Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Jul 2007

Vol. 637 No. 7

Personal Injuries Assessment Board (Amendment) Bill 2007 [Seanad]: Committee and Remaining Stages.

SECTION 1.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are ruled out of order as they involve a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.

Few people challenge the Chair's rulings in respect of amendments because they are clear and obvious. In this case it is not clear because there is only a potential charge on the State.

If the Deputy lets me move on she can address these points on the section.

There is an argument to be made in support of both amendments that have been tabled. The first amendment would not involve a charge on the Exchequer because we must assume that when people go to court they will win their cases. One cannot automatically assume that they will lose. I do not understand how the Chair has reached this conclusion and I do not understand the argument.

I have been advised that this involves a potential charge on the Exchequer and that is the basis of this ruling.

Is the possibility that there might not be a charge on the Exchequer taken into consideration?

That is my understanding.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."

I think we should clarify our position on section 1 of the Bill, though the Minister has done his best to distort it.

We sought a body such as the PIAB for years and, as in the case of the small claims court, its establishment was welcomed by all sides. An efficient structure was required for dealing with personal injuries claims and the PIAB has benefited many, including 35,000 individuals who availed of its services last year. It facilitates people who would not normally pursue a personal injury claim through the courts because it is such a stressful process. With few exceptions people would prefer to be anywhere but court.

Opposition spokespersons teased out the legislation establishing the PIAB at length. We were given repeated assurances on Committee Stage that the safety net allowing people to take a case to court would be retained.

We have no choice but to repeat many of the arguments. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument for introducing the legislation. Of the 40,000 personal injury cases registered last year, 35,000 went before the PIAB and 5,000 went to court. Surely these figures demonstrate that the introduction of such draconian legislation is unnecessary. If only 5,000 of the 40,000 people who could have taken a case to court chose to do so, this legislation is redundant.

People of no means or property will be most affected by the Bill and will be deterred from taking cases to court. We should not allow those with valid cases to be dissuaded from going to court. In recent months, several high profile people pursued cases through the courts with no regard for the consequences or costs. People of no means or property will not pursue cases in the courts because they will be afraid of losing what little they have and finding themselves in debt for the rest of their lives.

Who is driving the Minister's agenda? Who asked for the amendments to be made? One sometimes finds that those who have acquired a little power want to amass more power. In this case, the PIAB is not satisfied that 35,000 cases appear before it each year and wants all personal injury cases to come before it. In acceding to this demand the Minister is undermining the constitutional protection to take a case a court. This legislation will be challenged and struck down.

The Chair's ruling on the amendment is unfair and should be reconsidered. We must assume that those who take cases to court will win and are not all fraudsters. What is the potential charge? The figure cited of €75 million is clearly calculated on the basis that the 40,000 individuals who took a case last year would all win cases in court.

The legislation is deeply flawed and unnecessary. Legislation considered necessary is sometimes found to be flawed. In this case, the Bill is unnecessary because it relates to 5,000 people who are dissatisfied with the award they receive from the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. The courts vindicated a person who took a case to court. Is information available on the number of other successful court challenges to PIAB awards? The House needs an answer to this question.

It is wrong of the Minister to twist the facts concerning our position on the PIAB. All Opposition parties voted in favour of its establishment. However, the amending legislation before us is stand-alone in nature and goes too far.

It is disingenuous of the Minister to blame the Opposition for the fact that the Bill must come before the House. That is not the case. If one examines the record of the debates on the principal legislation in 2003, it is clear the Opposition parties and then Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, engaged in a constructive dialogue on Committee Stage. The then Minister had the same legal adviser, an eminent former Attorney General, as the current Minister. We warned of problems ahead regarding access to solicitors and redress for the legal costs incurred by the claimant. We also argued it would not be possible under the Constitution to completely eliminate access to the legal framework for clients. The Minister rejected our argument but was proven wrong in the O'Brien case adjudicated on by Mr. Justice McMenamin.

Based on legal opinion we make the same case today. The Minister has the same legal adviser as his predecessor and a belt and braces approach has been taken under the new Attorney General. Our legal opinion is that the legislation is unconstitutional because it proposes to deny citizens access to certain legal rights.

The Personal Injuries Assessment Board could easily have availed of an option to have money lodged in court. I do not understand the reason it does not utilise this facility. Why does it not agree terms in court at an early stage and before most costs have been incurred? Only a small amount of costs are incurred in the early part of the legal process. The expensive phase begins once court proceedings commence. Money can be lodged in court early in the proceedings and efforts made to reach an agreement between the parties. This practice is not in evidence. Perhaps the Minister will make representations to the PIAB to determine whether this approach would speed up cases, reduce costs and benefit consumers.

The arguments made by the Fine Gael and Labour parties in 2003 were constructive and supportive of the establishment of Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which my party continues to support. While the Minister can twist and turn this fact, it remains indisputable. Legal opinion available to us suggests the Minister's approach to this matter is unconstitutional, although he is entitled to disagree. When the case made by the Minister in 2003 was tested she was proved wrong.

We hear a great deal about decreases in the cost of insurance premiums. In 2002 and 2003, every Minister referred to the events of 11 September 2001 which resulted in a 150% increase in the cost of insurance premiums. Reinsurance companies did not want to take business from general insurance companies but their profitability or investment income did not reduce substantially. The average increase was 150%, although it has reduced significantly from that level, which no economy could sustain. Employer's liability, public liability and motor premiums have also reduced.

As a former insurance broker, I understand how the system works. However, it is no good to suggest that the benefits of the savings made by Personal Injuries Assessment Board — €45 million was the figure suggested — have arrived in the pockets of consumers in terms of broad choice, more competition and reduced premia. The Financial Regulator's statistical review for 2005 suggested a 1.8% reduction in premia but in the same year there was a 26% increase in the profits of insurance companies to €418 million. I am not surprised the Minister sees nothing wrong in this. However, we need legislation on behalf of consumers so that where there are savings, the consumer gets a fair benefit, in the interests of competition.

We were promised by the then Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, that she was ready and willing to go to London at any time to bring in a new insurance company and generate increased competition. In fact, we were waiting with bated breath for the following couple of months to find out what new company was on the way to bring more competition. It never arrived. There are just four or five players in the general insurance market in Ireland. Were it not for Quinn Direct, the situation would be different. It made the major contribution towards generating competition in the Irish insurance market. I salute the efforts of the Quinn Group. Mr. Quinn put it up to those who had no stake in the country, and certainly no shareholding interests or investment intermediary interests. Quinn Direct was the basis of the competition that came to the market; it came not from outside the country but from within.

All the various promises and commitments regarding increased competition and more intense competition in the general insurance market arising from the 2003 legislation, including the commitments given by the then Minister, Deputy Harney, came to nothing. The reality is the Irish insurance market is very small; we are only the size of Manchester. We make a big deal about ourselves from time to time but there are only four or five companies prepared to do business in such a small market. When one company is able to make as much in the Irish market as the British market, we know it will be happy to continue with the cosy arrangement that is in place at present.

The Minister is intent on proceeding with the Bill and I understand the principle and logic behind that. However, there comes a time when he must ask whether it can be implemented. In the next couple of months, somebody will test this legislation. Just as we warned it was unconstitutional to proceed with the 2003 Bill, so we give the same warning in this regard. Bad law is not what we on this side of the House wish to support. The wording and framing of section 1 is not appropriate, nor is how it is likely to be implemented.

I invite Deputy Hogan to read the record of the contributions made in this debate. The points made were not just legal points. A clear sentiment emerged that was negative towards the Personal Injuries Assessment Board and suggested the board had very little or no impact, just as Deputy Hogan has done——

It was suggested what happened on 11 September 2001 was responsible for increasing costs and that there were other factors.

The Minister can misinterpret me any way he wants.

I accept that Quinn Direct is very competitive. Let us accept that the legislation to establish the PIAB, which was an Oireachtas initiative, was very successful——

——and has had a positive impact on the people of no property and no means. It is far better than the old adversarial litigation system. Let us not be qualifying and qualifying or saying: "On the one hand but also on the other..."

The Minister is the one who is qualifying.

There is a classic "Tadhg an dá thaobh" aspect emerging in this debate. Processing costs under the PIAB are on a fixed basis and are 70% cheaper than under the old litigation system. The PIAB promotes the early settlement of claims. It is open six days a week from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. By facilitating contact and the exchange of papers between the parties, it is estimated that 40% of claims are resolved before assessment by the PIAB. To date, the board has made more than 10,000 assessments. It has delivered its assessments on average 75%faster than the law courts. The average timeframe for an assessment to be made is 7.4 months from the date of consent, which is extremely favourable when compared with the 36 months under the old system.

This has freed up the courts. The number of High Court cases has reduced from more than 15,000 in 2004 to approximately 2,500 in 2006.

The Minister should introduce it.

I will come to that shortly. The estimated number of personal injury cases in the Circuit Court has fallen from 20,000 in 2004 to 5,000 in 2006. Monthly insurance cost indices produced by the Central Statistics Office show that the cost of consumers' motor insurance is now at May 1997 levels, a matter I dealt with in my closing speech on Second Stage.

Deputy Lynch referred to the numbers going to the courts. The point is that a case does not have to go to court. However, there is a difficulty. It has become known throughout the solicitors' profession that if a claimant rejects the assessment made by the board, the respondent is likely to offer, tender or lodge the same amount of the assessment when proceedings are issued. If the assessed figure is accepted at that stage, the plaintiff is entitled to have his or her costs. This in effect means the primary purpose of the 2003 Act is thwarted. Proceedings are instituted and legal costs are being needlessly incurred, and a coach and four may be driven through the legislation. This is what has opened up.

We are not in favour of that.

In addition to the full costs claimants are receiving for the litigation, they are receiving a further €1,500 for the cost of making the application to the PIAB, which the PIAB would do for €50, as Senator O'Toole articulated so eloquently in the Seanad.

The point is that people are not taking that. They are not doing it.

In one case, McGarrity v. Dublin Port, an assessment of €9,200 was declined by a claimant but was subsequently accepted after the issue of proceedings, before it went to court. The claimants’ costs were taxed at €6,120, which included a professional fee of €3,250.

That is the only case the Minister can pick out.

No, I will outline another case.

That one case is such a fig leaf, the Minister has had to repeat it in the short time we have to discuss the issue.

In the second case, an assessment of €6,678 was declined by a claimant and was subsequently accepted after the issue proceedings. The claimant's costs were taxed at €3,474.80, which included a professional fee of €1,300. Costs incurred in regard to PIAB work were not allowed as only the costs of proceedings were awarded. The assessment process was declined by the respondent in another case and subsequently settled. Some €1,500 was sought by the claimant's solicitor for PIAB work in addition to the normal professional fee.

There is no penalty for declining a PIAB assessment and later accepting the same amount after the issue of proceedings.

What of the woman who was awarded €14,000 and eventually got €40,000 in the courts?

Costs have been recovered by claimants in cases where assessments are being rejected and subsequently accepted after the issue of proceedings. Fees of €1,000 to €1,500 are being allowed by county registrars throughout the country for PIAB work in addition to the full professional fee of the proceedings.

We are aware, and PIAB has raised the issue with me, that this is becoming a widespread practice. The PIAB has independently confirmed with four county registrars that they either currently or will in the future allow costs of this magnitude. I am informed that the anomaly was exposed at a recent Law Society seminar held on 13 March 2007. It is legitimate to expect that this practice will become widespread.

How many cases are involved?

There are a number of cases. Is the Deputy suggesting we should wait for the thousands——

Of the 5,000, how many did the courts agree with?

The Deputy is missing the point. The case does not have to go to court.

That is the point I am making. The loophole is there to be exploited before the case gets to court. We are cutting off this loophole in the interests of the people of no property or no means. This is to protect the people of no property or no means to whom Deputy Lynch alluded. It is why we are moving with urgency.

I respectfully suggest that if I introduced the Bill next year and the practice became widespread, Deputies throughout the House would attack me for not moving quickly enough when I was alerted by the PIAB to the loophole that was being exploited.

So it is coming from the PIAB.

I would be attacked from all sides of the House if I had not moved on this issue. That is how politics works. I am satisfied this is a reasonable position to adopt. It is important we protect the edifice of the PIAB. It has been good for people. The practice that has emerged has the potential to undermine its work and impact on it significantly.

I have no problem with the PIAB. I simply want to articulate a view on the protection of people's rights, particularly the right of access. My words have been construed as an argument on behalf of the legal profession, which they are not.

I clarified that I accepted the Deputy's bona fides.

The people on the PIAB are eminent and competent and argue from another perspective. They have processed many cases. I have been asked to advise on awards and have told my clients that it would be difficult to better them in court. That is a professional opinion. Some insurance companies have computer systems which read medical reports and calculate the likely awards. I do not believe it is possible to computerise the calculation of a personal injury award. Two people in the same accident might sustain different injuries according to their predispositions, such as a weak back.

If a solicitor or barrister states that in his or her professional opinion €15,000 is not sufficient to compensate a person for injuries, the person will reject the award and go to court. The court may, however, award €14,999 because there are no rules for awards, apart from the books of quantum. The costs of the action are then levied against the person. The PIAB was set up for a good reason and was supported by almost everyone in the House. It has been subjected to various comments but has stood the test of time. While I understand the Minister's concerns in the situation I outlined the court would have no discretion but to impose a court order for the defendant's costs and the plaintiff would have to pay his or her costs too, despite having been professionally advised that the PIAB award was inadequate. That is one of the special circumstances covered by Deputy Lynch's amendment. That is what happened in the O'Brien case.

The PIAB has worked extremely hard, has made quick decisions and is accessible and helpful. I have made inquiries and have found it helpful in that regard. It appears insurance companies get the rub of the green because they do not pass on the benefit of their high profits to their customers. PIAB has helped to reduce premiums but was not the sole impetus behind that development.

This amendment will immutably hammer into the legislation that no discretion will be vested in a member of the Judiciary to examine the issue of costs from the perspectives I have outlined. I have no gripe against the PIAB.

I did not know about Gerard Hogan's opinion. I had my view on the matter and am glad it coincided with that of someone more eminent than me. I am astounded that section 51B subsections (1) and (2) exist. They add nothing to the Bill. Legal representation is more than advocacy. It is advice on the conduct of pleas at every step. For that reason people in the system who consider whether to accept their awards would have a legitimate right to expect their costs would be covered. I am as subject to correction as anyone else but as I understand these subsections those people no longer have that right and that applies retrospectively. That is an extraordinary proposition. The Minister is well aware of the case concerning long-stay charges in nursing homes that arose in 2005. This provision is suspect and one does not have to look back as far as the Heneghan case to realise it may be challenged.

Our job is not to act as promoters or cheerleaders for legislation. If we make valid points in the House I do not expect people to say we do so because we have particular interests. Our role is to ensure legislation is subject to detailed scrutiny, invigilation and critical analysis. Our points are bona fides, for example, that this provision may be constitutionally suspect. If so, it will be subject to judicial review. I have no special insight into this and have no personal interest in the matter. I do not have the time to even contemplate such a case but somebody will examine it. I did not know about Gerard Hogan's opinion when I read these provisions yesterday and thought they were fraught with difficulty. Gerard Hogan is an eminent constitutional lawyer.

That is the point I wish to make, maybe in a scattergun approach but we can be more focused on Committee Stage. I have no axe to grind with the Minister or anybody else but it is incumbent on me to scrutinise legislation fairly and impartially.

I found the Minister's response to the Second Stage debate entirely unconvincing. The fact that he pointed to vested interests and U-turns is indicative of the paucity in his own case. He is unable to address the points raised by Deputies Kathleen Lynch, Quinn, Penrose, Hogan and Creighton or to deal with them in a constructive manner. Accordingly, I am anxious to make a brief contribution.

My question concerns the nub of the argument. Is the PIAB on the side of the victim or biased against the claimant? Where stands the Personal Injuries Assessment Board vis-à-vis the victim? The Minister says the PIAB is the defender of victims’ rights for €50. The basis of the establishment of the PIAB in 2003 was to reduce the costs and overheads involved in personal injuries. If we take that as the sole objective, which we must, given the speech on Second Stage by the Minister’s predecessor, I must question the assertion of the Minister today that PIAB is on the side of the claimant and the victim. I question it because many claimants are unhappy.

I am a member of the Law Society but do not engage in these cases at all, being primarily a conveyancer. However, I raise the issue in the context of public policy and the entitlement of the citizen of the State to pursue an action where the person believes there is a wrong or an unfairness. The Minister is closing a resort that has been heretofore available to deal with such people's grievances. It was perfectly in order in the parent legislation of 2003 to go to court following the rejection of an assessment but the Minister, in passing today's legislation, is stacking the odds very unfairly against the victim, the claimant, the applicant and the plaintiff to the court and that is where I have a difficulty.

Lawyers and the parties involved are obliged before an action under family law to engage in counselling. The opportunity for counselling before proceeding to court is a good thing. Similarly, in the personal injuries legislation, there is an opportunity for an assessment without the need to resort to court. I accept the fact that professional costs were high and I also accept the general principle of the legislation. However, the Minister is now closing that opportunity and stacking the odds very much in favour of the PIAB. It is a group that has been, and will be, on the side of insurance companies. Being respondents to actions, insurance companies have the best legal brains available to them as well as the biggest pockets with which to engage them. The fact that insurance companies will not be devoid of legal representation in the form of the highest professional expertise available compounds the unfairness.

The Minister is now telling the victims that if they are not happy with the PIAB, they must proceed to court very much on their own. He is creating such a disincentive that it actually will not happen. He is denying the claimant the right to seek recourse to the courts, which is where we have the constitutional difficulty about which Deputy Penrose spoke. The Minister is introducing an indirect prohibition on legal representation and I agree with the well-reasoned points made by Deputy Penrose on that matter, which I will not repeat.

It is a pity there was no public consultation or committee hearings on the issue. There were no opportunities for Dáil Deputies, as elected Members, to make representations on behalf of the public or put questions to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, which has driven this legislation from start to finish and ensured the Minister moved quickly without the opportunity for public debate. It is disingenuous of him to point to the fact that the legislation was published in April. He knows, as does everybody, that there was no political debate in April or May other than on the big issue, the general election. It is nonsense to suggest there was adequate opportunity for debate.

The taking of all Stages of Bills in one day is fraught with difficulties but suits the strong arm of the ministerial Department in that it ensures there is neither adequate debate nor adequate time for amendments to be tabled. Amendments are ruled out of order at the drop of a hat, which brings this House into disrepute.

Finally, many claimants are unhappy and the level of frustration with the personal injuries process is far higher than the Minister acknowledges. By his actions today, he is further bolstering the edifice of the PIAB against the rights of the individual and I believe this measure will be struck down as constitutionally repugnant.

I have a brief question for the Minister. The new section 51B(1) provides that no legal costs shall be allowed for the making of an application to the PIAB. What is the position of that new section in the context of the judgment of Justice McMenamin in the O'Brien case on the issue of legal costs for applicants to the PIAB?

I accept from Deputy Penrose's contribution that he does not have issues with the PIAB. I welcome his comments and, as I said in my response on Second Stage, I accept his bona fides. I do not see him as approaching the subject with a vested interest at all. I understand and value the point he made but the question of the exception becoming the rule is the problem we face as we attempt to close off a loophole.

I will pose the same question to Deputies Penrose and Charles Flanagan. Why should a process that at the moment costs €50 cost €1,500? Why should we preside over that? Senator O'Toole made the point very elegantly in the other House when he asked that question. It would be the exact same service involving no additional benefits.

That is in exceptional cases.

It is not in exceptional cases. It is a loophole we must close off.

It only applies in cases where a claim is rejected.

The Minister's solution is not the way to deal with it.

As it stands, a person can reject the award from the PIAB, issue proceedings and be awarded costs.

In how many cases?

It would have happened in a number of cases to which I referred.

The number is not an issue. Does Deputy Lynch suggest I wait for another six months so that there are a couple of thousand cases costing €1,800? Should I wait 12 months for a couple of million euro to be lost needlessly?

We waited for seven years to establish the board.

It can work the other way around too.

We took part in a debate yesterday on competitiveness and on doing things efficiently in modern Ireland. The PIAB is all about that. I am getting mixed messages from the Fine Gael benches. Some say they welcome the Bill, while others, such as Deputy Charles Flanagan, say that it is pitted against the claimant.

The Minister will take whatever message he wants.

He asked if it was biased against the claimant but that is nonsense.

It is not. It seeks to provide a very good service. The old litigation service, as Deputy Charles Flanagan should know, being in the legal profession, was appalling. It was an adversarial system that lasted, in some cases, for three years which is an appalling situation for people with personal injuries. The PIAB is an effective instrument for which the Oireachtas, on all sides of both Houses, can take credit.

I thank the Minister.

It is something that has worked and has been effective. I am not saying it is perfect or that we cannot have a continual review, but we should keep a balance and perspective in our commentary. It is not about the strong arm. The new practice that is emerging is neither valid nor sustainable. Something that should cost €50 is costing €1,500; that is not a runner.

That is the only point the Minister is making.

It is simple and straightforward and people outside the House will understand it readily.

It is about controlling the price and cost of fees.

Deputy Hogan's last point does not arise in the context of the case in the Supreme Court.

It is a prohibition on the right to go to court.

I cannot comment on the case while it is before the court.

Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 50.

  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Gregory, Tony.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Kathleen.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Tom Kitt and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.
Sitting suspended at 2.10 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.
Top
Share