Amendment No. 11 is related to amendment No. 10 and both may be discussed together.
SECTION 21.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 12, line 5, after "expenses" to insert ", provided the principal employer agrees any expenditure in excess of £500 per head per annum.".
I am to an extent being a spoil sport. I am worried that junketeering could be involved under trustee training. It would be attractive for people to attend conferences in nice locations around the world if a limit was not put on it. I propose that the principal employer should agree to any expenditure in excess of £500, or some other such figure, per head per annum. I am not particular about the exact amount of this limit. Amendment No. 11 proposes that the employer must permit any employee who is a trustee to take time off for the purpose of attending appropriate training.
Section 21 allows for the trustees of a scheme to pay for trustee training from its resources. This is not a mandatory provision and it is open to employers to pay for appropriate training or for some arrangement to be reached between unions, trustees and employers. I understand employers usually pay for such training. The rules of a scheme normally refer to "reasonable costs incurred by the trustees". I would be favourably disposed to considering including in paragraph 59A a reference to "reasonable costs and expenses", if this would meet the Deputy's concern.
Specifying an amount in the legislation is not a suitable method of dealing with the issue. The disclosure of information regulations will be reviewed and amended after the enactment of the Bill. Requiring in those regulations mandatory disclosure of the amounts spent on trustee training to all members of the scheme in the annual report might, in the first instance, be the best way forward. Accordingly, I am not willing to accept amendment No. 10 but I am willing to consider the inclusion of a reference to "reasonable costs and expenses".
Unless there is a misunderstanding between us on this, my impression of the amendment is that it seeks to ensure that the employer will pay for the training over a certain amount whereas, when speaking on the amendment, the Deputy implied he is trying to restrict the amount of money to be paid. My understanding of the amendment as it is currently phrased is that it would encourage companies who provide training to make sure this does not cost less than £500. This might encourage trips to Thailand or elsewhere.
Amendment No. 11 proposes an employee should be permitted to take time off during his working hours for training, which I strongly support. Most employers realise it is in their best interest to have trustees properly trained and make whatever provisions are necessary, including paid time off, to ensure this happens. However, I am advised by the Pensions Board it does not see this issue as creating any problems and does not see the need to put this arrangement on a statutory footing. I made inquiries and was told there are not any major problems in this area. I intend to keep the matter under review and if changes are required, I will introduce them in due course. However, if the system is working reasonably well, we should not seek to introduce any more regulations than are necessary.
I remember the Principal Act — the Pensions Act, 1990 — going through the House. The area of pensions is very complex, technical and specialised. Training is of greater significance for worker trustees as most other members are appointed for their expertise. It is critical for members to be adequately trained if they are to be of any value. Most workers would need substantial training — ideally university education — to be alert to the issues or to identify problems.
These two amendments conflict in their intent because one seeks to limit expenditure and the other seeks time off. There should not be any waste, but we should do everything we can to support the training of employees. Amendment No. 11 makes the situation very clear. If it is not a problem at the moment, it will not make any difference if the amendment is accepted but will clarify the situation. Training is critical for employees if their membership is to be of any value to them and the other members.
I accept the need to ensure trustees are in a position to do the jobs to which they have been appointed. They are an essential part of the system of guaranteeing the schemes are properly run, which obviously requires training. If it is brought to my attention there is a serious problem with regard to employees getting time off for that training, I will be more than happy to make the necessary amendments. However, until such time as I am shown the need for it, I would like to avoid unnecessary regulations. These matters are often best dealt with by arrangements on the shop floor, which is how I would like to leave it for the moment unless there is evidence to suggest that it should be otherwise.
The Minister said he agrees in principle with amendment No. 10 in relation to reasonable costs and expenses. Will the Minister table an appropriate amendment on that for Report Stage? There is an argument in favour of accepting amendment No. 11, apart from what people in the industry say. We have to think for ourselves about what we want. Perhaps, that could be looked at before Report Stage. I know the Minister does not disagree with it but——
I do not disagree with it. The UK Act addresses this issue but it is enormously complex. Putting provisions of that kind into legislation has many knock-on effects. It is not a simple matter. I would rather try to ensure it happens on a voluntary basis at this stage. There is, quite rightly, resistance in the industry to over-regulation, and legislating for this matter would be seen in that light. From my inquiries, I am satisfied there is no need at this point for us to legislate to provide time off for training.
Does the Minister have information from reports from unions that significant time is being given to training? He said there is no evidence of problems, but clearly there would not be problems if there was not very much training. Have questions been asked about how much time is given to training? Perhaps, the next Pensions Board report might look at that. Significant time should be given to training — it will only hit the headlines when a fund collapses.
Given the excellent legislation we have in the pensions area, there is not any risk of pension funds collapsing. I do not think the collapse of a scheme would be contingent on trustee training or the failure of one or two companies to provide training for trustees. We need to be cautious about how we express ourselves on this issue because it is easy to start a scare in relation to pensions.
I have made inquiries on this matter at various levels. I will ask the board to prepare a report on the question of trustee training so that the next time we address this issue — not on Report Stage — we will have an educated view on the state of play in regard to training. If that report shows a need to legislate for it, we will do so.
I will withdraw amendment No. 10 as the Minister has undertaken to table an amendment on Report Stage on reasonable expenses. In regard to amendment No. 11, there is a specific provision in the UK Act to protect the employee. I am acting in the employees' interest. The reaction to my amendment was from employers, so there may be some difficulty in the future. I ask the Minister to have a further look at it before Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 11 not moved.
Section 21 agreed to.
We need to set a time to resume. We have a meeting fixed for 2.30 p.m. Are the Minister and his officials willing to return at 4 o'clock?
When will we conclude?
I suggest we leave it open ended; we are making good progress.
We have a meeting scheduled for 2.30 p.m. at which the chief executive officer of the Blood Transfusion Service Board is due to attend. The meeting may not proceed if he does not attend.
Could we arrange it for 3.30 p.m.? If the meeting is delayed I do not mind waiting until 4 o'clock.
We will fix the meeting for 3.30 p.m.
The visit by the person to the meeting at 2.30 p.m. is the only item on the agenda. He may not attend.
I ask convenors to have all members in attendance at 2.30 p.m. so that we can start that meeting promptly. I hope we will then be in a position to resume consideration of this Bill at 3.30 p.m.
Regrettably I will not be able to attend the meeting at 2.30 p.m. I will arrange for one of my colleagues to attend in my place.
Sitting suspended at 1.15 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.
There have been a number of changes as regards the scheduling of meetings this afternoon. We are not trying to be difficult and we understand the Minister has a schedule for next week with which he must comply but I was informed by a member of staff that this meeting would resume at 2 p.m. next Thursday. I conveyed that information to our spokespersons and they made plans accordingly; they already had commitments for later this evening. I cannot see how it could be in order for us to proceed.
I take the Deputy's point.
We are not trying to be difficult.
I realise that. We have had an extremely difficult day. The last presentation, which was made by the Blood Transfusion Service Board, took longer than we anticipated. The nature of the discussion was such that it would have been very difficult to guillotine it. Proposals were made by staff this afternoon when it emerged that we would not be able to meet the 4 p.m. deadline which we had set. However, the proposals we came up with did not suit everybody. I understood at 5 p.m. that Deputy Walsh was still in the House and waiting for us to resume. The Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, might like to comment.
I am willing to facilitate the committee as far as I can. I was surprised when I discovered that the debate on this Bill would be interrupted by a debate on the Blood Transfusion Service Board, but I was happy to facilitate that. I made myself available all day and I can stay until 10 p.m. to conclude this Bill. The problem is that if we put back this debate to next week, we push Report Stage further away. The Bill also has to go to the Seanad. The schedule for the Bill will be disrupted if we do not conclude it this afternoon. That is the difficulty I face. Like the Opposition, those on the Government side also have busy schedules. I am anxious to conclude Committee Stage. We have made significant progress on the Bill and I understood that we would be in a position to conclude it within an hour. There are no contentious matters to be dealt with. We will return to a number of items on Report Stage. I am keen to proceed if possible.
The Chair is willing to facilitate whatever agreement is reached. I am trying to see if we can reach an accommodation.
We were supposed to resume this debate at 3.30 p.m. The discussion on the Blood Transfusion Service Board did not remain on track and that caused the difficulty this afternoon. I understand the Minister's position but a date of 1 January next is mentioned in the legislation, so we are not up against a date of 1 June. Perhaps we would deal with the Bill in one hour, but significant matters remain to be discussed which could excite the type of debate we had this morning on the first amendment.
I am not trying to be difficult; I will facilitate the committee if possible. It is not so much the implementation date as the necessity to get the Bill through both Houses. I published this Bill in December. Having allowed a number of months for consultation, because it is a complex and technical Bill, it was expected that it would be passed by the beginning of April. That has not happened for a variety of reasons, primarily the inability to find time to deal with it.
I did not fix the hearing with the Blood Transfusion Service Board and I was surprised when I saw it was slotted into the middle of this debate. I thought we would have concluded this Bill and then moved on to deal with the Blood Transfusion Service Board, but that is a matter for the committee. The pressures I am under must be taken into account. I must spent three days next week in Strasbourg on EU Presidency business and other business. I would appreciate if it were possible to deal with this today because it is important that we try to keep to a schedule.
I am also concerned that Deputies have adequate time to consider amendments before Report Stage because there have been constant complaints about not having enough time. Although we have had from December last to May to find time to deal with this Bill, it is being pushed aside. It is important legislation. While there is no urgency in relation to some sections, there is as regards the family law amendments incorporated in the Bill.
There is no point spending an hour debating the issue.
Could we take it on Tuesday? I know the Minister will be away but if there is nothing contentious in the Bill, could the Minister of State not take it? This has happened with legislation from other Departments, even the Minister's if memory serves me correctly.
I do not know if the Minister of State has commitments on Tuesday. I set aside today to deal with this Bill. As I said, I am prepared to sit here until 10 p.m., when I have something to do, but I can return at 11 p.m. to complete it if the committee is agreeable. We must go back to the Pensions Board to liaise with it about commitments we made on Committee Stage and about further amendments on Report Stage. We want to take Report Stage by the week after next. The timetable is being knocked out and, as I said, it is not my fault.
The committee decided to continue with the meeting today after the other presentation. As things stand at the moment, unless there is a decision to the contrary, we must continue with the Bill.
As I understand it we decided to reconvene at 3.30 p.m.
I do not have a note of it but my recollection was that it was suggested first that it would be 4 p.m. I suggested that if people were available at 3.30 p.m. I would be available, or if people were available at 3 p.m. I would be available then. It was also decided that we would not put a termination time on the debate but leave it open ended so we could conclude the Bill.
We decided we would continue with the Bill today. There seems to be no contrary position to that.
I do not want to be awkward but this has been very much "on the hoof" planning this afternoon which, for what seemed to be important legislation, is not appropriate. It is certainly not acceptable to this side of the House. We will be prepared to co-operate in any way we can to speed up the balance of Committee Stage and Report Stage next week or the week after. That is as far as I can go. This type of procedure is not acceptable, I therefore have to call a quorum.
We are now seeking a quorum. If in eight minutes we do not have a quorum the meeting will conclude.
Notice taken that five Members were not present; attendance counted and five Members being present,
We have a quorum now so we can resume our consideration of the Bill. We are dealing with amendments to section 22.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 12, before section 22, to insert the following new section:
"22.—Section 61 of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion of the following subsection:
‘(2) The validity of effect of any alteration in the rules of a scheme shall not be affected by the failure to register such alteration in the Register of Perpetual Funds notwithstanding any provision in the rules of the scheme requiring such registration.'.".
I wish to ensure that any amendments in the name of any Deputies who are not here are formally moved so they can be re-entered by Opposition Deputies on Report Stage if they wish. There may have been some confusion about the reassembly of this committee.
Amendment No. 12 is a technical amendment in relation to certain schemes which are registered as perpetual funds. Section 61 of the Pensions Act provides that certain sections of the Perpetual Funds Act, 1933, shall not apply to pension schemes. Section 7 of the 1933 Act provides that no alteration in the rules of a registered perpetual fund shall be valid or have any force or effect unless or until such alteration is registered in the register of perpetual funds. This section in particular is considered very inconvenient by registered pension funds as most perpetual schemes are amended on a retrospective basis whereas a registrar took the view that section 7 of the 1933 Act did not permit them to register retrospective amendments. This was the main reason that section 7 and other sections which have supplementary provisions were disapplied in the case of pension schemes.
The existing wording of section 61 solves this problem for any schemes which merely registered as perpetual funds. However, some schemes provided in their own rules that no alteration in these rules would be valid or would have effect until such time as the alteration was registered by the registrar. It is arguable therefore that in some cases a catch 22 exists where a separate provision in the rules of the scheme says that changes cannot be made unless the alteration is registered with the registrar, even though registration under section 7 is no longer possible. This amendment seeks to put the validity of any amendments to rules and schemes described above beyond any doubt.
This is a disgraceful performance. This committee is being bullied by the Minister, and I do not say that lightly. None of us had control over events this afternoon once the committee took the decision to bring in the deputation from the Blood Transfusion Service Board. It may have been tactically wrong. The Minister has said he was surprised to see a deputation from the Blood Transfusion Service Board coming in during the consideration of this legislation. Be that as it may, that is what was decided. We had difficulties getting a deputation from the board to come here in the first place and we have already received one refusal from the board.
The fact remains that as business went on this afternoon, I was of the opinion that there was an agreement that this meeting would reconvene next Thursday because I was so notified. The meeting could not reconvene on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday because the Minister would not be available, which we fully understood and accepted, but the meeting would take place on Thursday at 2 p.m. What is happening now is out of order. We had difficulty getting a quorum. If we had votes here we would have difficulty and the Government could just as easily be in difficulty as anybody else. This is Thursday evening. It is 6 p.m. and people have left. We are going through a charade. I am very unhappy about what happened this afternoon, how the agreement about this meeting was changed. That is not the way to conduct our business properly. I ask you once again, Chairman, to consider adjourning this meeting and reconvening it as early as possible when people are properly notified and when they have not left the House on the basis that this meeting was not going to take place because of the overrun with the previous deputation.
This situation is not of my making. I arranged for this day to be kept free to deal with Committee Stage of this Bill. If there is any misunderstanding anywhere along the line it is certainly not of my making. I have already explained the importance of concluding the Committee Stage. It is possible for any of the amendments which Opposition Deputies want to have re-entered on Report Stage to be facilitated in the way I have suggested. The situation is not of my creation. Deputy Flood might consider trying to convene some of his party colleagues to be here to deal with this Bill rather than seeking to obstruct it as he seems to be doing.
The point before me is that there was no formal decision. I accept that many informal suggestions were made during the afternoon and the clerk tried on a number of occasions to get agreement on the postponement but there was no formal decision to postpone. The decision was to continue today and that is the position in which the Chair finds itself. I accept what Deputy Flood said. There was much informal discussion, many suggestions were made about alternative times and dates but at the end of the day these were all informal and the formal position made this morning to continue with the Bill must stand in the absence of a formal decision to change it. The meeting can still find an accommodation and arrange to sit tomorrow, for example. I do not know whether that is possible but there would certainly be time tomorrow.
It is a more attractive proposition than what is happening now. I will have an opportunity to contact my spokespersons to ask them to attend. I understand Deputy Walsh intends to stay overnight and it might be possible for him to attend tomorrow.
Will we say 10.30 a.m. tomorrow?
I am not available tomorrow.
Is there a problem with the proposal to postpone it until next Thursday?
As I explained earlier, we are trying to keep the Bill on schedule. The legislation was published last December and we had great difficulty finding space for its Second and Committee Stages. When Committee Stage is concluded, we must discuss amendments which arose during it with the pensions board. Space must then be found for Report Stage before the Bill goes to the Seanad. Amendments to the Bill affect the Family Law Act and it will be extremely difficult to find an alternative time to deal with it. I understood from the Opposition spokespersons before we left earlier that only an hour or 90 minutes was required to conclude the Bill. This appears a reasonable time to continue today. This dilemma is not of my making. I sought to facilitate Members all along the line.
In the absence of a formal agreement not to proceed, the committee has no option but to continue.
I need time to talk to my spokespersons. The only way I can do this is to call a vote and hope I can contact them.
I am agreeable to the committee adjourning for 30 minutes so the Deputy can contact his spokespersons.
The Minister might need to contact some Government people also.
I also need to contact people.
We will suspend the meeting until 6.30 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 6.5 p.m. and resumed at 6.30 p.m.
During the suspension, I spoke to my private secretary about tomorrow's agenda and I can arrange to meet the committee from 10 a.m. until 11.30 a.m., if that suits the Members.
I want to get clarification in relation to this meeting. We suspended business from 3.30 p.m. to 4 p.m. to facilitate a meeting to discuss hepatitis C. I was contacted by the convenor at 4 o' clock to say that he had agreed with you to have this meeting rescheduled for 2 o' clock next Thursday and I made alternative arrangements on that basis. I was called back from a function which I was to attend this evening because arrangements had been made to force a continuation of this meeting. This is unsatisfactory; there must have been a breakdown in communications.
It was a difficult afternoon because we had the long awaited hearing with the Blood Transfusion Services Board. That went on longer than anticipated and because of the nature of the subject and the urgency and importance of it, it was necessary to give all Members an opportunity to have as exhaustive a discussion as possible on it. The formal decision of the meeting was that we would continue after that meeting; 3.30 p.m. and 4 o'clock were mentioned as possible times but when we eventually resumed, we were stuck with the decision we had taken. We agreed to continue.
I agree with Deputy Walsh. There were many suggestions made during the evening to see if agreement could be reached. Some of the times suggested did not suit me but I was not going to stand in the way of a meeting if an alternative agreement was reached. Eventually we continued the meeting. There was no decision not to do that. The discussions which took place about alternative suggestions were purely informal and they would need to have been put to the committee. The position now is that there is an agreement that we suspend this meeting until 10 o' clock tomorrow morning. It that is the position, someone must propose that formally for agreement.
I have no difficulty with that explanation and I understand how that could have happened. I have no problem with 2 o' clock next Thursday. I have a problem with tomorrow morning but to facilitate the Minister and the committee, and subject to agreement, Deputy Woods will move my amendments in the morning. I would be satisfied with that.
When the committee suspended, we knew that the other meeting might not happen at all or that it might be a lengthy one. We knew how important it was and how the committee had been trying to set up that meeting. My understanding was that the Chairman, with the two convenors, would arrange on our behalf when we would resume. That is what would normally happen. If you are saying that, in future when a meeting suspends in that way, we have to go through a formality, you are putting more regulation on the committee which will have to borne in mind. Our understanding was that the Chairman and the convenors would work out a suitable time for the committee and we would come back.
Deputy Walsh said he would rather be here now as he cannot be here tomorrow morning because of other arrangements he has made and he would be happy if I took his amendments. That is not right. Deputy Walsh is the Fianna Fáil spokesperson and he should be facilitated by the committee; I would be concerned if the committee did not facilitate the opposition spokesperson. We would be creating an undesirable precedent in relation to committees and to the operations of the House. While I would have no difficulty taking the amendments, it is not desirable. Deputy Walsh will be available next Thursday. We have covered 21 amendments and we have made good progress to date. There is no reason we could not finish the Bill next Thursday and, with a Bill of such importance, that is a reasonable rate of progress.
We spent half an hour discussing the possibility of meeting on Thursday but the Minister will not be available. We have exhaustively tried to get accommodation next week but it is not possible for the Minister to attend. I made other arrangements for tomorrow morning but I will follow whatever this committee decides. Are we continuing this evening or accepting the alternative arrangement for tomorrow morning? That is what we have to decide.
I am not going to continue this evening. The Chairman knows we are celebrating the seventieth anniversary of our political party tonight. My wife is waiting for me in Leinster House. There are other arrangements to be made. There is no reason for doing this evening. There is no urgency. The only element of the Bill with a time limit has been put back to 1 January 1997 by the Minister. There is no hurry. When is the Minister available next week?
We have been through all this in the Deputy's absence. I understood the Minister proposed we meet at 10 a.m. tomorrow.
I support the proposal to meet from 10 a.m. until 11.30 a.m. tomorrow. None of the confusion is of my making. I have at all times attempted to facilitate the committee. Whatever message was conveyed to the opposition parties in relation to two o' clock had not been agreed with my office. I came back here on the assumption that we were continuing with the discussion on the Bill. The implementation date of the time limit which Deputy Woods mentioned is not the only element of the Bill which is important. There are amendments relating to the Family Law Act which are urgent.
The Bill was published in December last year and I have given adequate time for consultation. Arising from amendments on Committee Stage we must refer back to various interests, including the National Pensions Board, to consider Report Stage amendments. It also must go through the Seanad. It is important that this Bill is dealt with but there is no question of railroading it through the House. By the time it completes its journey it will have taken six months, so sufficient time is being allocated.
We made good progress on the Bill this morning and I have no reason to expect that there will not be good progress on the remaining amendments and sections. When we discussed this matter earlier, I pointed out that I was not available next week for a variety of reasons and that I would not be available tomorrow. During the adjournment I checked if it would be possible to rearrange my appointments for tomorrow. I have done that and cleared a space between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. to deal with the Bill. I am being as facilitative as possible. If it is in order, I propose a meeting between 10 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. tomorrow. If I am not in order, perhaps Deputy Flaherty will propose it.
I am not finished. No Minister or Government will ride roughshod over us and if that is how committees are to be operated——
I protest that comment.
The Minister can protest but that is what is happening.
It was happening before we adjourned.
This Bill only came before the committee today. The committee was prepared to take the Bill as early as the Minister wished but it only arrived today. Do not suggest that this committee is delaying the Bill; it has already dealt with 21 sections.
I did not suggest that.
The Minister said that the time proposed for the meeting next Thursday was not agreed with his office. That is a relevant statement because it should have been agreed with the Minister's office. Likewise the meeting should be agreed with the Opposition spokesperson, otherwise the system breaks down. In this case, the Opposition spokesperson was not consulted and he is equally important. The meeting was not agreed with the Minister's office or with Deputy Walsh. I make that clear because this is where the rail-roading and pressure from the Minister's office takes place.
It has nothing to do with me. I am facilitating the committee.
I understood the Minister would be available later next week and that he would not be available on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. If the Minister is saying he will not be available on Thursday either and Deputy Walsh is not available tomorrow the best thing the committee can do is arrange a time when both the Minister and the spokesperson are available. If we depart from that system the situation in the House will become serious.
The convenors consult me when arranging meetings. Thursday next week did not suit me but the convenors said it was a suitable date so I accepted it. We must make a formal decision one way or the other.
I understand the difficulties and I accept Deputy Woods' point. None of us likes this situation. It is probably our own fault because the committee has got too busy and developed a hectic schedule. The BTSB was put on the agenda for today at the request of the Opposition. All Members were anxious for the visit — we wanted it to take place last week — but none of us anticipated that it would take so long. We anticipated an hour. At that point the convenors decided the committee would meet again at 2 p.m. but it was not clarified if the Minister would be available.
The Minister has two problems — availability of time and the urgency about the Bill in terms of finding time to get it through the various Stages. If there are inadequate arrangements for discussing the Opposition's amendments tomorrow, could Members be given a commitment that they will be facilitated on Report Stage if issues remain to be dealt with? Could we get agreement that all the amendments can be raised again on Report Stage?
I move: "That the committee meet from 10 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. tomorrow".
I second the motion.
The proposal is before the meeting.
I wish to clarify a couple of points. Deputy Flaherty said the Blood Transfusion Services Board came before the committee at the request of the Opposition. That is not accurate because all Members were keen to have the board before the committee and it was simply a question agreeing a date. We set the date but we were not really sure if the board would arrive. We know what happened.
With regard to the meeting next Thursday, I did not make it up. A document was put before me which stated 2 p.m. on Thursday and I was asked if it would be satisfactory. I indicated that it was and I understood Deputy Flaherty was also satisfied with that date. We assumed it was a satisfactory date for the Chairman because he was prepared to recommend that the meeting go ahead. On that basis we were not to reconvene this evening because the meeting did not finish until about 5.15 p.m.
I accept that everybody acted in good faith. When one tries to rearrange a meeting one must not only accommodate the Government and Opposition but also take into account the question of accommodation. Most of the committee rooms are occupied on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays so it is difficult to get a different time from that usually allocated to the committee. There is a proposal before the committee. Is an amendment proposed?
It is important that all sides are facilitated. Deputy Flaherty suggested that if amendments in the name of the Opposition spokesperson were not moved in his absence, the Minister and the procedure of the House would allow them to be re-entered on Report Stage.
Once amendments are moved they can be resubmitted for Report Stage.
The Chairman is aware that Deputies can only speak once on Report Stage. While it is a helpful suggestion it is not a good one. I move following amendment: To delete all words after "that" and insert "That the Committee will adjourn forthwith and meet again at a time and date to be agreed by the convenors and Chairman and which is acceptable to the Minister and the spokesman for the Opposition."
I second the amendment.
There are two proposals before the Committee which have been seconded. The first one is "That this Committee now adjourn and resume its consideration of the Pensions (Amendment) Bill, 1995, at 10 a.m. tomorrow, Friday 17 May". That was proposed by Deputy Flaherty and seconded by Deputy Ferris.
An amendment has been proposed by Deputy Woods and seconded by Deputy Flood. The amendment is to delete all words after "That" and insert "the Committee will adjourn forthwith and meet again at a time and date to be agreed by the convenors and the Chairman, and which is acceptable to the Minister and the spokesperson for the Opposition".
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 12.
|
Tá |
|
|
Ahern, Noel. |
McDaid, James. |
|
Brennan, Matt. |
O'Donoghue, John. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
Walsh, Joe. |
|
Keaveny, Cecilia. |
Woods, Michael. |
|
Níl |
|
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Ferris, Michael. |
|
Byrne, Eric. |
Flaherty, Mary. |
|
Costello, Joe. |
McGinley, Dinny. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
Pattison, Séamus. |
|
De Rossa, Proinsias. |
Ryan, Seán. |
|
Dukes, Alan. |
Walsh, Eamon. |
Amendment declared lost.
I now propose that the committee adjourn and resume its consideration of the Bill tomorrow, Friday, 17 May 1996, at 10 o'clock. Is that agreed?
Presumably we will conclude at 11.30 a.m.
It is open ended.
There are two other items on the agenda which we are to address tomorrow.
It is the proposal that the committee now adjourn and resume its consideration of the Bill at 10 a.m. tomorrow, and conclude at 11.30 a.m. agreed? Agreed.
We are to meet a group at 11 o'clock and another at 12 o'clock tomorrow — the Conference of Religious Superiors and Focus Ireland.
I suggest we defer the meeting with the Conference of Religious Superiors.
We will meet the group due at 12 noon and defer the other meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Select Committee adjourned at 7.15 p.m.