altered in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Taylor

I move that the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:

Section 25: In page 20, before section 25, the following new section inserted:

25. (1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act shall come into operation one month after the date of its passing.

(2) Section 6 and so much of the other provisions of this Act as relate to that section shall come into operation on the 1st day of January 1997.".

The effect of amendment No. 2 is that section 6, which gives power to health boards to apply for barring, protection and safety orders on behalf of persons in certain circumstances, would not come into operation until several months later than other provisions of the Bill. The operative date as proposed is not open-ended. It is set down in the amendment in definite terms as 1 January 1997. There are particular reasons as to why health boards might not be in a position to operate section 6 adequately if they were required to operate it immediately on enactment of the Bill. Considerable additional responsibilities have recently been placed on the health boards by the coming into operation of 44 sections of the Child Care Act. The training and the recruitment of staff is being proceeded with to meet those new demands. The Government is committed to implementing the Child Care Act in full this year which will involve further statutory responsibilities on the health boards. Section 6 of the Domestic Violence Bill has further financial and staffing implications for the child care services of the health boards. In addition necessary administrative arrangements will also have to be put in place so that health boards will be in a position properly to take on the new responsibilities placed upon them by section 6.

I am advised that these arrangements might not be sufficiently in place by the expected time of enactment of this Bill. The proposed amendment is designed to meet the reality of the situation for health boards, not ignore it. The interval will not be too great and I ask the House to appreciate that everything possible is being done to ensure the necessary administrative arrangements will be in place within the time frame allowed by this amendment. I ask the House to support the amendment.

Dr. Woods

We are concerned about the time scale for implementation of the Bill. It was stated in section 25 that it would come into operation one month after the date of its passing. The amendment proposes to change that and states that most of the Act will come into operation one month after its passing but section 6 and the other provisions that relate to that section shall come into operation on the first day of January 1997.

Section 6 deals with the powers of health boards to apply for certain orders where a health board becomes aware of an incident or series of incidents which, in its opinion, puts the safety or welfare of a person in doubt. This also applies to the safety of children and it is important that this section comes into operation at an early stage.

The Minister mentioned that as a result of the Child Care Act the health board will be required to arrange for staff training. Has a specified amount of money been allocated in the Estimates and is it not possible to go ahead until next year's Estimates? Is that the problem or is it a question of staff training and preparation as the Minister stated? Obviously the question of staff training must be dealt with but it is important to bring this into operation as quickly as possible particularly as these powers relate to children. Why not bring it in on 1 September? Surely that would give adequate time for preparation? There is a great deal of domestic violence, much more than people think, and much of it occurs in the period coming up to Christmas. December tends to be a peak month for domestic violence so it seems a little silly to bring it in on 1 January. It should be brought in by 1 September or 1 October. We spoke of the immediacy of the risk during the discussion on the last amendment. The risks are real and urgent.

The rest of the Bill will be implemented within a month and that is reasonable but delaying implementation of section 6 is questionable. Has money been provided for it? We know 1 January is the beginning of a new Estimates year and money will be provided then. If there is to be training it must be given this year and staff would need to be taken on board in advance. If the money has been provided for this year I appeal to the Minister to set an administrative date. We accept that health board staff need more time than one month to make arrangements but if the Minister brought in the provisions by 1 September or 1 October they would be up and running well in advance of December which is the peak month for domestic violence, as is evident from court cases.

There are 14,000 cases on file at present and that shows the extent of the problem and how important it is to deal with the issue urgently. I appeal to the Minister to bring the date forward. It would be reasonable to give a period of six or seven months to the health board. That would allow for the provisions to be put in place before the peak period at the end of the year.

Ms Keogh

I am disappointed with the amendment. I understand the Minister may be reluctant to bring in a provision for which he does not have financial backing. However, there are two aspects to be considered. When will finance be available? Can the Minister give an absolute undertaking that finance is or will be available? Why is there a delay in relation to that and to staff? I know there are difficulties with the recruitment of social workers and so on and health boards have recruited staff in Britain. I would have thought it possible to have new staff in place by September or October at the latest. It must be a question of finance and it is disappointing that the Minister does not seem to have the support of his colleagues in other Departments, particularly the Department of Finance. It is disappointing that it will be almost a year before these provisions will apply.

Will that mean a further delay? Does it mean all of the necessary resources and staff would be in place as and from 1 January 1997? Will there be further delays in the recruitment of staff? This has very grave implications for the implementation of this Bill in a very critical area. The power of the health boards in relation to orders is a critical part of this Bill as they have an immense role to play. It is very disappointing for women and children, in particular, that the health boards will be disqualified to a great extent from availing of this Bill. The Child Care Act, which was needed for a long time and has been gradually implemented, suffered from the same lack of resources. Despite the crying need for such an Act, its implementation was very slow and gradual. I am disappointed that the Minister has tabled an amendment which would delay implementation of some provisions of the Bill.

We must have a balance in this and Deputy Woods has not been unreasonable. It is reasonable to expect a lead-in period for training and so on. However, if a social worker goes through the normal recruitment process within the health boards, it is reasonable to expect him to be employed within a period of three months. Allowing for the summer months, it is reasonable to expect this aspect of the Bill to be in place by 1 September, 1996. It is very disappointing that it will not happen until next year. I object to this amendment. Will the Minister explain why it is necessary to delay this section of the Bill?

Mr. O'Dea

I agree with my colleagues on this side of the House. Deputy Keogh was anxious to know if everything would be in place and ready to start at the push of a button on 1 January. Experience has indicated that will not be the case. The power given to the health boards under this legislation to intervene in this area is a new departure. It has received a very broad welcome outside this House. Those who were particularly effusive in their comments on this new departure will, no doubt, be gravely disappointed to see that its implementation has been postponed for almost a year.

The Minister said that 44 sections of the Child Care Act have been brought into operation this year. I could give a long dissertation on how funding has failed to keep pace with even the gradual implementation of the Child Care Act. The Minister does not have to take my word for that, as every other day there are articles in newspapers pointing out the inadequacies in the system and the appalling lack of funding in this area. There has not been a genuine attempt to fund the provisions of the legislation or to keep pace with the legislative changes. We hear horror stories about social workers working out of cars, without access to even the basic technology and so on. There is not much point in passing legislation and giving people rights on paper without adequate funding to give those rights some practical effect. The Child Care Act is probably the most effective engine in any European country for the protection of children but an engine cannot travel without fuel and, unfortunately, the fuel is not being provided.

I cannot understand the Minister's logic. The Child Care Act, which is being implemented this year, deals with the protection of children. This section can also deal with the protection of children, as a child who has nobody to look after him or her can be the aggrieved party. Why is one Act which protects children to be implemented before other legislation which is equally important in the protection of children? I do not understand that logic. Some of the aggrieved children who would benefit from this section are in an equally vulnerable position because they live under a reign of terror or are uneducated and without access to the system. They cannot apply for a barring order or a protection order. They are in pretty dire situations and the health boards have to make the application on their behalf. While I understand what has been said about the recruitment of staff and so on, I can see no logical justification for putting this back for a full year.

The Minister is probably trying to err on the side of caution. However, he appreciates that domestic violence is a growing reality of Irish life. A frightening survey on the levels of domestic violence recently published, showed that it is a serious and growing phenomenon not confined to any social class — all classes, from the well heeled to the down at heel, are affected by this phenomenon.

Given that the Government is to implement the Child Care Act this year, I hope it will find sufficient funding to put it into practice in addition to putting it on the Statute Book. The target date for bringing this section into effect should be 1 September. Will the Minister look at this again as it is a critical and central part of this legislation? I know the Minister is being cautious and wants to be sure he can implement it on the date he states. However, to reassure those who will benefit from this section and those who welcomed this new departure, the implementation date should be 1 September as an indication of the Government's good intent in this area. There is not a genuine justification for putting it back to next year.

Mr. Taylor

I am well aware, as Deputy O'Dea pointed out, that, unfortunately and tragically, domestic violence is a major and increasing phenomenon in Irish life. That is the reason I am bringing in this Bill. This major legislation, which should possibly have been brought in many years ago, has many new and important remedies and provisions. One of those is the power given to the health boards under section 6 in limited and very specialised circumstances. It has an important role to play which is why I included it.

However, the Bill will not commence in its entirety on 1 January. It will commence in all respects, save the particular limited power of the health boards under section 6, one month after it is passed. All the new remedies, safety orders, powers of arrest of the Garda, the increases in jurisdiction and the other major changes will all come into operation immediately.

In many Bills when commencement comes into play, the device used is to say that the measure will commence on such date as the Minister prescribes by order. I could have done that in respect of section 6. I could have assured the House that every effort would be made to bring it in on a given date. However, I did not do that. I am giving a specific date in this amendment and no ministerial order or regulation is required. I am providing that section 6 will come into operation on 1 January next without any further ado or intervention.

Deputies Keogh and O'Dea asked if I would give an undertaking that this section will be operable on 1 January. That is specifically provided for in this amendment. The delay is proposed to ensure the necessary personnel and administrative arrangements are in place before the measure comes into operation, and I am assured by the Minister for Health that the arrangements will be in place by 1 January 1997. Rather than provide that a ministerial order will be required to bring the provision into operation, that date is specifically inserted in the Bill. All other provisions will operate one month after the date of its final passing. Negotiations are ongoing on the training and recruitment of necessary staff to operate the measure. I am sure Members will agree there is no great merit in providing a measure such as section 6 if the necessary back-up staff and administrative arrangements to put it into operation are not provided for. I want to ensure those arrangements are in place by the commencement date and that is the reason for this amendment.

The Minister for Health and the health boards are deeply committed to providing assistance to the victims of domestic violence, even in the absence of the new power in section 6. For example, approximately 90 per cent of funding for hospital facilities and women's refuges comes from health boards. Additional resources continue to be provided. In the last two years emergency accommodation has been provided in Navan, Letterkenny and Castlebar. In addition, the Minister for Health has provided more than £500,000 to meet the running costs of the new Bray women's refuge and to provide capital grants towards the development of refuges in Dublin, Kerry, Galway and Dundalk. Increased financial support has been made available for counselling and telephone help line services for victims of domestic violence.

I would ask Deputies to accept that it is necessary that section 6 come into operation contemporaneously with the availability of skilled staff, resources and arrangements necessary for it to operate in an effective manner. That is the reason for this amendment.

Dr. Woods

I differ from the Minister on this issue. These are important measures and they should be put into operation sooner than proposed. The Minister obviously has a problem with administration. He said he is making a firm commitment, and I accept that, but it is too far down the road. This section gives health boards power to apply for barring orders, protection orders and safety orders on behalf of the victims of domestic violence. That is a very special and urgently needed power. It is important that where a health board believes there is a serious risk it should be able to intervene on behalf of the victim. We must be particularly concerned to ensure these measures come into operation quickly.

The Minister could take a different approach — for example, if there is an administrative problem he could give health boards power to deal with serious risk cases immediately and cases of less serious risk could be dealt with after 1 January next. That would better meet the needs that arise. Power is being given to health boards in cases where a dependent person has been or is being assaulted, ill-treated, sexually abused or seriously neglected. There have been some horrific cases of sexual abuses in recent times. At present if a health board is aware of a case of sexual abuse it has no power to intervene. In the recent past there were cases of children who suffered extremely serious neglect but health boards did not have power to intervene. These measures are being introduced to provide such powers to health boards. Obviously there may be cases of serious risk at any time, in the next month, two months or three months, and it is important that those powers be available to health boards.

The Minister stressed that he and the Minister for Health are very concerned about and deeply committed to this matter, and we do not doubt that. People on all sides of the House are very concerned about it, but without these powers one is limited in taking action. Health boards need these powers in cases where there is a serious risk of harm or, as is stated in the Bill, assault, ill-treatment, sexual abuse or neglect.

We have no desire to delay the Bill but we are very concerned that this section should come into operation sooner than 1 January 1997. We suggested a very reasonable compromise of 1 September. That would allow sufficient time for health boards to make their holiday arrangements and be well prepared for the coming into operation of the measure at that time. The Minister should consider such a change. If the money is not available or there are other difficulties he should say so. Even if we were to provide that the section should come into operation on 1 September that would be too much of a delay given that we are dealing with a problem so serious that the health and welfare of women and children are at stake. I appeal to the Minister to bring forward from 1 January 1997 to 1 September 1996 the date for the implementation of this section.

Ms Keogh

In his opening address on Second Stage the Minister said that section 6 is a significant new provision, which it is. We must remember that services provided by health boards play a vital role in providing women, in particular, with a safe environment in which to discuss abuse. The facility provided in this section is critical and the Minister was correct to underline its significance. That is why I am disappointed about the postponement of its implementation for an inordinate time. I do not doubt the Minister's bona fides in relation to this Bill. It is good legislation although I disagree with the Minister on some aspects of it. When introducing the Bill did the Minister know that the necessary resources to implement this section would not be available? Who is responsible for that decision? Has the Minister been told by his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that the necessary resources will not be made available until 1 January 1997. If that is the case, we cannot do much about it apart from expressing our disappointment and putting pressure on the Minister to provide for the earlier implementation of this section than the date stated in the amendment. The Minister is correct in saying there is not much point in making provisions in the Bill if the necessary resources are not available to implement them. It is wrong to fudge the issue by stating that the delay relates to training and so on. It is reasonable to accept that there must be a delay in the implementation of certain provisions because of training, recruiting and so on. However, many women and children may find that their first source of succour, people providing the service under the aegis of the health boards, will not be available under section 6, and that would be tragic.

I praise the Minister for his work on the sections we dealt with. I know Women's Aid praised him for his work on this section. It stated in its submission that additional social workers should be assigned to refuges and other organisations which work with abused women as a result of the implementation of this section. This section involves financial implications, but the safety of women and children is a matter of great concern. I accept the Minister's bona fides, but he has been hamstrung by the Department of Finance regarding the implementation of this section, and he should state that openly.

Mr. Taylor

I do not want to be repetitious. It is strange that a Progressive Democrats spokesperson has advocated more expenditure and more taxation while her party leader and Finance spokesperson criticised the Government for taxing and spending on issues such as this and their spokespersons on other issues have called for more expenditure on all services. They cannot have it both ways. This matter is not a question of resources. This Bill will come into operation and the service will be available with the necessary skilled personnel and back-up facilities on 1 January 1997. For that to happen Deputies must realise that the necessary resources are being provided this year and, if they were not, it would not be possible to commence this service on 1 January 1997. The necessary resources are being provided this year because the Government considers this important. Why did successive Governments, including one of which Deputy Keogh's party was a member, not introduce a domestic violence Bill or provide the necessary resources for the health board to provide this important service? I am now introducing this Bill. This year the necessary resources are being provided and recruitment and staff training for this specialised, expert and new activity will take place. People must be trained properly to work in this sensitive and complex area. Section 6 highlights that the reality of the matter is that necessary staff will not have completed their training before 1 January 1997. I am satisfied that is the earliest possible date following consultation, not with the Minister for Finance who is not involved in this, but with the Minister for Health who has responsibility for the health boards.

The other sections of the Bill will be implemented before that date. This is a good Bill which, for the first time, will give major new protections, particularly to women and children who may be in difficulty. The new powers of arrest being given to the Garda under section 18 will be effective immediately and they will provide immediate protection in serious cases. The implementation of that section will not have to await the introduction of the new service which will be provided by the health boards on 1 January 1997.

Members will appreciate that it would have been easy for me to have inserted the provision that the commencement date would be made by order. Everybody would have been happy with that. Frequently Ministers in various Governments have inserted commencement dates and there have been long delays in the coming into operation of Acts. I am deliberately not doing that. The date is fixed and the Bill, when enacted, will come into operation automatically. I assure the House that the necessary arrangements, recruitment and training to operate this section will be in place from 1 January 1997.

Dr. Woods

The Minister said that the principal reason for the delay in introducing this section is the time required for the necessary recruitment and training of staff. If the finances are available, the necessary recruitment can proceed. The administrative point I made in the first instance is still relevant, given the upsurge in domestic violence in the latter part of the year, particularly in December. The problem is that we are locking ourselves into a particular situation. Had an earlier enforcement date been set those urgent, immediate parts could have been implemented forthwith and others phased in thereafter but we are now specifying that they will not have the relevant powers until 1 January 1977. Even if they managed to have even half the staff recruited and trained by, say, 1 September next, they could not be deployed without the relevant powers. Although I know it is not the Minister's intention, we have created that impossible position. Bearing in mind that in the meantime there may be little children put at considerable risk I am very disappointed that the administration cannot keep pace with the Minister and that the timescale specified is so long. Perhaps it would have been better if we had stipulated "not later than 1 January, 1997". We are tying the hands of the Minister and the health boards.

Mr. Taylor

It will not be ready by then. I prefer to be a realist.

Dr. Woods

The Minister could adopt an optimistic attitude and have some staff ready to be deployed. For example, if a health board had, say, even three staff ready it would be of help to them when confronted by difficult circumstances, they must decide whether they need to intervene. They will not have the power to do so before 1 January next.

Had we the opportunity to progress to Report Stage the Minister might have been in a position to improve the amendment by stipulating that this provision should come into operation after one month but not later than 1 January 1997, thus leaving scope for more efficient administration and earlier preparedness on the part of health authorities. We should also bear in mind the many people, including those returning from abroad, seeking work.

The Minister has locked himself into this position and, if we attempt to change it, he will have to revert to the Seanad. We oppose the regrettable postponement of the implementation of this very important section to 1 January 1997 which we contend is too late.

Question put and declared carried.

Amendments reported and agreed to.

Acting Chairman: (Miss Coughlan)

A message will be sent to Seanad Éireann acquainting it that the Seanad amendments have been reported.