On prevailing side: this member voted with the winning side in 88 of 640 decisive votes (6 abstentions excluded). Read it as a government-or-opposition indicator rather than a measure of influence — the figure is near 100% for members supporting the government of the day and near 0% for those opposing it.
This is the point of the site: contributions keep the party held on the day, not the one held now.
| Party | Recorded as | Contributions | Period |
|---|---|---|---|
| LAB | Labour | 970 | 2020-02-20 – 2024-11-07 |
| CC | Ceann Comhairle / Chair | 5 | 2021-11-17 – 2021-11-17 |
Membership spells on record: LAB 1983-02-23–1987-04-03 · LAB 1987-02-17–1989-05-25 · LAB 1989-06-15–1992-11-05 · LAB 1992-11-25–1997-05-15 · LAB 1997-06-06–2002-04-25 · LAB 2002-05-17–2007-04-30 · LAB 2007-05-24–2011-02-01 · LAB 2011-02-25–2016-03-09 · LAB 2016-03-10–2020-01-14 · LAB 2020-02-08–2024-11-08
I did not ask the Minister to quote the handbook. I asked if she looked at the previous memorandum for Government on judicial appointments to find the format. Normally, there would be appendices listing all suitable applicants. Why was that not done?
Is the Minister saying it is never the case and that she has looked at the previous memoranda and is telling the House that the previous memoranda circulated on the appointment of a Supreme Court judge did not include appendices listing all those who were entitled to be considered? Is that what the Minister is telling the House?
Did the Minister look at the previous memoranda?
Was the Minister aware of the existence of a previous non-statutory advisory committee set up by the previous Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, to nominate suitable people for appointment and why did she not have regard to that?
It seems to me that the Minister's contention that she alone made that decision is unbelievable. Can the Minister tell us in making that decision who else did she consult?
On this grouping of amendments, if the Long Title got any longer it would be a Bill in its own right. As to the amendment to include the United Kingdom in the current provisions of defamation, is that provision being reciprocated? Will European Union citizens have the same rights in the United Kingdom as the Government is conferring on the United Kingdom citizens here?
We had a very general debate on Second Stage. The Minister might remind us exactly of the intent behind section 12.
Regarding the amendment, because of the nature of the Second Stage debate-----
-----we had a general overview without much time to delve into the specifics of every single section. That is what we are about here. For clarity and to have it on the record, I ask the Minister of State to explain the import of the amendment to the Companies Act that is being proposed in section 12. The section states, "Part 17 of the Companies Act 2014 is to be amended by the insertion of the following Chapter after Chapter 7". Could he tell us exactly what the definitions mean?
I have two questions. One, what is the relevance of this section to Brexit? Second, what will be the situation after it is passed?
On insurance, section 46 amends the Act of 1997 by the insertion of "or to a person authorised to transact insurance business by the authority in the United Kingdom charged by law with the duty of supervising such persons" after "5 November 2002". Could the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Fleming, explain the import of that section?
The Minister is amending the definition in the Act of "proportion of carried interest derived from the relevant investment" by the substitution of "(including the State), or in the United Kingdom, of" for "(including in the State) of". Will he explain the import of that?
Is that reciprocated by the UK authorities for investments in this State? Why are we doing it?
Am I to understand that capital investment in the United Kingdom would accrue tax benefits here? Is that what the Minister of State is saying?
Would an Irish investor who wants to spend money in the United Kingdom get a tax benefit from that?
Can the Minister of State confirm that this is in conformity with the withdrawal agreement negotiated last year?
I am sorry. I believed I was listed next on this amendment.
I am listed next because the amendment is also in my name, followed by Deputy Nash.
This is an issue that Deputy Nash and I raised on Second Stage in some detail and that has been comprehensively argued by Deputy Naughten. I thank the Minister for listening. It is not related to his Department directly, but he has taken on board the trenchant and clear arguments made by Deputies across the House that this need not, and ought not, be done. I argued on Second Stage that if there was a concern about the loss of revenue from British visitors to the Irish jurisdiction being able to claim VAT refunds on…
I will begin on a positive note by thanking the Minister of State for accepting amendment No. 11. The very least we can do is review the operation of the three proposals in this section after a year and I welcome that. I also admire the Minister of State's mental dexterity in being able to argue that introducing a new high threshold will be welcomed by retailers. By that logic, if we raise the threshold to €500, they will be ecstatic because people would flock in to spend €501. The Minister of State missed his call…