On a point of order, is there any view on how long we will spend on this today and when we will take it up again?
Procedure
We will do as much as we can today and adjourn for lunch around 1 p.m., then we will resume and finish at approximately 4.30 p.m. I would prefer to finish at the end of a section rather than saying we will finish at 4.30 p.m. when we may be in the middle of a section. It will be convenient to finish a section between 4.15 p.m. and 4.45 p.m.
I want to lay down markers regarding what we are doing today and it relates to your timetable, which I take very seriously. It is legislation for which I have been pressing in this House for many years and it has taken the official part of the Government ten years to produce it. I object in the strongest fashion to taking Committee Stage today. There are 102 amendments to this extremely technical Bill and it is very important, Sir, to get it right. It is very important not to put into law something grossly defective which simply creates additional litigation rather than resolving problems. I have only seen most of these amendments today and I expect my colleagues in the other parties are in a similar position. Yesterday afternoon I got copies of the Minister's amendments. Other amendments will have to be tabled to this Bill, this morning I was still tabling amendments to it.
I had originally suggested that we should not take Committee Stage of this Bill until September but I am very concerned that it has been in circulation for less than two weeks and that the professional bodies and women's organisations have not had an opportunity to make written submissions to Members of this House. People have welcomed the general principle of the Bill without understanding the technical difficulties. We will make extremely slow progress today because when it comes to sections 1 and 2 a number of issues need to be raised. I would be extremely surprised if we complete section 2 today and I do not wish to be pushed into completing it.
I want this Bill to be successful and work in the way it is intended but I do not want technical or legal problems to remain. Therefore, it would be more satisfactory if we took Committee Stage in September. I know that the Minister's officials met members of the Law Society who expressed reservations about technical details of the Bill. Nobody is trying to obstruct it in principle. I do not know all the technical details but some of them are not addressed in the Minister's amendments, indeed some of them need to be addressed in amendments tabled by Members of this House. Second Stage was taken last Wednesday and the Bill had only been published the previous week. We now intend to take Committee Stage and we have over 100 amendments presented to us. It is unsatisfactory to proceed today but, if we do, in the interests of getting the Bill right, we should make haste slowly. We should fix no more than a couple of meetings, if necessary, before the end of July. I would much prefer if we took the rest of Committee Stage early in September. I am quite happy to set out two or three days in September to take it but people should have time to digest this Bill, its implications and the technical difficulties that will arise in the legal and conveyancing areas. We must do it in a way to ensure that the people to whom we are trying to give rights — largely women but in some instances men who do not have rights in matrimonial homes at present — will get those rights under the legislation. However, we must also ensure that we do not make serious mistakes and extend rights and circumstances which may be highly inappropriate and which the Bill does not adequately address. I hope I will be seen to raise this in a constructive — not destructive — way.
The general intention is to start today as it is an order of the Dáil that we have our first meeting today. After that the general intention is to continue consideration of it in September.
On the basis that we are taking this Bill — I presume we are — what arrangements have been made about voting procedure? Will the bell in the Seanad ring in the normal way and will votes be taken at a specific time?
Votes will be taken as they arise. If a vote is demanded we will wait until all Members are present or until eight minutes have elapsed, whichever is the sooner, then the doors will be closed in the normal way.
Will the bell ring?
No, the bell will not ring.
Would it not be more sensible to ring the bell?
There is no provision to ring the bell in committees.
Could we not create a precedent by ringing the bell? I can understand not doing so in the past when committees were held in rooms where there was no such facility but, in view of the fact that we are in the Seanad Chamber and that there is a proper system for calling Senators to vote, it is something which should be raised as it makes sense. It is unreasonable to expect somebody who might be out of the room for a few minutes to sit watching a screen on the off chance that a vote might be called. It also puts pressure on the convener.
That is a good point but, for today and for the foreseeable future, until that matter is clarified votes will be taken as they arise. For example, if we met in room G2 today there is no facility for ringing a bell.
I accept that but, on the off chance that if there is no facility today for ringing a bell, is it possible to arrange the votes at a particular time similar to what happens in the Dáil from time to time?
No, unfortunately, we are governed by orders in the Dáil and we have to proceed in that manner.
Certainly we would be happy to facilitate people. It was my understanding that when the Government set up these committees, the intention was that people would actually attend them and participate in the debate and not just appear to vote. If members of the Government do not want to hang about to vote we do not mind from our side of the House.
I resent that remark from Deputy Shatter. It is unreasonable to expect every member present now to be in a position to sit here until 4.30 p.m. with a break for lunch——
That is what the committee is about. That is why we are here.
It is not because we do not want to legislate, but for example, calls of nature might take people away.
We have to proceed in the normal way, section by section.
In relation to votes, certainly for my part and that of the Progressive Democrats if the Government are in a minority at any stage there will be no effort by anybody to play games with this Bill, because it is far too important. If anybody is concerned, we will have to be reasonable in relation to that. I expect the Minister to accept either the spirit or the substance of many of the amendments and I do not anticipate huge difficulties in relation to voting arrangements.
I support much of what Deputy Shatter said. The Bill was published less than three weeks ago and the Minister has over 70 amendments to the Bill. That confirms how technical and difficult is this legislation. Any experts in the area of conveyancing and family law generally to whom I have spoken to have all said they would need far more time, that the Government cannot expect people to come up with amendments; Second Stage was last week and it is necessary to see what the Minister is going to propose, because his officials have met with the conveyancing committee of the Law Society. For all those reasons, I was going to suggest that we would go on until about 2 p.m. today and then adjourn until September.
In 1976 the Family Home Protection Act was passed in July and major problems arose in the operation of that Act because it was rushed legislation. Although there is widespread support for the principle behind this legislation, it is very important that we get it right and that there is an opportunity for those outside this House who have considerable knowledge and expertise in this area that to make a contribution in writing, not just to the Minister but to spokespersons of other parties. I would find that very useful, because, as I said to the Minister on Second Stage, I found this one of the most difficult Bills to come to terms with because of the differences in definition between what is in the Family Home Protection Act and this Act. I would have preferred if we had consolidated the Family Home Protection Act and this legislation and have the two together, because it will lead to an enormous amount of confusion.
I suggest that we would go on until 2 p.m., that we go no further than section 3 in that time because there are many amendments, and then adjourn until some time in September.
Deputy Shatter's point should be supported. He has been looking for this Bill for a long number of years, there are a lot of technical amendments and it would be wrong to put it through in a hurried fashion. Deputy O'Hanlon has a fair point. Some Members can be members of two committees and it may happen, for instance, particularly during the recess, that those two committees will meet on the same day. There will be practical difficulties with committees particularly if Members want to speak only on certain sections of a Bill about which they have reservations. They might be otherwise happy with what the Minister has proposed. Other Parliaments in Europe have a bleep system and that should be looked at as there are going to be practical difficulties in relation to voting as the committee system evolves. A bleep system is not costly and is a very simple thing to organise.
I accept Deputy Shatter's point about us needing time to go though this very carefully and to enable other people to contribute in regard to the finer points in the Bill. We should look towards September. I have a problem in relation to the proposal that we would continue through until 2 p.m. as I have a meeting between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. which I arranged specifically to dovetail with this committee. It is extraordinary that we cannot use a bell system here to enable committees to function properly. I presume there is not an order saying that we cannot use it. If we have the facility we should be able to use it.
Members should not get unduly concerned about the large number of amendments that appear on the Order Paper, because the over-whelming majority of them are of a technical nature or are gender-proofing amendments. I accept that there are a fair number of amendments of substance too and Members may wish to put down further amendments as we proceed. I am in the hands of the committee in so far as progress is concerned, subject to one imprimatur that we require to get the Bill completed in September.
Are we going on all day?
Yes, that was decided this morning.
What of Deputy Harney's suggestion? The intention was that we would adjourn for lunch and resume immediately afterwards depending on how far we had progressed.
Should we adjourn at lunch time and meet in September for an ongoing question-and-answer session?
Bearing in mind the points made by Deputy Shatter and others that submissions from various bodies have to arrive, it has to be appreciated that from now until early September these bodies will be on holidays. Is it the intention to resume in the middle of September?
Groups, individuals or bodies who would like to deal with some of the more difficult technical areas of the Bill will have ample opportunity to communicate with the Minister and Deputies between now and the beginning of September. I do not see that as a problem. I do not want to hold up the Bill, I just want to get it right.
I appreciate that members of the committee may have arrangements made for early September and we must accommodate those arrangements, but, for my part, I am quite happy to resume the week commencing 1 September and set a date subject to that suiting other members of the committee and the Minister. We will certainly need a number of days going through Committee Stage of the Bill. I would be anxious to start that as early in September as possible. The goal of completing Committee Stage by the end of September is realisable and it is one we should aim at so that we can take Report Stage in the Dáil in early October. I want to be constructive. I would be concerned that if we start in the middle of September we would not be finished by the end of September. I presume it would not greatly matter if we went into the first week of October, but I am anxious, in the interests of having the legislation passed, that we do not take any longer than that.
The Minister said that many of the amendments are technical, but the Bill is essentially about conveyancing although the policy and principle is altruistic and based on equality. Because of its nature all amendments will be technical. This legislation has been awaited for a long time and it is only three weeks since it was published. The Family Home Protection Act, 1976 was rushed and it caused problems for practitioners. This legislation should not be rushed as it is very important to make it workable. If it does not work it will be discredited. The principle is broadly accepted but the legislation must be workable and not contested and challenged at every point because of the technicalities that the Minister is talking about. It is absolutely vital that we go slowly through it with great consideration and get it right.
It is hoped we could report back to the Dáil the first day after the summer recess and have Committee Stage completed by that date.
I share the concerns expressed about approaching this Bill carefully, because it involves significant changes to the Family Home Protection Act. There seems to be a growing consensus that we should do the body of our work in September. Indeed, the Minister agreed with that. Are we, as a committee, being asked to look at any other legislation? Is the Social Welfare Consolidation Bill going into special committee?
No, we have nothing else on our agenda.
We can devote the month of September to this?
Yes. Can we agree to adjourn for lunch at approximately 1 p.m. and resume about one hour later?
I suggest we adjourn at lunch time.
It has been suggested that we do not meet again until September. Can we get agreement on that?
This is an example of how not to work, and I am not blaming the chairman. Everyone has pencilled in certain hours for today. Deputy McManus, like myself, has an appointment between 1 p.m. and 2 p.m. and then we expected to come back here. This should have been agreed beforehand rather than coming along at this hour of the day and deciding to change the whole day because it may not suit some people to come back here in the afternoon.
It was agreed.
It suits me to come back here in the afternoon. This is crazy. I am not blaming anyone but we should have our act together on this, even if it is to have Members from each side agree beforehand that we are going to sit at certain times and get on with the business. To try to change things at 11.30 a.m. is crazy.
On a point of order, it was agreed. I consulted the Opposition convener and we discussed the matter in conjunction with the Chairman. We agreed we would break for lunch and continue up to about 4.30 p.m. and review the situation at that stage. It is only being changed here this morning by someone who did not consult with us at all.
I want to reply briefly to that. We did not know there was going to be 100 amendments to go through today. We did not know the Minister had 70 amendments to his own Bill. I do not want to waste too much time on this at this stage.
That is what the Deputy is doing.
If the Government did its business more competently there would not be 70 ministerial amendments to this Bill.
If the Deputy had consulted with us he would not be talking through his hat.
I suggest we break for lunch from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. and then go on to approximately 4.15 p.m. or 4.30 p.m. and that we meet again the first week in September.
Is that agreed?
Deputy Shatter is a self-appointed expert on this Bill. He should have known there would be many amendments to it because it is a very technical Bill.
Matrimonial Home Bill, 1993: Committee Stage.