Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Jun 2013

Vol. 224 No. 4

Health (Amendment) Bill 2013: Committee and Remaining Stages

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, to the House.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive agreed to.
SECTION 4
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Sinn Féin is opposed to many of the sections in Part 2 of this Bill, largely connected with the adjustments to the fair deal scheme, many of which are excessively punitive and could disadvantage many patients. They could also lead to the outsourcing of functions, which we are opposed to because it is inappropriate in this context and is not in the longer-term interests of the HSE or those persons availing of the scheme. We should not be allowing such key functions to be carried out by the private sector, particularly given the staff at the disposal of the HSE. We note that workers are concerned that this will be a forerunner of privatisation.

On the scheme in general, it is not perfect but it is better than nothing. The scheme is currently run by the HSE and provides financial support for approximately 22,000 people in long-term residential care. Currently individuals contribute 80% of their income and 5% of their assets per year, fixed at a maximum of three years or 15% for their principal private residence and, in some circumstances, farm or business. However, this Bill seeks to increase the maximum proportion of a person's assets payable from 5% to 7.5% and on that basis, my party is opposed to this section.

Part 2 of the Bill provides for four amendments to the nursing home support scheme. In brief, these relate to outsourcing the HSE's functions under the scheme, abolishing the requirement to backdate State support to the commencement of the scheme for those who were in nursing home care prior to the scheme commencing, and increasing the asset contribution under the scheme from 5% to 7.5%, as mentioned by Senator Ó Clochartaigh. The programme for Government makes a commitment that a Government-wide review will be carried out to identify and eliminate non-priority programmes and outsource, where appropriate, non-critical functions. The proposed outsourcing provision will enable the HSE to outsource its functions under the scheme but does not oblige the HSE to outsource anything. However, should it be deemed appropriate or desirable in the future to outsource any elements of the scheme, this provision would facilitate that process.

As stated, there are no specific functions under consideration for outsourcing at this time.

With regard to the abolition of the backdating provision, this was originally inserted in anticipation of a large volume of applications in the initial months of the scheme. It ensured that if any backlogs occurred at that time applicants would not be disadvantaged. Only those who were in private nursing homes when the scheme commenced can have their State support backdated. This group has had almost 4 years to apply, which is more than reasonable. This amendment would not prevent anyone who has been in long-term nursing home care since before October 2009 from applying for the scheme.

It was announced in budget 2013 that the asset contribution under the scheme would be increased from 5% to 7.5%. Put simply, the funding available for services for older people is not increasing at the same rate as the population. The budget for the nursing home support scheme this year is €974 million. The State has limited resources. However, the demands being made of these resources continue to increase. The increase to the asset contribution is necessary to support the sustainability of the scheme. The increase will only apply to new entrants to the scheme after the enactment of the Bill. Anybody who is already in receipt of financial support under the scheme will not be affected by the amendment.

The scheme contains several safeguards which ensure that the person in the nursing home and his or her spouse or partner, if applicable, are adequately provided for. They are unaffected by the provisions of the Bill. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

This section is tidying up and enabling the HSE, when necessary, to be able to outsource. In a modern society and in doing business professionally, we should be able to at least remove the levers which prevent the HSE from doing things professionally and efficiently. This amendment is very important.

As the Minister of State quite correctly pointed out, people have had four years to apply for any backdating. There comes a point where one has to be sensible about things. The amendment is sensible. A period of 48 months has been available to people, which is a more than reasonable timeframe.

I welcome the commitment of the Minister of State to a continuous review of the scheme. Any good scheme is never perfect and will need to be tweaked. We could be presented with a different set of circumstances in two or three years' time and will have to react to them. It is very reasonable for an asset contribution to increase from 5% to 7.5%. Any fair-minded person or persons would have to acknowledge it is a modest increase in the overall scheme of things.

We are on section 4. I will not come to backdating until we come to the relevant section. I and those who work in the HSE do not take much comfort from the reassurances of the Minister of State that outsourcing is being introduced. The concern that we are heading towards a privatised model is very real.

I do not agree with Senator Conway that an increase from 5% to 7.5% is modest. For older people who are dependent on services like these it is a large amount to have taken from their pockets. Such people have already had enough taken from them. We will oppose the section.

Senator Ó Clochartaigh suggests this presages a privatised model. It is very important to have some sense of proportion when we debate these issues. It is not a question of introducing a privatised model. I do not accept that is the implication of what is being done. It is an enabling provision to allow the HSE, in circumstances which might arise in the future, to enter into an arrangement with a person under which that person may perform any part of its functions.

Often when we debate the public provision of health services, the extreme ends of the debate and certain commentators are inclined to think anything provided in the public sector is bad and that private sector provision is always superior. I profoundly and strongly disagree with that. Equally, there is no point in suggesting there are no circumstances in which it is prudent or efficient to have something provided in the private sector.

We have to have a sense of proportion. There are circumstances in which it makes sense. I say this as a social democrat, and somebody who believes in strong funding for public provision. We cannot say there are never circumstances in which services could prudently and efficiently be provided in the private sector. That is simply not sustainable.

The Minister of State, in fairness to him, is misconstruing my comments. The fear comes from the road down which home care has gone and the shambles it is in. In some cases older people have seen their home care times cut to a 15 minute visit per day during which somebody has to be washed and cleaned. People have seen we have gone down the private route with those types of services and are fearful of the same happening in this type of scenario. The Minister of State knows that and can understand why we are opposing the section on that basis.

I do not agree. I do not question the Senator's genuine motivation for highlighting the issues.

I dealt with a person in my constituency clinic recently who is in receipt of a reasonably good public service pension, as is his wife. His wife is currently in full-time care and he has been left with €250 per week to live on, compared to significantly more than that previously. He would prefer to see 10% or 15% of his property value taken into consideration and have money now to have a relatively decent lifestyle, while ensuring his wife is properly looked after, as she is. Unfortunately, he is suffering because the percentage is not high enough.

There have been issues with elderly care over the years and cutbacks are not appropriate. We would prefer not to have to implement them. We have to try to do our best with the meagre resources we have until such time as buoyancy returns to the economy.

I wish to comment on the call of the Minister of State for some proportionality. The language being used by my colleague and friend is the most extreme one could find. The health service is about health service provision and confidence in our health service. To say draconian cuts, privatisation and all sorts of other terrible things are happening is irresponsible. When we were in opposition we were critical of the nursing homes support scheme but are big enough to turn around and say it is one of the most successful schemes we have in the entire service. For Sinn Féin to try to plant cynical doubts in the minds of the public is irresponsible. I support the Minister of State in his call for proportionality.

I raised the structure of elderly care and the need to plan for the future on the initial Stages of the Bill. By 2021 we will need to have an additional 13,000 beds if everyone with certain disabilities or health issues are put into nursing homes. We need to work together in a more comprehensive manner. I discussed it with the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and had an Adjournment debate on it. The Irish Nursing Homes Organisation, INHO, and the INMO want a forum to be set up, comprising groups like the INHO, the INMO, those providing home care packages, HIQA, the HSE and the Department of Health.

The major complaint among these organisations is that their representatives go into the Department of Health on separate days and are never in there together. The INMO and the Irish Nursing Homes Organisation have both highlighted this matter. If either of them raises an issue with the Department, it is taken on board in a comprehensive manner. However, there is no sharing of information among the groups. This matter does not relate to developing policy or anything of that nature, it is about ticking all the boxes and ensuring that everyone is working together. There may be other groups which should also be involved.

If one considers the figures relating to the care of the elderly, by 2030, which is only 17 years hence, in excess of 900,000 members of the population will be over the age of 65. One size does not fit all and it is extremely important that we should carry out forward planning. Cognisance must be taken of that. What existed previously will not necessarily be applicable in the future and that must be taken into account in the context of the Bill. That is the reason the legislation was introduced. It may contain some provisions which I may not like but I must be a realist in the context of existing demands and also those which will arise in the next five to 15 years.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5
Question, "That section 5 stand part of the Bill", put and declared carried.
SECTION 6
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

As Sinn Féin understands it, section 6 abolishes the requirement to backdate State support to the commencement of the nursing home support scheme for those who were in nursing home care prior to that scheme commencing. That is particularly unfair. The digest to the Bill states that it is not known how many people this will affect. However, approximately 700 people are still in receipt of payments under the previous subvention scheme. This gives some indication of the overall picture and it seems a considerable number. What is being done is unjust because it places at a disadvantage those persons in care over a longer period, which is regrettable. In such circumstances, Sinn Féin will be opposing the section.

The existing nursing home support scheme provides that a person who was in nursing home care when the scheme commenced in 2009 shall have his or her State support backdated to 27 October 2009. This provision was originally inserted in anticipation of a large volume of applications in the initial months of the scheme. It ensured that if any backlogs occurred at that time, applicants would not be disadvantaged. Given that, as I pointed out earlier, the scheme has been in operation for almost four years, it is considered appropriate and not unreasonable to abolish this provision because this cohort of residents has had ample time to apply. However, the section does not preclude anyone who has been in nursing home care since prior to October 2009 from making an application in respect of the scheme.

By abolishing the provision, are we opening an avenue in respect of people who are in nursing home care and who are not fully competent in the context of providing instructions as to what should be done regarding their affairs? I was involved in a case eight years ago in respect of someone who was a ward of court and who was in nursing home care. I applied to the wards of court office to issue proceedings on behalf of that person and I received a direction from that office to the effect that while I could issue a High Court writ, I was not entitled to move proceedings forward any further. I was obliged to wait until the individual had died before I could move proceedings forward and take instructions from the executor of the estate. Have scenarios of that nature been taken into account when section 6 was drafted? I accept that I am approaching this matter from a legal standpoint but I wish to discover whether circumstances such as those to which I refer are contemplated by the section.

The Senator is a distinguished lawyer and I am sure he was well able to give the best advice to his then client.

He is the only one in the House now.

One of the things we cannot do from our position in these Houses is provide legal advice. However, I am of the view that the point the Senator raises is covered by the section. In that context and for the purposes of the scheme, a specified person - as defined in the existing legislation - is able to act on behalf of another individual. The scenario to which the Senator refers is, therefore, already contemplated within the provisions relating to the scheme. I could not possibly give a view in respect of specific individual cases.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

I think the Acting Chairman meant to say Senator Ó Clochartaigh. Perhaps it is the fact that I am wearing glasses.

Senator Cullinane would be a great deal more belligerent than me.

Section 7 amends Schedule 1 to the Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009 to increase the asset contribution from 5% to 7.5% for people who enter nursing home care after the enactment of the Bill. We are of the view that the bulk of the provisions in this part of the Bill will have considerably negative consequences for individuals who rely on them. In my opinion, they will place further financial pressure on such people and will undermine the entire premise and purpose of the scheme. As a result, Sinn Féin will be opposing the section.

The asset contribution is to be increased from 5% to 7.5% for new entrants to the scheme following the enactment of the Bill. Anyone who is already in receipt of financial support under the scheme will not be affected. The asset contribution will be capped at 22.5% - or three years in total - in the case of the principal private residence. In the case of a couple, the cap on that residence will be 11.25% where one member of the couple enters long-term nursing home care. The weekly average contribution under the nursing home support scheme is currently in the region of €280. It should be noted that the scheme contains several safeguards which ensure that both the person in the nursing home and his or her spouse or partner, if applicable, are adequately provided for. These safeguards are unaffected by the provisions of the Bill.

The points I have made deal with the issue raised by the Senator who cannot be criticised for regretting the fact that this increase is being introduced. If we were not obliged to make this change, I am sure everyone would be happy. However, it is not possible to continue to operate the scheme without amending it.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 11
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

Section 11 extends the provisions contained in section 53A of the Health Act 1970, which currently apply to certain persons in acute hospitals, to certain persons in public nursing homes. It provides that persons residing in public nursing homes may be charged based on the average cost of long-term care in such homes in situations where they do not co-operate with the application process relating to the nursing home support scheme when long-term residential care becomes appropriate to meet their needs. This section relates to the residential support service, which is being introduced under section 19 and with which we will deal later. For the intervening period, suffice it to say that what is being done is essentially supplementary to the fair deal scheme and is largely defined by who does not rather than who does qualify for it. Section 11 relates to that and to persons who do not qualify for the fair deal scheme. It is an extra lever to take money from patients. The section will largely affect those persons who are taken into respite care and who end up staying for longer than was originally envisaged. These individuals will be placed under pressure financially to participate in the nursing home support scheme when that scheme may not be appropriate in the context of meeting their needs. The Bill allows that anyone in a public nursing home in need of long-term care who has not applied to the scheme may be charged up to the full economic cost of their care, approximately €1,400 per week. In Sinn Féin's view, this is a punitive measure and we are opposed to it.

Are we dealing with the Senator's second amendment?

No. There are no amendments. We are on section 11.

I understand that but I had thought there were amendments that proposed to delete sections. I suppose I misread my instructions. I apologise.

Section 53A of the Health Act 1970 enables the HSE to charge a person in an acute setting if he or she is no longer receiving medically acute care and treatment. The charge applicable is the average cost of long-term residential care in public nursing homes. This amendment will extend the provision to public nursing homes. Where a person enters a nursing home for services other than long-term residential care, for example, respite or rehabilitation, and has subsequently been deemed by a registered medical practitioner to require long-term residential care services, the HSE may charge the person the average cost of care in public nursing homes. It is important to note that this is an enabling provision and will only apply where an individual refuses to co-operate with the application process for the nursing home support scheme. The HSE resources are limited, regrettably, and we need to ensure they are used effectively. That is the basis for these amendments.

Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 12
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

Section 12 inserts into the Health Act 1970 the new sections 53B and 53C. Section 53B is a technical amendment resulting from the repeal of section 53 of the Health Act 1970. Section 53C provides for charges to be raised for acute public inpatient services in public hospitals at a rate of €80 per day, an increase of €5 per day. We are concerned that the maximum amount can be varied by the Minister under this section. The Minister may make regulations specifying the amounts of charges and the maximum number of days within a range of seven to 15 days. The charges will apply for a period of 12 consecutive months. Clearly, the Minister can increase the maximum sums involved. Most patients in acute hospitals without medical cards are charged €75 per day as well as maintenance charges for inpatient care up to a maximum of €750 per year. This charge is to be increased to €80 per day to an €800 maximum over ten days. However, the Minister will be allowed to regulate for the maximum number of days per year in a range of seven to 15 days. If the Minister were to regulate for a 15-day maximum, it would result in a maximum charge of €1,200 per year, a significant sum.

This is, however, difficult to square with the reality of our public health services. The reality is that the Minister is imposing increased charged for shrinking public health services. The Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation has reported that an average of 79 patients each day are being placed in overcrowded and inappropriate environments on inpatient wards above the stated bed complement of those wards. That is in addition to those on trolleys and chairs in emergency departments. This is not good enough and in reality there is no justification for the Government's decision to increase charges for services that are worse than before. We are opposing the section.

Under section 53B there is provision for charges for long-term residential care services under the Nursing Home Support Scheme Act 2009. This is a technical amendment resulting from the repeal of section 53 of the Health Act to which the House has agreed. The new section 53C provides for charges to be raised for acute public inpatient services in public hospitals at a rate of €80 per day; for certain categories of people to be exempted from the charges, for example, medical card holders and others currently exempted; for the Minister for Health, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, to make regulations specifying the amounts of charges and the maximum number of days, within the range of seven to 15 days, that the charge may apply in a period of 12 consecutive months; and for the factors the Minister for Health must have regard to in making such regulations.

Under the new legislation the Oireachtas is being asked to set out clear limitations on how much and on whom the Minister for Health may impose charges for public acute inpatient services. Currently there are no limits on what the Minister for Health may charge public patients in terms of the rate and the daily charges and the number of days they can be levied. In fact, the Oireachtas is getting more control over this and creating a statutory basis for delimiting these charges. In these circumstances, I commend the amendments to the existing legislation proposed by the Government to the House.

I welcome the Minister of State to the House as always. The new section 53C(4)(b), inserted by section 12, states that "the Minister shall ensure that the amount prescribed does not exceed the amount which is 25 per cent of the average daily cost of providing acute in-patient services to a patient." Presumably that is where the €80 charge came from and the cost of €320. However, there is no number remotely near €320 in Schedule 1 although there is reference to the product being sold on for €1,122, €860 or €730 and so on. I appreciate that the Minister of State has said that this will put controls on the ability of the Minister for Health to charge, but it is the type of charging policy that is far above what is specified in the legislation. A charge of €80 is 25% of the cost but we are charging 14 times the cost. That sounds rather like exploitation, to put it mildly. The problem is that the section does not distinguish between a citizen of the country who has paid his taxes and a passing martian who has health insurance. The HSE could charge him €1,400 per day, and to say that the €80 charge is one quarter of the cost and then charge a person €1,122 sounds rather extortionate. It is a strange provision. The give-away is in the end of the explanatory memorandum. It refers to the object of raising €120 million rather than any interest in issues of efficiency or equity.

I am advised that the actual or economic cost involved is approximately of the order of €1,000 per day. We are asking that the citizen involved would make a co-payment, essentially a contribution to that cost. Under the Bill we are setting an absolute ceiling of one quarter of the cost, which will be approximately €250. That is the absolute ceiling.

I reiterate to the House that the policy of the Minister and the Government that the co-payment should be of the order of €80 per day. I am offering three figures: the economic cost of approximately €1,000 per day, the absolute ceiling set at €250 and the policy of the Minister that the cost should be set at €80. That serves to put the legislation in context. Further, there is the additional safeguard being introduced that the charges should be subject to the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

Question put and declared carried.
Sections 13 to 18, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 19
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

This is a complicated section dealing with several aspects of the residential support services scheme. Section 19 provides for the insertion in the Health Act 1970 of a series of new sections which change how the scheme is administered. It introduces a definition for residential support services as services other than outpatient, acute, inpatient or long-term residential care services provided by or on behalf of the HSE to a person residing in a hospital, convalescent home, nursing home or residential accommodation for persons with physical, sensory, mental health or intellectual disabilities and where that person's accommodation is provided by or on behalf of the HSE.

This scheme is essentially to supplement the fair deal scheme for certain categories of persons who do not, or, more correctly, will not qualify for the scheme. We are concerned about this scheme. The services that are to be provided under the residential support services scheme are in no way comprehensive enough to deal with the considerable demands for high-quality residential care and, in reality, it is rather unclear how this will work in practice. We are also of the view that this complex section could operate to the disadvantage of some who are seeking to avail of residential support services.

One of the new sections inserted by section 19, section 67C, provides that the HSE shall collect a contribution towards the cost of maintenance and accommodation from a person who is receiving residential support services if the person has previously received specified services on at least 30 days within the 12-month period ending on the day in question. It also provides that the Minister for Health, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, may make regulations specifying the amounts of the contributions required from persons or classes of persons within certain limits. This means the contributions could rise and it is not clear what the contributions would amount to. As I understand it, the section was not originally meant to form part of the Bill. Why has the Minister sought fit to insert the section now and why are there not more details on the operation of this?

We are seeing a reorganisation with regard to this area, with this scheme supplementing the fair deal scheme. However, there has been insufficient discussion on this. The Bill is separating out things that had previously been together meaning that people who were not charged will now be charged for residential support services. It is hard to understand why medical cardholders will also need to pay. This section disadvantages certain categories of people who wish to avail of residential support and will affect some of the most vulnerable in our society. The Bill heaps further pressure on people who are elderly, disabled or unwell and their families at a time when they can least afford it and therefore we oppose it.

The Bill will update and replace existing arrangements for charging for long-stay inpatient services other than acute hospital care or services covered under the fair deal nursing home support scheme. The Bill essentially continues existing arrangements for people in a range of residential settings who contribute towards the cost of their maintenance. The Bill is putting these arrangements into a modernised and simplified legal framework, which is not designed to generate any additional revenue.

When the Bill was introduced in the Seanad the following key points about this modernised framework were highlighted. There will be a continuing requirement to pay an appropriate and affordable contribution which would be in line with current long-stay charges towards the maintenance of accommodation costs to the State of providing such services. The maximum level of the current long-stay charge is just below 80% of the non-contributory State pension and the maximum contribution will remain at this level. The actual contribution will depend, as now, on the individual's income level. The exemptions that currently apply to long-stay charges will continue to apply to residential support services, maintenance and accommodation contributions. The HSE will continue to have discretion to reduce the level of contribution required to avoid undue financial hardship depending on individual circumstances, the extent to which they provide to their own maintenance and their assessed needs. These contributions will apply to all those provided with residential care by or on behalf of the HSE other than those covered by the nursing home support scheme and other acute hospital care.

Section 19 will essentially put various existing arrangements into a more simplified, modernised legal framework and there is no proposal to generate any additional revenue in that regard.

I support the Minister of State in what he is saying. While this is no criticism of the Minister of State or the Department, we need to do more long-term planning on hospital charges and elderly care. The history of this involves the 1970 legislation followed by the Supreme Court decision in 1976 which found that nursing home care came under the definition of medical care and therefore came under the jurisdiction of the medical card. We then had the Ombudsman's report in 2001 and the subsequent challenge to charges in public nursing homes and in contracted beds in private nursing homes in 2004. The fair deal system was then established in 2009. It is a very long dragged-out process of developing a structure for nursing home care.

While this legislation deals with the here and now, perhaps it is time for us to establish a 20-year plan to cover the problems that may exist in 15 or 20 years. Rather than introducing legislation when the problem arises, we should ensure we have the legislation in place before the problem arises. I am not sure we are doing that. I believe the Department should consider doing so at this stage. I envisage us revisiting the whole area of charges for nursing home care within the next five years. We need to sit down and look at it at this stage.

Question put and declared carried.
SCHEDULE 1
Question proposed: "That Schedule 1 be Schedule 1 to the Bill."

The only good part of this is that a person feeling sick should go to Swinford District Hospital. It charges €260 for a private room, €222 for a shared room and €193 for day charges. I do not know where the other charges came from. The €80 to be charged for a public bed is a quarter of the cost. Amazingly section 13(1) provides that a person who waives his or her entitlement to services as a public patient must pay what is specified here. I do not know how the figures of €1,122, €860 or €730 were arrived at. I am concerned that these will drive people away from private health insurance. A person can waive his or her rights to get a bed for €80 and could be charged up to €1,122, which is why the numbers are falling. The Department needs to address these costs. The Minister, Deputy Reilly, has eloquently said he is in favour of reducing the costs and cutting the average length of stay.

An bord snip nua claims that if we got the right range of services outside hospitals, the 12,000 acute beds could be reduced to approximately 8,000, but I see no progress in that direction. These costs are beyond most people's means and there should at least be some justification for them given that they are so large - apart from Swinford District Hospital. This is why the numbers of people with private health insurance are plummeting. Loyal and compliant taxpayers find there is a jump from €80 to the kind of numbers specified in the schedule.

I take the points the Senator has raised. The costs that are set out in the schedule are the economic costs of the provision of the service. It is not unreasonable to look at some of them and gasp. However, I am instructed they represent the economic cost of the provision of the service. Everybody is concerned about the issue, not least the Minister. Today the Minister announced the establishment of a consultative forum to involve all the insurers. There is concern across the board, including on the part of the insurers. Most importantly we need to consider the citizens and the consumer. That is the concern that preoccupies us and cost is a major issue here. Today the Minister announced the establishment of a consultative forum to address many of these concerns, involving the insurance companies under the chairmanship of Mr. Pat McLoughlin.

I cannot disagree with the tenor of much of what the Senator has said. I believe the forum will assist us to understand the parameters of what is happening with cost. Cost must be driven down. Real efforts are being made to do so but they need to be redoubled and that is the view of the Minister for Health.

I thank the Minister of State. I presume this is the same Mr. Pat McLoughlin who carried out a thorough report on local government.

If he is assisting the Minister of State, Deputy White, and the Minister, Deputy Reilly, it is to be commended and is a positive development.

Economists had hoped that competing health insurance companies would drive down the cost in the model with which the Department is closely connected, the provision of health services. The patient is too sick to do it. We have made health insurance competition impossible with the rules by which the companies are required to operate. I look forward to seeing what Mr. McLoughlin makes of it. Policy has been going wrong and we have been losing cases in the High Court here and in Europe. It must be sorted out. I assure the Minister of State of my support for all endeavours in this regard.

Question put and agreed to.
Schedules 2 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Question put: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

Senators Sean D. Barrett, John Crown and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh rose.

As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.
Question put: "That Fifth Stage be taken now."

Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

Senators Sean D. Barrett, John Crown and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh rose.

As fewer than five Members have risen I declare the question carried. In accordance with Standing Order 61 the names of the Senators dissenting will be recorded in the Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.
Question, "That the Bill do now pass", put and declared carried.

When is it proposed to sit again?

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Top
Share