Kathleen Funchion Opposes Dissolution Clause in Scheme Bill
Kathleen Funchion spoke in a debate on proposed amendments to a legislative scheme and explicitly opposed clauses that allow for the dissolution of the office and transfer of powers to the Minister. She argued such dissolution should be considered at a formal review rather than embedded in the amendments, and announced she would vote against them.
Opposition to dissolution clauses
She said she did not support the group of amendments and expressed serious discomfort with the notion of dissolving an office or agency before the scheme is fully operational, calling the proposal inappropriate given the scheme's flaws discussed in earlier debate.
Concerns about ministerial powers
Funchion warned that dissolving the office would transfer too much authority to the Minister and the Department, especially concerning any outstanding claims or legal proceedings, and that this shift of power was unacceptable without further review.
Questions about review timing and duration
She questioned the timing of statutory review arrangements, asking why a two-year review is proposed when the legislation already sets a secession date - either the fifth anniversary of establishment day or an earlier date the Minister may specify under section 6 - and argued dissolution matters should be handled at review.
Legislative details and procedural reply
In response during the debate, speakers referenced sections 5 and 6 regarding establishment and duration, noted the provision for a secession date, and outlined appointment and independence safeguards for the chief deciding officer in sections 8 and 913. Funchion said the earlier amendment debate and perceived missed opportunities influenced her decision to oppose the current amendments and to call a vote.
We publish thousands of recordings to make Irish politics transparent and resistant to manipulation. Spotted an error? Report it — together we are building a reliable archive of Irish politics.
I do not support this group of amendments, and I have a number of questions in relation to it. I know the Ministry have said that you said at committee, but I do not ever remember, and I am open to correction, that there was talk of a dissolution day and the scheme being sort of dissolved. I know it is not a scheme that is going to maybe last forever, but I am not comfortable with the fact that we are talking about, dissolution of an office as flawed as the scheme is, and then the transfer of powers over to whoever the Minister of the day is, particularly in relation to any outstanding claims or legal proceedings. We often look for reviews in legislation, and if I am remembering correctly, from committee stage, it was one thing that we did agree on that there would be a review. Would it not be more appropriate at that point to look at how the institution or the agency would be dissolved or how it would be handled? I am very uncomfortable with the fact that we are talking about dissolving an office or an agency. I cannot think of the correct word, but before this is even up and running, I am very uncomfortable. It gives too much power over to the Minister and then the Department by default in relation to deadlines. I find it difficult sometimes to talk about the technicalities of the scheme, because I feel so fundamentally against it because of everything we just discussed in the last amendment, but I definitely do not support this. I do not think that this should be in, and if there needs to be for whatever technical or legal reasons that someone can point out to me in relation to dissolving, then can that not be done at a time of review when we review the legislation? Are we not saying that we are going to review it at a two-year stage? I will not be supporting these amendments for that reason. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Deputy. Deputy, in answer to your question, the establishment of the scheme and the duration of the scheme are set up in sections 5 and 6 of the legislation, so the duration of the scheme is set out there in section 6 and it says, subject to subsection 2, the scheme shall cease to operate on the following day in this Act referred to as the secession date, when that is either the date that is the fifth anniversary of the establishment day or such date that the Minister may by order specify that is earlier than that date. There is a provision for a secession date for the scheme to actually close, and after such point that the scheme is closed, then you would have a dissolution of the office that was designed to provide and base the scheme. In terms of Deputy Sherlock, again, there are a number of sections in the legislation dealing with the establishment of the chief deciding officer. The method of appointment is set out in section 8. The chief deciding officer will be a member of the civil service, but it is important to say that their independence in terms of the functions they take place is set out clearly in legislation. If you look at section 913, it states the chief deciding officer shall be independent in the performance of the functions conferred on him or her under this Act. Whereas it is a member of the civil service, there is a clear legislative protection of the independence of the functions under this particular Act. There will be an office then established under the chief deciding officer that will undertake the various administrative roles that will be necessary to implement a scheme of this scale. We are saying that the scheme is going to wrap up within five years, is that correct? Or earlier, potentially? Can I just get clarity on that? Yes, because then why are we doing a review two years in? It just doesn't make any sense to me that we would be setting a date now or setting it in legislation as to when it will wrap up and we are supposed to be doing a review. I am sure if we do a review two years into something, it will only be at the length of five years by the time it is done, the way things operate in this place. I find it difficult to support any of this going forward, just given the nature of the debate and the last amendment as well. I think we really had an opportunity to do the right thing and unfortunately that I wasn't taken. So anyway, I am going to be calling a vote on this, just so you know.
Thank you for downloading 🙏
If you publish this material on social media, we would be very grateful if you tagged VideoParliament. It helps us reach more people and keep building a transparent archive of Irish politics.
