There have been lengthy comments. My questions and comments relate to the newly inserted section 2(1)(b). They relate to time and the fact that these provisions allow for the extension of emergency measures. It was described how we do not want to fall off a cliff edge and that there is not an indefinite pot of money. I am responding to those points raised by Government Senators. We are in an emergency and we have a window in respect of fiscal responsibilities. The European Union has introduced a suspension of fisca…

I am speaking to the section. I am speaking to it far more directly because I am speaking about financial emergency measures. The financial emergency measures, both at an EU level and in this section of the Bill, require us to be responsible. It is not responsible that we do not have stamp duty for investment funds if they are leasing back, which is notoriously bad value. According to the Business Post , it will cost €1 billion for 2,400 leased properties. We reward them for leasing. It is not a matter of them havi…

These are the measures. I am also going to speak about emergency measures.

This relates to the extension of measures to December 2021 from March 2021 and to June 2022. I am speaking on this because the fiscal rules at European level are only waived until 2023. This section is an example of how we can use that time. There are positive things in this Bill but there are also mistakes. I urge the Government to recognise and remedy that.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 25, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “ Further provision with respect to employees 558S. A rescue plan for an eligible company shall not contain provision that provides for either or both of the following— (a) a reduction in the number of employees after the date from which the rescue plan would come into effect under section 558ZB or 558ZE, as the case may be, unless this has been done by agreement with employees and their recognised trade union, save in the case of…

I thank the Minister of State. I am glad there is an employee representative in terms of the creditors group. Of course, he will be aware that many Senators have pushed for employees to be the preferred creditors in situations of company dissolution. That is really important. It may be a step further, but it is a step that may emerge in the legislation the Minister of State may bring forward in the autumn. As regards the issue of collective agreements, the concern relates to micro companies that, effectively, have …

I will be very brief. Employees and employers are not being talked about in a simplistic or polarised way. It is a matter of recognising all these elements. The Minister of State has engaged very constructively and recognised that there are issues with how we manage employees. Yes, when we look at a company we should look at the employers and the employees not in a polarised way but in a way that makes sure both are represented. I know there are great companies in which everybody has made sacrifices, and employees …

I move amendment No. 1: In page 8, line 8, after “provisions” to insert the following: ", which days shall not be before the publication of the final report of the Commission of Investigation into the National Asset Management Agency". This amendment relates to the commencement of the legislation. It suggests it would be advisable if the commencement of the Act were not sooner than the publication of the final report of the commission of investigation into the National Asset Management Agency, NAMA. The Minister wi…

There is that possibility, as the commission has sought numerous extensions. That is one of the concerns because everybody wants to see a sea change in the relationship between the State and investors, including speculative property dynamics. It is a concern to many people that many of those whose risk-taking drove the State into great risk and debt and, indeed, into the crash in 2008, seem to have emerged very successfully from it, while in many cases the public has lost out in terms of opportunities. There is a c…

I move amendment No. 2: In page 8, line 11, after “of” to insert “public”. I am conscious that many others have amendments in this grouping. The core of this amendment is "public". We are hearing many references to public land, public use of public land and public building on public land, which is what everybody wants to see. The piece that is certainly up front is the discussion on social, affordable and cost-rental housing, but the concern is that, as the Bill is currently constructed, there is a lot of provision…

I move amendment No. 3: In page 8, lines 11 and 12, to delete “housing in the State and in particular affordable and” and substitute “public and affordable housing in the State and in particular”. I will move and withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 4: In page 8, line 12, to delete “in particular”. I will move and then withdraw it.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 8, line 12, after “particular” to insert “public”. I will move and withdraw it.

I am happy to co-sign amendment No. 31 and support it. For too long we have seen Traveller accommodation not being delivered or delivered on unsuitable land. Sometimes it has been left to the end of allocation when almost every other purpose has been looked at before the land is allocated to Traveller accommodation. This is completely unacceptable. All of the things we look for in every community, including connectivity, good sanitation, access to amenities and access to education are crucial for the Traveller comm…

Is this a grouping?

Okay. I indicate my support for the amendment. We need to accelerate transition from direct provision.

I move amendment No. 8: In page 8, line 14, after “for” to insert “public”.

I will speak to my amendments. I am trying to build on the same kind of points. "Social background" is problematic language. We discussed it at great length and quite philosophically during the Affordable Housing Bill so I will not rehash that. There were concerns across the House in relation to it. The question of income was raised. I give credit to the Minister of State, Deputy Peter Burke, for accepting my amendment on diverse, sustainable communities and diverse, intergenerational and sustainable inner-city com…

I will follow up on that in relation to subsection (p). It is inherently bad value. There have been counterproductive attempts to constantly push private partnership into situations where public delivery should lead. The problem is subsection (p) is muddy and it talks about public-private collaboration in relation to private land, agency land and public land. We know public delivery of public housing on public land develops better public value in the current context. Yet the insertion of private bodies into that mi…

I have the floor so I will speak. Leasing has been appallingly bad value and it was flagged early on. Strategic housing development has not led to the desired outcome. I have been in this House over six years and have been lectured on the urgency of suspending normal planning processes and of leasing. At the same time, I have seen local authorities have their hands tied behind their back by housing Ministers who have not allowed them to purchase. They have forced them into leasing, instead of buying or building. Wi…