SEANAD REPORT:SEANAD DEPUTY leader Ivana Bacik (Lab) called on Irish readers of the News of the Worldto boycott the paper in the light of the phone hacking revelations.

She was pleased Aer Lingus and other companies were reported to be withdrawing their advertising. It beggared belief that a newspaper could act in this way.

John Gilroy (Lab) asked that steps be taken to ascertain if such practices were happening in this country.

Martin Conway (FG) urged the leader of the House to check with Ministers that no State agencies would be advertising with this publication.

Katherine Zappone (Ind) drew an admission from Seanad leader Maurice Cummins (FG) that more time should have been allowed for the committee stage debate on the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Bill, 2011.

Ms Zappone referred to a report in The Irish Timesthat she and Jillian van Turnhout had voted with the Opposition on the passing of the committee stage. That was one way of interpreting what they had done, but their real intention had been to vote for the crucial role of the Seanad in scrutinising legislation. The truncating of the debate had prevented some members from bringing forward proposed amendments for debate.

Agreeing that the debate should not have been curtailed, Seán Barrett (Ind) said that Minister for Justice Alan Shatter had not addressed the issue of excessive legal costs.

Mr Cummins said he was putting his hand up in relation to the debate. He had thought that the time originally allowed was sufficient, but he had arrived back from another meeting just too late to propose an extension of time. He would endeavour in future to see that members had ample opportunity to have their amendments considered.

Mr Shatter said he wished to deny a suggestion that he had concealed from the House correspondence from a judge concerning the Smithwick Tribunal. He had received correspondence from the judge marked “private and confidential” and he had been concerned that that it was not appropriate that the chairman of a tribunal communicate with a Minister for Justice in this fashion.

The judge had later indicated that he had no objection to “our chain of correspondence being put in the public domain”. That chain had not concluded until the third week of June, when it was put in the public domain.

It would have been wrong of him to publish a selective versions of the exchanges, Mr Shatter contended.