Senator Bacik supports call for debate on NAMA and fees paid to legal firms, and also calls for debate on report of expert group on ABC Judgement

Order of Business

Thursday, 9 February 2012

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator O'Brien's comments in regard to the meeting with the group leaders yesterday and like him, I commend the Leader on this. It is a very useful initiative to have, effectively, a full day debate in March on the fiscal compact. I am pleased, too, that the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, will be in the House next Thursday to continue the debate of this week.

As I stated yesterday, however, this issue is one that changes by the day. By the time March comes round no doubt there will be much more to say on the fiscal compact. Given how quickly the negotiations on Greece are changing, where we see new issues raised today in that country's negotiations that we all hope will conclude and be resolved, I would essay that we will probably need a rolling debate. To have a one-day debate is probably not enough; we will need to have further debates, not only on the fiscal compact but on EU level negotiations and the future of the eurozone. This is very much an ongoing issue.

I support what was said about the Order of Business. It is very important that Senators remain for the Leader's response. That is a courtesy and as leaders we must all support it.

Yesterday some colleagues called for a debate on NAMA and the amount paid to legal firms by that body. I raised this matter some weeks ago in terms of procurement of legal and accountancy services and it is one on which we could usefully have a debate. There has been a tendency always to go for the larger firms of solicitors and accountants. We see the same with credit union receiverships. It would be worth looking at smaller firms and spreading the work more widely.

Will the Leader allow for a debate in six months' time, when we will have the report from the expert working group set up by the Government to look into how best to implement the ABC judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in December 2010? It is timely to call for that debate now because this week marks the 20th anniversary of the X case, when, in February 1992, the then Attorney General sought and obtained an injunction to prevent a 14 year old girl from leaving the country. We all know the outrage that was caused by the granting of the injunction and the change in law it brought about. However, that was 20 years ago and it is long overdue that we should legislate to implement the criteria by which the X case test should be observed and implemented. I ask the Leader that when the group reports in June the House would have a debate on that report.