Seanad Éireann

Vol. 225 Wednesday, No. 3 17 July 2013

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES Seanad Éireann

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Business of Seanad ��217 Order of Business ��218 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage ��229 Special Olympics Ireland: Motion ��281 Business of Seanad �� 311 Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012: Committee and Remaining Stages�� 311 An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: Tairiscint chun Bille a chur faoi Athchúrsa ��313 Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Motion to Recommit 313 An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: An Tuar- ascáil ��318 Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Report Stage ��318 Adjournment Matters ��352

17/07/2013PPP01500Environmental Policy ��352

17/07/2013PPP01800Child Protection Issues ��354

17/07/2013RRR00250Garda Vetting Applications��357

17/07/2013SSS00300Disability Allowance Appeals ��359 SEANAD ÉIREANN

Dé Céadaoin, 17 Iúil 2013

Wednesday, 17 July 2013

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

Machnamh agus Paidir. Reflection and Prayer.

Business of Seanad

17/07/2013A00200An Cathaoirleach: I have received notice from Senator Kathryn Reilly that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to discuss the updates to the environmental impact assessment directive made by the European Parliament environment committee in terms of the inclusion of the extraction of unconventional fossil fuels.

I have also received notice from Senator Deirdre Clune of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to implement the recommendations of the sixth report of the Government’s special rapporteur on child protection relating to cyberbullying and homophobic bullying.

I have also received notice from Senator Denis Landy of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to give an update on the progress made in reducing the waiting time for Garda vetting in view of the fact that 23 staff have been deployed from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and another 31 staff from other sections of the public sector and that these staff completed their training on 15 July 2013 and are now available to tackle the unacceptably high delays of up to 14 weeks.

I have also received notice from Senator Mary Moran of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to address the long delays in the processing of disability allowance payments.

I have also received notice from Senator Lorraine Higgins of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to 217 Seanad Éireann initiate a direct construction programme for local authority houses in County Galway.

I regard the matters raised by Senators Reilly, Clune, Landy and Moran as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. Senator Higgins may give notice on another day of the matter she wishes to raise.

Order of Business

17/07/2013A00400Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business shall be No. 1, Protection of Life Dur- ing Pregnancy Bill 2013 - Committee Stage, to be taken on the conclusion of the Order of Busi- ness and to adjourn no later than 4 p.m.; Private Members’ Business to be taken at 4.30 p.m. and to conclude no later than 6.30 p.m.; No. 2, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012 - Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken at 6.30 p.m. and to conclude no later than 7 p.m.; No. 3, Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 — Report Stage, to be taken at 7 p.m. and to adjourn at 10 p.m. if not previously concluded. I congratulate Senator John Gilroy on his book, A Cry in the Morning, which is being launched at 7 p.m. today. He has informed me that everybody is invited to the launch.

17/07/2013B00200Senator Denis O’Donovan: I, too, congratulate Senator John Gilroy and hope to be able to attend the launch, subject to the proceedings of the House. I wish him well and commend him for his efforts.

We are giving a commitment that we will not oppose the Order of Business, even though we may wish to do so, because we have a full programme of legislation before us which may run until midnight. It will be an extremely long and busy day. I hope the debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 will be reasoned and tempered and expect no less from this House.

I am deeply concerned about the Government’s attitude towards the health service across the country. Yesterday we heard about cutbacks in mental health services. This House has discussed suicide and other important issues. Any cutback to mental health funding is a back- wards step and should be resisted. We will return next term with all guns blazing on cutbacks in mental health services and other areas of the health service. I am particularly concerned about the reports that have been acknowledged by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. It is a frightening statistic that only ten out of 109 public nursing homes meet the new standards set out by HIQA. The Minister of State has acknowledged that it will cost several hundred million euro to rectify the problem. People like Eamon Timmins of Age Action Ireland have called on the Government to ensure HIQA standards are complied with by the 2015 deadline. I urge the Government to act with urgency on this issue. The patients in these nursing homes are primarily elderly. Some are in their 80s or 90s. There was a situation recently in my own area where a small home run by a geriatric association was closed and its 11 elderly occupants faced terrible inconvenience as the health board went about the almost impossible task of finding new accommodation for them. It is appalling that the Govern- ment failed to make provision in the last two budgets to make a start on this task. The Minister of State has suggested no home will close, but if they do not meet the standards laid down, will we be running a two tier system? Are the standards for private nursing homes at higher than those applying to public homes? That would be an appalling vista. I urge the Leader to arrange 218 17 July 2013 a specific debate in the next term on elderly care and the nursing home debacle. If money has to be spent to ensure the elderly are treated fairly and properly, we must spend it. I am putting the Leader on notice that the issue will be top of our agenda when we return in September. We will be forcing vote after vote on the issue until such time as the Minister of State assures the elderly that they will have a safe home and a proper place in which to live out the rest of their days.

17/07/2013B00300Senator Mary Moran: I support Senator Denis O’Donovan’s call for a debate at the earli- est opportunity in the new term on the issue of elder care and mental health services. The programme for Government pledged to take up the cause of people with mental health issues and to do all we could in this regard. It is only right and proper that we reflect on where we are and how best we can make progress.

I join in the congratulations to Senator John Gilroy on the launch of his book. He has put a lot of work into it and deserves great credit for it. I wish him all the best with his endeavours.

I refer to the issue of the Magdalen laundries and the refusal of the four religious orders to contribute to the compensation fund, as was announced yesterday. I find it extremely disappointing and insulting to the victims of the laundries. As someone who attended a convent school run by one of the religious orders in question, I am deeply disappointed. It is shameful that they have decided their only co-operation will be to provide information, records and care for people who were in their care. This decision is a huge setback. The Government tackled the issue of the Magdalen laundries for the first time and the apology given in the Dáil by the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste represented a great day for politics, but we need to do more. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, said on radio this morning that there was no way of insisting on them paying up. I ask the religious orders to reflect on their decision and do the moral thing. I do not think this compensation should be pushed onto the taxpayer. It would be a great day if the religious orders admitted their guilt. Their response has been extremely disappointing. While they have co-operated with the McAleese commission and made progress in respect of the Quirke report, their decision is deeply distressing. I ask that the issue be raised with the relevant Ministers in order that they will put their heads together to get the congregations to pay what rightfully belongs to the survivors of the Magdalen laundries.

17/07/2013B00400Senator David Norris: I would like to raise two questions with the Leader. First, Stand- ing Orders and procedures of the House have not kept up with modern technology. I say this because of mobile phones. To my great embarrassment, my mobile phone has gone off on one or two occasions recently, for which I apologise. I have the simplest of mobile phones. I was offered an upgrade, but I asked for a downgrade because I wanted to have the simplest mobile phone. I have what is called a builder’s phone - one can drop it into cement - but I still have difficulties switching it off. I am going to leave it in my office and anybody who wants to contact me can leave a message. It is very undignified that practically every person in this House - I will not name and shame them - from the highest office to the newest backbencher is twittering and tweeting from the Chamber when he or she should be attending to our business. It is disrespectful to the House and also dangerous because these accounts are hooked into newspaper links and so on and calculated for grandstanding. I suggest the Leader, in co-operation with the Cathaoirleach, consider a ban on mobile phones. We should be required to leave them outside. In the 1920s and 1930s, when Fianna Fáil first joined the Dáil -----

17/07/2013B00500An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, of which the Senator is a member.

219 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013B00600Senator David Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach for his advice. In those days Fianna Fáil Deputies agreed to leave their guns outside. In the same way, we should ask Members to leave their mobile phones outside.

I ask the Leader to contact the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to get a clear indication on whether the national bus service and private bus operators are required to ensure their vehicles pass something equivalent to the national car test. I was told several years ago that they were so required, but that appears not to be true. Every day I am behind CIE buses, tour buses and various other private vehicles that are belching black diesel smoke. I will give the Leader an example. The 25A bus in Nassau Street, registration number 03 D 20294, was pouring out these kinds of fumes. It is not right, particularly in this hot weather, that we should have buses that are not serviced and that are emitting carcinogenic material into the atmosphere.

17/07/2013C00200Senator Cáit Keane: I congratulate Senator Gilroy, who has left the Chamber, on the launch of his book. I, too, want to raise the issue of the nuns refusing to contribute to the fund for the Magdalen survivors. I was amazed that they made that decision. I call for a debate in the House to find out who made the decision, because from my experience of the Sisters of Charity - they have the right name - the Daughters of Charity and the Mercy nuns, I do not believe they as a congregation would have made such a decision. We have had lectures from the Pope, the bishops and others on morals and ethics in terms of what we should and should not do. I call on the religious orders to have regard for morals and ethics and to re-examine this matter to see what they are doing to the Magdalen survivors. They are not doing them a service. They did them a disservice years ago and what they are doing now is slapping those women in the face. I cannot find the words to express the view that they are not doing their moral and ethical duty. The Minister’s hands are tied. He cannot compel them to do that.

Senator Moran asked that the Ministers put their heads together on this matter. There is enough brainpower in this Seanad to allow us put our heads together and come up with some ideas. I am asking for a speedy debate. One in Four has asked us to make representations to the Pope. I was a member of a group called Separation of Church and State over 15 years ago. I will not make a representation to the Pope. He should look after his church and enforce moral and ethical standards. Those of us in this House will look after our own moral and ethical standards, which I hope we can uphold. I call for a speedy debate on how we can assist the sisters in making the decision I am sure the majority of them would like to make, namely, to meet their obligations.

17/07/2013C00300Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: The Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, took certain measures yesterday to ensure the integrity and the security of the national monument at Moore Street. As we know, this area is closely associated with the 1916 Rising. It was there that the leaders signed the final surrender. It is certainly one of the most historical sites in Ireland. I was glad to hear the Minister state that we owe it to the descendants of the men and women of 1916 to ensure this area is properly developed. As I interpret what the Minister has done, it appears he is thinking beyond the buildings, which is correct, and looking at this as a total battle site, which is the right way to deal with it in a historical context, but anyone who has looked inside these buildings will know that they are dilapidated. They are shocking. They are close to falling, and we are within three years of 2016, when we will celebrate the centenary of the 1916 Rising. This area will be a focal point at that time. I support the Minister in the efforts he is making. I know that when it comes to heritage there are complexi- ties involved between the State and Dublin City Council. It would be welcome if the Leader would consider inviting the Minister into the House to outline specifically what he has in mind. 220 17 July 2013 The Cathaoirleach might remember that in a previous debate we had direct descendants of the seven signatories present in the Visitors’ Gallery, and there was a great sense of history. There was unanimity on the floor of the House that this matter should be treated urgently. It might be worthwhile if the Minister would consider assembling a group of people representative of his Department, Dublin City Council, the relatives, the 1916 committee and so on. I do not want to see this issue drifting on, and clarity should be provided. I am pleased that it is the Minister, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, who is handling this because he is showing that he is prag- matic and idealistic and is treating this in an urgent manner but I would hate to think of arriving at 2016 with some of those buildings having fallen. I do not know if there is any hope of having a debate before the summer recess but I ask the Leader to invite the Minister to the House as soon as possible to allow us have some dialogue with him on this matter.

17/07/2013C00400Senator Aideen Hayden: I too want to congratulate my colleague, Senator John Gilroy, on the publication of his book, A Cry in the Morning. I hope we will see many colleagues help him celebrate the launch this evening.

I also want to commend our colleague, Senator Sean Barrett, and other Members of the House on a robust debate yesterday on the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2013, in which Senator Barrett proposed an amendment to the Bill to assist tenants living in the private rented sector where rented properties are being repossessed. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, generously offered to give the matter his consideration and revert to Senator Barrett and to the House. That is a welcome development.

I raise the issue of the findings of an inquest on a 15-month-old child who fell to her death from the sixth storey of an apartment block in Phibsborough and the comments of the Dublin Coroner, Brian Farrell, who pointed out that this was the third or fourth such incident over which he has had to preside. Just last week a two-year-old boy fell from the second floor of an apartment building in Tallaght. It is a serious matter. In 2006, 78% of all buildings that were built in the urban area of Dublin were apartment blocks. For reasons to do with the economy and the fact that many people in receipt of social welfare are living in apartment blocks, including people with children, there is a real issue about the safety of children in those apartment blocks. I ask the Leader for a debate with the Minister of State at the Department of the En- vironment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, about the prospect of retrofitting some of these apartment developments with facilities for families with children, including everything from the safety of the windows and balconies to the provision of play areas, which in many of these apartment developments are lacking in their entirety. It is an important matter in terms of the way people have to live their lives.

17/07/2013C00500Senator Terry Leyden: I ask the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins, to consider having a debate in the autumn to assess the phenomenal success of The Gathering, which is being promoted by the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Michael Ring, the Minister, Deputy Leo Varadkar, and Jim Miley, who is the organiser and chairman of the committee. Events have been held during the summer throughout Ireland and they will continue into the autumn. In my parish of Fuerty-Castlecoote, a very successful gathering was held last weekend of three schools that had been amalgamated into one, which was attended by all the families. It was a wonderful weekend. It was commercially successful for the area, and great community spirit was shown. I congratulate all involved, including the chairperson, the committee members and all the volunteers who worked over the entire weekend. It was real community spirit in Castlecoote, the most beautiful town in Ireland. We would like to discuss with the Minister in a debate in the autumn what will happen next year 221 Seanad Éireann and beyond. Senator Ó Murchú referred to the phenomenally important year of 2016, which will mark 100 years since the Easter Rising. Events will be held in every town and village in Ireland to commemorate that successful, courageous event in 1916.

I will suggest to the Minister at that stage that the Minister of State, Deputy Ring, be appointed to eliminate red tape in this country. We should try to create jobs and not to be inhibited by the type of red tape with which we are faced. I will give the Leader one example of that. Last weekend, we wanted to have a barn dance in the village and we could not have it without a licence to dance. In Ireland, it is like getting a licence to drink Guinness.

17/07/2013D00200Senator Paul Coghlan: Was there a pub open?

17/07/2013D00300Senator Terry Leyden: We are known for dancing at the crossroads, but the crossroads dance today is illegal because of the red tape. That is a minor example of what is happening. Another example concerns legislation introduced some years ago about having children in hotels during the summer. In any other country in the world, such as Spain, it is different. If there were some way of dispensing with details over the course of June to September, it would enhance the economy.

17/07/2013D00400An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Leyden looking for a debate on the issue?

17/07/2013D00500Senator Terry Leyden: In the autumn, when people can assess the success of The Gather- ing, which has been successful to date, we can look to the future. Tourism is one of the most important businesses in the country and it can create hundreds of thousands of jobs in property development. I compliment the Minister.

17/07/2013D00600Senator Paul Coghlan: I join colleagues in wishing Senator John Gilroy every success with his book launch this evening. Hopefully, sales will take off. I am looking forward to ob- taining a copy and reading it.

17/07/2013D00700An Cathaoirleach: Purchasing a copy, Senator.

17/07/2013D00800Senator Paul Coghlan: Obviously, yes, that goes without saying. I genuinely wish him well and I have discussed it with him already. I will discuss something with the Cathaoirleach that he might be interested in.

17/07/2013D00900An Cathaoirleach: Does Senator Coghlan have a question for the Leader?

17/07/2013D01000Senator Paul Coghlan: I join Senator Ó Murchú in his remarks about the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, and the so-called battle site on Moore Street. The Minister has handled it very sensitively but I am fearful of the part of the proposal involving a committee. It could become a talking shop, which is unnecessary at this stage. I would rather people such as the Senator talked to the Minister, who will always receive Senator Ó Murchú, and his fears could be allayed. The Minister means well, as I know from talking to him about it. In early course in the autumn, the Leader could invite the Minister to the House to give us an overview and an update.

17/07/2013D01100Senator Sean D. Barrett: I join in the compliments to Senator Gilroy on the event of his book launch. We had another distinguished author in the House yesterday, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and they are both in the tradition of W. B. Yeats, so we are expecting Nobel prizes from the Minister and Senator.

222 17 July 2013 The very good news from the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, was his interest in the views of Senators from all sides of the House on the rights of tenants when a landlord becomes insolvent. He is open to the idea and will discuss it with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, Members of the House, New Beginning, Threshold and FLAC. There are some 150,000 buy-to-let mortgages, of which 30,000 are at risk. Some financial institutions think they can have vacant possession so we are almost back to the Land League, with its tenets of fair rent, fixity of tenure and free sale. The Minister was most receptive to what the House was saying and this is a point we should take up and run with in the interests of the 30,000 people who may be put out of their houses by the financial receivers where it is their principal private residence. We must develop a housing market in which the rented sector is much bigger than owner occupancy, which had rights, was in the past. The Minister’s offer should be availed of by all Members of the House to assist those in an era when some financial institutions are contemplating evictions and repossessions.

17/07/2013D01200Senator Lorraine Higgins: I join in the chorus of congratulations to my colleague, Senator John Gilroy, on the publication of his book. I look forward to attending the event this evening and purchasing a copy, and to reading not only fifty shades of Shatter during my August holi- days but also Senator Gilroy’s publication.

I refer to a matter highlighted in a weekend newspaper. A leading psychiatrist has taken it upon himself to write to the banks on behalf of vulnerable people telling them he will hold them responsible in the event of a patient’s suicide. It is ridiculous in this day and age that we must rely on a psychiatrist to take matters upon himself when a criminal law provision must be enforced and convictions secured in order to uphold people’s basic rights in circumstances in which banks and creditors are pressuring people. Section 11 of the Non-Fatal Offences against the Person Act 1997 provides:

A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if—

(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation

The provision has been used sparingly. Between 2003 and 2010, only one conviction was secured under the section. It shows a major failing given that the purpose of the Act is to protect people from being harassed and from distress being caused to them as a result of debts they have accrued. The banks and creditors have a right to go to court and secure judgments against people who cannot pay their debts. However, they do not have a right to destroy the lives of people and their families every day by exerting pressure. We seem to be shy about enforcing the law in Ireland. It was heartening to read how the Royal Bank of Scotland in the UK was deemed to have harassed a customer for having made more than 500 phone calls to her. The High Court in England demanded that the Royal Bank Of Scotland pay over £7,500 in compensation to the individual. I am sure there are many untold stories and on that basis I ask that the Minister for Justice and Equality come to the House to discuss this section of the legislation and the need for more convictions to be secured under it.

17/07/2013D01300Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Tacaím le cuid mhaith den mhéid a bhí á rá ag an Se- anadóir Ó Murchú maidir le Sráid Uí Mhórdha. What is important on the issue of Moore Street is that the Minister, as indicated yesterday, meet with the 1916 relatives’ group as soon as possible to discuss the development of the site in an appropriate manner. It will also bring to the attention of the Minister that there is another ionad in Connemara, Teach an Phiarsaigh, in Ros- 223 Seanad Éireann muc, that has plans for an interpretive centre. The Government indicated it would develop it but at present it is quite unsure what will happen. I hope it will be followed up with as much vigour.

On the issue of the Magdalen laundries, it is important the Minister clarify what the Govern- ment will do to ensure the women who have suffered in the laundries get redress. I appreciate the disappointment of the Minister on the announcement yesterday but the issue is that institutions must be held to account. The Taoiseach made a well-received apology, which was right, but the women of the Magdalen laundries deserve redress, as do people from Bethany Home and those who suffered from symphysiotomy procedures.

I congratulate Senator Martin Conway, who chaired a very important presentation in the AV room on the strategic framework for vision health. This showed we are heading into a major dilemma as regards the number of people who will need support because of failing vision. I refer to the cost that may be incurred by the State and how that may be alleviated, with lives made much better, by implementing a strategy sooner rather than later. I call for debate in the early autumn on the area of the strategic framework for vision health, which would save the State money and do a lot of good for people who have visual impairment.

17/07/2013D01400An Cathaoirleach: Before calling Senator Healy Eames, I welcome a distinguished former Member of the House to the Visitors’ Gallery, Mary Jackman from Limerick.

17/07/2013D01500Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I was struck by the warning the psychiatrist gave that he would write to banks about clients of his who are threatening suicide because of the unrelenting pressure banks are putting on them. As we have learned quite well over the past few months, psychiatrists assess risk. In this House, we have seen how seriously we have taken the risk of suicide. We have taken it so seriously that we believe it warrants abortion. Let us take the threat of suicide very seriously in every context. I ask the Minister for Justice and Equality to apply the same empathy to people under a threat of suicide or at risk of suicide when it comes to the repossession of their family homes, because that, for many, is their complete dignity.

I join my colleagues in congratulating Senator Gilroy on the new book he is launching this evening, A Cry in the Morning. It is always wonderful to write a book. It is not done every day and, therefore, I congratulate the Senator and wish him every success.

The Order Paper suggests the wording for the referendum on the abolition of the Seanad will be very long. Could the Leader confirm what will be on the ballot paper? While an explanation is important, I believe that if the wording is too long, it can serve to confuse and may mean people will decide not to vote at all.

17/07/2013E00200Senator Darragh O’Brien: If everyone who congratulates Senator Gilroy on publishing his book buys one, he might be in the top ten next week. I encourage people to do so.

On many occasions in the House, I have called on the Minister to recommence Garda recruitment. I congratulate the Minister for Justice and Equality in this regard, although I do not often do so. I am sure that having announced the recommencement of the training of recruits in Templemore, he is aware, as I am, that it will take two years for them to pass through the college and be on the beat. I ask for a debate on policing in the autumn, specifically on how we can utilise the Garda Reserve. Those who have already been trained in the Garda Reserve and who are on the streets should be fast-tracked through Templemore so they will not require a full two years’ training. They do at present. We can be clever about this and save money in addition to ensuring the presence of gardaí on our streets much sooner than in two years’ time. 224 17 July 2013 I welcome the announcement.

A number of Members mentioned the case of the psychiatrist writing to the bank on behalf of a client. Yesterday, the Government, through the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2013, set aside the Dunne judgment, which protected householders from repossessions. I am not questioning Members’ bona fides and I am sure they mean what they say. If they want to come into the House to express their concern over its having come to pass that psychiatrists must write to banks on behalf of their patients expressing concern that those patients could take their own lives because of debt and mortgage arrears, they should vote accordingly. What happened yesterday evening in the House when we actually had the opportunity to stop this Bill? The biggest stick the Government has to beat the banks with is being set aside. While I welcome the fact that the Minister broadly accepted Senator Barrett’s amendment, as it is important, the purpose of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill 2013 is to set aside the Dunne judgment. The judgment meant that, over the past two years, there was an extremely low number of repossessions. The Minister saw this as a problem, but I do not. Of the 142,000 mortgages in arrears, our banks have split 142. The Minister could have said he would not introduce the Bill until he saw the colour of the banks’ money. He should say he will introduce it in a year if the banks split 14,000 mortgages. I guarantee that if the Minister returns to the House on 15 July next year, the repossession rate will have gone through the roof directly because Members of the Oireachtas have voted for the Bill. Therefore, I do not want to hear Members coming into the House and crying crocodile tears in this regard. We had an opportunity yesterday to stop the legislation but we did not avail of it.

17/07/2013E00300An Cathaoirleach: I congratulate Senator Gilroy on his new book. I would be glad to sign one for him.

17/07/2013E00400Senator John Gilroy: I look forward to that. I acknowledge the kind words of my colleagues and thank them. I invite them all to join me for a cup or tea or a glass of wine later this evening.

17/07/2013E00500Senator Martin Conway: I call on the Central Bank to issue a protocol for dealing with people in mortgage arrears who suffer from depression or mental illness. In recent days and weeks, there has been much talk about suicide and suicidal tendencies in the House. It is only proper, therefore, that we call on the Minister for Finance to come to the House to tell us what protocols, if any, have been put in place by the Central Bank for financial institutions to deal with people in mortgage arrears who are suffering from mental illness. The worrying trend is growing. I noted the comments of some professionals over the weekend. They are also referring to the effects of mental illness and suicidal tendencies on those in mortgage arrears. This is a growing problem and I would like a debate on it.

17/07/2013E00600Senator Catherine Noone: I support Senator O’Brien and others on the banking issue. I was in the company of a banker yesterday evening who was speaking about the property market generally and who said that, as of September, there would be many more signs going up. This is something that bankers are very much embracing, which is regrettable.

In arguing about the threat of suicide, we must be careful that we do not use it as a new buzzword for pressure. I do not mean this to be disrespectful in any way. A measured debate on this would be useful, but we do not want to be bandying the word “suicide” about as if it were a common everyday occurrence, although it is obvious that people are really suffering because of the current economic pressures. 225 Seanad Éireann As the deadly civil war in Syria continues, it is right that more than 100 peacekeepers from Ireland are being sent there to play a sensitive role in keeping the peace in the disputed Golan Heights region. The Irish contingent will be in place on the front line by early September. It is right that Ireland play its part in contributing to peacekeeping alongside other members of the international community. The United Nations requested Irish soldiers following the decision by the Austrian Government to end its military involvement in the region. I pay tribute to the work done by its peacekeepers during the mission. Our deployment of 114 troops has been approved by the Cabinet this week. I wish our peacekeepers in Syria and elsewhere well. They have the support of the House.

17/07/2013E00700Senator David Cullinane: Last February, the Taoiseach offered in the Dáil a very full apology to the survivors of the Magdalen laundries. Everybody in the House congratulated the Taoiseach at the time for finally facing up to the responsibilities of the State in respect of the women involved. The redress scheme was set up. Unfortunately, the religious orders, which were primarily responsible for the inhumane treatment, slave labour and forced incarceration of the women in laundries, are not facing up to their moral, ethical and financial responsibilities. This goes right to the heart of how the institutions and orders see themselves. We know what they stood for in the past and know what they stood over. This goes right to the heart of what they stand for today. If they stand for decency, supporting the women and redeeming themselves for the sins of the past, they must face up to their responsibilities. The Taoiseach has a heavy responsibility to contact the heads of the religious orders and be very assertive about the State’s view that they should be forced to face up to their responsibilities. I do not want to be prescriptive about possible options for the Government but, at the very least, the Taoiseach should do as I describe. As long as the religious orders deny their responsibility and culpabil- ity in this matter, it will do untold damage to their reputation, the individuals involved and the institutions. They must face up to their responsibilities.

17/07/2013E00800Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I, too, wish Senator Gilroy well on the launch of his book this evening. I am sure there will be a free copy for every one of his colleagues in the House.

Will the Leader ask the Minister for Education and Skills when he intends to sign the commencement order for the Further Education and Training Act?

I join Senator Noone in wishing the 114 troops that will soon be deployed to Syria well in their peacekeeping role.

17/07/2013F00100Senator Susan O’Keeffe: Like many others, I am disappointed, concerned and shocked by the refusal of the religious orders to put their hands in their pockets to contribute to the scheme of compensation for survivors of the Magdalen laundries. I urge them to reconsider their position and respond in a better way to the women whose lives have already been very damaged and who have shown great courage, strength and a capacity to persist in the face of setbacks such as this. It would do everybody a service, including the orders themselves, if they would see their way to a change of heart.

17/07/2013F00200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Ba mhaith liomsa fosta glacadh leis an deis chun comh- ghairdeachas a dhéanamh leis an Seanadóir John Gilroy as an leabhar atá curtha le chéile aige. I congratulate the Senator on his excellent research and the book he has commissioned. I wish him well tonight and hope the book sells very well. When he is enjoying his royalties, I hope he will not forget the rest of us.

226 17 July 2013 I welcome the report launched this morning by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agri- culture, Food and the Marine, under the stewardship of Deputy Andrew Doyle, on the issue of commonage lands. I hope the Leader will facilitate a debate on this excellent report in the autumn. It would be useful to examine the manner in which commonage lands are managed and the additional payments which might be made available to the farmers throughout the country who work those lands.

I appreciate that our time is restricted in the coming days, but I support Senator Denis O’Donovan’s call for a debate on public nursing homes. It is an issue I have raised before and one that is bringing serious problems down the tracks. The bottom line is that community facilities cannot meet the demand that exists. At this time, some 2.4% of people over 65 years of age are in nursing homes, but that is set to increase to 4% or thereabouts in the next ten to 15 years. We simply do not have the facilities to meet the need. There must be a national structure and plan in place to upgrade existing nursing homes, deal with the moratorium on recruitment and look at constructing new community and public nursing homes. Time might not allow for a debate on this issue before the recess, but I appeal to the Leader to accommodate a discussion when the Seanad returns in the autumn.

17/07/2013F00300Senator Maurice Cummins: The Acting Leader of the Opposition, Senator Denis O’Donovan, raised the issue of public nursing homes. It is important to note that the problems he referred to did not arise in the past two years. These facilities have been in decline for many years, but nothing was done about it by the previous Government. Meeting the Health Infor- mation and Quality Authority requirements by 2015 will certainly be a challenge. However, the chief inspector of HIQA does have discretion to extend that timeframe where agreement is reached with a provider on a detailed and costed plan to address any deficits. The Department of Health is working closely with the Health Service Executive to develop an overall plan for the Minister’s consideration regarding the future of public nursing home provision. A longer- term plan for public residential facilities is expected to be completed by mid-2014, following completion of the ongoing review of the nursing home support scheme. The Department is working closely with the HSE to address these problems. I understand the cost of upgrading public nursing homes to the standards required by HIQA would be in the region of €800 million. As I said, this problem did not suddenly make itself known. The decline has been evident for many years. The Government has every intent to address the problems in this area, but improvements cannot be carried out overnight. We must be realistic in terms of what can be achieved and when.

In regard to mental health services provision, I assure Senator O’Donovan that there will be no cuts. The moneys allocated for this purpose have been ring-fenced. Likewise, the additional posts have been advertised and will be filled. Senator Mary Moran also called for a debate on elder care and on mental health services provision. Members will agree that we had a very good public consultation process involving all the parties involved in elder care. That was a good day’s work for the Seanad. We intend to undertake a similar process of public consultation on the issue of mental health services. The committee is focusing on that issue at the moment.

Senator Moran and others expressed concern at the failure of the religious orders to make a financial contribution to the proposed compensation scheme for former residents of Magdalen laundries. There is no legal obligation on the orders to contribute, but I agree that they have a moral responsibility to do so. As such, I hope they will rethink their decision. Any right- thinking person would consider it reasonable that they make a significant contribution to the fund, given that the facilities in question were managed by communities of the religious orders 227 Seanad Éireann in question.

Senator David Norris raised the issue of mobile telephone usage in the Chamber. If he should choose to raise that matter with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges he can be assured of my support. The use of mobile telephones in this Chamber is simply not acceptable. It is not appropriate to have them ringing when the Order of Business or any other business is taking place. It is not correct that Members should be texting, twittering or anything else while colleagues are trying to conduct business.

17/07/2013F00400Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Hear, hear.

17/07/2013F00500Senator Maurice Cummins: There is plenty of space outside if people wish to use their devices. As I said, I will support Senator Norris if he raises this matter at the next meeting of the CPP.

17/07/2013F00600Senator David Norris: Thank you, Leader.

17/07/2013F00700Senator Maurice Cummins: I will get back to the Senator regarding the tests that are required for buses, both private and public.

Senators Labhrás Ó Murchú, Paul Coghlan and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh referred to the national monument on Moore Street and complimented the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, on his actions yesterday. I will invite the Minister to come to the House early in the autumn session to discuss this matter.

Senators Aideen Hayden and Sean Barrett raised matters relating to the Land and Convey- ancing Law Reform Bill 2013, which we debated yesterday in the House, including the rights of tenants where landlords become insolvent. The Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, was very conciliatory on that issue and has undertaken to get back to us. He is fully supportive of the measures that were outlined. I take on board Senator Hayden’s point regarding the health and safety issues that arise where children are living in apartment blocks. I will ask the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan, if there is any plan to retrofit such properties and if she will come to the House to outline her views on the matter.

Senator Terry Leyden complimented the success of The Gathering and once again sang the praises of Castlecoote. I note his comments on the law relating to children in hotels after 9 p.m., a law that was introduced by his party in government some years ago.

With regard to the issue raised by Senator Barrett, I have addressed the matter of the exchanges between the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and Members during the debate on the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill yesterday evening.

Senator Higgins and others asked about protecting people against harassment by banks and about current law in that regard, which they say should be implemented and enforced more rigorously than is being done. Senator Ó Clochartaigh raised the issue of the Pearse’s Cottage in Rosmuc. I am sure this issue will be mentioned when we have the debate with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan, in the House. The Senator also complimented Senator Conway on the document dealing with the issue of people with a visual impairment and I too compliment the Senator in that regard.

Senator Healy Eames raised the issue of people at risk of suicide. We have had a number 228 17 July 2013 of debates in the House on that issue and we will continue to debate the matter. With regard to the motion on the Bill dealing with the abolition of the Seanad, the Senator can address that issue with the Minister when he comes to the House - from 7 p.m until 10 p.m. tonight. Senator Darragh O’Brien called for a debate on policing and I also note the points he made regarding the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill.

Senator Conway also raised the issue of mortgage arrears and people in difficulty and the threat to mental health. Senator Noone raised the same issue. As I stated last week, the Minister for Finance indicated representatives of the Central Bank should be invited to the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to be quizzed on the code of conduct for mortgage arrears. I hope this will happen. I join Senator Noone in complimenting and wishing safety and every success to Irish peacekeepers who are taking up duty in Syria and the Middle East.

I will find out for Senator Wilson when the commencement order for the Education and Training Bill will issue and will get back to him with that information. Senator Ó Domhnaill complimented the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine on its report on commonage lands. I will try to arrange for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to come to the House early in the autumn and we can debate that issue in the context of a debate on agriculture.

Order of Business agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 11.35 a.m. and resumed at 11.50 a.m.

Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Committee Stage

SECTION 1

17/07/2013H00300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 1 in the name of Senator Jim Walsh has been ruled out of order because it is declaratory in nature.

17/07/2013H00400Senator Jim Walsh: Will the Leas-Chathaoirleach explain why it is out of order because it is declaratory?

17/07/2013H00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The ruling that has been made is that it is declaratory in nature. That rules it out. That is the decision I have been issued. If the Senator wants to speak on the section, he can.

17/07/2013H00600Senator Jim Walsh: I will do so.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

17/07/2013H00800Senator Jim Walsh: I suggest the process should be looked at by the Committee on Proce- dure and Privileges. This is not the first time this has happened. It has happened to a number of Members that they receive a letter on the day advising them that their amendment have been ruled out of order. 229 Seanad Éireann The reason I tabled the amendment and the reason I am not happy with the section is it is a misnomer. The Title should convey what the Bill is about. If the Bill is about anything, it is very definitely not about the protection of life. It is about destroying life, particularly the life of the unborn. It may be argued - I accept and concede it may be so argued - in regard to sections 7 and 8, that it will have the effect of protecting women’s lives. We could dispute whether that is necessary-----

17/07/2013H00900Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, the Senator is straying beyond the topic of section 1. This is more of a Second Stage speech.

17/07/2013H01000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order; it is a matter for the Chair. I will certainly curtail any transgression to other sections, but because I had ruled the amendment out of order, I did allow Senator JIm Walsh to speak on the section. In doing so I am allowing him some latitude. He has had only one minute so far.

17/07/2013H01100Senator Jim Walsh: Section 1 clearly deals with the Title of the Bill, about which I am talking. I am saying it is a misnomer. I am conceding, however, that, in some instances, particularly in regard to sections 7 and 8, there may be an arguable reason for the Title. However, once one moves to section 9, all pretence about protecting life is eroded and eradicated. The Bill will lead to a situation where babies will be aborted - the baby will be killed and its life terminated. We have to speak in plain language. The Title should reflect what the Bill is about, that is all, and the language used should be honest.

I have argued before that many of the arguments made, particularly by the Government, have been in sanitised tones. We saw where that got us in the last century, when sanitised language was used to describe the most horrific of events. We should not allow that to happen in this instance.

17/07/2013H01300Senator Darragh O’Brien: Regardless of what one thinks of section 9, specifically with regard to sections 7 and 8, the wording of the Title of the Bill is correct, that is, Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. Prior to the 2002 referendum, the Title was the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill 2001; therefore, this is a minor change in wording. I do not see any difference from that Bill which was the last time such a Bill was brought before the House.

As I said yesterday on Second Stage, personally, I have an issue with section 9 and will deal with it when we get to it. However, in regard to sections 7 and 8, specifically with regard to medical emergencies owing to illness and protecting the mother’s life in the case of emergency, that is effectively what it is. I have no difficulty with the Title of the Bill, as it flows directly from the Twenty-fifth Amendment of the Constitution (Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy) Bill 2001 and there is a very minor change in wording.

17/07/2013H01500Senator Colm Burke: I believe the Title of the Bill is correct and the proposal made is unacceptable.

17/07/2013H01600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Let us be clear on this issue. I declared the amendment tabled by Senator Jim Walsh out of order because it was declaratory in nature. Rather than talking on the amendment which has been ruled out of order, I will allow comments on the section. I remind the House that many substantive amendments will proposed during the course of the debate on the Bill. It might be prudent, therefore, for Members to concentrate on the more substantive amendments before us, although I do not want to stymie anyone. 230 17 July 2013

17/07/2013H01700Senator Colm Burke: On the section, I believe the Title is correct. It is also important to realise that this legislation does not in any way move outside the terms of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution. Senator Jim Walsh, in his contributions this morning and yesterday, has indicated that this legislation is over-ruling that element of the Constitution. That is not the position. The legislation stays within the remit of the Constitution which is quite clear that the State has a duty to protect the life of the unborn and this legislation will do nothing to change that position. It is giving protection both to the unborn and the mother, which is what we are talking about. Therefore, the Title of the Bill is correct and accurate and a true reflection of what we are trying to achieve in the Oireachtas.

17/07/2013H01800Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator Colm Burke. The Title of the Bill is correct. I urge colleagues to also look at the Long Title which sets out in more detail what the Bill seeks to do. It is very clear that the Short Title of the Bill reflects this.

17/07/2013H01900Senator Rónán Mullen: I find myself in agreement with Senators Jim Walsh and Colm Burke in that I have no doubt that, as Senator Colm Burke said, the Bill intends to legislate for the Supreme Court’s decision in the X case and to activate or implement through legislation the provisions of Article 40.3.3°, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, it is worth recalling that the Bill started out as the protection of maternal life Bill and it is hard not to see a political motive in the subsequent change of Title to the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. Hence, given that there was no change made in the interim that in any way operated to protect unborn human life, I believe Senator Jim Walsh has made a very valid point and I support him.

17/07/2013H02000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis an Seanadóir Jim Walsh maidir leis na pointí atá déanta aige anseo i dtaca le Teideal an Bhille seo. The Title of a Bill is very important because it frames the legislation and what it is about. The Title of this Bill, the Pro- tection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013, clearly sends out an impression that the Bill protects all life during pregnancy, when of course we know that is not the case. The definition of political framing is “an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual’s perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases.” It is generally considered in one of two ways, the first of which is frames in thought, consisting of the mental representations, interpretations and simplifications of reality. The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 is one such example of political framing. This is especially reflected in its Title. The overall aim and objectives of the Bill are focused solely on the health, safety and well-being of the mother, in regard to her personal interests, without any reference to those of the baby. This can be clearly seen in Chapter 1, which is titled “Risk of loss of life of pregnant woman”. Sadly, there is no section in the Bill called “Risk of loss of life of the unborn”. To say therefore that the Bill is compatible with Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is misleading, and Senator Walsh’s raising of this issue is very important. I am not making any political points in this regard, but we are being asked to approve legislation. The current Constitutional provision protects the life of the mother and the child. This piece of legislation, entitled “Protection of Life During Pregnancy”, protects only the life of the mother. There is no mention of protection of the life of the child. How can that be compatible with the Constitution?

17/07/2013J00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I remind Senators that we are dealing with section 1. Senator Walsh proposed a change to the Title in an amendment that I have ruled out of order. We are dealing with section 1 as it stands. I do not want to broaden the debate into constitutional or other issues that can be dealt with very well later in the debate. Many amendments have been tabled and they are worthy of debate. I call Senator Healy Eames. 231 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013J00300Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, as titled, is misleading, misnamed and disingenuous. In other countries, a Bill providing for what we are to provide here would be called the abortion medical Bill or, at a minimum, the termination of pregnancy Bill. This is misleading. It is not about saving both lives and is a clear departure from the two-patient model. It is certainly not compatible with the equality principle understood in Article 40.3.3°. To rename it as the abortion Bill, the abortion medical Bill, or the termination of pregnancy Bill would be far more honest. For that reason, I support the proposed amendment.

17/07/2013J00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The proposal has been ruled out of order. I call Senator Gilroy. We are on section 1.

17/07/2013J00500Senator John Gilroy: I refer to the Title of the Bill. Before the debate really kicks off, it might be no harm to remind ourselves exactly what the Supreme Court stated. Otherwise, it will give rise to all kinds of irrelevant arguments. On 5 March 1992, Chief Justice Finlay spoke on this point. He stated:

I, therefore, conclude that the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s.-3, sub-s. -3 of the Constitution.

This week-----

17/07/2013J00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The constitutional interpretation of section 1 is very narrowly focused. There will be ample room for points that can be made on later sections. We should not lose sight of two points: first, that the amendment proposed by Senator Walsh has been ruled out of order, and second, that we are dealing with the technical name of the Bill, be it wrong or right.

17/07/2013J00700Senator John Gilroy: That is exactly the point.

17/07/2013J00800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I do not want people to expand and go beyond the parameters of the debate. Otherwise we will have all kinds of debates.

17/07/2013J00900Senator John Gilroy: On the naming of the Bill, the life of the unborn is contingent on the life of the mother. Of course it is the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill - there can be no other name for it.

17/07/2013J01000Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of clarification, I remind Senator Mullen that the Title of the Bill has not changed since it was published as the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.

17/07/2013J01100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Again, that is a point of order. The Minister to respond.

17/07/2013J01200Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Alex White): That was the first of three short points I wished to make: when initiated, the Bill had the Title it now has. We published heads of the Bill which were discussed in this Chamber and had a different title. For the record, however, it should be clear that the Title of the Bill has always been the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013.

I know the Leas-Chathaoirleach does not wish us to trespass into other sections, so I will 232 17 July 2013 not do so other than to respond to Senator Ó Domhnaill’s point, which carries quite a charge. I do not wish to paraphrase what he said, but essentially it was that the Bill contained little or no reference to the unborn - I believe he said there was none. That is manifestly untrue, and I am afraid it connotes a failure on the part of the Senator to read the Bill. The tests that are set out in sections 7, 8, 9 and 13 are clear and onerous. Not only that; in the plain terms of the Bill, if he cares to look at those sections, the Senator will see the following phraseology. The definition of “reasonable opinion” states that it is an opinion formed “in good faith which has regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable”. That is the precise phrase in the Constitution.

This will be a long debate - as long as it needs to be - but we really should not misrepresent matters.

17/07/2013J01300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: With all due respect, neither should the Minister of State trans- gress. We are dealing with section 1 and I would like us to focus on that.

17/07/2013J01400Senator David Norris: I have no problem with either title. Can the Minister tell me when a termination is not an abortion? It seems to me it is such, and we should be honest. What upsets me about this Bill is that it is a queasy little Irish solution for an Irish problem, which is an insult to Irish people. We should be open and address the issue, tragic as it is, and we should be making provision for cases of fatal foetal abnormality.

It is astonishing that the Minister for Health stated he did not know he was excluding health reasons, given that he is the Minister for Health. I do not mind if this is called the abortion Bill; that is fine by me. I am not sure it does protect life in every circumstance, going on the basis of the words used by the Taoiseach, who said nothing had changed. He said, “This Bill changes nothing”. The implication of that is very clear. A woman in the same situation as Savita Halap- panavar would face exactly the same circumstances as she did and therefore could die. How on earth can that be the protection of life?

17/07/2013J01500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Let us be mindful of the fact that we are going into areas that will be dealt with by substantial amendments further along in the debate. This is purely on the Title of the Bill.

17/07/2013J01600Senator David Norris: I accept that. The Leas-Chathaoirleach will note that my last words asked how this Bill can ensure protection of life. That directly addresses the nature of the Title, the effect it has on the Bill, and what the Bill purports to do, namely, to protect life. My point is that, if it exists, that protection is minimal. I would have no difficulty if the Bill were called the abortion Bill.

17/07/2013J01700Senator Jim Walsh: I find myself in agreement with most of what Senator Norris has said. I repeat the question for the Minister of State. Can he tell me where in the Bill there is protection outlined for the unborn, if this is the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill? We all know that in pregnancy there are two lives involved, that of the mother and that of the unborn. My understanding is, as Senator Bacik stated on the radio this morning, that most abortions occur in the first trimester. I agree with her. I cannot see mentioned anywhere in the Bill how that life will be protected in the first trimester, or in the second, for that matter. Can the Minister point to this in the Bill?

I refer also to the point made by my colleague, which is absolutely correct, that in 2001, the Bill introduced by a previous Government used the term “protection of human life”. The 233 Seanad Éireann change in the Title is not significant but the Senator will be aware there is a huge and significant change in the intent of the Bill. Suicidal intent was excluded from the Bill. That is the core of the objection, as no reasonable person objects to a mother’s life being protected and saved where it is medically at risk during pregnancy, but there is no evidence whatever to suggest that a mother’s life is in any way assisted by aborting her baby at a time when she has suicidal intent.

17/07/2013K00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The question is “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

17/07/2013K00300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I wish to speak on the section.

17/07/2013K00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I hope the Senator will not be reiterating what he said before. We are trying to move on, because this is a very technical section. Members should realise that the more substantial issues might not get as much time as one would wish later on.

17/07/2013K00500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I take grave exception to what the Minister of State has said, having thrown out the idea yesterday and again today that Senators should read the Bill.

17/07/2013K00600Deputy Alex White: I stand by that.

17/07/2013K00700Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I inform the Minister of State that I have read the Bill from cover to cover.

17/07/2013K00800Senator Ivana Bacik: Read it again.

17/07/2013K00900Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I have read thousands of pages of submissions as well. Per- haps if the Minister of State had read some of the submissions of legal and medical experts, he would not be sitting there trying to ram a Bill down our throats that does nothing to protect-----

17/07/2013K01000Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order-----

17/07/2013K01100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Bacik, on a point of order.

17/07/2013K01200Senator Ivana Bacik: We agreed that the debate should be conducted with respectful language. Nobody is trying to ram a Bill down anyone’s throat.

17/07/2013K01300Senator Jim Walsh: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013K01400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator knows well that that is not a point of order. I advise Senator Ó Domhnaill that we are dealing with a specific issue and he has made a point to the Minister of State. Clearly the Senator and the Minister of State differ on the interpretation.

17/07/2013K01500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: That is fine and I accept that. I did not throw any charges at the Minister until he threw a charge at me first.

17/07/2013K01600Senator Ivana Bacik: The Senator just did so.

17/07/2013K01700Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Democracy should prevail and we should have an honest debate.

17/07/2013K01800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The point has been made.

17/07/2013K01900Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: Perhaps we could have a debate without seething anger. It would be a start.

234 17 July 2013

17/07/2013K02000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I ask Senator Ó Domhnaill to conclude.

17/07/2013K02100Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: We should have an honest debate and call the Bill what it is.

17/07/2013K02200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator and the Minister of State could agree to differ.

17/07/2013K02300Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: We should not have any anger.

17/07/2013K02400Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I will speak through the Chair if allowed.

17/07/2013K02500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Please confine the comments to section 1.

17/07/2013K02600Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Absolutely. To be fair to my colleague, Senator Norris, he has had the decency and honesty to call this Bill what it is and acknowledge that it is an abortion Bill.

17/07/2013K02700Senator John Gilroy: We cannot have this.

17/07/2013K02800Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: It could be called the abortion of life during pregnancy Bill 2013, the protection and rights of the mother during pregnancy Bill 2013, the end of life during pregnancy Bill 2013 or the termination of unborn life during pregnancy Bill 2013. Any Bill that does not protect the unborn baby is seriously flawed, opposing and contradicting the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which states, “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn child and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.” Usually, an amendment to the Constitution has to be voted on by the public and approved in order to become law so why is the Government afraid to let the people decide?

17/07/2013K02900Senator Ivana Bacik: They have already done so twice.

17/07/2013K03000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: What is it afraid of?

17/07/2013K03100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Ó Domhnaill is transgressing beyond the remit of section 1.

17/07/2013K03200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: This is about the Title of the Bill.

17/07/2013K03300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: You are broadening the debate to other areas. We should not debate referendums, as this relates to a simple amendment that has been ruled out of order. You have made your point.

17/07/2013K03400Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I ask for clarification on how the child is protected.

17/07/2013K03500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not an issue for this section. This is the Title of the Bill.

17/07/2013K03600Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: It is the Protection of Life During Pregnancy-----

17/07/2013K03700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: With all due respect, Senator Ó Domhnaill, there are several pages of amendments and the issues can be teased out when discussing them, rather than in the technical Title of the Bill. I want to move on from this.

17/07/2013K03800Senator Colm Burke: In fairness to Senator Ó Domhnaill, he has made a point that we are trying to ram the Bill down people’s throats. We had three days of public consultation in Janu- 235 Seanad Éireann ary and a further three days in May.

17/07/2013K03900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That has nothing to do with the Title.

17/07/2013K04000Senator Colm Burke: An allegation has been made.

17/07/2013K04100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: With all due respect, the allegation was made because the Min- ister of State provoked Senator Ó Domhnaill on a certain issue. We should not go beyond that.

17/07/2013K04200Senator Colm Burke: I have a final point.

17/07/2013K04300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are discussing the Title, and the Senator’s legal expertise should allow him to realise it is very technical.

17/07/2013K04400Senator Colm Burke: On that technical point, Mr. Justice McCarthy of the Supreme Court noted in the X case: “I think it reasonable, however, to hold that the people, when enacting the amendment [to the Constitution in 1982] were entitled to believe that legislation would be introduced so as to regulate the manner in which the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the mother could be reconciled”. That is exactly what we are doing with this piece of legislation. That was the judgment in the X case 20 years ago.

17/07/2013K04500Senator Paschal Mooney: I wish to put a simple question on the Title of the Bill, which is a sleight of hand being perpetrated on the Irish people. The Title was dreamed up in the im- mediate aftermath of the tragic circumstances surrounding the death of Savita Halappanavar, and it was put out in order to gain traction among the broad mass of the Irish people, who would automatically and sympathetically go along with a Bill with the phrase “protection of life during pregnancy” in its title. Who is against the protection of life? Nobody is against that.

I have no difficulty with 90% of this Bill and I welcome it and applaud the Government for providing the legal clarity that those in the medical profession have sought for a considerable period. If that medical clarity had been inculcated in the procedures surrounding the treatment given to the late Ms Halappanavar, who knows what would have been the outcome, irrespective of the medical incompetence that surrounded the case, which had nothing to do with the ending of life. I am asking the question about having the phrase “protection of life” in the Title, as section 9(1) indicates that it shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure as a result of which an unborn human life is ended.

17/07/2013K04600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is a matter to be dealt with in section 9. I urge Senators to be reasonable and deal with the technicalities of this section. The amendment was ruled out of order. Most speakers have already transgressed section 1.

17/07/2013K04700Senator Paschal Mooney: I am attempting to explain why the Title is incorrect.

17/07/2013K04800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: You are using other sections to make the point. It may be more appropriate-----

17/07/2013K04900Senator Paschal Mooney: Excuse me. Could I rely on the Leas-Chathaoirleach’s advice on how else I could do that?

17/07/2013K05000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has referred to section 9, for example.

17/07/2013K05100Senator Paschal Mooney: This section deals with the Title of the Bill and in order to back up the argument I make I must refer to another section of the Bill. It relates directly to the argu- 236 17 July 2013 ment I am putting forward that the Bill is not about the protection of life but rather the ending of life. The Title has managed to massage significant swathes of the Irish people that are not opposed to this. If I just saw the Title of this Bill, I would not be opposed to it either and I would welcome it.

17/07/2013K05200Senator Jim Walsh: I do not want to detain the Seanad as I agree with the comment that there are much more substantive issues to be addressed. None the less, the issue is of the utmost importance. I am inclined to leave the issue if the Minister of State is prepared to give an un- dertaking that between now and Report Stage, he will consider the matter and comments made.

17/07/2013K05300Senator Darragh O’Brien: I have made my point with regard to the 2001 Bill and I take Senator Walsh’s point that it did not contain a suicide clause. The Long Title of the Bill is important for those who are seeking a balance in the right to life of the mother and the unborn baby. The Long Title is “Bill entitled an Act to protect human life during pregnancy; to make provision for reviews at the instigation of a pregnant woman of certain medical opinions given in respect of pregnancy; to provide for an offence of intentional destruction of unborn human life; to amend the Health Act 2007; to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and to provide for matters connected therewith”. There are sections about which people may have differing opinions, but the Title follows from the 2001 Bill, so I have no difficulty in that regard.

17/07/2013K05400Senator Maurice Cummins: I fully support section 1 of the Bill and I agree completely with the comments of the Leader of the Opposition in that regard, in addition to his initial comments. I remind the House that we have spent 30 minutes discussing the Title of the Bill and I intend to give all the necessary time to complete this Stage. Ministers are prepared to sit on Friday and Saturday if necessary to deal with Committee Stage but I hope the time allocated will not be abused. I ask Members not to abuse the time of the House.

17/07/2013K05500Deputy Alex White: The Title is accurate and fairly comprehends the constitutional requirement to protect unborn life with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother. It does both and comprehends both requirements. It is a fair and accurate Title and there is no intention to review it between now and Report Stage. That is the Title that the Government proposes will remain.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 13. Tá Níl Bacik, Ivana. Bradford, Paul. Barrett, Sean D. Daly, Mark. Brennan, Terry. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Burke, Colm. Leyden, Terry. Clune, Deirdre. MacSharry, Marc. Coghlan, Eamonn. Mooney, Paschal. Comiskey, Michael. Mullen, Rónán. Conway, Martin. O’Brien, Mary Ann. Cullinane, David. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Cummins, Maurice. Ó Murchú, Labhrás.

237 Seanad Éireann D’Arcy, Jim. Quinn, Feargal. D’Arcy, Michael. Walsh, Jim. Gilroy, John. Wilson, Diarmuid. Harte, Jimmy. Hayden, Aideen. Henry, Imelda. Higgins, Lorraine. Keane, Cáit. Kelly, John. Landy, Denis. Mac Conghail, Fiach. Moloney, Marie. Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Noone, Catherine. Norris, David. O’Brien, Darragh. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. O’Donovan, Denis. O’Keeffe, Susan. O’Neill, Pat. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Power, Averil. Reilly, Kathryn. Sheahan, Tom. van Turnhout, Jillian. Whelan, John. White, Mary M.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Maurice Cummins and Aideen Hayden; Níl, Senators Brian Ó Domh- naill and Jim Walsh.

Question declared carried.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2

17/07/2013M00300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister for Health to the House. Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 18, 43 to 45, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? 238 17 July 2013

17/07/2013M00400Senator Jim Walsh: No. I have already spoken to the Clerk about this and, in particular, the second group of amendments. Many of them are unrelated and so I do not agree to the grouping of these amendments. I know it makes sense to group certain amendments. It is the extent of the groupings and the related issues that I am opposing. I do not want it to impede us getting through all the sections and using our time productively. If there is re-examination to regroup them in an order which makes sense, I would be happy to withdraw my objection.

17/07/2013M00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Are you objecting to this particular group of amendments?

17/07/2013M00600Senator Jim Walsh: No.

17/07/2013M00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We will look at the others when we come to them. You are entitled to make your views on the grouping.

17/07/2013M00800Senator Jim Walsh: All we are agreeing on is this particular grouping. Is that correct?

17/07/2013M00900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Yes. That is all we are dealing with now.

17/07/2013M01000Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

“ “fatal foetal abnormality” means a medical condition suffered by a foetus such that it is incompatible with life outside the womb;”.

I spoke about the issue of fatal foetal abnormality last year, in respect of the D case in the European Court of Human Rights in 2006, which was brought by someone known at the time as Miss de Barra and who we now know as Deirdre Conroy. She became pregnant with twins, but one foetus died and the second foetus was diagnosed with the life threatening Edwards Syn- drome. She travelled to England for a termination and then took a case to the European Court of Human Rights. Her argument was that it was a breach of her rights that the only way she could have ended the non-viable pregnancy was to travel abroad for treatment. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of the Irish State, as Miss de Barra did not go through the Irish courts.

On behalf of the Irish State, Gerard Hogan argued that Miss de Barra had a good prospect of succeeding had she brought an application to the Irish courts for legal abortion in Ireland. Ge- rard Hogan, on behalf of the Irish State, argued that the X case had demonstrated the potential for judicial development in this area. The following is the kernel of my argument for including fatal foetal abnormality in this Bill via this amendment. According to the judgment of the Eu- ropean Court of Human Rights, the foetus was viable in the X case, whereas in the D case there might be an issue as to the extent to which the State was required to guarantee the life of a foetus which suffered from a lethal genetic abnormality. Gerard Hogan, on behalf of the Irish State, also argued that the courts in Ireland were unlikely to interpret the provision with remorseless logic, particularly where the facts were exceptional. Gerard Hogan and Donal O’Donnell SC, on behalf of the Irish State, argued that it had been established that if there was no realistic prospect of the foetus being born alive, then there was at least a tenable argument which could be seriously considered by the domestic courts to the effect that the foetus was not an unborn for the purposes of Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution, or that even if it was an unborn, its right to life was not actually engaged as it had not the prospect of life outside the womb, that the foetus with a life threatening abnormality might not be found eligible for constitutional protection by

239 Seanad Éireann the Irish courts. If it was an unborn, its right to life was not actually engaged as it had no prospect of life outside the womb. It was also noted by the European Court of Human Rights that there was a feasible argument to be made that the constitutionally enshrined balance between the right to life of the mother and the foetus could have shifted in favour of the mother where the unborn suffered from an abnormality incompatible with life. He won. The Irish State won.

Why is this case not at the centre of our legislation? Why is the Government not including this Irish victory on the Bill? Why is the Government thinking one way in Ireland and arguing another way successfully in the European Court of Human Rights? I would like an answer to those questions.

It has been shouted across the Senate that this case was inadmissible. The European Court of Human Rights chose not to hear the case for a number of reasons. First, the Government had persuasively argued that Miss de Barra would have a fair and humane hearing at home.

Second, there was every possibility that the Irish courts would have found that an abortion in her circumstances would have been lawful under the Constitution and that she should have taken her case to the Irish courts before going to Europe. Therefore, the big win for Ireland was that its courts and Constitution were perceived as humane, reasonable and capable of dealing with Ms de Barra’s case without needing any interference from Europe. In essence, the Gov- ernment escaped having laundry aired in Europe, with the publicity and ethical pressure that a full hearing would have brought. Mr. de Barra kept silent at the time. Having had the abortion and taken the case, she could not very well have turned around to litigate in the Irish courts. The Government was allowed to continue on, as always, not having to tackle the issue head-on.

The judgment on admissibility runs to 30 pages. Therefore, it was not just a technical, quick decision. It is not the same as a case being thrown out of the Irish courts. When cases are thrown out of the Irish courts, it is usually because they have no merit or are vexatious. In Europe Ms de Barra’s case was declared inadmissible, not because it had no merit but because the European Court of Human Rights felt the Irish courts would have offered her a fair hearing and that the Constitution was up to the job. This was a huge win for the Government in Europe.

Where is that win in the Bill? I would like it to be included in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities. Why is the Government arguing one set of circumstances in Europe and another on our own shores? Why was a reasonable and accepted argument for abortion in circumstances involving a fatal foetal abnormality deemed by the Government acceptable for argument in the European court by Mr. Gerard Hogan and not used, or at least argued, included or discussed, in the Bill? I include also the deliberations of the expert group. As part of our amendment, I would like it to be included. I would like women - be they married, single, couples or partners – to at least have this choice. I would like the Bill to include our amendment and give those women making a profound decision in their lives a choice.

17/07/2013N00200Senator David Norris: We have heard one of the most important contributions to debate that I have ever heard in this House. We should congratulate Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell on her discovery and exploitation of this very significant legal precedent. I do not believe such a case was made in the other House. If it was, I certainly do not remember it. I pay tribute to the woman involved, whom I have had the honour of meeting. She was remarkably courageous. The case shows double dealing on the part of the Government. It has not had the courage to face up to this. Part of the reason is a sectarian threat. This has happened every time abortion is mentioned. I strongly object to it and the secret deals that have occurred with the Government 240 17 July 2013 bypassing the people. Protocols were inserted into the Maastricht treaty and the original highly sectarian amendment in 1983 was put through despite strong opposition from very prominent people in the Church of Ireland.

Up to 1869, the position of the Roman Catholic Church was that abortion was permissible up to 166 days. For this information, I am very grateful to Patsy McGarry who published a wonderful article in The Irish Times. This means that the current interpretation is a modern one. This needs to be borne in mind when considering the so-called ethical issues.

The amendment of Senators Marie-Louise O’Donnell and Fiach Mac Conghail is about fatal foetal abnormality, about which I will talk first. My amendment, No. 18, seeks the insertion of “or at the request of a pregnant woman in the case of fatal foetal abnormality or if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest”. I am horrified that people should refuse a woman the right to choose. A woman may very well choose to continue with her pregnancy in circumstances involving a fatal foetal abnormality, incest or rape. It is possible that a young woman or young girl might do so. A young woman has the right, in addition, not to have the product of a violent assault borne within her body for nine months. Denying this right is cruel and inhumane.

Cases of fatal foetal abnormality are reasonably rare but not exceedingly rare because there were approximately 1,500 women with cases of fatal foetal abnormalities last year. They are at the extreme end of the spectrum, but I suppose all cases are extreme in that there is nothing more extreme than a fatal foetal abnormality. The extreme that highlights the case is when what is within the womb is plainly not human or a citizen. It plainly can have no rights. If it is simply a piece of flesh that has no head, brain, proper vital organs or capacity for sensation of any kind, how can anybody with a conscience be so presumptuous as to refuse the affected woman the right to have a termination? If the woman involved has a conscientious or religious feeling that she must continue with the pregnancy, nobody will force her not to. However, in this case, young women are being forced to give birth to what I have described, with no disrespect, as simply a piece of flesh with no sensation, capacity for sensation or any form of feeling. That is obscene.

The other issue I wish to address is rape. A young girl could be subjected to gang rape and it might not be even be clear who the father is. This seems to be a gross invasion, a gross violation, of a woman’s right to dignity and freedom. Sometimes, quite a young girl may be raped. I do not how anybody could insist that this appalling insult to humanity should be followed with a demand that she continue with what she may very well regard as an unwelcome and repulsive colonisation of her body by her attackers, or a demand that she keep the child. I do not know how anybody, in conscience, particularly any man who cannot even experience ordinary pregnancy, could be so self-righteous as to demand, in such circumstances, that a woman or young girl continue with her pregnancy.

The same is true of incest. Incest is one of the most shocking crimes and very often, the victims are very young. The violation may start off as abuse and, as a result of a violent sexual assault by the father, a child may become pregnant. Apparently, a minority in this House are saying such a young girl should be forced to continue with her pregnancy, irrespective of whether she wants to do so. Two or three years ago in Recife a nine year old girl was raped by her father and became pregnant. Her mother took her to have an abortion. However, the Archbishop of Recife excommunicated the mother and the daughter and rest of the family for supporting them. I found that deeply shocking. It was absolutely horrifying and lacking in compassion, human understanding and imagination. 241 Seanad Éireann The opportunity to take these points on board is lost because of a lack of courage on the part of the Government. If we make these amendments and there is an objection or they are challenged in court, so much the better. Let us find out whether these matters are beyond the power of Parliament because of the grossly ill-advised, sectarian amendment made in 1983. Let us put it to the people again. I would be very happy to do so in the light of everything we have learned since. I have certainly changed my mind on abortion. I started off by being horrified by it. When I was a tutor in Trinity College Dublin, approximately once a year a young woman would come to me with a crisis pregnancy. I gave them all of the information available on non-directive counselling and all the rest of it. One of them had an abortion and remained happy with her decision. The other nine did not. I am quite sure if non-directive counselling had not been available, they would have hopped on the boat and had this operation in the most awful, dehumanising circumstances and come back without counselling. Honesty and open- ness and facing reality and the truth will ironically reduce the number of abortions, whether in this country with some kind of subterfuge or exported to England, as the vast majority are in our usual hypocritical way. I strongly support Senators Fiach MacConghail and Marie Louise O’Donnell’s amendment. I also appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to consider these cases which are morally inarguable for fatal foetal abnormality and pregnancy as a result of incest or rape.

I do not decry people who are concerned or worried. There was a wonderful man on the radio yesterday who had a son with Down’s syndrome. He was the epitome of everything that was good in Irish life. He had sacrificed himself and was Carer of the Year, but I think he was a little confused because he thought that if this Bill went through, one would have to abort a child with Down’s syndrome. That would be unforgivable and not right. The Bill will not do anything like that. That is just confusion on the part of a really good man. I hope that before the Bill comes into law, or when it does, that he will be able to relax and realise that there is no threat to people with Down’s syndrome who have proved themselves to be such an addition to our society with their uninhibited affection, directness and honesty. They may be held to have limited intellectual capacity, but, my goodness, they compensate for it in other ways. I would never stand over a foetus being aborted simply because it had Down’s syndrome. That is not what the Bill is about and it would not even be the case if the amendments were accepted. I believe the Minister would personally be sympathetic to these matters. He is adopting the stony face of a professional politician, which is fine by me. He probably feels politically and legally constrained, but an act of courage would be called for.

17/07/2013O00200Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: I welcome the Minister who has taken a leadership role here. At the forefront of this debate he is legislating for the X case judgment, of which I am absolutely in favour. Therefore, all of my comments are based on this. We are not playing politics with the Bill. Women finally have a choice, even if it is limited, and the responsibility that they should have. The X case judgment is being legislated for and the vacuum is being closed, which I completely support.

On a technical point, there is a typographical error in amendment No. 3. Therefore, we will withdraw it and reintroduce it on Report Stage. It should read “incapable of life outside the womb” not “capable of life outside the womb”. That should have been picked up earlier.

The nub of my colleague’s eloquent and important contribution to this debate is the definition of “the unborn”. Why was such a narrow definition included in the Bill? Why was that necessary, particularly because it precludes from being dealt with such a barbaric and horrific treatment of Irish women with regard to fatal foetal abnormality. I heard the Minister’s com- 242 17 July 2013 ments and response on this issue in the Dáil and the default answer is that we are just dealing with the X case judgment, but it does worry me. I do think the Minister and his Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, have compassion. The Minister of State’s letter to The Irish Times a couple of days ago clearly showed empathy towards the women concerned, of whom up to 1,500 travel to England. We know that over 80% of the population are in favour of legislating for cases of fatal foetal abnormality and offering compassion to the women involved. We are bringing forward this amendment because of the ruthless exclusion by the Minister’s Cabinet colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rab- bitte, who said quite clearly on Sunday that this area would not be revisited in the lifetime of the Government. This might satisfy certain members of civil society, but it does not satisfy us. It shows a ruthless lack of compassion and interest in further debate which many other Members of the House would like to pursue. There is an argument that we should pass this Bill, as it stands, and that then there will be incremental momentum and we can consider issues such as rape, incest, fatal foetal abnormality and inevitable miscarriage. The signals are not there and for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to say what he did worries me. It gave me a chill.

In respect of the definition of the unborn and Senator Marie ouise O’Donnell’s remarks about the D case, there are a couple of intriguing opinions and views that I would like to share with the Minister, some of which he knows already. One of the most intriguing is that, while the expert group spoke about the A, B and C case, it also spoke about the D case and acknowledged that in July 2006 the European Court of Human Rights had refused permission to hear that case on the grounds that the applicant, Deirdre Conroy, had not exhausted domestic remedies by bringing the case to the Irish courts. It stated:

In rejecting her application, the Court said that the X case had shown that Irish courts were capable of protecting individual rights by way of interpretation. It suggested that there was a feasible argument to be made that the constitutionally enshrined balance between the right to life of the mother and the foetus could have shifted in favour of the mother when the unborn suffered from an abnormality incompatible with life.

It was left hanging there, but Mr. Justice Ryan and the expert group clearly felt it should be included. It mentioned another case, Miss D v District Judge, HSE, Ireland and Attorney General:

A similar case, this time concerning a pregnant minor, came up in May 2007, when seventeen year old ‘Miss D’ brought a case against the Health Service Executive (HSE) when it tried to stop her travelling to Britain to have an abortion. Miss D was four months pregnant at the time of the hearing, and had learned that the foetus had anencephaly, a neural tube defect resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, which is usually fatal within three days of birth. Miss D had been in the care of the HSE for some months, but was refused permission to leave the State to have an abortion and was told that the HSE had notified the Gardaí that she was not permitted to leave the State. Unlike the C case in 1997, Miss D said she was not suicidal, although she was deeply traumatised by the fact that her baby had no chance of survival. The Court ruled that there was no law or constitutional im- pediment preventing Miss D from travelling for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy, and said that the actions of the HSE social worker in telling the Gardaí that Miss D must be prevented from travelling were without foundation in law. However, the Judge stressed that the case was about the right to travel alone; no comment was made by the Court about the substantive issue of abortion and as Miss D was not suicidal, the question of her having an 243 Seanad Éireann abortion in Ireland was not raised.

The expert group is allowing a door to remain open for political leadership to take on an issue of human rights. The amendment is to give women a choice. Some women might decide to bring their pregnancy to full term, but others do not want to do this. That is very evident because many of them go abroad. We have heard traumatic stories, by which the Minister has been moved, having met and spoken, as we have, to some of the Termination for Medical Rea- sons group. It is an opportunity for the Seanad to implore further that this issue be dealt with. It is a political issue, not a legal one, on which I would like to hear the Minister’s views.

Interestingly, the Irish Human Rights Commission, the National Women’s Council of Ire- land and the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and others give a sense that this is a political decision, not necessarily a legal one. The Irish Council for Civil Liberties alludes to the fact that, potentially, Ireland could fall foul of Article 3 of the convention. Obviously, it mentions the D case, but it also mentions that R.R. v. Poland and P. and S. v. Poland indicate that Council of Europe states are obliged to ensure that women seeking lawful terminations are not exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the convention. Clearly, those women with fatal foetal abnormalities fall under that. Applying this principle in an Irish context, according to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, it seems clear that the current treatment of women with pregnancies involving a defined set of fatal foetal abnormalities, that is, where it is clear that carrying a foetus to term will not result in a viable life, potentially falls foul of Article 3 of the convention. That is something on which I seek the Minister’s view because it is political leadership for which we are looking here, to go beyond the X case and to call on the Government to acknowledge and express compassion for this barbaric and upsetting abuse of pregnant Irish women.

Although I will not go into it in great detail, the Irish Human Rights Commission also has a view, in probably more polite terms. It states that it is recommended that were the Bill unable to include provision for termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality on foot of the current constitutional position, the question of further constitutional refinement be considered.

Our response to the Minister is twofold. We propose that the definition of the unborn be changed to a position where it allows the Minister to look at such cases. We propose: “ “unborn”, means a foetus which has reached that stage of development at which, if born, it would be capable of life outside the womb;”. We are saying there is an opportunity to redefine what “unborn” means within the parameters of the Bill and that will give release and allow for fatal foetal abnormality.

The Minister will probably come back to me on the Attorney General document, but I want to hear his own view on this as well. We are not political grandstanding here. I am not a member of any political party. I do not know whether we will press this to a vote - Senator Marie- Louise O’Donnell and our team must discuss it. I want to hear the Minister’s own political view on this as a medical doctor because that might give us a sense of leadership as well, and, certainly, refute the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte’s, comments earlier on.

There are other amendments that have been grouped together for us which include rape and incest. Of course, this also was discussed in the Dáil and dismissed. Surely, as Senator Norris eloquently argued previously, as is included in our grouping, the notion that we should not trust a pregnant woman is repugnant to me. The idea that the pregnant woman will find herself in a position where her pregnancy is almost a disposable object is one in which I do not believe 244 17 July 2013 and with which I disagree. As a father of two children, both of whom are teenage daughters, if they were put in a position of incest or rape and there was a pregnancy, I am in a lucky position of being a middle-class person with a credit card who can afford, if the choice was required, to bring my daughters abroad. There is a poverty trap in this Bill whereby women who do not have the facility and who cannot go abroad, will be subject to vilification but also to the strong arm of the law with regards to imprisonment or punishment.

I support the amendments of Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell and myself. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s view on them.

17/07/2013P00200Senator Averil Power: I thank Senators O’Donnell and Mac Conghail for tabling these amendments which I strongly support.

Like many other Members of the House, I met several of the women from the Terminations for Medical Reasons, TFMR, group who have gone through the terrifying and upsetting experience of having babies with fatal foetal abnormalities. I listened to their heart-breaking stories. These ladies came into the AV room last year and spoke of how, initially, they were overjoyed to hear that they were pregnant. Many of them were married couples who had been trying to have babies for a long time and wanted nothing more than to be able to have a little boy or girl. Then I heard them outline how that initial joy turned to deep, deep sadness upon hearing that their child simply could not survive outside the womb. What was most upsetting for me in all of that was to hear them outline how, at a time of such sadness, the State turned its back on them and told them that if they wished to terminate their pregnancy, the only way to do so was to make a lonely journey to England on their own.

As Senator Mac Conghail stated, this amendment is all about choice. I completely understand how some parents, on being given a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality, would choose to continue with the pregnancy and I respect any woman who would make that choice. Equally, I listened to Ms Arlette Lyons, Ms Deirdre Conroy and others from the TFMR group, who came in and spoke to us, explain that the reason they chose to seek a termination was because, for them, as mothers, it was the compassionate and humane thing to do. One woman outlined how her own body was crushing her baby, and how her baby was in constant and immense pain as a result of that condition and would never be otherwise. I can completely understand how any mother in that position would come to the decision, upsetting as it is, that the best thing for her to do is to relieve her baby from that pain and suffering. In such circumstances, the State should facilitate that choice.

As Senator O’Donnell outlined in her initial contribution, the State has previously argued in court that termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality is legal in this country or at least that there is an arguable case that it may be. She outlined quite eloquently the facts from D v. Ireland before the European Court of Human Rights where then senior counsel on behalf of the State, Mr. Gerard Hogan, questioned the legal definition of the unborn and contended that if it had been established that the foetus had no realistic prospect of being born alive, then at least a tenable argument could have been made to the effect that the foetus in that instance was not an “unborn” for the purposes of article 40.3.3°, and that its right to life might not actually have been engaged in this case if there as no realistic prospect of life outside the womb.

As has been outlined earlier, Ms D lost her case in the European Court of Human Rights because the State successfully argued that if she had taken a case in Ireland she might have won. European law quite clearly states that one cannot have recourse to the European Court of Hu- 245 Seanad Éireann man Rights unless it is an absolute last resort. One can only go there after one has gone through all the legal channels in Ireland, usually the whole way up to the Supreme Court. Having lost the case here, one can take a case under the European Convention on Human Rights before the European court.

The State argued that Ms D’s application was inadmissible because she could have won her case here. That is why, when the Minister was bringing forward this legislation - as he will be aware, I support the Bill - I hoped he would take the opportunity to deal with this issue. I was really disappointed when the Bill was printed and that had not been done. I have read all of the arguments that have been made in the other House and I have seen the Minister’s responses to different queries. I wrote to him directly about this issue.

I understand that the Government is now arguing that it does not think the provision is constitutional but I do not understand how that argument can be made with any sincerity when the exact opposite was argued by the State successfully before the European Court of Human Rights. I agree with Senator David Norris that the only thing preventing the Government from including this provision in the Bill is a lack of political courage. Women like Deirdre Conroy, Arlette Lyons and others who have come to Leinster House and gone on the national airwaves to share their incredibly painful personal stories have shown immense bravery. The very least we can do is ensure we take this opportunity to include provision for fatal foetal abnormalities in the Bill. We have a duty to prevent any other woman having to go through that experience. For anybody to be given such a diagnosis is hugely devastating in itself - there is no happy outcome in that situation - but the least we can do is relieve their pain in so far as we can. Women have spoken of travelling to Liverpool and the excellent care they received there. The fact remains, however, that they are obliged to travel to a hospital across the sea, away from their families and home, in order to secure a termination. They spoke of how they had to take their babies home in a cardboard box in the boot of their car or carry ashes home with them. It is absolutely barbaric and inhumane to inflict that type of torture on people. We can and must do something about it.

Several speakers referred to the issue of pregnancies arising from rape or incest. As I said yesterday, I believe an unborn baby has a right to life and I do not support abortion on demand. I also believe, however, that there are certain circumstances in which the non-availability of termination is worse. It is not a black and white situation, as human experience in general rarely is. This is especially so when it comes to painful human experiences such as those facing women with a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormalities, women who face a risk to their life from a medical condition or as a consequence of feeling suicidal during pregnancy, and women who have gone through the torture of rape. Women who are pregnant as a result of rape should have a choice. We know from other jurisdictions where such a choice is available that many women choose to continue with their pregnancy. Many find it within themselves, while coping with the immense personal distress resulting from rape, to give birth and either keep the child or have him or her adopted. Others simply cannot do so, which I can understand.

Another speaker referred to a woman who is the victim of a gang rape, who has been vio- lated in the most disgusting and unimaginable way. It is understandable that anybody who has endured that type of ordeal might feel she simply cannot cope with having the child of her at- tacker growing inside of her. It would be a daily reminder for the term of her pregnancy of the trauma she endured. Women in those circumstances should have a choice to terminate their pregnancy in this country. They should not have to make the lonely journey abroad. They should not, in addition to the stress of the rape, be made to feel a sense of shame by having to 246 17 July 2013 travel abroad to obtain a termination.

At the same time, I must, as a legislator, respect the reality that our Constitution does not allow for termination in cases of rape. In fact, it clearly specifies that such a procedure is only allowable where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. If and when a referendum is brought forward, as I expect it will be, I will argue that there should be provision for termination in cases of rape. Regrettably, however, I cannot support colleagues’ proposals at this time. I would not be doing my job as a legislator if I did. We all have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution and the separation of powers and to respect the will of the people. I am confident, however, that most people would vote in favour of a constitutional amendment providing for terminations in cases of rape. That is clear from the opinion polls. Although I cannot vote in favour of an amendment which I know to be unconstitutional, I thank Senators Fiach Mac Conghail and Marie-Louise O’Donnell for tabling the proposals. It is an incredibly important issue for us to debate.

While this legislation will save women’s lives in physical emergencies and where there is a threat to their lives from suicidal ideation, there is a category of women in very distressing circumstances for which it does not cater. There are many women observing this debate who have experienced those circumstances and who must be very upset to know the Bill would not have changed anything for them. I will be voting in favour of the amendment on fatal foetal abnormalities because I strongly believe it is constitutional. I have taken legal advice on the matter and studied opinions by a number of senior counsel. In addition, I have read the arguments put forward on behalf of the State at the European Court of Human Rights. The provision can be included in the Bill and I urge colleagues on all sides of the House to support it.

17/07/2013Q00200Senator Ivana Bacik: I commend Senators Marie-Louise O’Donnell, Fiach Mac Conghail and others on bringing forward these very important amendments. It is important that we are debating these issues in the House. I agree with colleagues that it is inhumane to require by law that women who are faced with the appalling diagnosis that they will not give birth to a live baby must travel abroad if they wish to have their pregnancy terminated. There are women in that situation who do not choose to have a termination and opt instead, after discussion with their partner and family, to bring the pregnancy to term. That choice must of course be respected. However, the fact that we do not allow women who would choose to terminate a pregnancy in those circumstances to do so in this country is inhumane. I would very much like to see us legislate for this. I join colleagues in paying tribute to Deirdre Conroy and the women in the Termination for Medical Reasons group who showed great bravery in telling their personal stories and describing the very difficult and traumatic situation in which they found themselves as a result of the law in this State.

It is outrageous that we force women in those circumstances to travel. It is likewise outrageous that we force women who have been raped or are victims of incest and wish to terminate a resulting pregnancy to travel. It is outrageous that women who face a real and serious risk to their health have to travel. The reality, however, as Senator Averil Power pointed out, is that the cause of this outrageous state of the law is the eighth amendment which was introduced in 1983. It is not the fault of this legislation, which is seeking to protect women’s lives in a situation where a continuation of pregnancy puts their lives at risk. We know from the Supreme Court decision in the X case, as confirmed by that court in subsequent rulings and by the people in two referenda, that the only circumstances in which abortion is lawful in Ireland is where it is necessary to save a woman’s life as distinct from her health. We cannot, under the Constitu- tion, legislate for risk to health. 247 Seanad Éireann I share the legal opinion to which Senator Power and others referred that in accordance with the decision in the D case and the State’s arguments therein, there is a very strong case to suggest it would be constitutional to legislate for a right to termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality, simply because in those cases there is no prospect of viable life for the unborn and, therefore, the constitutional protection for the unborn does not apply or, at least, as far as is practicable, the State does not have a duty to vindicate that right to life. There is a very strongly arguable case in this regard. The State made that case in the D judgment, a judgment to which the European Court of Human Rights referred in its ruling in the A, B and C case. I authored a legal opinion, which was signed by a number of colleagues in the Labour Party and submitted to the Minister last year, asking that he consider inserting provision for fatal foetal abnormality in this legislation. I also put that case at the hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children in January and May.

I listened very carefully to the opinions of the legal experts at those hearings but I do accept that this issue is not yet constitutionally settled. That point is conceded in the report of the Irish Human Rights Commission. There is as yet no Supreme Court decision upholding the legal argument put forward by the State in the D case. If a case were sent to the court - I believe such a case is waiting to happen - I would expect the decision to be in favour of allowing legislation for termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality. However, if one examines the wording of the constitutional text and what Gerard Hogan argued at the European Court of Human Rights, it seems clear that where there is a prospect of even a few minutes of life for the unborn child outside the womb, then provision could not be made in law for a termination of that pregnancy. There would have to be a very clear medical prognosis that there was no prospect of viable life outside the womb. It is a very extreme situation and it is appalling that we cannot legislate for it. The reality, however, is that including it would render the legislation less constitutionally robust. Even as somebody who has argued strongly for its inclusion, I accept that provision in this regard would require a referral of the Bill under Article 26. It would certainly make it less constitutionally robust than in its current form, which is conservative, restrictive and clearly within the terms of the 1983 amendment and the Supreme Court decision in the X case.

The right to a termination in cases of rape, incest and risk to health is a separate issue. Much as I and others would like to see that legislation, we cannot do so within the terms of the X case and, more particularly, the 1983 amendment. There is an issue in this regard for us. Some 4,000 women a year travel to England for an abortion on the grounds provided for under the UK Abortion Act 1967. We cannot legislate in the same sort of way as that Act or even for more limited grounds, such as rape or incest, without the repeal of the eighth amendment. As a legislator acting within the Constitution, I accept that. I urge colleagues to support this Bill as it reflects what we can do constitutionally. Within the current state of settled law, it will provide protection for the right to life of the woman in the most extreme circumstances. I think we will see further cases taken on the issue of fatal foetal abnormality, which will settle the law on that. However, I accept that area is not settled currently.

17/07/2013R00200Senator Colm Burke: I would like to thank my colleagues for the valuable contributions they have made this morning and for putting forward these amendments. However, I agree with Senator Bacik with regard to the restrictions that exist under Article 40.3.3°. When the Minister came to deal with this issue, it was very much about the decision in the X case and in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. All of the public consultation during the six days, three in Janu- ary and three in May, focused on those cases. The issue is referred to in page 10 of the report dealing with the public hearings in May. There was a discussion on the matter during the public

248 17 July 2013 hearings and some valuable contributions were made. I agree that the way the Bill is drafted confines what we can deal with and we must stay within Article 40.3.3°.

The issue of fatal foetal abnormality cannot be left in limbo and we must deal with it at some stage. It is interesting to speak to people in the medical profession involved in this area and to hear about the difficulties they have. People have mentioned the women who travel to England for terminations, but some people cannot afford to go or cannot go because of a medical condition they have. I have spoken to some medical people about the restrictions they face. One practitioner spoke about the difficulties of managing a patient where it is clear there is a fatal foetal abnormality and about the restrictions on that patient. The medical profession also has huge difficulty dealing with this area.

Another area where this difficulty comes into play relates to where a patient is 37 or 38 years of age and wants to have a family. However, on the first pregnancy the foetus is found to have a fatal foetal abnormality. These patients have only a certain time period in which they can try to have a family, but in such a case they are then restricted with regard to this matter being dealt with, although they are anxious to have a child. This issue is coming to the fore in regard to people in that age category and to the reason a mother takes the decision to not go through the pregnancy to full term and chooses to go to the United Kingdom.

There are a number of issues to be dealt with and they cannot be put on the long finger. However, we have made a decision with regard to dealing with this legislation and the issues raised in the X case, which were dealt with at the public consultation. I appeal to those who proposed these amendments to consider how they might frustrate the passage of this legislation, because if it was amended as proposed and subsequently tested, the whole Bill might be turned down and we would be back to where we were in 1992 and would have to start all over again. While I welcome the discussion on this matter, I believe we must deal with the Bill as it is and these amendments must be withdrawn.

17/07/2013R00300Senator Susan O’Keeffe: I concur with Senators Burke and Bacik in regard to the constitutionality of this Bill and that were we to try to amend it to include fatal foetal abnormality, we might find ourselves back where we do not wish to be. This is a moment when a kind of common sense applies. We have heard the stories and have seen the courage of the women who have come forward to tell their stories and we believe that in time we will legislate for this area and that the women who choose now to travel will no longer have to travel and will not have to go through the heartbreak of bringing a baby to term in the knowledge that it will not survive. The expression used by Senator Bacik, “constitutionally unsettled”, is probably the most appropriate one to explain this difficulty, but we must wait again for this issue to be brought forward. I hope that wait is not too long.

The fact we are all debating this, that people have had the courage to come forward and tell their stories and that we have engaged with the Minister on the matter, gives us hope the issue will be dealt with. I was happy to sign the letter Senator Bacik sent to the Minister last year. Many of us support the call for legislation on this now and so does the public. It is a matter of time. This is not the right time to deal with the matter, although it appears to some to be the right time. Constitutionally and legally it is not the right time and we must wait. However, I hope, for the sake of those women who have been through such a situation and who must suffer every time they hear this issue being debated and for the women in the future who will suffer, that we deal with this issue soon. Unfortunately, this is an issue that will not go away. There have been great advances in medical technology, but it has not advanced to the extent that we 249 Seanad Éireann can avoid further fatal foetal abnormality. I, like others, look forward to the day when we will legislate to allow women protection in this area. However, we are unable to do so with this legislation.

17/07/2013R00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Power has indicated she wishes to come in again on this issue. However, it might be appropriate now for the Minister to respond and then allow anybody who wants to come in again. Before I call the Minister, I call Senator Healy Eames who has not spoken yet.

17/07/2013R00500Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I want to thank Senators O’Donnell and Mac Conghaíl for putting down these amendments. This shows great courage. I have met and listened to women on both sides of this issue, women who have received the difficult diagnosis that their baby has a fatal foetal abnormality. I have listened to the stories of the trauma they all experienced, because in each case the pregnancy was wanted. These women had no desire to end the baby’s life. This makes this situation very different from what is in the Bill before us.

I noticed the incredible anger among the women who had to take that trip to England, because they believed it was not right to give birth to a baby that would not live outside the womb. I also met women here in Leinster House who made the decision to give birth. I met one woman whose baby lived for 19 minutes after birth, one woman whose baby lived for 27 hours and one woman whose baby survived birth and was then six years old and in a wheelchair. In all cases, the diagnosis was similar for both sets of women. What struck me forcibly was that the women who were able to give birth were happier. I say honestly that what I noticed was these women were happier. I am not judging these women and I am not taking sides on this issue. The reason they presented to me as happier -----

17/07/2013R00600Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: On a point of order, they presented to the Senator as happier, but not necessarily to the world.

17/07/2013R00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: With all due respect, that is not a point of order.

17/07/2013R00800Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: It is not right to make those kinds of assessments or judgments.

17/07/2013R00900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames should be allowed express her opinion, without interruption.

17/07/2013R01000Senator Paschal Mooney: Senator O’Donnell should let the Senator express her opinion. We have listened to Senator O’Donnell’s opinion.

17/07/2013R01100Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: Let her express a personal opinion, but not make it universal.

17/07/2013R01200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I have ruled on the point of order. Senator Healy Eames, to continue without interruption.

17/07/2013S00100Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am being really careful with my words here because I know that this diagnosis is the hardest situation of all. That is why I respect the amendments-----

17/07/2013S00200Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: It is-----

17/07/2013S00300Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Excuse me. That is why I respect the amendments being

250 17 July 2013 placed on this issue.

17/07/2013S00400Senator Paschal Mooney: I have no time for browbeating.

17/07/2013S00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I have ruled on it so we should allow Senator Healy Eames to continue.

17/07/2013S00600Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: It is her opinion.

17/07/2013S00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames to continue. We do not want any intem- perance in this debate.

17/07/2013S00800Senator Paschal Mooney: I might not agree with her but I will defend her right to say it.

17/07/2013S00900Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: If I could continue my point, the reason they said they were happy is because they had a reference point around the birth of the baby. They had those few minutes, hours or years with the baby. They had their family around them. They had a support group. Every year afterwards, they were able to celebrate that life. I am not saying this is my view. That is what they stated, and I have to take that on board.

Senator Mac Conghail makes a very useful point. However, notwithstanding the argument that this would not be constitutional, it is useful that the case of fatal foetal abnormalities is not being approved in this Bill because it is completely different to the suicide case. This is because there is real evidence - the evidence of an abnormality. We have scans and ultrasound technology and we can have second opinions. The whole issue of suicide was nebulous and, while we could assess risk, we could not predict the outcome. For that reason, it is good that this deserves debate today, but proper debate in its own time. As I said, it is the hardest case of all.

Rape is one of the most horrible crimes that could beset a woman or a young girl. It is beast- ly and it is against the wishes of the woman. I put on record yesterday my own personal story that, today, I am a mother because I have adopted two children. In both of those cases, their birth mothers had to have been faced with a crisis pregnancy where, maybe, they would have considered other options but they did not. During my own counselling for adoption, myself and my husband were asked if we would adopt the child of a rape. My initial reaction was absolute horror and shock, but then we thought about it and we said that is not the child’s fault. That was something I considered a long time ago. I have a daughter now. If that terrible crime, and it is a crime, beset her, the question I would have to face is whether I would want a further injury placed on her after her being injured through rape. For me, with the right counselling and the right help, I would hope I would not have to support that. These are really difficult situations.

To go back to the amendments, I genuinely respect that they have been placed but I believe it is useful that our Constitution tells us that there will be another day here. I also thought it was very interesting that Senator Bacik said that where there is proof a baby may live for minutes outside of the womb, that is a different case. This is a set of circumstances that deserves debate and time in and of itself. It is a complex area.

17/07/2013S01000Senator Paul Bradford: I thank my colleagues for presenting these amendments to us. At their core, they are the type of political shades of grey which generally make politicians shud- der. I heard the Minister respond to a similar series of amendments in the Dáil and I presume I can, with reasonable accuracy, predict what he is constitutionally and politically obliged to say in response to the amendments. Indeed, Senators Colm Burke and Ivana Bacik have given an

251 Seanad Éireann overview of why the amendments are constitutionally outside the remit of what we can consider within the legislation. Notwithstanding that, I believe they are certainly worthy of reflection and debate.

I have been around this place of politics a long time. Weeks and months come and go, and years pass, and occasionally there comes a week or ten days where, within that period, we get a particularly insightful overview of life. There was a week last year in September or Octo- ber, although I cannot put a date on it, where, within the course of 48 or 72 hours, I attended two fascinating, troubling, uplifting, depressing and informative meetings. The first meeting I attended was at the request of Senator Bacik, who brought to the AV room the women, and their husbands and partners, who wanted to tell us their sad, emotive, powerful and sometimes angry stories of the difficulty they faced. This was the group referred to in very fine detail by Senator Averil Power, Termination for Medical Reasons. A bit like the GPO in 1916, half the Oireachtas now appears to have been at that meeting, but I attended that meeting and there were perhaps six or seven Members of the Oireachtas and five or six staff there. Their stories were powerful and sad. It was impossible to give a satisfactory answer to the concerns, the queries and the demands of those unfortunate prospective parents. I certainly did not have any words of consolation. I left that meeting both upset and concerned because it was not possible to tell those prospective mothers and their partners what they wished to hear. It was certainly a very upsetting afternoon for me.

Then, 48 or 72 hours later, in the same room, at the behest of, I believe, Senator Mary Ann O’Brien, who was one of the organisers of the meeting, I attended a session with the group called One Day More - parents, mothers, husbands and partners whose choice was perhaps different but in one sense the outcome was the same in that they were the parents of children who were born dead or born dying. They explained to us the horror stories which they had to endure, the lack of support which they felt and the lack of facilities. They decided to proceed with the pregnancies and, presumably, in the vast majority of cases the babies were born either dead or were born alive but dying, and died perhaps an hour, a day or a week later.

Both sets of parents faced the same mountain. Some felt they were just able to climb the mountain and others felt they were not. We cannot be judge and jury, but both told hugely sad tales. Without trying to upset my good friend and colleague, Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell, I would have to agree with Senator Healy Eames that, perhaps, if there was any degree of happiness in either room, if there was any degree of satisfaction, for me, and I can only speak as one who observed both sets of parents, the second meeting was slightly more uplifting. The question I must pose to myself concerns what we can do to help both sets of prospective parents. Given the Bill before us for consideration and the constitutional provision, we can do very little but at least we can try to provide some degree of support, some additional facilities. I heard the Minister, Deputy Reilly, and other Ministers last week in the other House quoting Dr. Anthony McCarthy who, in dismissing some of the amendments tabled in the other House, pointed out the very inadequate psychiatric and psychological and other supports that are available to prospective mothers facing crisis pregnancies, whatever may be the reason for the crisis. Even though we have a broken economy, one point we can all unite on is the need to invest in further psychiatric, psychological and other supports. It was frightening to hear Dr. McCarthy concede on the radio, as I am sure he would have done in hearings in the Houses, that virtually no levels of support are available. We must tackle this together to ensure that support and advice are available.

Yesterday, in the inadequate time available to us on Second Stage to discuss the Bill in its 252 17 July 2013 entirety, I referred to the fact that even when the Bill has come and gone, with all its political consequences, there will still be 4,000 or 5,000 Irish mothers who go every year to Britain to have abortions. Wherever the abortion happens, whether in Britain or Ireland, it is a tragedy for everybody. Much of that comes about because of the lack of support. We may have removed the stigma of single parenthood, or pretend we have, but we are still failing to provide sufficient resources for mothers who choose that route. That is a debate for another day but we cannot move away from it.

On the second part of the Senator’s amendment, in respect of rape and incest, it is beyond any of us to pronounce verdicts or certainty. The one thing we all agree on is the horror of rape, the shocking crime it is. Does one solve one crime by causing another difficulty? In the days of capital punishment did the fact that a murderer was executed ease the pain and suffering of the family of a murder victim? I am not sure it did. That may be a simplistic response to some of the very sensitive and complex arguments presented so well by Senators O’Donnell and Mac Conghail. It is a little beyond me at present to try to argue this. Senator Norris spoke about the importance of the word “truth”. If we try to keep that at the centre of our deliberations we must realise it never has been the case that two wrongs make a right, or that easy solutions are always the correct ones.

I do not envy the Minister his task. It is relatively easy for him to respond to these amendments as part of the Bill but the issues involved will not go away and will come before him, his Government and all of us again. We must just try to work together in as mature and realistic a fashion as possible to deal with the matter. I thank Senators for their amendments. I wish there was an easy answer but it is part of the complexity of both politics and life that for some questions there is not an easy answer. Perhaps that is why we are here, as legislators. I think back to the meetings I attended last October and November, powerful meetings with powerful presentations and people who chose different routes. I cannot condemn anybody for the route they have chosen.

17/07/2013T00200Senator Darragh O’Brien: I will be brief, having listened to the debate on the monitor. I refer to fatal foetal abnormality and the group of amendments tabled in that regard which I cannot and will not support. I, too, attended those meetings at the kind invitation of Senator Mullen. I met the One Day More group and have had personal experience of families who have made that very tough decision, who have had children born dead or who died, that nonetheless became part of the family. We also met families that day who had received the diagnosis that their child would not survive outside the womb. In some instances, however, they did, and for a significant length of time.

Perhaps it is a matter for the next session but after that presentation I called on several occasions for us to have a proper and full debate on perinatal care, and the resources available to families who find themselves in this situation. I know the Minister’s diary has been full in recent months so I did not push the issue as hard as I would have liked but I would like him to give a commitment to return to the House in the new session for a debate on perinatal care. The levels of care in that area are not what I would wish for. I fully understand we are in straitened times, to put it mildly. Some of the stories and testimonies I listened to that morning were very touching but there was also reference to either the care families received after the event, or the lack thereof. Legislating to permit abortion on the ground of fatal foetal abnormality is not something I would support.

Senator Bradford covered very well the awful situation of rape and incest, two disgusting 253 Seanad Éireann crimes, as we would all agree. One must point out that the life of a viable child is ended on the basis that a terrible crime has been perpetrated on the mother. Again, that is not something I would support. Following this debate, however, perhaps in September or October or during that session, we might have a debate and put our heads together as legislators to consider how we can improve perinatal care. We have never had a full debate on that subject in this Chamber. Senator Mullen has called for one, as have other Senators, but we have never had an opportunity to discuss the issue specifically. That is something I would like. I wish to put on record that I will not support any of the amendments tabled by my Independent colleagues.

17/07/2013T00300Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: On a point of order, we have just got a new and revised list of Committee Stage amendments and have not spoken on some of them. Are we now precluded from doing so?

17/07/2013T00400Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O’Neill): We are dealing with section 2 to which there was no change.

17/07/2013T00500Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: We are dealing with a group of amendments.

17/07/2013T00600Senator Paschal Mooney: We can still talk on them. The Minister will not end the discussion but will reply to what has been said.

17/07/2013T00700Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: There are other amendments.

17/07/2013T00800Senator Paschal Mooney: We have been waiting to hear what the Minister has to say.

17/07/2013T00900Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: My point is there is an additional grouping of amendments on which we have not spoken. For example, are we precluded from speaking on the issue of imprisonment?

17/07/2013T01000Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O’Neill): We have not reached the revised groupings and will discuss them as we get to them. We are now dealing with amendments Nos. 2, 3, 18, 43, 44 and 45.

17/07/2013T01100Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: That is true. That was originally called group 1 but now more have been added.

17/07/2013T01200Senator Averil Power: We will not get to amendments Nos, 4, 37 and 38 until after we finish this grouping and start the next one.

17/07/2013T01300Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O’Neill): The Minister will reply.

17/07/2013T01400Deputy James Reilly: I can clarify this matter because I have been through it in the other House.

17/07/2013T01500Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: The Minister could have answered my point.

17/07/2013T01600Deputy James Reilly: We are dealing with amendment No. 2 but are also referring to amendments Nos. 3, 18 and 43 to 45, inclusive, which relate to the same topic and are thereby discussed together. Amendments Nos. 3, 18 and 43 to 45, inclusive, relate to the same topic and are to be discussed together. They will be voted on separately when we reach the relevant sections.

I thank people for their very good contributions, which I know are heartfelt. These amend- 254 17 July 2013 ments attempt to provide for lawful termination of pregnancy following a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality or inevitable miscarriage, or in the case of pregnancy following rape or incest. These issues were discussed at some length in the Dáil during our debates on the Bill and I am aware that several Senators would have liked to see these grounds and others being included in the proposed legislation. However, these provisions cannot be included.

The main purpose of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 is to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland while regulating access to lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with the X case and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case. Its purpose is to confer procedural rights on a woman who believes she has a life-threatening condition so that she can have certainty as to whether she requires the treatment. The Bill does not permit the termination of a pregnancy on the grounds of rape or incest alone, although it is permitted if there is also a risk to the life of the woman. I have received legal advice to the effect that inclusion of fatal foetal abnormalities as a separate consideration in the current Bill goes beyond the scope of the A, B and C v. Ireland case. The purpose of this Bill is not to confer any new rights or remove existing rights; it is to clarify existing rights for women so they know what are those rights and how to exercise them in accessing services. Doctors and nurses will also know what they are legally obliged or permitted to provide.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendments but I would like to respond to some of the issues. Senator Bradford commented on the contribution of Dr. McCarthy, the president of the College of the Psychiatrists of Ireland. It is understandable to mix up titles.

17/07/2013U00200Senator Rónán Mullen: I always thought consultants were addressed as “Mister”.

17/07/2013U00300Deputy James Reilly: The bottom line is that he did not say there were virtually no supports available. He stated that dialectical behavioural therapy was not freely available. He also pointed out during that conversation that this was useful in treating people who are emotionally disturbed with a personality disorder. To suggest that women finding themselves in this group all fall into that category is not something I would accept for a moment.

Notwithstanding the European court case, the Supreme Court has not ruled on this provision as no case has been taken to the Supreme Court. It would require a Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the provision and a possible referendum to make that decision. There was ruling in favour of the argument that there may have been a tenable case, but that does not mean the case will succeed. We must be as constitutionally aware and secure in this Bill as possible because it is bound to be challenged and if we are not secure, it will fall. The definition of the unborn in this Bill is only for the purpose of the Bill and, as has been pointed by many others, the inclusion of the rape and incest would require a referendum.

Defining what constitutes an unviable life is extremely fraught. Does it refer to a child who would last only five minutes outside the womb or a child who would last for an hour, 24 hours, a week, two weeks or six weeks? In the other House a figure of 1,500 cases per year was ban- died about, but I cannot see how that can be. There are 70,000 births per year and 2% to 3% of babies are born with anomalies, of which a very small percentage are fatal. That should in no way diminish the pain and hurt caused by such a terrible loss. I respect and admire greatly the courage of women from the Termination for Medical Reasons group, and only a person with a heart of stone could not have sympathy with that issue and the terrible plight they face. I cannot address that in this Bill because of the reasons outlined earlier by me and Senators Bacik 255 Seanad Éireann and Burke.

17/07/2013U00400Senator Averil Power: The Minister indicated that this had not been established from a constitutional perspective and there has not been a Supreme Court case. We put legislation through this House every day that enjoys the presumption of constitutionality. We work on the basis of advice from the Attorney General or other counsel, and we assume that the interpretation we work with is consistent with the Constitution. This often happens for areas in which there have not been settled Supreme Court decisions, and we never know the constitutionality of a piece of legislation unless it is challenged. In this House we must believe the work is constitutional unless there is a successful challenge.

As I mentioned, the State previously argued successfully before the European Court of Hu- man Rights that provision for termination in cases of fatal foetal abnormality is constitutional. In her contribution, Senator Bacik stated that her legal opinion, as an eminent lawyer, is that the provision is constitutional. I accept that we cannot know for sure if that is true unless a case is taken against the provision. Equally, it is wrong to expect a woman to bring that case; we would not be doing our jobs by delegating that responsibility to some poor woman who has had to go through this horrific experience. Essentially, we would be telling her that not only do we want her to go through the experience but we want her to live it again when she goes to the court to assert her rights. That is not just my personal opinion, as it is shared by eminent lawyers throughout the State.

It has been argued that if we include this provision the Bill might be open to constitutional challenge, but anybody who believes this legislation will not be challenged in the courts is being incredibly naïve. As we are speaking on the Bill, people are preparing legal challenges to it. The most sensible course of action may be for the President to refer the Bill so the Supreme Court can consider it straight away and it can enjoy full constitutional protection. Challenges were made straight after the children’s referendum and this Bill was challenged in court while it was still in the Dáil, when somebody brought a completely ridiculous case that never had any chance of getting anywhere. This Bill will be challenged and I do not accept that fear of challenge is a good enough reason not to include a provision that the State has previously argued as constitutional.

Members have referred to the One Day More and the Termination for Medical Reasons groups. As I noted in my opening contribution, I am in favour of choice, and it is unfortunate that a value judgment has been made about the choices made by women with different outcomes of pregnancy when they were told their babies could not live. It is not fair. No matter what decision a woman makes, it is right for her and her family. I completely understand how a family might decide that having a precious five minutes or hours is right for them, but equally, I understand how a woman who knows her baby is in pain would feel the humane action is to relieve that pain. It is wrong for us to make any kind of value judgment against women in those positions, and I argue that they should have a choice. The right choice in any case is only for the mother, her partner and her family, and it is not my place to make it.

Comments were made about the rape issue. I said yesterday that as an adopted person, any abortion is a tragedy. Equally, I can fully accept that there are some women who just do not feel that they can go through with a pregnancy that has been conceived as a result of rape. Equally, I do not think it is right to judge them. I said yesterday that if a girl came to me for support who was in similar circumstances to the 14 year old rape victim who was at the centre of the X case, I would try to do everything I could to help her. I would bring her for counselling, I would talk 256 17 July 2013 it through with her and I would speak to her as an adopted person about the gift of bringing a child into the world and giving it to another family. Equally, I would understand if she could not do that. I do not think it is right to make a choice for somebody in those circumstances. I do not think it is right to expect them to relive their pain through a pregnancy. It just confounds the abuse that has already been inflicted upon them.

To respond to the comments on rape, it is not a black and white issue or an easy situation, but women who find themselves in those circumstances should have a choice. Ultimately, when we have a referendum on that issue - I accept it cannot be covered in this Bill - I think that most Irish people would feel the same.

17/07/2013V00200Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I thank the Minister for his answers. I know that it is a profound issue and is very difficult. When I interrupted Senator Healy Eames, I only did so on the grounds that if we talk about happiness for one group and unhappiness for another group, we just need to provide examples. I was not trying to browbeat at all.

According to the European Court of Human Rights, the foetus was viable in the X case, whereas in the D case there might be an issue as to the extent to which the State was required to guarantee the life of the foetus which suffered from a fatal foetal abnormality. It is very confus- ing law that we justify the viability of the X case and justify abortion on the grounds of suicide, yet we are not allowed to abort the non-viable foetus.

I take Senator Bacik’s point about the eighth amendment and that we are not constitutionally settled on this yet, on the grounds of the capability of being born alive, as opposed to incompatibility with life. I wonder then if we are arguing on the grounds of contradiction when talking about incompatibility with life in fatal foetal abnormality. It is as if we do not understand what fatal means and what incompatible means. We seem to be arguing on the grounds of legalis- ing for hope. Senators have spoken about it not being the right time. There is always a fear in that kind of argument. In the de Barra case, that wonderful woman got pregnant in 2001 and brought her case in 2005 and 2006. It is now 2013. However, I understand the point about the constitutionality of the eighth amendment. However, I would still question what we consider to be viable and non-viable and how we legislate for either.

17/07/2013V00300Senator Paschal Mooney: I am very pleased that Senator O’Donnell was not browbeating the patient. I did not for one moment suggest that she would have been doing so. It is just that this is such an emotive issue and I know that opinions are very strongly held on all sides. There have been occasions when I felt like screaming and I am trying very hard to restrain myself, because I think everybody’s opinion on all sides of this debate should be respected. There is a general view on all sides of the House that that respect is being encouraged.

I am encouraged on the one hand by the Minister’s response, because I was awaiting to hear what he had to say. On the other hand, I have enormous compassion and sympathy for the cases that have been outlined by those who are supporting the amendment. I take the point about the choice that has to be made. However, I have met those courageous women from One Day More. They are equally as courageous as those who decided that they did not wish to have a continuation of their pregnancy. I was absolutely flabbergasted listening to them outlining their particular situations, where they knew from 21 weeks or 22 weeks that the child they were carrying was not going to live for very long, if at all. The House has already heard the outcome of those particular cases from Senator Healy Eames. Those women and their partners are extremely courageous people. Equally, I have enormous compassion for those who could not, 257 Seanad Éireann psychologically and otherwise, continue with a pregnancy with the same knowledge.

The only problem for me is if I take it that all human life is sacred. Medical science is a very inexact science. As was pointed out in one particular instance, the doctors had given up on the pregnancy of one of those mothers we met, yet the child lived and is still alive. That raises a fundamental question of ethics as well, and I think the Minister himself touched on it. What is the time limit on viability? Is it five seconds, five minutes, five weeks? It is an inexact science, so on the basis that I support the sanctity of life and of the unborn, I would have difficulty with the amendment, but I have great sympathy and understanding of the amendment. It complicates the issues for me, because it is not simple and it is not straightforward. I have spoken to people about fatal foetal abnormalities. One half is going with me on this, and the other half is not. It is a dilemma and I wish I could resolve it for myself.

I do not necessarily agree, in the concept of choice, that a woman is exclusively responsible for her own body. That is my view. That is my belief. I said this yesterday on Second Stage; the man has been totally air-brushed out of that argument in this respect, as if he never existed. Yet as we know, abortions have taken place because of pressure from the father on the vulnerable mother-to-be in her crisis pregnancy. We will never know the reasons 4,000 Irish women go abroad or what their individual cases are. Nobody has ever been able to monitor them and nobody has analysed it. We can only go on anecdotal evidence as to why, but we cannot quan- tify every one of those 4,000 as having the same issue, motivation or intention. Ultimately, they end up in the same way.

I understand where the Minister is coming from in this regard. I wish that the issue could be resolved. It looks like it may ultimately require a constitutional challenge on this. I do not think there is much more that we can do about it. I wish that we could. The Minister has not offered any particular succour in this respect, because he is constitutionally restrained in this Bill. However, it is an issue that will not go away. I commend Senators O’Donnell and Mac Conghail for tabling the amendment.

I would like to make a final point about rape and incest. I will continue to say it every time this issue comes up. Who speaks for the unborn? Who speaks for the innocent victim? I absolutely agree with all of the descriptions that have been stated here about rape and incest. They are the most horrific crimes and are the ultimate invasion of a woman’s dignity. I do not think I can ever get it into my head what is going on in the head of a woman who has to face that particular reality. At the end of the day, what I believe she is carrying is life. Others believe that what is in her belly is a zygote, or that it is not an entity until it is delivered into the world. There are many who think that. I do not think that. There is a heartbeat at 30 days and there are brainwaves at 40 days. The unborn feels, thinks and reacts to what is going on in a woman’s body. Therefore it is life to me. In the context of rape or incest, what that mother is carrying is an innocent life. If one agrees with aborting and terminating the pregnancy, it means that life is extinguished. Instead of having one life unquestionably traumatised - one will not know how the rape victim will end up - another life will be sacrificed. I do not believe that is acceptable because the individual in the stomach of the woman is an innocent life. I do not see why it should be the person who should suffer.

17/07/2013W00200An Cathaoirleach: Before we proceed, I welcome Elaine Murphy, the playwright of the Abbey Theatre production, Shush, and the play’s cast to the Visitors Gallery.

17/07/2013W00300Senator Rónán Mullen: I have listened with great interest and with great respect to the 258 17 July 2013 contributions so far on Senators MacConghail’s and O’Donnell’s amendments. There are so many different threads to this issue but I am happy overall that the tone of this debate is one of respect. Hopefully, we can keep that going over the coming days. I certainly will do my best.

We ought to because this is an issue quite unlike any other. Members are radically divided on this issue. We have to be honest but this is an issue across the world that tragically causes people to end up hating one another. That is never how it should be among human beings. Our duty is to love one another. It is understandable how it can get extremely difficult for people. Accordingly, we need to be very tolerant with one another. I may believe that someone else’s view on this compromises an innocent child’s right to life. I also realise that others may sincerely believe that my views compromise somebody else’s right to autonomy or even dignity or their freedom or sense of self.

I recall Breda O’Brien writing several years ago about having been involved in a wonderful initiative called 5,000 Too Many. She, along with Professor Patricia Casey and others who would style themselves pro-choice, organised a conference with a view to working on what we can agree. What they agreed on was how to reduce the number of abortions. I would like more things like that happening in our country.

There is a time for all of us to be sincere about what we believe. That just does not refer to what we can objectively prove but also what we can intuit. It is intuition that causes me to say that I understand deeply and agree with what Senators Bradford and Healy Eames said about their perception of the relative outcomes for families, not just women, who made a different decision relating to a child who was terminally ill and unborn. It is intuition that causes me to agree to have a deep sense that there is a truth about being patient even in moments of pain.

Nobody here has a monopoly on compassion or courage. Will the Minister extend his respect for courage not just to the group, Termination of Pregnancy for Medical Reasons, but also to the One Day More group? I know other Senators generously paid tribute to that group. They too are wise people who have suffered. They have loved and lost. I was honoured, along with Senators Darragh O’Brien and Mary Ann O’Brien and Deputies Regina Doherty and Arthur Spring, to co-host a presentation by the families of One Day More. These are people who continued to love a child with a severe disability diagnosed in pregnancy. In some cases, the child was terminally ill and died very shortly after birth. In other cases, it was a severe disability that had caused doctors to give the most negative prognosis and to be very dubious about the duty of care to such children. Nonetheless, patience and love won out and happier outcomes were experienced. Those people turned many of our heads that day. A quarter of the entire Oireach- tas, some 60 Members, gathered to hear them.

In debating this very difficult issue, I do feel a deep debt of gratitude not just to the woman who brought me into the world but to the former Minister of State, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, and Senators Mary Ann O’Brien and Healy Eames. I am not suggesting they are better than anyone else but, by articulating their deep concern about the preciousness of all human life, they give permission to people like me and other men who face censure, cruel comments and ridicule for daring to say that abortion is always unjust. We can take it but we must face it. Those women, by their witness to their deeply held values, did not just express themselves but have given permission to me to express myself. As a man, I am not objectively any less qualified to speak about these issues. Anyone who has suffered pain, who has had to contemplate the human condition, who may someday close the eyes of a loved one, who may get a diagnosis of cancer can do so - it is only those who are capable of suffering pain that can really empathise 259 Seanad Éireann with others. That is why I want to preface my remarks that none of us here has a monopoly on compassion and courage.

On the rather dry legal argument that my friend, Senator O’Donnell, brought up about Mr. Hogan’s case, on behalf of the State, the European Court of Human Rights, he argued that remedies had not been exhausted in the Irish courts and that the Irish courts were unlikely to interpret with remorseless logic - a phrase which I found quite terrible - the provisions of Article 40.3.3°.

17/07/2013W00400Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: On a point of order, I have already gone through this. Was Senator Mullen listening?

17/07/2013W00500Senator Rónán Mullen: I was and I am sorry if I did not recall Senator O’Donnell had said it.

17/07/2013W00600An Cathaoirleach: What is Senator O’Donnell’s point of order?

17/07/2013W00700Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I have already gone through this, yet Senator Mullen is speaking about it as though I had not and putting my name to his thoughts.

17/07/2013W00800Senator Rónán Mullen: I apologise for that.

17/07/2013W00900An Cathaoirleach: The record will show who said what.

17/07/2013W01000Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: We will have to wait for the Blacks.

17/07/2013W01100Senator Rónán Mullen: I apologise for that but I did not hear Senator O’Donnell use the phrase “remorseless logic”.

17/07/2013W01200Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: It was in my speech earlier.

17/07/2013W01300Senator Jillian van Turnhout: We are trying to listen to Senator Mullen.

17/07/2013W01400An Cathaoirleach: Senator O’Donnell has spoken and the Official Report will show what she said.

17/07/2013W01500Senator Rónán Mullen: I do not think there is any need to fight about this. The point was that it is not a legal precedent. Senator Norris used the phrase “legal precedent” when it is not.

I have difficulties with the term “incompatible with life”. I have myself used the term “fatal foetal abnormality” in preference to it. There is a key point that some seem to be arguing that the term “unborn” might not include a child who cannot survive once born. There is no real basis for thinking that. The question of the child’s future survival after birth does not take from the fact that he or she is an unborn child now. The protection of the Constitution applies to the child as he or she is in the womb. It is not contingent on his or her future prospects. That is a true and fair reading of the eight amendment. In fact, it is the whole point of the eight amendment. One’s dignity, right to respect, protection and vindication, as far as is practicable, exists in the now. It applies to one as one is in the now. It would be like saying - please forgive me as no analogy is perfect - that a born person with a terminal illness does not have the right to the same legal protection because they are not going to live very long.

Some people kindly referred to the One Day More families. This is an important point because people use phrases such as “it is a matter of the person’s choice”. Senator Averil Power generously paid tribute to them, as well as to Termination for Medical Reasons. Their view, 260 17 July 2013 as expressed to us, was that loving their child to his or her natural end had been the right thing to do and had brought them a lot of healing; therefore, it is true that it was good for them, as their choice. They thought and said and still say that our society needs to give a full welcome to children in this situation, that they need to be welcomed socially and also given legal protection. They said - this was critical - that they had no quarrel with people who thought differently because they understood they had suffered as they had done and understood their situation. They believe waiting with the child until the natural end is ultimately better for everybody involved and see it as the respect due to the child, whatever his or her disability or illness. They worry that leaving it up to individual family decisions, while that may appeal strongly to those of us who lean strongly on the side of autonomy, will cause more hurt than healing. They also went on to say they feared that it would change the situation for everybody. I am paraphrasing. These are my words, not theirs, but the meaning is true to theirs. They say attitudes in the country will change if the decision becomes a matter of individual choice. They fear that there will be greater social pressure to end a pregnancy. As one of them put it to me, parents may be made to feel strange by continuing. That is true, when one thinks about how attitudes to euthanasia and other things switch when the law switches. That is a very valid point. That is all I have to say about One Day More.

That is why I have been quite critical of the media because approximately eight times in the past year there was a focus, understandably, on what was called fatal foetal abnormality. Interestingly, it was the focus twice during the debate on this legislation, even though it is not actually dealt with in the legislation. I noticed once on “Prime Time” that the balance was to contrast those who had gone for a termination, on the one hand, with those who had not, on the other, but those in the second category would not quibble with those who had had a termination. That was not a true balance because there are people who believe that not only would it not work for them but that it would be wrong in principle and, ultimately, counter-productive for society. We need to open up that debate.

I say all of this with thanks to my colleagues for tabling the amendments. These are issues about which we need to talk. I am so glad that Senator Darragh O’Brien brought up the commitment given to have a debate in this House on perinatal hospices and other related facilities. I hope that will happen.

On the amendments and the troubling subjects of rape and incest, while others mentioned their personal experience of talking to people and so on, my views were formed during my student days. I was president of the student union in my college at the time of the X case and one day a very good friend of mine came into my office and informed me that he had been adopted. He did not know the circumstances of his conception. He said, “I am glad to be here and believe I have a right to life, regardless of the circumstances of my conception.” That may be a controversial view in the eyes of some, but it is not an unreasonable one to hold.

17/07/2013X00200Senator Jim Walsh: I concede that I have found this issue extremely challenging. I said yesterday that I had had a deep sense of commitment to a pro-life ethos from natural conception to natural death. In fact, I debated the issue in 1983 in New Ross with then Senator Michael D. Higgins, now our Uachtarán. We need to inform ourselves. I attended the National Women’s Council meeting which heard from those ladies who had gone through the terrible situation of having pregnancies with fatal foetal abnormalities and travelled to England for abortions. Some things did not impress me, but some did hit me hard. I was not impressed by the fact that several people - perhaps they were from the National Women’s Council, not the women themselves - said this was the first step toward achieving a more liberal abortion regime in Ireland, 261 Seanad Éireann to changing our laws.

The second point that did not impress me - I said this on the day, I am not just saying it now - was that several of the women had saidtheir biggest regret was that they had to travel to England for a termination. There was one particular young couple who I could see were really hurting as a consequence of losing their baby. I empathised with them because, unfortunately, I think on our third child, we had had a miscarriage. I saw clearly the impact it had had on our household and the trauma and upset it had caused, particularly to my wife. Therefore, I could empathise with that couple who in their predicament had been faced with the question of what to do. I did not have any particular answer to guide them. I did not see it as my place to judge anybody in that appalling situation, one in which none of us would wish to be. It is distressing for anybody but probably more so for a couple on their first child.

Subsequently, I went to listen to One Day More. The people involved in both groups who told their stories were very courageous. It is very difficult to share one’s personal experiences in public, but they did so and spoke about the reaction when they had heard the news which must have been devastating for everybody. They also spoke about carrying the baby to the end of gestation and being in a position, perhaps in some instances for only minutes or hours, to be able to hold the baby. They spoke about how that had helped them in the grieving process. I was taken by this.

Subsequently representatives of Women Hurt came in. It is a pity that everybody does not open himself or herself to the experience of hearing both sides in these debates. That is imperative. I know many people have but not everybody has. If we are making legislation - I have strong views on the issue - there is an obligation on me to expose myself to the counter arguments and viewpoints and I have tried to do so to the best of my ability. One particular mother in Women Hurt told her story. She had brought her disabled daughter, aged 12 years, with her. That presents a challenge to us all. That mother was advised that she should have an abortion because of the fatal foetal abnormality diagnosed at the time, but she decided not to have one. I respect the fact that others - women and fathers - make different decisions in these situations. However, when I looked at that 12 year old, I had to ask myself whether her life had a value. Do I or does the Minister or anybody else have the right to introduce legislation to legalises the killing of that life before it gets to see the light of day? The answer is no.

I support those who have talked about perinatal hospices. I would like to think there are people in the Department who are not just advocating their own ideology but are, in fact, trying to ensure the services are available for those who need them. It is clear from the Joint Com- mittee on Health and Children hearings that the biggest threat to a woman’s life, as enunciated by every medical person, obstetrician, gynaecologist, and psychiatrist who appeared before the committee, was the lack and dearth of services. The lack of resources was the single biggest threat. That is on the record of those committees for all to see. I do not deny that I find the arguments made by Senators who have a different perspective from me, extremely challenging. I acknowledge and concede that.

On the issue of rape, I have listened to what people have had to say and it is very difficult. Rape is a heinous crime. The Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, of which I am a member, examines human rights issues. Right across conflict areas, rape is systematically used as part of the war campaign. It is obnoxious to any decent human being. I attended meetings recently in respect of the International Criminal Court. We should ensure that people in those situations are brought to justice regardless of the regimes they serve. The laws in Ireland and 262 17 July 2013 the administration of justice in this area constantly need to be updated in order that those who commit that crime are held to account.

I applaud, in particular, Senator Fidelma Healy Eames. She has shown tremendous courage not only in recent weeks but in recent months and in the past year. I agreed with much of what Senator Averil Power had to say on this issue. When people give of their home and their love to take in and adopt others, that is probably the greatest expression of Christian charity that I can identify. It is fantastic. Many of those parents would say, those children are a blessing to them. Equally, they bring great blessings to those children.

As challenged as I am on the issue, we had Women Hurt attend our parliamentary party meeting. A significant number of the members of the parliamentary party attended that briefing. There were three women with whom we debated and discussed the issue, all of whom had abortions and all spoke of their experience and all appealed to us not to introduce legislation. They mentioned the trauma and torment they have suffered as a consequence, some of which I alluded to yesterday, based on an English doctor’s booklet which he published. They appealed for supports for women who find themselves in a terrible predicament, which an unwanted pregnancy can be. At the end, when we were just about to leave, some of our members raised the issue of rape. One young woman then said:

My mother was raped, I am the product of that rape. Are you saying to me, that my life is not as valuable of yours or that or anybody else?

I attended the pro-life vigil outside the Houses in December or January when a reasonable crowd attended. I was introduced to a man of senior years whose mother had been raped and he was the product of that rape. He was with his son and grandson. None of those three people would be alive today if we are to go the route advocated by some people on rape. They are very difficult situations and there are no easy answers. While I recognise this is a time of scarce fiscal resources I appeal to the Minister to put in place the necessary supports to help women through these very difficult experiences that arise in order to get them and their unborn child to a happier place. Ireland in 21st century should surely be able to achieve that.

17/07/2013Y00200Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White. I wish to make a couple of responses to the Minister, Deputy James Reilly’s, response to our argument. I fully accept the constitutional barrier to introducing the amendments on incest and rape and welcome Senator Averil Power’s support for one of our amendments. Clearly, there is no monopoly on courage. As a man, I find it deeply upsetting to even discuss the right to intervene in the bodily integrity of a woman. The idea, as a man, that I should be legislating for the right of a woman to decide and choose her own sense of bodily integrity, whether that is her own sexuality or her right to live, is deeply uncomfortable. However, as a Senator, I have to make that call.

Our amendments are about the right to choose. They are about a choice. We are not saying that every couple and every woman who has a fatal foetal abnormality needs to, or should, go to full term but that there should be a choice. We have examples of that. The Minister, Deputy James Reilly, mentioned figures and questioned those figures. We are not proposing these amendments based on figures but on actual facts. The Termination for Medical Reasons group has clear, upsetting and barbaric examples. The group would like to have a termination of a fatal foetal abnormality available in Ireland where it could then offer closure but where the State would offer compassion. There is no compassion evident in this process particularly as 263 Seanad Éireann they travel abroad.

I wish to clarify again what the Minister was talking about in terms of a viable pregnancy or a life of a person once he or she is born. We are talking about cases of “fatal foetal”, not cases where a person survives. If there was even a scintilla of evidence of that, I would be against it. I am talking about a particular case of fatal foetal abnormalities. I heard the responses of Sena- tors Susan O’Keeffe and Ivana Bacik. Although Senator Bacik mentioned it, she is politically in favour of the clause “fatal foetal abnormality”, as I think the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, may be but I do not want to put words in his mouth. Senator Bacik mentioned that it was less constitutionally robust while the Minister, Deputy James Reilly, said if our amendment was inserted in the Bill it would be open to constitutional challenge.

I would argue that the definition of “unborn” in the Bill could also be open to constitutional challenge. In fact a lot of the details could be open to constitutional challenge. He has mildly threatened that if a clause on fatal foetal abnormalities was included in the Bill it would prevent it from being constitutional. As Senator Averil Power said there are a number of people who are probably preparing to take cases against the Bill, once it is enacted. It is not that it is not constitutional. One has only to look at the Government case put forward in the D case. It is not constitutionally settled - that is the difference. That is the reason we are seeking to include this clause. As I stated to the Minister, Deputy Reilly, it concerns me more as well on the political front because in a way, we are legislating. We must listen to the medical advice on all sides and the legal advice on all sides. Nobody has a monopoly on that. However, we also must have political courage as well. I note the Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, in his letter in the newspaper, has shown empathy and compassion for those women but to deny this amendment on the basis of a possible constitutional challenge does not reassure me that there are other elements within the Bill that will not be challenged constitutionally. That is my final point on that.

17/07/2013Z00200An Cathaoirleach: A number of speakers have spoken already. Senator Healy Eames has spoken already on this.

17/07/2013Z00300Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I wish to respond to the Minister.

17/07/2013Z00400An Cathaoirleach: Okay.

17/07/2013Z00500Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I thank the Cathaoirleach.

This debate is deeply sensitive and I treat it with the greatest of respect. I want to clarify. I was a little disappointed with Senator Power, who inferred that I made a value judgment. I made no value judgment, and would not make a value judgment, between the two sets of women on how they decided to deal with their diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. One group of women absolutely needed to know that they could terminate the life here; they had to travel to England. The other group chose to give birth to their babies. What I said was that having heard women from both groups - this was news to me because, as I stated, I found it the hardest one of all - the group that came across happier to me were the ones who gave birth. They cried with joy because they had reference points with their family. They had minutes together with their child. They had hours, and some had years, despite the diagnosis. That did not come across to me from the other group.

17/07/2013Z00600Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: On a point of order, how can these assumptions be made? These women are not here for us to ascertain their emotional level, whether they are happy or sad. Senator Healy Eames cannot be putting this across as evidence of happiness and 264 17 July 2013 unhappiness, depending on which way one’s choice was.

17/07/2013Z00700An Cathaoirleach: It is not a point of order.

17/07/2013Z00800Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: These women are not here in evidence and Senator Healy Eames cannot interpret this and call it fact. That is my point.

17/07/2013Z00900An Cathaoirleach: If Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell wishes to come back into the debate, she can make that point.

17/07/2013Z01000Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: Okay.

17/07/2013Z01100Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: As I stated, I treat this with the deepest respect. I am making no value judgment here.

17/07/2013Z01200Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I am not suggesting Senator Healy Eames is. I am suggesting-----

17/07/2013Z01300An Cathaoirleach: If Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell wishes to contribute, she can come back in.

17/07/2013Z01400Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: In fairness, the women were here and we met them. I know they are not before us now. I am telling the House how they came across to me. I am merely explaining. One woman spoke about the joy that her child would just be able to feel the wind in her hair.

17/07/2013Z01500An Cathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames is being repetitive here.

17/07/2013Z01600Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am.

17/07/2013Z01700An Cathaoirleach: She made those points previously, even on Second Stage.

17/07/2013Z01800Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am merely saying that some day in the future we may be making a decision with regard to what we will legislate for in this respect. As legislators, we are fortunate to have the experience of having met some of these women. I would not make any of my points today only for that experience.

It is unhelpful to state that I am making a value judgment. I thank Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell for accepting my clarification earlier. That is all I really want to say there.

The one provision these women who gave birth looked for was hospice care. That is what they said would have made their lives that bit easier. They had no regrets whatsoever that they chose to give birth to their children. Indeed, one little one was six years of age and still alive.

While we all are here, we have the right to say what we want on this issue. I have another experience of where I met a woman now living in County Clare. She was pregnant with twins in the United Kingdom. She was told they were next to Siamese twins and that she would be recommended to have a termination. She chose to come back to Ireland-----

17/07/2013Z01900An Cathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames is making a Second Stage speech.

17/07/2013Z02000Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: No.

17/07/2013Z02100Senator Jillian van Turnhout: On a point of order, we are discussing fatal foetal abnor- 265 Seanad Éireann malities. I am aware these are wider, but we are straying beyond the scope of the amendments.

17/07/2013Z02200An Cathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames is making a Second Stage speech.

17/07/2013Z02300Senator Jillian van Turnhout: Fatal foetal abnormalities.

17/07/2013Z02400Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am not making a Second Stage speech.

17/07/2013Z02500An Cathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames is.

17/07/2013Z02600Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: In all cases of which I speak, they were given the diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. In the latter case, those little children are now six-year-old twins, as she stated, running around in a playground in County Clare. With respect, all cases were given the diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. Today is not the day that we will make a decision on this for the reasons that we are told - it is not constitutional. I take Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell’s point, that perhaps some of these matters have been kicked to touch previously but, until it is before us for a decision, some of us need that time.

17/07/2013Z02700Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I listened to all of the contributions from the Senators and acknowledge and thank those who put forward the amendments. By putting forward an amendment, whether one agrees or disagrees with it, they give us all an opportunity to discuss this particular element, the question of fatal foetal abnormalities and, of course, the issue of rape and incest.

This is a most sensitive area, particularly for any member of a family who discovers that a child may be born with a disability. It affects many of us. Recently, within my wider family, I experienced that where the advice given by one of the Dublin hospitals was that the parents, who were young and were expecting their first child, should seriously consider travelling to England to have an abortion even though the baby, who was subsequently born with Down’s syndrome, was at a very late stage. Thankfully, they decided that they did not want to have the abortion and the baby is doing well.

Often I meet people who have Down’s syndrome. I am glad to say that I have a number of friends who have Down’s syndrome and who are contributing well to society.

17/07/2013Z02800Senator Jillian van Turnhout: On a point of order, we are speaking on this amendment about fatal foetal abnormalities.

17/07/2013Z02850An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Ó Domhnaill.

17/07/2013Z02900Senator Jim Walsh: On a point of order, Members interrupting are not helping the flow of this debate. It is coming from Senators with a particular perspective against Senators who have a different perspective. It is wrong.

17/07/2013Z03000An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013Z03100Senator Jim Walsh: The Cathaoirleach should allow no more such pseudo-points of order.

17/07/2013Z03200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I have not spoken to date on these amendments and I want to make a contribution. It is a sensitive issue. While I oppose all of the amendments which have been tabled, I want to make a contribution given that they have been tabled to the debate.

I have looked at this area. I have looked at various reports and at various studies that have 266 17 July 2013 been carried out by universities, both within Europe and in the United States. For example, on the issue has been raised about women who are travelling to England to have abortions as a result of unborn children being diagnosed with fatal foetal abnormalities, there was a carried out by the British Department of Health over a ten-year period in 20 hospitals in the United Kingdom between 1995 and 2004. It showed that 3,189 abortions were carried out on unborn children who had disabilities or fatal foetal abnormalities. Of that number, 102 or, one in 30, of those children were born alive and left to die on sterilised trays in operating theatres. It is important to point out that fact.

We know that almost 200,000 abortions are carried out in the UK every year and I obtained the figures from the British Department of Health. Around 1%, or 2,000 of them, are appli- cable in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities or unborn children with disabilities and around 33% relate to Down’s syndrome. The point I made about Down’s syndrome is valid. Around 700 unborn children are aborted in England because they would have had the syndrome had they been born. I know many people with Down’s syndrome who play an active part in citizenship in this country and represent us at the Special Olympics. Senators from all sides of the House have been great proponents of the Special Olympics and it is important to acknowledge those facts during the debate.

Another study conducted in the United Stated by the pro-choice organisation, Planned Par- enthood, found that 6% of all abortions performed there are due to the discovery of fatal foetal abnormalities or children with disabilities. It would be wrong to say that the matter is wide- ranging and affects many children, and I do not insinuate that has been said. We are talking about a small number of cases so we must be careful to frame legislation using best medical practice.

I draw the attention of the Minister of State and the House to a report entitled Maternal and Neonatal Health Better in Abortion Averse Ireland than Great Britain that was carried out for the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. I shall quote some of the article but will not go into great detail. I have copies of the report if the Minister of State or any Members wish to read the research. The article reads:

Comparing national health data over a period of 40 years that showed better maternal and neonatal outcomes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where abortion is illegal or highly restricted, than in Great Britain, where abortion has been legal since 1968, according to an article published in this summer’s issue of the Journal of American Physi- cians and Surgeons.

Researchers Byron C. Calhoun, M.D., of West Virginia University-Charleston, John M. Thorp, M.D., of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Patrick Carroll, M.A., of Britain’s Pension and Population Research Institute (PAPRI) examined maternal mortality, stillbirth rates, and preterm births.

Irish women can travel overseas to Great Britain or the continent to obtain abortions, but Irish abortion rates continue to be low. The authors calculate total abortion rates,TARs, analo- gous to total fertility rates,TFRs, of 0.13 for the Republic and 0.09 for Northern Ireland in 2011, compared with 0.52 for England and Wales, 0.36 for Scotland, and 0.6 for Sweden. About one third of English women are likely to experience an abortion, compared with less than one tenth of Irish women, they state.

267 Seanad Éireann Since 1968, maternal mortality has declined much more steeply in Ireland than in Great Britain. In the last decade, the article reports maternal mortality of three per 100,000 in the Republic of Ireland compared with six per 100,000 in England and Wales.

A history of prior induced abortion is-----

17/07/2013AA00200An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is making a Second Stage speech.

17/07/2013AA00300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The crux of the matter is, women who have an abortion, even for a possible fatal foetal abnormality, face a health risk in future pregnancies. There is a proven increased risk of “stillbirths, premature births, low birth-weight of future children, cerebral palsy and maternal deaths.” I urge all Senators to read the report.

I am not a medical expert, nor do I claim to be. Before voting on an amendment it is important for Members to educate themselves about best medical practice for all of these issues. According to the research that I quoted, the best medical practice clearly shows, apart from the moral issues, that this series of amendments do not make medical sense.

I have met many women and families on both sides of the argument and I have met the groups that were referred to earlier. Questions have been asked such as when is a life less of a life, is it after birth at five seconds or five days, etc. It is important to realise when human life exists. I believe, and where I come from, human life exists from conception to natural death. Therefore, I cannot support an amendment where human life would be destroyed in the womb simply because the unborn child is disabled. It sends a very wrong message about the protection and rights of children who are disabled. It would also impose a culture or perception-----

17/07/2013AA00400Senator Mary Moran: On a point of order, the amendment has nothing to do with disability.

17/07/2013AA00500An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013AA00600Senator Mary Moran: It concerns fatal foetal abnormality.

17/07/2013AA00700An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ó Domhnaill has moved away from debating the amendment. I ask him to stick to the amendment.

17/07/2013AA00800Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Yes.

17/07/2013AA00900Senator Mary Moran: The amendment has nothing to do with disability or the whole issue of disability.

17/07/2013AA01000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Please allow me to finish.

17/07/2013AA01100Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: The Senator does not understand the words “fatal” and “incompatible”.

17/07/2013AA01200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Senator O’Donnell, my namesake, has been very disruptive in the Chamber today.

17/07/2013AA01300Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: Senator Ó Domhnaill has been equally good at re- sponding.

17/07/2013AA01400An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ó Domhnaill please, on the amendments. 268 17 July 2013

17/07/2013AA01500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I assumed that because Senator O’Donnell tabled a motion that she would be interested in hearing my opinion.

17/07/2013AA01600Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I am if the Senator would stick to the motion or the amendment on fatal foetal abnormality which has nothing to do with disability.

17/07/2013AA01700An Cathaoirleach: Senator O’Domhnaill please, without interruption.

17/07/2013AA01800Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Go raibh maith agat. This is not the first time today that people have been interrupted.

17/07/2013AA01900An Cathaoirleach: Please speak on the amendment.

17/07/2013AA02000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: By supporting the amendment one would support a culture or perception of normality on reproductive decisions. That would be wrong. There is no way that I can support the amendments but I acknowledge the absolute right of Senators to table amendments. I also acknowledge the Minister for Health who was here and agree with the vast majority of his comments on these amendments.

17/07/2013AA02100Senator Aideen Hayden: My points shall be brief. I understand that we are discussing fatal foetal abnormality. It means a medical condition suffered by a foetus such that it is incompatible with life outside the womb. I am horrified by what I have heard from Senator Ó Domhnaill. He suggested that every parent who has a disabled child is subject to the amendment. That is low, below the belt, uncalled for and demeans the Chamber.

17/07/2013AA02200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: On a point of order.

17/07/2013AA02300An Cathaoirleach: A point of order.

17/07/2013AA02400Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The amendment says, whether one agrees with it or not, and I assume by that speech by Senator Moran that she supports the amendments.

17/07/2013AA02500An Cathaoirleach: What is the Senator’s point of order?

17/07/2013AA02600Senator Aideen Hayden: What is the Senator’s point of order or question?

17/07/2013AA02700Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Any child who is born with a disability has a right to live. That is my point.

17/07/2013AA02800Senator Aideen Hayden: For goodness sake.

17/07/2013AA02900Senator Mary Moran: On a point of order. Nobody disagrees with him and everybody has a right.

17/07/2013AA03000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: If the Senator does not agree with that principle then she should agree with my principle.

17/07/2013AA03100Senator Mary Moran: Absolutely. Everybody with a disability. That is not what this amendment is about.

17/07/2013AA03200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Thank God.

(Interruptions).

269 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013AA03400An Cathaoirleach: Senator Hayden please, without interruption. We are also dealing with rape and incest in these amendments.

17/07/2013AA03500Senator Aideen Hayden: Yes, I am dealing with the amendments that have been tabled on fatal foetal abnormality----

17/07/2013AA03600Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Is the Senator going to contradict me?

17/07/2013AA03700Senator Aideen Hayden: Yes. The amendment also deals with being “incompatible with life outside the womb.” I am certain such a thing is a medical decision, as are many of the medical decisions to be taken under this legislation. I would very much like to be in a position to support this amendment, and I said so on Second Stage. I also trust the legal opinion of Senator Ivana Bacik, who is one of the most eminent lawyers in this country and who said that to do so would potentially put this legislation at risk in terms of its constitutionality. I very much hope we will come back to this issue. I would like to vote for this amendment - the Senators have my absolute assurances on that.

I have confidence in the medical profession. It is quite clear from all the evidence we heard from the various groups that it is not about feeling the wind on one’s skin, appreciating the sun on one’s open eyes or whatever. We are all fully aware of what fatal foetal abnormality is. I would say to Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill that it is not about disability and it is incredibly low to suggest there is any connection between these two issues, especially when we will have debate in Private Members’ time on the Special Olympics. I am absolutely convinced there is no connection and I think the Senator is misleading-----

17/07/2013BB00200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Of course there is.

17/07/2013BB00300Senator Aideen Hayden: There is not. The Senator is misleading-----

17/07/2013BB00400Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Senator is depriving future Special Olympics athletes of being born.

17/07/2013BB00500Senator Aideen Hayden: I will not go any further with this.

17/07/2013BB00600Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: That is the point.

17/07/2013BB00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Hayden without interruption.

17/07/2013BB00800Senator Aideen Hayden: Incapable of life outside the womb.

17/07/2013BB00900Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Senator makes the decision that they are incapable-----

17/07/2013BB01000Senator Aideen Hayden: I am sorry.

17/07/2013BB01100Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Senator makes the decision that they are incapable of life outside the womb by voting for it.

17/07/2013BB01200Senator Aideen Hayden: If the Leas-Chathaoirleach does not mind, I will carry on with my point.

17/07/2013BB01300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Hayden without interruption. It does not serve the purpose of a proper debate if there are constant interruptions and if Members ignore the Chair. It is most unfortunate. 270 17 July 2013

17/07/2013BB01400Senator Aideen Hayden: Absolutely. I would very much like to support this amendment but, unfortunately, I am not able to do so. It is a very well-thought-out amendment and it is something to which we will have to return.

With regard to the amendment on rape and incest, I am very much of the view that this country has moved on. It is a pity that many of the representations we have received have come from a particular group of people. I know this point has been made by other Senators but I would very much like to know how they are funded, how they managed to run the campaign they ran and from where their money is coming. We spent hours in this Chamber making it impossible for somebody in political life to receive a donation of more than €100 without having to go through every hoop known to man, yet other organisations can spend millions of euro on campaigns.

I will like to repeat a statistic I gave on Second Stage. More than 120,000 Irish women have had abortions since the 1983 constitutional amendment. If one takes that statistic and looks around this Chamber - I am not looking at the women or at the men - at least one in ten people in this Chamber has had an abortion, has a partner who has had one or has a daughter who has had one. That is the bottom line. It is time we moved on. Why do we not stick to what is in front of us, namely, this legislation?

17/07/2013BB01500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Why does the Senator not stick to it?

17/07/2013BB01600Senator Jim Walsh: Senator Hayden has not stuck to it.

17/07/2013BB01700Senator Aideen Hayden: Why does Senator Ó Domhnaill not stick to it?

17/07/2013BB01800Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Senator Hayden the one who is all over the place.

17/07/2013BB01900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Hayden, address the debate through the Chair.

17/07/2013BB02000Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Senator is in a corner defending her position.

17/07/2013BB02100Senator Aideen Hayden: I will finish my point. I would very much like to address the rape and the incest issue. Has Senator Ó Domhnaill met a victim of incest? I have met one, as I am sure many other Senators have. I genuinely wish we were addressing this issue. I accept that we are not and that is why I will not be able to support the amendment put forward by my colleagues, which I know is very well meant and comes from a well researched position. I hope that in the lifetime of this Government we will be able to address it but I doubt we will be. However, as far as I am concerned, I am here to address one thing, namely, the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill and any amendment consistent with it. That is the bottom line.

17/07/2013BB02200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We have been on this amendment for almost three hours. I do not want people personalising things, nor do I want repetition.

17/07/2013BB02300Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I have a specific question for the Minister of State which arises from some confusion in the debate. The issue here for me is that some families that received a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality decided to bring their babies to term and the babies lived outside the womb for some time, despite the diagnosis. Some lived for minutes, some for hours, some for months and some for years, despite the diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality. How can we decide? It is a judgment - a decision by a doctor. The woman who is pregnant gets this diagnosis. How can we decide which woman’s baby will not live outside the womb and which one will live? That is the question I would like the Minister of State to answer. 271 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013BB02400Deputy Alex White: I do not propose to say very much more at this point because I know there has been a very good and wide-ranging discussion on these amendments and I thank the Senators who tabled them. They are very well motivated in what they have done.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail mentioned something I said, so I should respond briefly to his comments on this issue which were directed towards me.

17/07/2013BB02500Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: Benignly.

17/07/2013BB02600Deputy Alex White: It is always to help the debate, of course.

17/07/2013BB02700Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: The Minister of State should be aware that there are young children in the House.

17/07/2013BB02800Deputy Alex White: The first point is in regard to constitutionality. This is a human business. Politicians, members of Government, judges and doctors are all human beings. There is very little absolute certainty in any of this. There are very few things we can say with absolute certainty. Unless we have an opportunity in our laws to ask the court in advance whether it is of the view that something is consistent with the Constitution, we must do the very best we can, as a Government and as an Oireachtas, to ensure the legislation we enact is consistent with the Constitution. We cannot be absolutely certain until, or unless, it is challenged or otherwise comes before the court and the court makes that final decision.

The Senator said in support of his argument that perhaps we should take a more radical approach and that there might be other aspects of the Bill which are unconstitutional. Given that fact, he asked whether we should go a little further on this. Every effort has been made in respect of every syllable of this Bill to ensure as best we can in the Department of Health, in the Government and in the context of the advice of the Attorney General and outside, that everything in it is consistent with the Constitution. There is no use in thinking the Government’s approach is to take a chance with something or to say this might or might not pass muster. That has not been our approach. Nobody can be absolutely certain, but our very best efforts have been employed to ensure every single word, line and syllable is consistent with the Constitu- tion.

That takes me on to the more substantive point Senator Mac Conghail made in regard to the D case. The Government made certain submissions to the court in Strasbourg in the context of the D case. Sometimes lawyers make these distinctions and people think it is just more legal talk, but it is important to remember that in the D case there was a discussion about whether the applicant had exhausted all of her domestic remedies. The submission the Government made in support of its argument was that she had not exercised all her domestic remedies and that there was an arguable case that she might succeed - it was at least tenable or possible. If one reads through the submission, one sees it is replete with words such as “arguable” and “possible”. The Government cannot come to the Oireachtas and say it thinks there is a real possibility that this may or may not be constitutional. We must provide legislation which comes as close to certainty as possible, while accepting that absolute certainty is impossible. Doing the very best we can, the preponderance of the legal advice, including that of the Attorney General, is that there would be a question mark over the constitutional soundness of the legislation if we were to adopt the course advocated, notwithstanding that many of us have enormous sympathy with its substance. We must fall back on the position that obtains. It is a conservative argument. The law is often conservative. We must rely on what we believe to be the current legal position in

272 17 July 2013 accordance with the best advice we have.

Senators have approached the definition issue very carefully and responsibly. The definition often used is “incompatibility with life outside the womb”. Senator fidelma Healy Eames raised the issue also. The Attorney General has advised, correctly, if I might state my view, that if there is a possibility of survival outside the womb, Article 40.3.3o is engaged. The Senator used the word “scintilla” and I understood him to mean the scintilla of a possibility. That is the issue. The advice on which I must rely is that the protection of Article 40.3.3o will be engaged for the unborn. Can it ever be said there is no possibility of survival outside the womb? If the life of the unborn has come to an end before birth, Article 40.3.3o would not be engaged. In that case, it would not be unborn for the purposes of Article 40.3.3o. It would no longer be “beo gan breith”, alive without having been born. “Beo gan breith” is the Irish for “unborn”. It would not have the protection. If there is the possibility that the foetus can survive independently for however short a time, that is awfully difficult and one of the most troubling aspects of the legislation for everyone. I must provide our advice for the Seanad. It is compelling advice. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Government to accept the amendments.

17/07/2013CC00200Senator Jim Walsh: This is a most difficult area for all of us. There is no huge difference between our concerns, though we may have different perspectives as to how it might be resolved. The interruptions of Senator Fidelma Healy Eames while she was making her point were unhelpful. I found there was no real difference in the sense of loss of the parents who came to the Oireachtas with the National Women’s Council and who were promoting abortion and the One Day More people who came to tell their stories. I was struck that some of the One Day More people had photographs which had been taken in the short period during which the baby had lived. The family got around. The fact that they had these photographs did not al- leviate their problem, but it helped them in the bereavement process. That came across as a significant factor which was not there with the other group.

I accept fully that the proposers of the amendments do not in any way have an intention that it should lead to the abortion of people with disabilities. I do not question this. During the health committee hearings I received a telephone call from an Irish woman, who is a doctor in London. She told me she was really concerned about what she was hearing from the health committee hearings. She told me of her personal experience with her first child who had Down’s syndrome. She was advised on at least three occasions during her pregnancy, on one or two of which she was urged, to have an abortion and not to have the baby. She told me her problem living in London was that she could not access the necessary services and supports for her baby with Down’s syndrome because the critical mass was not there. Of babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome, 90% are aborted in England. The intention in England when the legislation was introduced in 1967 was never to have people with disabilities included. We have seen it go to the stage now that unborn babies identified with cleft palates have been aborted. It is an appalling vista and we do not want to go there. For that reason, the legislation must be thoroughly scrutinised.

Senator Aideen Hayden referred to the figure of 150,000, which has been thrown around the room many times by people with a perspective on it. While we do not know why many or all of them have travelled to England for an abortion, we know that 20% of them have gone for more than one abortion, which statistic comes from our own Department of Health. Anecdotally, I have been told by a doctor of a woman who went this year for her sixth abortion.

17/07/2013CC00300Senator David Norris: The Seanad should not be polluted by this kind of anecdotal rub- 273 Seanad Éireann bish. It is a disgrace.

17/07/2013CC00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Norris, please resume your seat and repect the Chair.

17/07/2013CC00500Senator Jim Walsh: There is freedom of information-----

17/07/2013CC00600Senator David Norris: The Senator is talking about a woman having six abortions with no supporting evidence when he is the one who is always talking about evidence-based legislation. He has produced no evidence for his statement. He is a disgrace.

17/07/2013CC00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator has indicated that he wants to speak next. If he wants to make a point, make it with decorum.

17/07/2013CC00800Senator Jim Walsh: I have told the House that this information is on the public record. The other information on the record was set out at the health committee hearings. A freedom of information request was made to the Department of Health in the United Kingdom relating to the figures for recent years. The response showed that no Irish woman was recorded as having had an abortion in Britain during that period for a life-saving reason. There are things we know and, sadly, other things we do not know.

17/07/2013CC00900Senator Aideen Hayden: That is not true. On a point of information, I asked a specific question at the hearings of the joint committee as to whether there was information relating to Irish women who had travelled to the United Kingdom who might have done so because they had suffered from serious risks to their health. The response from the eminent medical professionals who were there was that they did not know. Secondly-----

17/07/2013CC01000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: No. I am not letting the Senator in again.

17/07/2013CC01100Senator Jim Walsh: That was not my point.

17/07/2013CC01200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I resent this tit-for-tat approach and reject it. We have now spent three hours on the amendment. At this rate, given that there are 86 amendments, it will take 22 12-hour days to cover the Bill. Be reasonable. Everybody wants to come back in and repeat. I listened to an hour and a half of this before I took a break. Many of the points were made - very well - and rebutted before being made again and rebutted again. I reject the idea that if one Senator says something, another must object. We are going around in circles. There are seven more speakers and at some stage I must put the question.

17/07/2013CC01300Senator David Norris: The Leas-Chathaoirleach has made the point I wanted to make. I left the House at 1 p.m. having moved the amendments in my name. I am astonished that the debate is still going on at 3.20 p.m. While some contributions are reasoned and valuable, much of the stuff being recorded is tendentious, a circular argument based on anecdotes from Mem- bers who always demand evidence-based material. It looks to me as if we have an attempt to force a guillotine. This is political sleight of hand and they will then try to force the imposition of a guillotine through unreasonably lengthy contributions before crying foul. I would like to know if I can put my amendment to a vote.

17/07/2013DD00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I do not want to cut across Senator Norris, having been fair to everyone. The amendment before us is amendment No. 2 in the names of Senators Fiach Mac Conghail and Marie-Louise O’Donnell. Senator Norris’s amendment will be taken later so he cannot put his amendment to a vote until later.

274 17 July 2013

17/07/2013DD00300Senator David Norris: I urge my colleagues to call a vote within a reasonable amount of time.

17/07/2013DD00400Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I would like to press the amendment now.

17/07/2013DD00500Senator David Norris: Well done.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 42. Tá Níl Barrett, Sean D. Bacik, Ivana. Heffernan, James. Bradford, Paul. Mac Conghail, Fiach. Brennan, Terry. Norris, David. Burke, Colm. O’Brien, Mary Ann. Clune, Deirdre. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. Coghlan, Eamonn. Power, Averil. Coghlan, Paul. van Turnhout, Jillian. Comiskey, Michael. White, Mary M. Conway, Martin. Zappone, Katherine. Crown, John. Cummins, Maurice. D’Arcy, Jim. D’Arcy, Michael. Daly, Mark. Gilroy, John. Harte, Jimmy. Hayden, Aideen. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Henry, Imelda. Higgins, Lorraine. Keane, Cáit. Kelly, John. Landy, Denis. MacSharry, Marc. Moloney, Marie. Mooney, Paschal. Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullen, Rónán. Mullins, Michael. Noone, Catherine. O’Brien, Darragh. O’Donovan, Denis.

275 Seanad Éireann O’Keeffe, Susan. O’Neill, Pat. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Quinn, Feargal. Sheahan, Tom. Walsh, Jim. Whelan, John. Wilson, Diarmuid.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Fiach Mac Conghail and Marie-Louise O’Donnell; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.

Amendment declared lost.

17/07/2013EE00100Senator David Norris: It is important to recognise that the two women in Fianna Fáil supported the amendment and every single man-----

17/07/2013EE00200An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, resume your seat.

17/07/2013EE00300Senator David Norris: It was divided between the men who voted against their amendment, which could save people in rape-----

17/07/2013EE00400An Cathaoirleach: Resume your seat.

17/07/2013EE00500Senator David Norris: I congratulate the two Fianna Fáil women.

17/07/2013EE00600An Cathaoirleach: You are completely out of order.

17/07/2013EE00700Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: We have a typographical error in amendment No. 3, so we will not move it until Report Stage.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

17/07/2013EE00900An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 4, 37 and 38 are related and may be discussed together.

17/07/2013EE01000Senator Jim Walsh: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, line 8, after “treatment” to insert the following:

“but excludes any procedure undertaken or drug administered with the direct intention of killing the unborn”.

If the Title means what it says - the Minister of State, Deputy White, assured us this morning that the Title conveys that the Bill is about the protection of women who are pregnant and the

276 17 July 2013 protection of the unborn - then obviously he should have no difficulty accepting the amendment for the clarity it brings to the Title. The amendment will mean that the definition of “medical procedure” in the interpretation section will now read as follows: “ “medical procedure” includes the prescribing, by a medical practitioner, of any drug or medical treatment, but excludes any procedure undertaken or drug administered with the direct intention of killing the unborn.”

Our current ethos and law in this country have been about protecting the lives of women and do not allow the intentional killing of the unborn. If that Bill reflects that ethos, as the Min- ister of State said earlier, then he will have no difficulty in acknowledging and accepting the amendment. For that reason, in the expectation that that is the case and that what he told us this morning was true, I am not going to prolong the discussion on this amendment, and I am happy to leave it to the Minister of State to confirm that he will accept it.

17/07/2013EE01100Senator Colm Burke: I just cannot accept this amendment. If we apply this amendment-----

17/07/2013EE01200Senator Paschal Mooney: Nobody is asking the Senator to accept it. It is the Minister of State’s job to accept it.

17/07/2013EE01300Senator Colm Burke: This amendment means that doctors will be restricted from inducing any delivery, even where the mother’s life is at risk. If we applied Senator Walsh’s interpretation to the likes of the Savita case, then it means the doctors would have to stand idly by in such a situation. I would ask Senator Walsh to look at the wording of what he is saying. It means no procedure of any description. If a delivery is induced for someone under 24 weeks pregnant, the foetus is going to die. Adopting the wording proposed in the amendment would restrict every medical practitioner in every hospital from inducing any delivery even when the life of the mother is at risk. I am surprised at the way this amendment is worded. It is wrong and I do not believe we can accept it.

17/07/2013FF00200Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I have heard both sides but there is a distinction. Of course, we support every intervention where the mother’s life can be saved, even if that means the unintentional taking of the life of the unborn. Senator Walsh’s amendment states, “but excludes any procedure undertaken or drug administered with the direct intention of killing the unborn”. That is the difference. It is about the intention. Senator Burke is not correct that this amendment would prevent a life-saving mechanism for a woman under sections 7 or 8 or in the Savita Halappanavar case. In all those cases, we would want a woman’s life to be saved. The intention of the intervention would be to save the life of the woman, even if it meant the unintentional taking of the life of the unborn. Senator Walsh is referring to the direct intention of killing the unborn. Will the Minister of State clarify that this is the intention of section 9, namely, the direct intention of killing the unborn?

17/07/2013FF00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: Will Senator Walsh explain how this amendment fits in with section 7, risk of loss of life from physical illness, or section 8, risk of loss of life from physical illness in emergency? Section 7 states, “It shall be lawful to carry out a medical procedure in respect of a pregnant woman in accordance with this section in the course of which, or as a result of which, an unborn human life is ended”.

17/07/2013FF00400Deputy Alex White: The main purpose of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 is to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland in line with Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution while regulating access to lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with the

277 Seanad Éireann X case and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v. Ireland case.

Section 22 which lays out the offence specifies, “It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.” Amendment No. 4 is, therefore, unnecessary and I do not propose to accept it.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 concern the issue of viability. The Bill makes reference to a medical practitioner’s reasonable opinion which places a statutory duty on each medical practitioner required to form an opinion for the purpose of the legislation to have regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable. This is a direct quotation from Article 40.3.3°. This imposes a clear duty on medical practitioners to make every effort to preserve the life of a foetus that may be viable. Not to do so would mean a medical practitioner would be in breach of the proposed legislation and subject to its penalties.

However, we do not wish to be prescriptive about specific procedures to be followed in making the required efforts to preserve the life of the foetus. The purpose of the legislation is not to regulate obstetric procedures which do not constitute termination of pregnancy or to dic- tate the practice of obstetrics. Standard medical practice will provide appropriate mechanisms for assessments of both the woman and the unborn. It would not be appropriate to include this or other details of medical treatments in legislation. For those reasons, I cannot accept these amendments.

17/07/2013FF00500Senator Paul Bradford: The Minister of State said he does not wish to be prescriptive. Nothing can be as prescriptive as the language of section 22 which states, “It shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life.” That is a very black-and-white statement. I cannot see how anyone could have a difficulty with how Deputy Walsh’s amendment would impact on sections 7 and 8. This amendment clearly states it wants to remove the direct intention of killing the unborn.

As Senator Healy Eames said, every Member of this House, the other House and the entirety of Irish society fully supports medical intervention wherever it is necessary to save the life of the mother. If, unfortunately, as a result of that intervention, there is the unintentional effect of the child dying, it is sad but the reality of the intervention.

The direct intention to bring the life of an unborn child to an end is an entirely different area. That is where the whole philosophical aspect of the divide between abortion, termination and medical procedure is coming into play in this debate. The Minister of State’s refusal to accept this amendment is at the core of the philosophical underpinning of this legislation. Section 22 uses blunt language stating abortion is illegal. If we want to keep that as the kernel of the legislation, then I cannot see for the life of me how there could be any difficulty with the insertion of this amendment. We either support the direct intention of killing the unborn or we do not. Maybe the Minister of State does but I certainly do not. I cannot see how there would be any difficulty with the inclusion of this amendment. It would not affect sections 7 and 8 as they do not, in any way, provide for the direct intention of killing the unborn. They simply provide for whatever medical procedures are required to save the life of the mother, a provision supported by every citizen of this Republic. I am concerned by the way the Minister of State utterly dismissed this amendment. How can the Minister of State be so opposed to the phrase “the direct intention of killing the unborn”? His opposition to that phrase frightens me.

278 17 July 2013

17/07/2013FF00600Senator Rónán Mullen: The first point I noticed was the difference between Senator Burke’s rationale for opposing this very sensible amendment and that of the Minister’s. I have great respect for Senator Burke. He has been a very thoughtful and well-researched contributor to debates in this House. I felt, however, his rationale for opposing Senator Walsh’s amendment showed he was not at his best in his analysis.

I note the Minister resorted to the view it is simply not necessary. Senator Bradford said much of what I was going to say. In light of the offence as identified in section 22, namely, that “it is an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life”, it simply does not make logical sense to reject Senator Walsh’s amendment.

There are very clear issues at stake. For example, across the water obstetricians, the people who are skilled in saving life, are also, sadly, the people skilled in taking life when that life is not wanted as a matter of choice. I recall reading one excerpt from a scholarly article by a very distinguished academic obstetrician in Britain in which he described the procedures for the late-term termination of pregnancy. He referred to intra-cardiac injection of potassium chloride being the optimum approach. It is the injection of a poison into the child’s heart. This is from a member of the establishment in Britain. This illustrates the radical difference in the cultures of our two countries. That was why I opposed the nomination of that very scholar as the Chairman of the HSE inquiry into the tragic death of the late Savita.

17/07/2013GG00200Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, is it appropriate to be making allegations about individuals who are not present in the Chamber?

17/07/2013GG00300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013GG00400Senator Rónán Mullen: My point is very clearly this, people are deeply concerned about what this legislation may import. They are deeply concerned about an apparent double speak on the part of the Government which says there is no need to identify issues around gestational limits because what the Constitution allows, and has been interpreted to allow, is not termination of life but termination of pregnancy, therefore the constitutional right to a lawful abortion does not extend to the destruction of the unborn in post-viability situations. There are amendments before this House which will seek to bring clarity to that point by establishing that a child must be protected, post-viability. That is very connected with this because an issue that will arise is the procedure that is used to end the pregnancy. It is entirely appropriate that the direct- indirect distinction which has been at the heart of quality maternal health care in this country would not be just preserved but recognised. That is exactly what Senator Walsh’s amendment seeks to do.

17/07/2013GG00500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I wish to support Senator Walsh’s amendment. It cracks to the core of this issue and touches on the medical procedure which in theory is a forced abortion. We have listened to the arguments being put forward by Senator Colm Burke and the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Alex White. Unfortunately, it appears to be clear that for one reason or another, or the tone being set, that no amendments will be accepted in this House as was the case in the Dáil.

The Bill is quite clinical about the medical procedure because babies have a better chance of survival after 24 weeks or six months, than earlier. The longer the baby is in the womb, the stronger its chance of survival. It is possible to end a pregnancy by inducing labour or by Cae- sarean delivery at this stage rather than by having an abortion. Abortion is a deliberate ending

279 Seanad Éireann of the life of the baby whereas the other two methods offer hope that the baby will actually live. The Bill makes no mention of these other procedures. It refers only to the medical procedure which is outlined to include the prescribing by a medical practitioner of any drug or medical treatment.

17/07/2013GG00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 4.

17/07/2013GG00700Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Yes. That is Senator Walsh’s amendment. What if the baby is healthy and aborted? What if the life is ended just because the mother is suicidal without first going for the options I have already mentioned? The American Congress recently passed a Bill introducing a ban on abortion over 20 weeks because a baby can feel pain at this stage. This means that abortion over 20 weeks is banned all over the United States of America. The Irish Bill does not make any exception for or mention of safe delivery at any time during the nine months of pregnancy or even mention a cutting-off point. Is this deliberate, as a means of helping pro-life doctors to avoid aborting by delaying as safe as possible a delivery for an unborn baby? If any doctor, midwife or surgeon is doing his or her utmost to protect mother and child, bearing in mind that Ireland is the safest place in the world to have a baby, I know that very few would opt to carry out abortions, especially those with conscientious objections. If doctors are forced to find others to carry out the procedure, especially in an emergency, they may be left with both a deceased mother and baby if they have to move both the mother and the unborn child to another hospital because one hospital opts not to carry out the procedure. There are all sorts of issues here that appear to have been left out of this legislation. It is a clinical attempt to introduce abortion and my simple rationale-----

17/07/2013GG00800Deputy Alex White: On a point of information, there is no provision exempting hospitals or allowing them to say they would not provide the service the Senator is talking about.

17/07/2013GG00900Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: That is technically correct but there is-----

17/07/2013GG01000Deputy Alex White: It is not in there.

17/07/2013GG01100Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: If, for example, all the practitioners within the hospital were unwilling to carry out the procedure, the only rational alternative would be to bring practitioners into the hospital who would be willing to do it or to transfer the mother and unborn child to another hospital. Therefore, there are time delays involved. That is an issue. I do not see it addressed anywhere in the Bill.

For me this is very simple. People talk about being pro-choice and all of that but for me one is either pro-abortion or pro-life. There is no in-between.

17/07/2013GG01200Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I wish to speak to my amendment No. 38. The amendment states: “In page 10, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(c) that medical procedure shall not involve the intentional destruction of a viable unborn,’ “. The key words are “intentional” and “viable unborn”. I have great difficulty with the reason for not taking this amendment in the Dáil. Why was the Government not open to accepting this amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil? The aim of this amendment is to allow medical practitioners to intervene to save a mother’s life in a manner in which attempts are also made to save the baby’s life. The current wording, instead of maybe, presumes that the baby’s life will be ended rather than saved and in fact does not render lawful the saving of the baby’s life. There is no reason for the current wording to remain other than to pave the way for situations where no attempt is made to save the baby’s life at all. This is not acceptable. We are talking about a viable baby. 280 17 July 2013 There is a second part to my amendment which I would like to address. It states “(d) where the unborn is sixteen weeks gestation or older, an effective anaesthetic for pain relief shall be administered to the foetus before the medical procedure is commenced.” To support this, if we are to have abortions they must be done in the most pain-free way for the child. That is the very least we can do to be as humane as possible. Neo-natal surgeons in the UK use anaesthetics in surgery on unborn children as they conclude that they feel pain. Pro-choice professor, Vivette Glover, called for anaesthetics to be used during terminations on unborn children. I emphasise that the professor is pro-choice. According to an article published in The Telegraph on 2 Sep- tember 2000 by Daniel Johnson:

. . . Professor Vivette Glover, [said] that a foetus aborted between 17 and 24 weeks after conception may, after all, feel pain.

. . .

Prof Glover’s response should disturb us even more than her belated recognition that the “termination” of unborn babies in the womb is likely to cause unimaginable suffering. Rather than face the truth, she simply calls for anaesthetics: “I am pro-choice, but one should not muddle the two. One should think about how one is doing it in the most pain-free way.”

We can credit her with that. There is a great deal of support for this argument. In 2001 a working group of the Medical Research Council in the UK suggested that doctors should consider the use of analgesia and sedation for foetuses over 24 weeks of age undergoing surgery. Professor Eve Johnstone, the chairperson of the working group, said that a foetus was aware of pain by 24 weeks, maybe as early as 20 weeks because connections from the thalamus to the cortex in the brain begin to form at about 20 weeks’ gestation. We are legislating here today, this week, this month, to terminate the life of the unborn where it is deemed that a mother’s life is at risk. Could we do it with dignity, if we have to do it at all? I do not believe it is dignified. Could we do it as humanely as possible and in as pain-free a way as possible? Somebody has to speak for the unborn. In this case they deserve to be pain-free.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Sitting suspended at 4 p.m. and resumed at 4.30 p.m.

Special Olympics Ireland: Motion

17/07/2013JJ00200Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): I welcome representatives from Spe- cial Olympics Ireland to the Visitors Gallery.

17/07/2013JJ00300Senator Mary Moran: I move:

That Seanad Éireann:

- notes the commitment of the Government in the Programme for Government to ensure that the quality of life for people with disabilities is

enhanced;

281 Seanad Éireann - notes in particular that Ireland has the highest participation rate of any country in the world in terms of Special Olympics Ireland, with around one-third of persons with an intellectual disability participating each year;

- notes that Special Olympics Ireland, a professionally run organisation with a strong volunteer network, has 400 community clubs across Ireland which offer training and competition in 15 Olympic type sports for those with an intellectual disability; and that the organisation operates a wide range of programmes which promote the development of the individual, by integrating them into local communities and giving them opportunities for personal development and achievement;

- notes that in 2003, Ireland hosted the most successful World Summer Games in Special Olympics history; and that on a weekly basis, Special Olympics Ireland offers a year-round programme of sport and training facilities to over 11,000 individuals throughout Ireland; and

- commends the Government and Minister Kathleen Lynch for their support for Spe- cial Olympics Ireland, and for their work in seeking to ensure enhanced quality of life generally for persons with disabilities, and in particular for adults and children with intellectual disabilities.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. This motion is dear to my heart. I welcome also Mr. Peter O’Brien of Special Olympics Ireland, Mr. Jim Kelly, parent of James, the athlete, and Cillian, another athlete, who are in the Visitors Gallery.

I am delighted the Minister of State is taking the debate as I have experienced her active commitment to people with intellectual disabilities. Special Olympics is what it says in the name - it is special. The volunteers who lend their time and money and without who Special Olympics would not exist, the athletes who compete and exercise unrivalled compassion and sportsmanship, the parents who watch fondly as their children make friends and engage in athleticism — this is what makes Special Olympics unique. My own experience is that there is nothing like it. I have watched my son overcome with joy and pride at having received a medal. Sometimes I can be more competitive than the athletes. Recently, as parents we attended the regional finals in Kilkenny. It was a joy to see parents, siblings and athletes together and sometimes athletes waiting for other athletes before they cross the finish line. To me that is the true moment of sport and equality. It is an indescribable moment for every parent who has witnessed the same.

I pay a heartfelt tribute to Special Olympics Ireland. This organisation provides athletes with otherwise scarce opportunities to develop their physical fitness, demonstrate their courage and compassion, experience true joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, talents and friendships with families, Special Olympians and their community.

It is fitting that we have this debate around the tenth anniversary of the Special Olympic World Summer Games in Ireland, a truly momentous occasion. They are probably the most successful games. At the time of the games, every corner of Ireland became involved and contributed greatly to making these games widely recognised and the most successful on record. This firmly established Ireland as a caring island that supports equality and inclusion for those people with a disability. The games of 2003 brought home the true meaning of sport.

I could spend all of my allotted time speaking about the games in 2003 but this Private 282 17 July 2013 Members’ motion is future focused. I am here to bring further awareness to Special Olympics Ireland. We must continue the momentum from 2003.

Special Olympics Ireland has permeated all 32 counties of Ireland and has 400 established community clubs. One in three people with an intellectual disability in Ireland participates in Special Olympics Ireland. This represents the highest worldwide penetration rate of Special Olympics programmes in the world. The average participation rate in most countries is 2% whereas in Ireland it is more than 33%. That is incredible and the numbers have increased since 2003 with 5,500 new athletes joining since the games in 2003. The valuable and vital year- round service of training and competition to more than 11,000 athletes cannot be emphasised enough. From this statement alone is it very apparent that Special Olympics Ireland has taken a large financial burden off of the State and the taxpayers. I pay tribute to my local club in Blackrock in County Louth which hosts the games every four years. However, every weekend, there are the dedicated followers and volunteers, young and old alike. Special Olympics Ireland informed me that its oldest volunteer is 92, which is amazing.

Special Olympics Ireland is only able to provide this much needed service because of the 25,000 plus volunteers who commit endless hours to the organisation. The volunteers are the backbone of the organisation and without them, Special Olympics worldwide would not be the success it is.

The financial position of Special Olympics Ireland is precarious. The organisation has been shrewd and professional in its financial dealings but the recession has left no stone un- turned. The organisation currently receives €1.2 million in Government funding through the Irish Sports Council. It also receives a small grant of €54,000 from the HSE for the promotion of health, with a commitment only up to 2015. That is it. Worryingly, this represents only 34% of the overall costs of running the programme in 2013. For comparison sake, in Northern Ireland it receives funding from the executive to the tune of 68% of it operating costs. Further cross-Border co-operation for Special Olympics would be extremely useful for us and would provide valuable knowledge for both sides. It provides another non-sectarian link to our partners in the North. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, I submitted such a proposal and I would be grateful if I could get backing to initiate talks between the two.

Special Olympics Ireland ran an operational loss of €1.41 million in 2012 and estimates a projected loss of €1.69 million for this year. It can no longer rely on the generous donations it once received to fund its activities. Difficult economic times are the obvious cause and we must do something. We must pick up the slack here to support those who gladly give up of their time and ensure that this service does not even have to contemplate downgrading its programme, especially in light of the upcoming June 2014 Special Olympics Ireland Games in Limerick. I was horrified when I read recently that if Special Olympics Ireland does not have adequate funding, there is a danger that it might have to send a reduced team to the European games next year and to Los Angeles in 2015. That is probably the worse that could happen.

The Department of Health, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, the Depart- ment of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Department of Education and Skills, the Department of Justice and Equality, the Department of Children and Youth Af- fairs and the Department of the Taoiseach each has a responsibility to Special Olympics Ireland in various different ways. Some €1.2 billion is allocated each year for disability. Special Olym- pics receives not one cent, even though it greatly enhances the physical well-being, social situ- 283 Seanad Éireann ation and mental health of each athlete. It would be pertinent to remind these Departments that the Department of Health is not solely responsible for disability. At a time when we promote equality, inclusion and mainstreaming more than ever, I would have hoped that certain Depart- ments would have taken the notion on board that disability is everybody’s problem and pointing fingers back to the Department of Health and not working in a cross-departmental fashion is something they must be examined. The only ones who we end up hurting with this behaviour are those who we were aiming to help.

Those athletes who participate in Special Olympics are recognised for being susceptible to obesity, cardiovascular disease and osteoporosis. Socially, they are prone to having few social outlets and difficulty in accessing social situations with their peers. One in five of those with an intellectual disability is diagnosed with depression, and one must bear this in mind in the context that they represent 5% of the population. I would ask that the Department of Health think more innovatively and support Special Olympics Ireland because it has taken a large burden off the Department’s shoulders. To be totally honest, this will not sink in for some unless the service is seriously in danger.

Special Olympics Ireland is allocated no funding from the Department of Health. I would ask that it be considered in the budget 2014 configuration. One specific measure that I would ask to be introduced is the provision of a small amount of money, perhaps €100 per athlete. I note it is also Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch’s, belief that the money should follow the client. I would propose that a small amount of money, perhaps €100, would be taken from that budget to follow the athlete. It would not be directly allocated to the programme but it would be held accountable for how the money is spent. This suggested €100 per athlete would ease the burden on the organisation and be transparent in its function, and would do exactly what we, in the programme for Government, set out, namely that the money would follow the client.

It is obvious that Special Olympics has been asked to do so much with very little and with numbers increasing every year. We owe it to support this as a Government and on a cross-party basis, and I hope there will be cross-party support here today. Special Olympics has given so much. It is time we gave back to them.

17/07/2013KK00200Senator Marie Moloney: I second the motion.

I also welcome to the Visitors Gallery Mr. Peter O’Brien, Mr. James Kelly Sr. and Mr. James Kelly Jr. and, of course, Cillian, who is well known to every Member of both Houses as he is a regular visitor to Leinster House.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to second this motion and to make a contribution to the debate, particularly as it comes on the tenth anniversary of the hosting of the Special Olym- pics in Ireland. It is hard to believe that it has been ten years since that event that so electrified the country and lit up our lives in so many ways. There has rarely been an event which brought communities and people together in such a meaningful way.

The legacy of the Special Olympics has been long-lasting. Even today, as I travel around my county and other parts of the country, I can see the imprint of the event, even in the road signs that declare, for example, Abbeyfeale the host town to Tajikistan or Kenmare the host town to Switzerland. There is considerable pride among those who were involved but it is important that it continues to colour and influence our approach to persons with disabilities in

284 17 July 2013 Ireland, now and in the future.

As the House will be aware, persons with disabilities face many barriers to full participation in society - the physical environment, communication strategies, workplace design and work organisation. The design of service provision and public attitudes continue to pose barriers to persons with intellectual disability. Social inclusion means being in a position to participate fully in the life of the society in which one lives and we must continue to strive to promote inclusion for persons with disabilities.

The unique ability of sport to transcend linguistic, cultural and social barriers makes it an excellent platform for promoting and achieving inclusion. That was very much exemplified through the Special Olympics and continues to be so to this day thanks to the work that Special Olympics Ireland continues to do. Furthermore, the universal popularity of sport and its physical, social and economic development benefits makes Special Olympics an ideal tool for fostering the inclusion and well-being of persons with intellectual disabilities.

Some persons with intellectual disabilities are considered dependent and seen as incapable, thus fostering inactivity which often causes individuals with intellectual disabilities to experience restricted mobility beyond the cause of their disability. Special Olympics Ireland helps reduce the stigma and discrimination associated with disability because it can transform community attitudes about persons with disabilities by highlighting their skills and reducing the tendency to see the disability instead of the person.

I am privileged to know first hand the work Special Olympics does through my local club, the Kerry Stars Special Olympics Club in Kerry. The Kerry Stars had its tenth anniversary lately and were guests of ours here at Leinster House last year. One of the greatest impacts of the event was the recruitment and retention of so many volunteers. If we are looking for an example of how to bring volunteers on board and put them to good work, we need look no further than this Special Olympics. I have always been most impressed by the voluntary ethics of the organisation and have always been struck by how these volunteers seem to derive as much en- joyment and pleasure from the organisation as the participates. The Kerry Stars founder said to me recently that, as legislators, we must continue to keep supporting financially Special Olym- pics Ireland which will send out a clear message that the organisation can help to transform the lives of those who partake and that cannot be measured in any monetary terms.

As we continue to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Special Olympics in Ireland, we must re-evaluate what we are doing, as a Government and as a society, to cherish, and to continue to progress the rights of, persons with disabilities.

I hope, at a minimum, that we can retain the level of funding available for services and supports for people with disabilities. We all know the state of our public finances so there is no need for repetition. We have thrashed the topic to death here over the past few months. I hope, at the very least, that there will be no reduction in the existing level of services and funding for the sector in the forthcoming budget.

The athletes who participate in Special Olympics have shown the true and real meaning of competing. For them, it is not about being first, second, tenth or even last. It is not about scor- ing a goal or getting a slam dunk. It is about taking part. To see the joy on their faces when they complete in their events is a joy to behold. It is a joy to see the way the athletes interact with their opposition. It is hard to call them opposition because they all seem so friendly. All

285 Seanad Éireann the while the athletes are competitive and proud of their achievements.

I am delighted to second the motion for Senator Moran. I have got to know her since we started here two and a half years ago. She has always promoted Special Olympics and her son is one of its athletes. She is very proud of his achievements and, of what Special Olympics Ire- land has helped him to achieve. It has brought out the best in him. She told me, and I am sure she will not mind me saying, she felt very proud when her son, Cillian, was able to lift his leg to kick a ball because of the support provided by Special Olympics Ireland. I congratulate and commend the organisation on its work and urge it to keep going. We will do what we can, and I am sure that the Minister of State will do what she can, to support its endeavours.

17/07/2013LL00200Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I call Senator MacSharry and he has six minutes.

17/07/2013LL00300Senator Marc MacSharry: I welcome the opportunity to make a few points about the issue which is difficult to do in isolation. Senator Moran and others know a lot more about the subject than I do but, for many years, I have participated by providing assistance at the Special Olympics, etc.

I welcome representatives from Special Olympics Ireland here. As Senator Moran has said, we witnessed the entire island make extraordinary things happen by its staging of the most successful World Summer Games in the history of the Special Olympics. In 2003, 7,000 athletes participated in the Special Olympics and they were accompanied by their coaches, families and volunteers. As many as 30,000 volunteers worked at the World Games and many Members of the Houses participated as volunteers. The opening ceremony in Croke Park was unforgettable and I remember all of the celebrities who attended. It was a fantastic spectacle, particularly for the people lucky enough to have a ticket for the ceremony and many millions throughout the world watched it on television. It was a very proud day for Ireland and nobody can detract from the excellent work done by Special Olympics Ireland and its volunteers. The World Games in 2003 egged on many people to become involved and statistics prove that the number of volunteers has increased to quite a few thousand when compared with the number beforehand.

On 21 June Special Olympics Ireland released a press release on funding cuts that was published in The Irish Times. Senator Moloney said that we all must do more with less due to the financial situation and everybody understands that fewer resources are available. I will never understand why we must cut its funding. We need to prioritise certain areas. I have always said that all of us would gladly pay more if we knew that an extra little bit was being provided to the elderly, the young, the most vulnerable and people with disabilities. Instead, those people have suffered consistent poverty and the number of people on disability allowance has increased by quite a percentage over the past number of years. Sadly, despite the great personal commitment demonstrated by the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, and seen yesterday when she outlined a different type of funding, the easy target always suffers and its funding is put in the firing line when cuts are proposed. I appreciate that the reports in yesterday’s newspapers may only be rumours but history shows, for this Administration and others, that the resources available to the areas of disability and mental health tend to be the easy target. That is fundamentally wrong.

In the press release of 21 June the chief executive, I think, of Special Olympics Ireland made the point that there is no plan to close any of the 400 clubs located throughout the country. I hope that closures will not be necessary. The organisation is struggling to make ends meet and funding is difficult to source. I shall try to locate the quote, please give me a moment. The press release mentioned that ten years after the Special Olympics “stark choices” would have to be 286 17 July 2013 made. The article continues:

Funding from the State has been cut by 59% since 2008 and this was no longer sustainable.... “We don’t have to close down clubs right now but in the next year we’re faced with having to make stark choices unless the funding is reinstated.”

The chief executive continued: “We definitely need €2.5 million per year regularly to support the programme,” and may have to send fewer participants to games. They are looking forward to the Limerick national games but wonder where funding will come from. All of this is happening at a time when fundraising has been increased and people have been generous. Ultimately, the games will become unsustainable unless it gets help.

In the last Budget people in the €100,000 plus category were fully conditioned to pay an extra 3%. The Labour Party held a particular view that did not come to pass, Fianna Fáil held a certain view and so did Sinn Féin. Another budget is due to take place and those earners have been conditioned again and expect to pay more. I do not think that they would have a problem paying more if they knew the money was ring-fenced for people with disabilities or in the mental health area.

None of us wish to politicise the disability sector. There is great support for the excellent work done by Special Olympics Ireland and Fianna Fáil is happy to have an opportunity to comment on that work. I urge people to take the extra step to clearly state that people and sectors can do with less but not the disability and mental health sectors. Deputy Lynch knows that and would approach the funding issue in that way if she were the Minister for Finance.

I do not wish to politicise the sector. However, the cuts that were made throughout the year and the amendment tabled by Sinn Féin make it impossible for my party to support the amendment. Our policy cannot detract from the spirit in which the motion was tabled by the Labour Party. Special Olympics Ireland has done excellent work and I do not want it to interpret my party’s policy as detracting from its day here to highlight its needs and work. I join in com- mending the organisation on its excellent work. Equally, it impossible for my party not to support the Sinn Féin amendment which highlights that the cuts are wrong.

17/07/2013LL00400Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): The Senator’s time is up and he has gone a whole minute over.

17/07/2013LL00500Senator Marc MacSharry: The Labour Party highlighted many ways to provide funding during its preparations for the last budget, including an additional 3% charge that could have been levied on people earning €100,000 or over. That money could have provided the much needed funding to continue the work done by Special Olympics Ireland.

17/07/2013LL00600Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): I call Senator Conway and he has six minutes.

17/07/2013LL00700Senator Martin Conway: I shall stay positive when discussing this important issue. I commend Senator Moran and my Labour Party colleagues for tabling the motion. I welcome Mr. Peter O’Brien from Special Olympics Ireland who is seated in the Visitors Gallery. I also welcome Mr. Cillian Moran whom I met earlier this afternoon. He told me about his important work and about a competition that he will be involved in at the weekend. I look forward to hearing more. I also welcome Mr. James Kelly to the Seanad. This is a very important motion and I sincerely hope it will receive all-party support. 287 Seanad Éireann The year 2003 was a very special one because we hosted the Special Olympics World Games. Who will forget Bono bringing Nelson Mandela on to the stage in Croke Park on that sunny day in 2003? It was one of the proudest moments Ireland has ever had. What I would say to people now that we are looking at a scenario where Special Olympics Ireland may have to reduce services, reduce the number of competitors and so on is to remember how proud we were in 2003 and what was achieved then. People should also remember that sport, and access to sport, for people with all sorts of disabilities is a right and something to which we need to aspire. As a young fellow in County Clare, I remember not being able to participate in sport and feeling excluded but we have come a long way as a country.

Special Olympics Ireland played a critical role in ensuring healthy living and participation among people with disabilities in sport. What has been achieved is remarkable. We are a very inclusive society and that is reflected in the fact that Special Olympics Ireland has 5,500 citizens who are prepared to volunteer on a regular basis to ensure equality of participation, to which we all aspire.

I was recently invited to sit on the board of CARA in the Institute of Technology in Tralee. It is an organisation which promotes physical activity among people with disabilities. It has numerous training programmes for people involved in the hospitality and leisure business. It also provides disability awareness training to coaches involved in different types of sports and it works with governing bodies to ensure best practice is implemented in the area of access to sport for people with disabilities. It is doing phenomenal work to such a degree that it has been awarded the UNESCO chair. It is recognised as a world leader in the whole area of adapted physical activity and in being innovative in what it is trying to achieve.

I have only attended one meeting of the board because I am only a recent appointee but I believe Special Olympics Ireland is also represented on it and that there is significant collaboration between all these people, whether in Special Olympics Ireland or the various governing bodies. That type of collaboration is working phenomenally well.

I attended one of its CampAbilities sessions last Easter. I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, did one of the opening sessions. I did one of the closing sessions and it was wonderful to see dozens of blind and visually impaired young people from secondary schools all over Munster participating in CampAbilities, enjoying it and feeling included. That is progress. I hope we will see CampAbilities in all provinces in the next couple of years. I know it is trying to get sponsors to ensure a CampAbilities in Dublin, the west and the south east.

Much is happening but I respectfully suggest to Government that it needs to become a partner in this process. The volunteers and the structures are there. The Special Olympics Ireland structure is probably one of the best of any sporting organisation. It is extremely professional, which I have found in any dealings I have ever had with it. We need Government to become a fully fledged partner.

I do not want to hear commentary or an analysis that Special Olympics Ireland will have to look at reducing services. I want to hear conversations about increasing services, increasing participation and involving more people. This is an area to which the Government could look at increasing funding because the long-term benefits are obvious. One of our colleagues, Senator Eamonn Coghlan, who is world-renowned in terms of what he has achieved in sport, regularly talks about the significant health benefits to those involved in sport. It reduces obesity and all 288 17 July 2013 sorts of illness. Such illnesses are even more prevalent among people with disabilities which is why we need to involve people with disabilities in sport more than other groups in society.

I speak from experience. I would have loved the opportunity, as a young fellow, to have participated in sport but it was not available to me. I want to see availability and accessibility for future generations who have disabilities because it is of critical importance. I commend my Labour Party colleagues on the motion, which I hope gets unanimous sport.

17/07/2013MM00200Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. I also welcome the publication of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill because it is historic in more ways than one, but I know we will discuss it on another day.

I wholeheartedly support the motion put forward by Senator Mary Moran and her colleagues in the Labour Party. Special Olympics Ireland is a tremendous organisation and I welcome people from the organisation who are in the Visitors Gallery. I read its mission, which I am surprised nobody mentioned yet. It states: “The mission of Special Olympics is to provide year-round sports training and athletic competition in a variety of Olympic-type sports for children and adults with intellectual disabilities, giving them continuing opportunities to develop physical fitness, demonstrate courage, experience joy and participate in a sharing of gifts, skills and friendship with their families, other Special Olympics athletes and the community.” That is wonderful. We often read the lofty missions of organisations but Special Olympics Ireland lives that mission in its work every day and it achieves exactly what it says.

There are 26,449 people with an intellectual disability in Ireland. Just shy of 9,000 are registered athletes with Special Olympics Ireland, which clearly demonstrates its reach and the huge range of activities. I read about Alpine skiing, gymnastics and football, which put any of my sporting attempts to shame. I thought I did well at hockey in school but I may have to revise my assessment, especially given athletes like James and Cillian who achieve so much, and that is multiplied throughout Ireland.

June 2003 was mentioned. I am so proud, as an Irish citizen, that we hosted what were the most successful games in Special Olympics history which reached into every community in Ireland. One only needs to mention it and it put smiles on all our faces.

I also take the opportunity to mention another organisation which shares many similarities with Special Olympics Ireland in its pursuit to enhance the quality of life for people with intellectual disabilities. The organisation is called HeadsARTS. It is a very young organisation and its mission is to empower and enable people with intellectual disabilities through the arts. I also welcome people from that organisation who are in the Visitors Gallery. I have been privileged to see its work as a start-up social entrepreneurial organisation. It wants to become Ireland’s leading service provider of arts for people with intellectual disabilities and wants to create a trustworthy and creative environment which encourages and enables its members. It has very much learned from and is borne out of experiences with Special Olympics Ireland. It is asking if there are other options it can offer young people and adults with intellectual disabilities who may not necessarily be sports-minded. Where are the opportunities with which we can provide them? Both organisations rely very much on volunteers, carers and parents. People with intellectual disabilities are entitled to the same opportunities as all of us in society. They should have an equal opportunity to engage in the arts as well as sports, both of which are proven to enrich our lives. I want to commend the vision of HeadstARTS. It involves three young students in DCU who could choose to do other things. If one believed everything one read in 289 Seanad Éireann the newspapers, one would think that students were doing other things. Instead, these students have given up their time to set up an organisation. They are funded through UStart, DCU, and many others are trying to support them. It is great to see students and young people showing this initiative.

I note the Sinn Féin amendment, but this is a positive day. I want to keep it positive. We must question, however, the type of society we wish to have. That society must include organisations like Special Olympics Ireland and HeadstARTS. Their values should be our values. The State must support these organisations. Senator Moran has set out the financial case for Special Olympics Ireland. I have no doubt that HeadstARTS also has needs. Support for them would demonstrate our values as a society. While I join with Senator Moran and her Labour Party colleagues and say “Well done” to Special Olympics Ireland, we will also have to put our hands in our pockets, not just applaud them.

17/07/2013NN00200Senator Aideen Hayden: I congratulate my colleague, Senator Moran, for drafting the motion and raising an important issue. I welcome Cillian and James to the Visitors Gallery and others with an interest in the motion.

Ireland was one of the first states to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities at UN headquarters in New York in March 2007. It was a welcome act that Ireland signed the convention and recognised the right of persons with disabilities to live with equality, dignity and respect. These are important words. Approximately 10% of the word’s population, or 650 million people, live with a disability. For too long, people with disabilities have been marginalised, excluded and denied their basic human rights. Housing is the related area of which I have the most knowledge. I am only too well aware in that context of the fact that people with disabilities are excluded from the ability to make the choice to live independently which other people take for granted. It must be noted that Ireland is one of three countries in the EU which have yet to ratify the convention on human rights for persons with disabilities. It behoves us, Finland and the Netherlands to ratify the convention without delay. Austerity and economic crisis are not valid or appropriate reasons to fail to ratify what constitutes a recognition of the basic human dignity of person with disabilities.

None of us can fail to have been moved by the Special Olympics event which was held in Dublin in 2003. The event in Croke Park was one of the most magnificent I have ever seen. It was deeply moving and had an incredible impact on the country. There were towns and villages across the country which sponsored or engaged with Special Olympics. On no other occasion have so many people come together to support a particular cause. The point has been made that early intervention is very important. We are very aware of it in debates on early childhood intervention. There are particular ways to spend money which have very positive outcomes socially, emotionally and, let us be honest, economically. Special Olympics and athletics for people with a disability open doors and present unimagined possibilities, not only for participants but for volunteers, coaches and other supporters. They give all of us a belief in a brighter future and an acceptance of every member of our society irrespective of his or her capacity. It allows us to understand that we all have something to offer our society. It is important to note also the effort that goes into this. Athletes train for months and coaches engage for years. There is an enormous, positive message that no matter what one’s disadvantage in life, there is a role and a prize that anyone can achieve.

Special Olympics fosters inclusion in our society. We live in a society which, whether we like it or not, is deeply divided. It is not just divided for those who suffer from disability, which 290 17 July 2013 does not involve disability but rather a different form of ability. People are excluded financially or because they live in certain parts of towns and villages. They are excluded for economic reasons. Funding for Special Olympics is critical. It is not a luxury. Something like this should never be viewed that way. It fosters an inclusive society. That inclusion must extend across the gamut of Irish society. In 2003, 30,000 people from across the country volunteered to work at the world games. It was an incredible national achievement. I wish we could extend that cohesion across every aspect of exclusion.

Every Government can and should support Special Olympics, which represents a unique experience for those participating and for those who assist. I ask the Minister of State to take a positive approach to its funding.

17/07/2013NN00300Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I listened with attention and interest to the excellent speeches of all Members who contributed, which is not to say that I agreed with them.

I propose to be a little bit of a spoilsport. While I endorse every item of praise which has, rightly, been heaped on Special Olympics and honour the three representatives who are in the Visitors Gallery, one of whom is an athlete, I cannot agree with Senator Marc MacSharry who respects and appreciates the spirit of the Labour Party motion. I certainly do not. Phrases like “notes the commitment” and “commends this that and the other” represent piggy-backing on the wonderful work Special Olympics has done. It is an effort to collect the praise. As with the referendum to abolish the Seanad, the intention is to create a smokescreen to hide misdoings. I phoned the Seanad office at 7.30 p.m. last night to find out if there was an amendment down. If there was not, I would have tabled one to delete everything after the words “That Seanad Éire- ann” and to criticise the Government for its cutbacks. How can Members possibly refer to the wonderful summer games and commend the Government? That is trying to take the credit and they are not entitled to it. It is a wonderful organisation. In 2003 there were 7,000 athletes and 30,000 volunteers. Towns all over Ireland were twinned and nearly 200 provided hospitality. It was superb and Government Members are not entitled to claim credit for it, which is what they are doing in the motion. That is why I will vote against it. Self-praise is no praise.

17/07/2013OO00200Senator Marie Moloney: We are not praising ourselves.

17/07/2013OO00300Senator David Norris: Is that simple enough to be understood? I respect the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, who has fought her quarter as hard as she can. I am not impugning her and support her in all her battles, but this is a Government that has cut back on carers and, by 1 cm, Members missed the opportunity to vote down that mean-minded package. Shame on the House that it did not do so.

With regard to people with disabilities and Down’s syndrome, how can Government Mem- bers explain, in the light of this self-glorifying motion, that they are excluding from benefits a particular category of Down’s syndrome children? This is a new one, whereby people with mild learning disabilities do not receive the same proportion of care. They are taken out instead of recognising the entirety of those with Down’s syndrome. Perhaps there is an answer and this has been amended in the past few weeks. Has it?

17/07/2013OO00400Minister of State at the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): Am I supposed to reply?

17/07/2013OO00500Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): It is up to the Minister of State who 291 Seanad Éireann will speak next. I will let Senator David Norris finish first.

17/07/2013OO00600Senator David Norris: If not, we have the same situation, but if there has been a change in the past few weeks, I am delighted and welcome it. However, that was only as a result of moves made in this House. I remember this issue being discussed and I took part in the debate.

I have the greatest of respect for the Special Olympics which deserves all the praise. These motions which congratulate the Government on whatever it is doing do not face the reality. Let us have honesty rather than self-congratulation. Let us face the blunt truth. I have the greatest admiration for this organisation. One of my greatest memories which I cite all the time, although I am not sure it dates to 2003, is how these wonderful young people can be an example to all of us. Against all of this competition which is ruining the planet with its vulgar production statistics and everyone having to slit one another’s throat to get on, which is the same in politics, one of the competitors fell and the other two went back and carted their fallen comrade over the finishing line. That was a moment of wonderful human decency and I will remember it until the day I am screwed into my box, if I can say “screwed” or “box” in this House.

17/07/2013OO00700Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I have the greatest of respect for Senator David Norris. I have always been a huge fan, even before I was a Member of the House.

17/07/2013OO00800Senator David Norris: I meant of the Special Olympics.

17/07/2013OO00900Deputy Kathleen Lynch: What amazes me is that every contribution he has made in the past few weeks has been based on the abolition of the Seanad, which is wrong.

17/07/2013OO01000Senator David Norris: It is not.

17/07/2013OO01100Deputy Kathleen Lynch: That is what it looks like.

17/07/2013OO01200Senator David Norris: There was one reference; the Minister of State is very sensitive.

17/07/2013OO01300Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I am sensitive as the next person; I am no different or no better. I am sorry to see that Senator Marc MacSharry has left the Chamber. Senator David Norris will support Sinn Féin’s amendment. I thought the Senator would support an amendment that was truthful or correct. The amendment reads: “condemns the savage cuts to supports to people with disabilities by the Government, including cuts to the mobility allowance [untrue, as there was no cut], the motorised transport grant [to which there was no cut], the respite care grant [yes, there has been a reduction], the household benefits package, special needs assistants [no cuts] and the medical card [no cuts]”. For a party like Sinn Féin which is the best resourced and best staffed party-----

17/07/2013OO01400Senator David Norris: I hesitate to interrupt the Minister of State, but on a point of order and information, there were cuts to the numbers of special needs assistants. I have outlined them. There are for people with mild learning disabilities.

17/07/2013OO01500Deputy Kathleen Lynch: There are not.

17/07/2013OO01600Senator David Norris: Then I will not vote for it or against it.

17/07/2013OO01700Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I have no problem with people voting against the motion or supporting an amendment, but they should know what they are voting for.

17/07/2013OO01800Senator David Norris: Yes. 292 17 July 2013

17/07/2013OO01900Deputy Kathleen Lynch: There are days when we cannot get into the lift to go to the sixth floor in LH 2000 because of the number of Sinn Féin advisers and staffers. With so many people, we would think they would get it right.

I commend Senator Mary Moran because this is about promoting the Special Olympics more than anything else.. This is not about the Governmen; it is about the Special Olympics. I do not take the patronising approach of saying it was wonderful-----

17/07/2013OO02000Senator David Norris: It is about the Government which is mentioned all over the place.

17/07/2013OO02100Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): The Minister of State to continue, without interruption.

17/07/2013OO02200Deputy Kathleen Lynch: People who participated in the Special Olympics when they were held in Ireland participated to the best of their ability and astonished us with their courage and tenacity. I remember the moment to which Senator David Norris referred and it made us all cringe with shame that we would not have turned back to pick up our comrades. Perhaps we would have, but I do not think so. I must admit I would be too focused on the finish line. It made the rest of the country cringe that we did not have the capacity to do something like that.

It is interesting that we are talking about capacity when we have just published the assisted decision-making legislation today. It is substantial legislation that has been promised for 20 to 30 years.

17/07/2013OO02300Senator David Norris: Well done.

17/07/2013OO02400Deputy Kathleen Lynch: We believe it is the last barrier to ratifying the convention. I hope, after it is passed, that we will be in a position to ratify it. I am sure people tell us about other items of legislation needed. I am grateful for the opportunity to address the House and thank the Senators for proposing the motion. it is a special day for Special Olympics Ireland. Since it was set up in 1978, the work it has done in promoting sport and competition for people with intellectual disabilities has been immeasurable. It has grown to the point where it currently has almost 11,000 registered athletes participating in 15 sports in 409 affiliated groups throughout the island of Ireland. The athletes are supported by their families and a team of more than 25,000 volunteers who give of their time to help out at sports and fundraising events. It is not just once every four years.

The philosophy of Special Olympics which emphasises the ability rather than the disability of people with special needs has changed the way all of us look at the people around us. Special Olympics Ireland plays a pivotal role in helping to break down the barriers that often prevent people with disabilities from participating in sport. It does a wonderful job in carrying out this task and deserves both our congratulations and sincere gratitude. While Special Olympics is, first and foremost, a sports organisation for people with an intellectual disability, it provides athletes with far more than the physical benefits of sport. It is about fun, friendships and team spirit. It is about a feeling of belonging and, ultimately, improving quality of life. It changes lives. Through sport, athletes develop both physically and emotionally; they make new friends, realise their dreams and know they can fit in. Special Olympics enables them to achieve and win not only in sport but in life, too. The health, educational and social gains that are part of the ethos of Special Olympics Ireland’s overall programme must be acknowledged in addition to the measures taken to help keep all Special Olympics athletes healthy through a number of health initiatives, including information on medical requirements and first aid. The health pro- 293 Seanad Éireann motion programme, which offers health screening, is also to be commended. We should also praise the focus on diet and methods of staying healthy, in which initiative I was involved.

The Irish Sports Council, which is funded by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, provides funding to Special Olympics Ireland through its programme of core grant funding for national governing bodies of sport. I take very much on board what Senator MacSharry said about the reduction since 2008, when our economy was beginning to implode. People should remember that. In this House I have never got political about such matters, and I try desperately not to do so in the Chamber to which I am elected, but we must remind ourselves about how we got here. Special Olympics Ireland received €1.2 million in funding from the council this year. I am pleased to say that, despite reductions in the council’s overall core funding provision for sports bodies in recent years, it has made a particular effort to maintain funding for Special Olympics Ireland and has kept this year’s funding at the same level as in 2012. Special Olympics Ireland has been the single largest beneficiary of core grant funding from the Irish Sports Council since 2007, having received over €14.6 million between 2007 and 2013.

The Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has provided grant funding to Special Olympics Ireland in the latest round of the sports capital programme. A grant of €26,153 was allocated in 2012 for the purchase of equipment. Furthermore, the National Aquatic Centre at the National Sports Campus in Abbotstown was developed and opened in 2003 to host the swimming events of the 2003 Special Olympics World Summer Games, the first time the games were held outside of the United States. That is a credit to the organisation.

Funding of €82,000 was provided by the HSE in 2012 to assist Special Olympics Ireland in meeting the costs associated with the programmes it provides. This funding was provided through grant aid agreements under section 39 of the Health Act 2004 and through national lot- tery grants.

Irish teams have performed very successfully at both the summer and winter Special Olym- pics World Games. This success is a testament to the excellent work done by Special Olympics Ireland in training and managing the athletes and in organising their attendance at the games. The 2003 games were, of course, very special for Ireland and left a wonderful legacy. At the very successful games, approximately 7,000 athletes from 150 countries competed in 18 official disciplines, and three exhibition sports. Some 30,000 volunteer officials and support staff assisted in the running of the games.

This year, the tenth anniversary of the hosting of the games, I am very pleased to acknowledge the excellent work that Special Olympics Ireland continues to do for people with intellectual disabilities. The board of Special Olympics Ireland, CEO Matt English and everyone involved in Special Olympics Ireland deserve great credit for their wonderful work. I congratulate in particular all of the Special Olympics athletes who have represented Ireland over the years. They have always been marvellous ambassadors for Ireland, representing both Ireland and Irish sport with honour and pride, and they have certainly enhanced Ireland’s sporting reputation.

From a wider perspective, people with disabilities can face challenges when it comes to participating in many everyday activities. Much in the way Special Olympics Ireland has played a pivotal role in breaking down the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from participating in sport, a successful response from and development of a society that values, without distinction, people with disabilities depends on the willingness of every social sector to break 294 17 July 2013 down barriers to ensure a better quality of life for people with disabilities.

In this regard, the national disability strategy has a key role to play. The strategy was launched in September 2004 and its implementation continues to be the focus of Government policy for the sector. There have been many important developments to improve the lives of people with disabilities over recent years, but a specific implementation plan for the strategy had not previously been developed. The Government is now addressing this and the programme for Government commits to the publication of a national disability strategy implementation plan. The Government is committed to pursuing this agenda to achieve even greater progress in the next three years.

I established and am chairing the national disability strategy implementation group, which developed the implementation plan for progressing the strategy and is also tasked with monitoring its implementation. The implementation group comprises the senior officials group on disability, representing all relevant Departments and agencies across the system of government. A broad variety of representatives of disability organisations and the National Disability Au- thority have also been appointed to the group, as have a number of individuals with disabilities who have been appointed in their personal capacity to bring their lived experience to the group. I often believe we have so many officials and experts telling people what they should have that we do not actually ask them.

To achieve further consultation with people with disabilities, the end users of the services provided, I also set up a disability forum under the stewardship of the National Disability Au- thority. The first meeting of the forum was held on 19 June last year and a report of the views expressed form part of the considerations of the implementation group in regard to actions in the implementation plan.

To achieve our objectives, collaboration is fundamental, and this approach will continue in advancing the implementation plan and achieving the commitments made. Through engaging with the disability sector and building on the traditional problem-solving and constructive approach of the community and voluntary sector, the aim of the implementation plan is to make progress in achieving our common objectives. More targeted, innovative and flexible services, designed and delivered on the basis of the evidence drawn from systematic evaluation, will help ensure that available resources are used to deliver services that meet the needs of the community as efficiently and effectively as possible. Acknowledging the current economic climate and diminishing resources available across the system of government, this implementation plan seeks to ensure available resources are used to best effect in ensuring people with disabilities have more choice and control in their lives and in realising their aspirations. The plan was agreed at the meeting of the implementation group on 20 July 2013 and I am pleased to say that, with the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, I will be bringing it to the Gov- ernment next week. The plan will be published on relevant Departments’ websites as soon as possible thereafter.

Another positive development for people with disabilities of which the Senators may be aware is the approval by the Government last week of the publication of the Assisted Decision- Making (Capacity) Bill. It is actually due to be published today. The purpose of the Bill is to provide a modern statutory framework that supports decision-making by adults and enables them to retain the greatest amount of autonomy possible where they lack or may shortly lack capacity. That applies to each of us. I am not certain it is ever right to have this issue placed in the middle of a discussion on disability. It will apply to every single one of us as we age, bear- 295 Seanad Éireann ing in mind what can happen to us in life.

The Bill proposes to change the existing law on decision-making capacity, shifting from the current all-or-nothing status approach to a flexible, functional one whereby capacity is assessed on an issue and time-specific basis. The adoption of a functional approach to capacity, tailor- made to an individual and as provided for in section 3 of the Bill, is a key element in moder- nising the law on capacity. The Bill will replace the ward of court system for adults, which is the existing mechanism for managing the affairs of persons whose decision-making capacity is impaired. The objective is to provide support in decision-making and legal protection for persons with impaired decision-making ability, such as people with intellectual disabilities, those suffering from dementia or mental illness, and persons who have acquired brain injuries through trauma or accident. In view of the growing number of people who may need assistance at some stage in their lives with decision-making, the provisions of the Bill have the potential to be of relevance to most families.

As I previously outlined, a major issue for this Government is to ensure that we get the best outcome for people with disabilities from the resources we put in. With regard to the health sector, I published the report Value for Money and Policy Review of Disability Services in Ire- land on 20 July 2012. The objective of the review was to assess how well existing health and personal social services for people with disabilities were meeting their objectives and to rec- ommend how these services should be delivered in the future. I am confident that many of the most fundamental changes needed to support the full participation of people with disabilities in society will be achieved through the implementation of the review.

From the outset, public consultation was an important feature of this exercise. The review team listened carefully to what people had to say and to the advice of the expert reference group on disability policy and the thoroughly researched advice provided by the National Disability Authority. Following these consultations, the team recommended a significant restructuring of the disability services programme, in which Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú will have a particular interest. This restructuring, it recommended, should be achieved through a migration from an approach that was predominantly organised around group-based service delivery towards a model of person-centred, individually chosen supports, and through implementation of a more effective method of assessing need, allocating resources and monitoring resource use. These changes will represent a seismic shift in how services are funded and provided and will, ultimately, result in shifting choice and control from professionals and administrators to where they rightfully belong, namely, with the individual with a disability and his or her family.

As the next step in the process of translating the recommendations in the review into con- crete actions, I published the national implementation framework for the value for money review in February this year. I am in the process of establishing a steering group to monitor implementation of that review and report to me on progress. The Health Service Executive has also made provision in its national service plan for moving forward on key recommendations this year.

I again thank the Senators for proposing the motion and acknowledge the considerable contribution made to the lives of people with disabilities by Special Olympics Ireland. It is imperative that we all play our part to ensure the quality of life of people with disabilities is enhanced, inclusion for all becomes a reality and every individual is supported to reach his or her full potential. The Government is committed to working collaboratively to realise the vision of a more inclusive society for all, where services and supports meet the needs of individual citizens. 296 17 July 2013 I hope the Acting Chairman will accommodate me in making a final and very important point.

17/07/2013QQ00200Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I am delighted to facilitate the Minister of State.

17/07/2013QQ00300Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Thank you. I keep asking myself why I am in the Chamber taking this debate. This is a motion about Special Olympics Ireland, a sports organisation. Why then am I, as Minister of State at the Department of Health, answering the debate? The answer, of course, is that we still have a mindset in this country that, somehow or other, people with disabilities can only be dealt with by the Department of Justice and Equality or the Department of Health.

17/07/2013QQ00600Senator David Norris: Well said.

17/07/2013QQ00700Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I am saying this now in order that the message goes out loud and clear that people with disabilities do not live in a box.

17/07/2013QQ00800Senator David Norris: We will support the Minister of State.

17/07/2013QQ00900Deputy Kathleen Lynch: In fact, they live across a range of aspects in exactly the same way the rest of us do.

17/07/2013QQ01000Senator David Norris: Bravo.

17/07/2013QQ01100Deputy Kathleen Lynch: In parts of that living they will require support.

17/07/2013QQ01200Senator Martin Conway: Correct.

17/07/2013QQ01500Deputy Kathleen Lynch: That is what we should be about. In future, when a motion is tabled in this House about sport, it should be the Minister at the relevant Department who takes it. Likewise, when a motion relates to transport for people with disabilities, the relevant Min- ister should respond. Let us make this a reality.

All of the issues to which I have referred in terms of implementation plans, capacity legislation and so on refer to the infrastructure and architecture. They are a recognition that people with disabilities simply need a little more support than the rest of us. Of course, as we age, we will all need that type of support. I commend Senator Mary Moran for bringing forward the motion. We can never praise Special Olympics Ireland enough.

17/07/2013QQ01600Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I thank the Minister of State for her stimulat- ing contribution.

17/07/2013QQ01700Senator Martin Conway: It was a great contribution.

17/07/2013QQ01800Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: Tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil an díospóireacht seo ar na Cluichí Oilimpeacha Speisialta ag tarlú, mar tugann sí seans dúinn ár meas a léiriú agus ár mbuíochas a chur in iúl do dhaoine a spreag sinn, a thug dóchas dúinn agus a thug bród dúinn as ár gcine. Ní beag an rud sin.

This debate is an opportunity for acknowledgement, appreciation and celebration and a chance to salute people who are special in many ways. Never was the word “special” more properly used than in reference to the hosting of the Special Olympics in Ireland ten years ago. 297 Seanad Éireann It was, of course, a wonderful sports event and we all entered into the competitive atmosphere which goes with all such events. It was also, however, much more than this. All of us, in our own communities, had an opportunity of observing, at first hand, exactly what was happening. In Ireland at the time, what was happening was something absolutely unique. There were many messages to take on board. The sporting message was one of them, but there was also the message of challenge, among others. We all observed the various interacting messages that came into play.

I often observe, whether wrongly or rightly, that we have a tendency to be a nation of moaners. We tend to ignore all the good things about this country, the assets we have, the inspiration, the resources and so on. It would have been very difficult, however, for anyone to moan during the Special Olympics. There we saw a spirit and character we would all like to attain. We saw people who had made a huge effort to be prepared in a sporting sense for what was happening in Ireland. We also saw a huge response organisationally. I was in Shanghai some years ago where I had a person-to-person meeting with the leader of that city. The Special Olympics were due to be held in China at the time, with the leader of the city due to lead most of the proceedings. Members will imagine the pride I felt when he made it clear that he was looking to Ireland as an example. Our population of 5 or 6 million people is dwarfed by China’s 1.3 billion, yet this person was looking to us for leadership on how his country should organise its hosting of the Special Olympics.

While we are all happy to take credit for that achievement, we sometimes forget its source. My experience, in my area, was that people came together in an incredible way. There was a cohesion among the community, the main element of which, as it struck me at the time, was positivity. Everybody was excited about what was happening and wanted to be part of it, not merely as observers but by playing an active part in what was happening. It provided an important model for how people could work together to achieve their goals. I have often thought that if we legislators could craft a plan that was as multifaceted in terms of its impact on communities and the country as a whole, with all of the positive elements within it, we would have few difficulties that could not be overcome.

Our hosting of the Special Olympics was a journey into unknown territory. We were not quite sure what its shape would be. I had no direct involvement whatsoever, being merely one member of the community who was anxious to help. We were being led along a road towards a goal, but we were not exactly sure what that goal would look like. Think of the people who thought it out and planned it. It was one thing to plan it with the draftsman, but imagine how it was then transplanted not just to one but to several communities. The bigger spectacle was part of that. This all happened and we were all drawn into it. There was no sense of apathy, cynicism or scepticism about it and we accepted the leadership given. Therefore, this evening is an evening of acknowledgement, appreciation and celebration.

I would like to tell the representatives here and all those others involved with them that this nation owes them a huge debt of gratitude, because during that period many other areas flourished and many a community project grew out of that event. This evening, we should concentrate on that positive aspect of what we are debating and celebrating and hope that we have earned and learned something from it. I compliment those who put forward this motion. I do not think the nitty gritty of the motion is what is the most important aspect of this debate. What is most important is that the motion submitted to the Seanad has given us, as legislators, the opportunity to formally and generously and with sincerity say “Thank you” to everybody who was involved. They did us proud as a people. 298 17 July 2013

17/07/2013RR00200Senator Eamonn Coghlan: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I also welcome our special guests from the Special Olympics to the House and congratulate Senator Moran on introducing this motion to the Seanad.

The Special Olympics was established in the 1960s by Eunice Shriver Kennedy, but were not known as the Special Olympics initially. Incidentally, she supported me in getting a green card in the United States. During the 1970s I was a volunteer and supporter of the Special Olympics in the United States, but since they were established in Ireland in 1978, I have been very much involved in fund-raising and support here. I even carried the Irish flag on many occasions at the RDS and in Croke Park at the world games ten years ago this year. As Senator Conway mentioned, we will never forget the Special Olympics in 2003 and its wonderful pageantry. Senator Conway mentioned Nelson Mandela and Bono. I remember when Colin Far- rell came up to me as I was walking along with my young son and he said: “My God, Eamonn Coghlan, my hero.” All of a sudden I became cool, because my son said: “Dad, did you hear Colin Farrell? You are his hero. Wow, Dad, that is pretty good.”

My wife and I also had the privilege of hosting a family from Malawi. I will never forget what happened. They were lost in Ballsbridge and a gentleman phoned me as I was about to present prizes at a fund-raising event for the children’s hospital in Crumlin. He asked if it was me and told me he had just picked up a family from Malawi and the only name they had was Eamonn Coghlan and he assumed it was me because they were here for the Special Olympics. I could not pick them up at the time, but he said he would drive them to the golf club. I said “No” he should bring them to my home, where my wife met them. The next morning when we were in the kitchen for breakfast, they, Stanley and Ann Mugabe, came into the kitchen with a sack of rice on their backs wearing their traditional costume. They introduced themselves and said the tradition in their country when they visit somebody was to bring a gift and they had brought a gift of food, rice from Malawi. I was struck by the fact they came from great poverty, but I also had great admiration for the Special Olympics movement which reaches out to communities all over the world for this type of inclusion.

For me, the legacy of the Special Olympics ten years ago is not just about the sports and the pageantry. It is not just about the National Aquatic Centre that was specially built for the Special Olympics. It is that for the first time ever, the Special Olympics built mutual respect and understanding for people with intellectual disability among the community, particularly world leaders. Special Olympics Ireland provided a template for the world movement out of Washington DC, thanks to the foresight and the leadership of Mary Davis who headed up the organisation for many years. Irish athletes at Special Olympics and paralympics have excelled throughout the world, winning numerous medals. They have received tremendous plaudits from the media, the public and government for being an example of what life and sport is all about and for their commitment, courage, fairness, sportsmanship and, in particular, the love they exude.

Special Olympics is a unique organisation. We referred to over 11,000 athletes and over 25,000 volunteers. Special Olympics is not just about the world games every four years. It is not just about the politically correct hype or the media hype that goes with the big occasion of the world games. Special Olympics is about every day, every week and every month of the year for many years in communities, villages, towns and cities all over Ireland. It is not just about sport. Special Olympics is all about the delivery of services, support, equality and respect for people with intellectual disabilities. In 2008, the contribution beyond Government funding was approximately €14 million. In 2012, it is more than €15 million, but with the shortfall that ex- 299 Seanad Éireann ists now, things are proving very difficult for Special Olympics.

Special Olympics Ireland has become a victim of its own success. According to the rules of the organisation, it is obliged to keep one year’s costs in reserve. As a result of having this reserve, the interpretation is that it has plenty of money. It does not have plenty of money. This year, its budget deficit will be €1.5 million, putting pressure on its financial reserve. The upcoming 2014 games in Limerick will generate between €25 million and €30 million for the local economy, but at the same time Special Olympics Ireland will have to reduce the number of athletes participating by between 200 and 300. This is very sad. I agree, it has built up a financial reserve, but this is dwindling fast.

The Irish Sports Council has cut its grants by 59% over the past number of years. Why is this Minister of State here to discuss the Special Olympics when it should be a Minister from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport? However, I think she can help. If the trend continues, what happened during the past ten years will become defunct over the next ten years. Special Olympics Ireland expects its deficit to be in the order of approximately €3 million per annum over the next number of years. It can cut costs and wages, but it cannot afford to cut services.

How can we make changes? Perhaps the Minister of State can suggest to Government that it could remove VAT, at 23%, for charitable organisations. Perhaps we can use the model or template established in Northern Ireland where five Departments share equally the contribution to Special Olympics in Northern Ireland. If that template was used here rather than funding coming solely from the Irish Sports Council, whose funding is decreasing because of the difficult economic situation, that might be the way to share the burden so as to keep the Special Olympics movement in Ireland alive and well into the future. I ask the Minister of State to support this.

17/07/2013RR00300Senator Susan O’Keeffe: This sunny evening in July is a good moment to talk about something we all appreciate, although we often do not realise how much we appreciate it. It is hard to find words to thank the people who have been involved in Special Olympics, as Senator Eamonn Coghlan said, some for many years but particularly in the past ten years as the movement has built up and become ingrained in our consciousness and rooted in our communities. Of course, Special Olympics is a local, a community, a national and an international event. It draws its strength from all of these places, each and every time somebody steps out.

Like most Senators, I am invited to many events and, like many Senators, one of the moments I will treasure was being asked to present medals to people taking part in Special Olym- pics in the swimming pool in Sligo. I was really honoured to be asked to do so and the memories will stay with me of the huge pleasure and joy the participants took from the event. Whether they were swimming 5 yd. or 25, I will always remember the effort, joy and enthusiasm they brought to it, with their families.

The Irish Times staff photographer, Brenda Fitzsimons, recalled her time at the Special Olympics events at the Kill Equestrian Centre. She said:

The first time I approached the arena I noticed that there was complete silence and I thought to myself “well there’s nothing happening here.” But when I got there, it was full of spectators. Instead of clapping their hands and cheering, they waved their hands in the air so that they would not frighten the horses. Witnessing that would have tugged at anyone’s

300 17 July 2013 heart strings. It even seemed like the horses were protecting the riders, they moved about so carefully. The whole thing just oozed with love and care. It was special in every sense of the word and it was definitely one of the most emotional jobs I’ve ever done.

In that, I think, she speaks for all of us.

What is important about Special Olympics is that it has the capacity to connect people with each other. Speaking, as I had the pleasure to do before this event started, with Jim Kelly and his son, James, he spoke about how he had become involved and how, perhaps, at the moment when he might have said “No” to somebody, he said “Yes”. I do not believe he regrets one moment of his involvement and he should be very proud of it. That is the point. It has had the capacity to reach out, in the first instance, to those athletes who want to perform, compete, enjoy and have fun but also to connect with a whole host of others also - their parents with other parents and volunteers with other volunteers.

It is, of course, much more than a sports event. It is a movement. It is a kind of social movement that brings out the best in all of us. At times, I suppose we are, as Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú said, a nation of moaners. However, when one looks at the figures and sees the enormous involvement people in Ireland have had which is much higher than in many other countries, one sees that there is, in the spirit here, enormous generosity on the part of people who want to get involved and will take part at different levels in their community in assisting others. I particularly pay tribute to the clubs in the Connacht region from where I come and to the adults and children who take part for the efforts they make locally to raise the profile of Special Olympics and spending their spare time raising money and training and supporting young people and adults to take part in sports. As Senator Jillian van Turnhout said, these are the sports we would never have envisaged ourselves taking part in when we were young and it is great to see such a wide range on offer.

Special Olympics is a movement that empowers people. It empowers the athletes, but it also empowers their parents, friends and community to see that much more can be achieved from whatever we are given as human beings. There is always an extra little bit we can go, an extra step we can try to take, another challenge we can set ourselves. The many challenges people have set for themselves and achieved through Special Olympics are evidence of the great capacity of life and our capacity as humans to live it to the full. That is very enriching for any of us to enjoy and share.

Of course, Special Olympics empowers all of us who have ever taken part in any way. It empowers us as a community and a nation. For me, these are the three things the movement has brought - the connecting, the rewarding and the empowering. There is no way in which anybody could put a price-tag on this. As Senator Eamonn Coghlan pointed out, it is difficult to realise that a movement that is capable of all of these things can find itself struggling for money. It is not just the Minister of State but all of us here today who are saying we all want this to change. We do not want to see the capacity and capability of Special Olympics being reduced in any way, shape or form because what it does is priceless. I know there are debts and that Special Olympics Ireland needs new premises, which is a problem for it. Like any organisation, however, there will always be hiccups and financial difficulties.

I commend my colleague, Senator Mary Moran, for bringing forward the motion in order that we can celebrate and acknowledge the work done. I do not think, in any way, shape or form, she could be accused of providing any type of smokescreen or piggybacking on anything 301 Seanad Éireann else. It is just a moment to say this is good but also that we have to acknowledge and keep it. It is not simply just to treasure it but to grow it and acknowledge the great impact it has on all our lives. Whether we are part of a family, like the Kellys, the Morans and many thousands of others across Ireland, or individuals who have been touched in some small way or another, we must grow and appreciate it, not just treasure it.

17/07/2013SS00200Senator Kathryn Reilly: I move amendment No. 1:

To delete all words after ‘‘throughout Ireland; and’’ and substitute the following:

‘‘—condemns the savage cuts to supports for people with disabilities by the Govern- ment, including cuts to the mobility allowance, the motorised transport grant, the respite care grant, the household benefits package, special needs assistants and the medical card; and

—calls on Fine Gael and the Labour Party to keep their programme for Government commitment to enhance quality of life for people with disabilities by reversing these unfair cuts in budget 2014’’.

Like other Senators, I welcome Mr. Peter O’Brien, Mr. Jim Kelly, James Jr. and Cillian to the Visitors Gallery for the debate. Mention has been made that this is the tenth anniversary of the Special Olympics being held in Ireland. I remember that, in 2003, as part of my junior certificate English class, we were asked to write essays on the experiences of the Special Olym- pics. With the memories other Senators have shared, it is one of the outstanding memories for me because we did research and found out what Special Olympics was, which was an eye- opening experience for me.

Special Olympics is a life-changing movement of people helping people, which is important. I commend all of the work done by the volunteers, athletes, coaches, families and communities linked with Special Olympics. A previous speaker asked what made it so special. Highlighting some of its founding principles may be the most appropriate way to shed some light on how the movement has thrived and caught the attention and support of millions of people across the world. Its goals are twofold, first, to bring intellectual disabilities out of the darkness and into the light of public acceptance and understanding, and, second, to give all persons with intellectual disabilities the opportunity to become active and productive citizens in their communities.

While researching the motion, I examined the spirit of Special Olympics which incorporates universal values that transcend all boundaries of geography, nationality, political persuasion, gender, age, race or religion. As many Senators said, we all know the role sport plays in for- mulating and strengthening friendships, tackling issues such as social exclusion and offering opportunities to people to develop life skills and self-knowledge. Lack of friendships and social interaction experienced by young people and adults with an intellectual disability often contributes to depression. Nearly one fifth of Irish adults with an intellectual disability have been diagnosed with depression, which is considerably higher than the 5% figure among the general population.

Special Olympics Ireland has stepped into the breach and, since starting 35 years ago, it has transformed many lives. However, as mentioned, Government funding for the organisation has been cut during the years. As Senator Mary Moran said, the organisation is doing so much with so little and we should support it to do all it can. When we couple these cuts with the difficulties many groups are facing in terms of funding, this conflicts with the last line of the Government’s 302 17 July 2013 motion. We tabled the amendment to highlight this discrepancy, rather than to take in any way from the fantastic work being done by Special Olympics Ireland.

The programme for Government includes a clear commitment to enhance quality of life for people with disabilities, a commitment I very much support. However, there has been a series of decisions which have undermined quality of life for people with disabilities. For example, in budget 2013 the cut to the respite care grant not only hit the 77,000 carers who relied on it to provide some respite for themselves but it also had a direct impact on those for whom they cared, whether they were elderly persons or people with physical or intellectual disabilities. It reduced quality of life for many people.

I refer to the mobility allowance and to the motorised transport scheme which was closed to new entrants. There has been much uncertainty regarding a new statutory scheme that was supposed to be set up but has not yet come about. The scheme was extended to October but there is no certainty as to how it may continue beyond that date. The Minister of State stated that a new scheme will be introduced but there is a lot of concern, anxiety and uncertainty for people who use the scheme because of the lack of guarantee beyond October.

The changes to the household benefit package have left many older people and older people with disabilities more isolated. In addition, changes to medical card eligibilty criteria introduced earlier this year have caused particular difficulties for people with disabilities. There has been an ongoing saga about the effect of cuts to special needs assistants and the impact this is having on families with special needs children.

When I read the first part of the Labour Party Private Members’ motion, I was very supportive of the sentiment behind it. However, when we considered the reality and how the cuts affect people with disabilities, we had to table this amendment. The words of the Independent councillor from Arklow, Miriam Murphy, a disability rights lobbyist and activist, came to mind. She has a physical disability and has used a wheelchair all her life. In thejournal.ie in April, she wrote:

On 26 February, the cuts to the mobility allowance and the disabled drivers transport grants were announced. I was enjoying a nice cuppa at the fire and was half-listening to the Nine O’Clock News. I knew I had heard “Disabled hit again”. My husband came into the room and said I should listen. I can honestly say it was like someone had hit me in the stomach. I was shocked, mad and a little unsure about the broadcaster was actually telling us. We both just looked at each other. I cried, as I felt I could not take any more.

We commend the work of Special Olympics Ireland and encourage its work. As Senator Moran remarked, anything we and the Government can do should be done, but we cannot allow the cuts to the disability sector go unnoticed in this motion. We do not want to commend the Government when these underlying cuts exist and we can see the real-life effects they are having on people. When we vote on the Private Members’ motion today we ask people to remember the impact these policies are having on the quality of life of people with disabilities.

17/07/2013TT00200Senator David Cullinane: I second the amendment. I commend the proposer of the original motion for raising the Special Olympics and its importance for people with disabilities. I remember vividly the 2003 Special Olympics in this State, and what it was like in my city, Wa- terford, where many families took in people from all over the world. It was a huge and fantastic occasion for this country, as well as for people with disabilities. It shone a spotlight on the issue

303 Seanad Éireann and gave us an opportunity to talk about the importance of doing what we can to support people with disabilities and ensuring they have an equal role to play in participation in all facets and strands of life in this country. It was a fantastic occasion.

There is a great deal in the motion I support. I support the commitment in the programme for Government to ensure that quality of life for people with disabilities is enhanced, as I hope all of us do. I also note the importance of Special Olympics and the fact that the participation rate in this country is higher than in other countries. The record of Special Olympics Ireland speaks for itself and, as Senator Reilly did, I commend the organisation. The motion mentions 400 community clubs throughout Ireland and the 15 Olympic-type sports here. There is a significant level of activity in this area for people with disabilities, which is fantastic.

It is the final line in the motion which causes difficulty for me. It commends the Govern- ment and the Minister of State with responsibility in this area, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, for their support for Special Olympics Ireland - I do not have a difficulty with that - and for their work in seeking to ensure enhanced quality of life generally for people with disabilities, in particular for adults and children with intellectual disabilities.

I remember a debate last year in this House that followed a very emotive “Prime Time” programme. Many Members spoke about how moved they had been. A number of families clearly, intelligently and with emotion, outlined the difficulties they have in caring for their children or loved ones, perhaps an adult child with a disability. There have been a whole raft of cutbacks which, to be fair, have not come only from this Government but also from the previous one. The supports for people with disabilities which should be there are not there in the manner they should be. That was clear, and not only from that programme. Many Senators on the opposite side spoke about how emotive and moving that programme was and said we needed to do more. Subsequently we had a number of debates with the Minister of State in this Chamber. Unfortu- nately, not much has changed. I have gone to far too many public meetings and events where people with disabilities have spoken about how they do not get from Government financial and other types of support they need. What they are faced with is cutback after cutback.

Our amendment deals with a number of points. Senator Reilly dealt with the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant.

17/07/2013TT00300Deputy Kathleen Lynch: There has been no cut there.

17/07/2013TT00400Senator David Cullinane: At the heart of it was a decision of the Ombudsman that the scheme was being applied unfairly because of the age criteria concerned. The Government will keep the scheme going for a couple of months and will come back to it, but did not deal with the substance of what the Ombudsman said. The scheme will not be made available for all those who need it. The Government has again gone for the cheap way out. The Minister of State may shake her head but that is what the Government went for.

17/07/2013TT00500Senator Susan O’Keeffe: On a point of order-----

17/07/2013TT00600Senator David Cullinane: The Government did not deal with the substance.

17/07/2013TT00700Senator Susan O’Keeffe: On a point of order and through the Chair-----

17/07/2013TT00800Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Is it a point of order?

17/07/2013TT00900Senator Susan O’Keeffe: As a member of the Joint Committee on Public Service Over- 304 17 July 2013 sight and Petitions to which the Ombudsman made the report, I can tell the Senator that what he said is absolutely and categorically untrue. The Department of Health-----

17/07/2013TT01000Senator David Cullinane: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013TT01100Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): It is not a point of order.

17/07/2013TT01200Senator Susan O’Keeffe: It is a point of information or clarification. What the Senator is saying is not true.

17/07/2013TT01300Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): When Senator Moran replies I am sure she will be in a position to respond. The Senator’s point of order is ruled out of order.

17/07/2013TT01400Senator Susan O’Keeffe: I thought I could make a point of information.

17/07/2013TT01500Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): There is no such thing, as the Senator knows.

17/07/2013TT01600Senator David Cullinane: I will continue.

17/07/2013TT01700Senator Susan O’Keeffe: So Senator Cullinane can say what he likes but I am not allowed to.

17/07/2013TT01800Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I am sure Senator Moran will respond at the end of the discussion, as the Minister of State will do.

17/07/2013TT01900Senator David Cullinane: I am sure we will also be told there has been no cut to the respite care grant but of course there has been, and it has impacted not only on the people who provide the care but on those who are in receipt of it. That has an impact on people with disabilities. There have been cuts to the household benefits package and special needs assistants. The Minister of Health stated there were no cutbacks in medical cards. The reality is-----

17/07/2013TT02000Senator Martin Conway: There have been no cuts there at all.

17/07/2013TT02100Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Senator Cullinane, without interruption.

17/07/2013TT02200Senator David Cullinane: The Government likes to pretend these things do not happen but the reality is different. All of us deal with this day in, day out - my party certainly does. If the Minister of State is not doing so there is something seriously wrong. The reality is that it is much more difficult than ever before to get a card on medical or hardship grounds. I deal with many families, day in, day out, week in, week out, who are having their applications for medical cards turned down. This happens all the time. If they go to appeal it takes a very long time for a decision to be made and often it is just not the right decision. That is a fact of life for many people. Although Labour Party Senators may shake their heads and deny this is reality it is reality and absolutely the case for families.

17/07/2013TT02300Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): The Senator’s time is up.

17/07/2013TT02400Senator David Cullinane: I was interrupted a couple of times, with respect.

17/07/2013TT02500Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Injury time. Please conclude as quickly as possible.

17/07/2013TT02600Senator David Cullinane: We live with the corrections but I deal with a whole raft of disability groups. 305 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013TT02700Senator Marie Moloney: So do we all.

17/07/2013TT02800Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): We cannot give any more time if Senators keep interrupting.

17/07/2013TT02900Senator David Cullinane: I do not know many disability groups who would say that things have got better for people with disabilities. I do not know many people who would say so. There are people who are really stretched and hurting because the resources are simply not there for them. For that reason we cannot support the substance of what is in the original motion because we cannot give praise to a Government that has been part of cutting back services to people with disabilities.

17/07/2013UU00100Senator Terry Brennan: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Seanad. Bionn tú anseo go minic.

As spokesperson for my party in the Seanad on tourism and sport, I am glad to contribute to the debate and congratulate my Labour Party colleagues on this initiative. As the Minister of State noted, Special Olympics Ireland receives funding from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport through the Irish Sports Council. Corporate entities are also an important source of funding. I am aware that Special Olympics Ireland also engages in a great deal of fund-raising throughout the year. Next year we will have the Ireland games in Limerick, as has been stated by my colleagues, and in 2015 the world summer games will take place in Los An- geles. Unfortunately, funding has been reduced for Special Olympics Ireland in recent years. I am aware that Special Olympics Ireland claims its funding has been reduced by almost 60% since 2008, which is significant. The level of funding was €3 million in 2008 and this year it has been reduced to €1.2 million. Special Olympics Ireland maintains that it costs approximately €6 million per annum to run the organisation; there is, therefore, apparently, a significant shortfall in funding requirements, which is unfortunate.

Special Olympics Ireland states it has attracted 5,500 athletes since the famous games held in Croke Park in 2003. I am glad to hear today that it has been the most successful Special Olympics games held in the entire world and congratulate all those who were involved. The organisation has opened 17 new clubs in the past year alone. In the year before the Special Olympics in 2003 there were 2,000 volunteers and I note that number has now increased to 25,000, with some saying it is 30,000. This is a significant contribution on a voluntary basis and should be acknowledged.

I note that there are 42,000 people in Ireland with an intellectual disability, of whom I am glad to see 30% participate in sporting activities. People with disabilities have no great say in how the disability budget is spent, as money is allocated on a block grant basis to service providers, with people with disabilities expected to fit into the model. It is not the way forward, as there are many excellent service providers, and it is absolutely essential that people with disabilities should have a great say in choosing the services of which they wish to avail and have State funds allocated to such services. The Minister of State has recently announced that the Government is progressing with a new funding model which I understand gives more power to people with disabilities in making their own decisions on where money is needed and how it should be spent. The days of allocating block money grants to service providers should be coming to an end and I welcome the Government’s advancement of the new initiative. It is important to say that despite political arguments to the contrary, there will be no additional charges or further reductions in funding imposed on people with disabilities, but perhaps the Minister 306 17 July 2013 of State might confirm this.

As has been noted by colleagues, in 2003 Ireland hosted the most successful world Spe- cial Olympic Games in history, which was a major achievement. On a weekly basis, Special Olympics Ireland offers a year-round programme of sports and training facilities to over 11,000 individuals, including youths and those who are not so young. I commend the Minister of State for the support of Special Olympics Ireland and the work done to seek to ensure an enhanced quality of life generally for people with disabilities. In particular, there have been initiatives for adults and children with intellectual disabilities.

I wish Special Olympics continued success in the years ahead and every success in the forthcoming Irish games in Limerick next year. I also wish the athletes well for the summer games to be held in Los Angeles in 2015.

17/07/2013UU00200Senator Paschal Mooney: I wish I could keep in line with the thinking on the Government side with regard to the wording of the motion which commends the Government for its support. Perhaps the Government and the Minister of State lend support in theory, but the evidence suggests otherwise. It is sad, in a way, that we should be debating this issue and the Government is using it as an opportunity to commend itself without in any way acknowledging deficiencies in the area, other than that times are hard. As often happens with international and national sports events, politicians - I include myself in that group - are seen to rush to the flag to be identified in the local newspapers as being supportive, but when the hoopla dies down and life carries on, reality sets in. The reality is that ten years after the Special Olympics, the movement has warned that it faces stark choices because of cuts in Government spending.

The organisation’s chief executive, Mr. Matt English, has indicated that funding from the State has been cut by almost 60% since 2008 and decreased funding is no longer sustainable. He has indicated that although clubs will not have to be closed down in the next year, the organisation will have to make stark choices unless funding is reinstated. The reality is that as a result of Special Olympics, the number of clubs increased exponentially as a result of the extraordinary publicity generated from the games. There are now 400 Special Olympics clubs, double the number in 2003, and they offer more supports and competition opportunities for people with an intellectual disability across the island, with over 5,500 new athletes participating weekly. The volunteer force has swelled from 2,000 in 2003 to 25,000 active volunteers today. That is an impressive number of people who will also be voting.

It costs approximately €24 million to run Special Olympics in a four year cycle, an average of €6 million per year. In 2008 Mr. English stated the organisation received €3 million, 50% of the cost of running the programme, which was a good figure at the time and in keeping with the support the Government would traditionally give to national organisations, especially those involved in organising international events or participating in international events such as the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. However, by this year, the funding had decreased to €1.2 million, approximately 20% of the cost of running the programme. Clearly, that level is not sustainable as it is not possible for the organisation to raise the balance from the public. Everybody in the House knows that as a result of the economic recession, most charitable organisations are already giving evidence that their annual collections are down. The Irish Cancer Society suffered much rain on Daffodil Day and is feeling the impact of a severe drop in public subscriptions.

Some €1.2 billion of the health budget is directed towards people with disabilities, but 307 Seanad Éireann Special Olympics Ireland does not receive anything from that pot, which is extraordinary. The Minister of State has spoken, but at some point she might explain why, out of the €1.2 billion in the health budget, Special Olympics Ireland gets nothing.

17/07/2013UU00300Senator Martin Conway: That is a sports issue.

17/07/2013UU00400Senator Paschal Mooney: I am only paraphrasing the people directly involved in the organisation. It is also interesting that the Department of Health’s national intellectual disability database registered 27,500 persons with an intellectual disability in the Republic of Ireland, of whom 34% or roughly 9,000 are registered athletes with Special Olympics Ireland, of whom a percentage must have been affected by the withdrawal of the mobility allowance.

17/07/2013UU00500Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The mobility allowance has not been withdrawn. I would like to clarify something. As long as something is said, it sounds as if it is the truth.

17/07/2013VV00200Senator Paschal Mooney: It will be withdrawn in four months’ time.

17/07/2013VV00300Deputy Kathleen Lynch: No it will not be withdrawn in four months’ time. I think this outrageous behaviour of terrifying very vulnerable people is absolutely disgraceful. The mobility allowance has not been withdrawn and there is no indication that it will be withdrawn in four months. People out there are worried enough without the Senator adding to it.

17/07/2013VV00400Senator Paschal Mooney: I am only quoting from the briefings that I have been given.

17/07/2013VV00500Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Senator can quote what he likes, but he should try to do it accurately.

17/07/2013VV00600Senator Paschal Mooney: I said that in the context of the mobility allowance, obviously those involved in the Special Olympics or those with an intellectual disability involved in sport would be benefiting from it. Of course I am encouraged by the statement of the Minister of State. I will withdraw any inaccuracies that I put on the record of the House. I thank her for that. I am only going on the briefing that I received. There was so much controversy surrounding this and I am pleased to hear that. There is so much controversy surrounding the whole disability budget, as the Minister of State is aware. People are particularly sensitive in this area, as the Minister of State knows because she is working in that area. Any indication of movement affects people in that category far more than the wider general public. I hope that she would continue to fight the good fight in that respect. The point I was attempting to make is that some of those who are registered as disabled athletes probably benefit from the mobility allowance, because they would be taken to various sporting activities.

I am particularly pleased that there is such a movement as the Special Olympics. I am particularly pleased that those with intellectual disabilities have got an outlet. My own daughter started off in the 2003 Special Olympics cycling. She got involved in the swimming at a very low level in Sligo, but it was part of the process that led to the eventual representational level of swimming. She did not get that far, but the fact that she was involved in it was a tremendous benefit to her and to her family. She was involved and participated and the event was main- streamed. She was not made to feel any different to anybody else in the mainstream population.

17/07/2013VV00700Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Time is limited, so I must call on Senator Moran. With all the clarifications, time has expired.

17/07/2013VV00800Senator Martin Conway: Let us deal with the facts. There were only one or two clarifica- 308 17 July 2013 tions.

17/07/2013VV00900Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I do not need any assistance in that respect. I am stating the facts.

17/07/2013VV01000Senator Mary Moran: The reason I proposed this motion was to highlight the excellent work that has been done by Special Olympics Ireland. There is no political reason for this. I merely stated that since I have come into the House, I was fortunate enough to meet with representatives of Special Olympics Ireland, and was so impressed with the work they were doing. I had already been involved on a very local level with my own club at home, for which I am extremely grateful. We had the ten year anniversary. I have been to regional games and local events. We were at the regional finals lately in Kilkenny, where I can happily say that they were two of the best days of my life. I saw children and adults from seven to 70, joining in together for races, running at their own level, being the best people that they can be. I will never forget the atmosphere in every single event that I have attended. The volunteers are absolutely amazing.

Next year they are going to Limerick. I want to publicise that. We had the World Winter Games but we had no correspondence. The Olympic Games last year received lots of coverage, but when it came to the Paralympic Games, we were lacking in this country. The same thing happened with the World Winter Games. We did not have daily bulletins on it. They went on quietly, like so much of the work in the Special Olympics.

I am so grateful for the support for this motion from party colleagues and from the kind things said by Members of the Opposition, including those who put down amendments. I do not want to turn this into a political debate at all. I did not invite representatives of Special Olympics Ireland to listen to a political debate or have people make it political.

17/07/2013VV01100Senator David Cullinane: The Senator made it a political motion.

17/07/2013VV01200Senator Mary Moran: I did not interrupt the Senator.

17/07/2013VV01300Senator David Cullinane: She certainly did.

17/07/2013VV01400Senator Mary Moran: No I did not. I have not opened my mouth during this debate.

17/07/2013VV01500Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Please do not interrupt the Senator.

17/07/2013VV01600Senator Mary Moran: I hope time will not be taken off me for this.

17/07/2013VV01700Senator Paschal Mooney: The Chair will look very kindly on you.

17/07/2013VV01800Senator Mary Moran: Thank you. I have not politicised this. I certainly did not invite representatives of Special Olympics Ireland in here to hear an argument. This is a good day to reflect, ten years after the Special Olympics, to see how the movement has grown, even with less resources. We could turn around and say that there have been cuts since 2008. Who was in power in 2008? We can turn it around. Allegations were made today about cuts that are simply not true. Some 43% of the population have medical cards at the moment. That is the highest percentage ever with medical cards. I am not here to discuss medical cards. The reason for the debate was simply to remember and to give us a sense of positivity. We have had so many hard debates in the last few weeks. We have debated the most difficult issues that have probably ever come before this House. This was a day to turn around and say that we are going through 309 Seanad Éireann tough times.

In the debate this afternoon on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013, continuous reference was made during an amendment on fatal foetal abnormality to disability and to children with disability. However, when this debate is on today and we are praising the working being done in the area of disability, these people are not here. They did not contribute to the debate.

17/07/2013VV01900Senator Marie Moloney: Well said.

17/07/2013VV02000Senator Mary Moran: I would like to thank Peter O’Brien from Special Olympics Ireland, and would like to thank Jim and James for coming in. I sincerely hope that this debate will lead to more people becoming volunteers in the Special Olympics, that it will make more people go to a local community event, that they will become involved, and that they will see the excellent work that is being done with the Special Olympics. I could go on. I hope that we have a further debate.

I am glad that the Minister of State is here, because I know how committed she is and how passionate she feels about the area of disability and what we can do. We should have sport here, but we should also representatives from the Department of Health, the Department of Children and Youth Affairs, and the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Govern- ment. The Special Olympics goes right across every single Department. If they worked col- lectively, we could make this even bigger and better than it already is, and something to make us even prouder.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 29. Tá Níl Byrne, Thomas. Bacik, Ivana. Cullinane, David. Brennan, Terry. Daly, Mark. Burke, Colm. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Clune, Deirdre. Leyden, Terry. Coghlan, Eamonn. Mooney, Paschal. Coghlan, Paul. Norris, David. Comiskey, Michael. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Conway, Martin. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cummins, Maurice. O’Donovan, Denis. D’Arcy, Jim. O’Sullivan, Ned. D’Arcy, Michael. Quinn, Feargal. Harte, Jimmy. Reilly, Kathryn. Hayden, Aideen. Walsh, Jim. Henry, Imelda. White, Mary M. Higgins, Lorraine. Wilson, Diarmuid. Keane, Cáit. Landy, Denis. Moloney, Marie.

310 17 July 2013 Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Noone, Catherine. O’Brien, Mary Ann. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. O’Keeffe, Susan. O’Neill, Pat. Sheahan, Tom. van Turnhout, Jillian. Zappone, Katherine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators David Cullinane and Kathryn Reilly; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.

Amendment declared lost.

Motion put and agreed to.

Business of Seanad

17/07/2013XX00200Senator Maurice Cummins: As we ran over time on Private Members’ business, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business to extend the time for Committee and Remaining Stages of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012 to 7.20 p.m.

Question put and declared carried.

Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012: Committee and Remaining Stages

SECTION 1

Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

17/07/2013XX00600Senator Thomas Byrne: Section 1 states “the Government have made a decision”. I am not an expert on English grammar, but I would have thought it should read “the Government has made a decision”. I know not much turns on it, but there is standard language for Bills and the drafters do not get these matters wrong.

311 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013XX00700Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): Nobody has pointed that out to me before. The Bill has been drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and it is happy with it.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.SECTION 3

Question proposed: “That section 3 stand part of the Bill.”

17/07/2013XX01000Senator Thomas Byrne: Will the Minister set out the reasons for this section?

17/07/2013XX01100Deputy Brendan Howlin: This section was added to amend the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2012 to assign the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council statutory responsibility for endorsing the macroeconomic forecast on which the budget and stability programme will be based. In essence, this would be an assignment carried out by the Minister for Finance. Under the new European architecture for the budget, we need to assign responsibility for the determination and endorsement of the macroeconomic forecast, a creature of the Department of Finance, to an independent body. We have determined that it should be the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. Since we need to have it done in advance of the early budget this year, this was the only available legislative instrument to achieve it.

17/07/2013XX01200Senator Thomas Byrne: Does the language used require the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council to endorse the forecast prepared by the Department?

17/07/2013XX01300Deputy Brendan Howlin: We had a debate in the other House about the language used. In plain English, it should state “endorse or not endorse”. I went back to the Parliamentary Coun- sel about it. Apparently, the phrase “endorse” allows the council to endorse or not to endorse. While it might sound peculiar, in legislative language, one does not include the negative.

17/07/2013XX01400Senator Thomas Byrne: I am satisfied with that explanation. Any doubt has been removed by the Minister as will be shown when one looks back at the parliamentary debates to interpret the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

17/07/2013XX02000Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin): While this Bill is short, it provides a statutory basis for the multi-annual medium-term expenditure framework. I thank Senators for co-operating in the passage of the Bill because it is important to put the framework on a statutory basis before the end of the term and the budgetary round starts.

17/07/2013XX02100Senator Thomas Byrne: While it is a short Bill, it relates to important aspects of how the Government will plan public expenditure in the next few years and to the role of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council. These will play a major part in keeping us on track to leave the EU-IMF programme later this year. We will support any legislation that will help us to reach that target. 312 17 July 2013

17/07/2013XX02200Senator Deirdre Clune: I thank the Minister for explaining the legislation. He was efficient and prompt with his replies. I am glad that the Bill has had a speedy passage.

17/07/2013XX02300Senator Jimmy Harte: This legislation is important in terms of foreign direct investment and in order that the world can see Ireland is conducting its business in an efficient manner. This is long overdue and to be welcomed. I note Senator Thomas Byrne and Fianna Fáil’s support for the Bill and how they recognise the positives.

Question put and agreed to. Sitting suspended at 7 p.m. and resumed at 7.20 p.m.

An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: Tairiscint chun Bille a chur faoi Athchúrsa

Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Motion to Recommit

17/07/2013YY00200An Cathaoirleach: Before the debate on the Bill commences I would like to call on Sena- tor Feargal Quinn who has given notice that under Standing Order 126 he is going to propose that the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 be recommitted in its entirety to a committee of the whole Seanad. I invite Senator Quinn to move his motion.

17/07/2013YY00300Senator Feargal Quinn: Tairgim:

Go n-ordaíonn Seanad Éireann, de bhun Bhuan-Ordú 126 de na Buan-Orduithe i dtaobh Gnó Phoiblí, go ndéanfar an Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann), 2013 ina iomláine a chur faoi athchúrsa i gCoiste den Teach uile.

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, pursuant to Standing Order 126 of the Standing Orders Relative to Public Business, directs that the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 in whole be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.

17/07/2013YY00400Senator David Norris: I second the motion.

17/07/2013YY00500Senator Maurice Cummins: I oppose the proposal.

17/07/2013YY00600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Quinn may now explain his reasons for seeking such a recommittal.

17/07/2013YY00700Senator Feargal Quinn: I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to move this motion. It is a very modest motion but a very important one. I believe that we have not had enough discussion on this Bill. It was guillotined in the Dáil and we have not had a sufficient opportunity to debate it here. The debate we have had has been very good and the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, has been present for 313 Seanad Éireann practically all of it. For instance, we have not had a chance to get the views of the nominating bodies of which there are 110 involved in election to the Seanad.

I appeal to Senators to support this motion because to all intents and purposes it asks simply for more time to consider and debate all the implications of the abolition of the Seanad. By supporting the motion Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators would not be opposing their own Government’s decision to hold a referendum on the Seanad’s future. All that we will do is perhaps delay it for a certain period to give us more time to pay attention to it. They will be giving more time for the consideration of the specifics of the Bill to ensure that the right question is put before the people and that there are no gaps. This is extremely important and in this House we should take the time to ensure that all the arguments about Seanad abolition and its impact on our Constitution are fully ventilated. Sadly, the debate in the Dáil was brought to a premature end. I acknowledged that the Government did lift some of the time limits in the Dáil but this did not prevent it putting down the guillotine when there were still amendments before it. On 23 June with pages of amendments still to be considered the Government dropped the guillotine and this was largely due to the understandable focus on the release of the taped conversations between bankers in the former Anglo Irish Bank. The Bill did not receive the attention it should have done.

In this House, where some cynics have been quick to label Senators as turkeys voting for Christmas, we have a solemn duty to ensure that every angle in regard to Seanad abolition is given full scrutiny before we proceed to a referendum. This is surely an important responsibility to the people and to Bunreacht na hÉireann which has served the country well for over 75 years. Abolishing the Seanad is the biggest change and reform of our Constitution since the Good Friday Agreement but it is far more divisive. Everybody in this House agrees that abolishing the Seanad will fundamentally alter the nature of our parliamentary democracy and will change the system of checks and balances upon which our Constitution is founded. The Seanad is mentioned 75 times in the Constitution and the Government’s Bill involves over 40 separate amendments to the Constitution to delete all those references. A referendum vote in favour of abolishing the Seanad will leave Bunreacht na hÉireann in a considerably altered state. I do not think nearly enough attention has been paid to that. We have an obligation to discuss each of these separate amendments in some detail before we proceed any further, particularly to ensure that we do not have any unforeseen negative consequences.

We cannot predict the future but historians in the next generation are likely to castigate this House if it meekly allows the Seanad to pass out of existence without properly analysing all of the possible permutations. We do not know what political alignment may control the body politic in the future so it seems to me that it would be irresponsible of us to remove, with some undue haste, constitutional safeguards without detailed debate, particularly on something that has been here for 75 years. We need in particular to ensure that there is proper provision to guard against rushed legislation if this Chamber is removed. We also need to have a proper discussion on whether it is democratically proper for a transient Dáil majority to be able to im- peach a president or a judge. This is uncharted territory and we would be very wrong to rush into this without examining its implications. As an eminent senior counsel, Jim O’Callaghan, recently pointed out, the Government’s Bill will delete Article 27 of the Constitution concerning the reference of legislation to the people. This article has never been used but it is a very innovative article that gives the people an opportunity in certain circumstances to have their say on legislation and contains proposals of national importance. We need to discuss properly whether it is desirable that the safeguards be removed.

314 17 July 2013 We also need to ask ourselves why we are rushing legislation into a referendum without proper consideration. Has this more to do with populism than practical politics? The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, angered Senators of all persua- sions in the House when he threw out misleading figures for the cost of the Seanad. The Gov- ernment clearly wants people to believe that it is going to make the political classes pay but of course the rushed referendum is designed to scapegoat the Seanad while at the same time leaving a dysfunctional Dáil completely unreformed. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and In- novation cited a figure of €20 million. That applies more to the cost of the actual referendum. Without the unseemly rush the Convention on the Constitution could in a timely manner review and make recommendations on the Seanad’s future. We put in an effort to have the Constitu- tional Convention consider this issue. That has not proved possible so far because of the time limits the Government has imposed on holding a referendum. I believe this would give the Constitutional Convention time for consideration.

Last summer the House voted for the question of the Seanad to be dealt with by the Consti- tutional Convention, but the Government ignored that democratic request. This motion allows time for this to happen. We are now in the last chance saloon and all of us in the House need to ask ourselves a very fundamental question as to whether we truly believe there has been proper debate on the question. If we do not discuss this matter properly we are sleepwalking into a situation in which the Executive’s stranglehold on political debate is strengthened and we may end up with a single-chamber parliament with no space for independent and minority voices. Does this serve democracy well? I appeal to Senators to support the motion. I believe there is a real need to do so. I am aware that we have discussed many of these points in the past, and putting the legislation before us now is not an effort to stop the referendum. People should debate it but they should have the full facts at their fingertips. I do not believe we have explored this often enough. Senator Katherine Zappone had agreed to second this motion - as I did not see her, I apologise - but Senator David Norris has also agreed to second it. I believe this matter is very worthy of consideration and I urge the House to accept the motion.

17/07/2013ZZ00200Senator David Norris: As the seconder of the motion I reserve the right to-----

17/07/2013ZZ00300An Cathaoirleach: There is no provision in Standing Orders for a seconder.

17/07/2013ZZ00400Senator David Norris: I am asking for the Chair’s indulgence because, as Senator Quinn said, it is very important that we have an open discussion-----

17/07/2013ZZ00500An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, there is no provision for a seconder to the motion under Standing Order 127. The Senator is completely out of order.

17/07/2013ZZ00600Senator David Norris: -----and I do not think it should be suppressed in this House.

17/07/2013ZZ00700An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator please resume his seat? He is out of order.

17/07/2013ZZ00800Senator David Norris: I am asking for a little indulgence and there is nothing to prevent that in Standing Orders. The Cathaoirleach said there was no provision-----

17/07/2013ZZ00900An Cathaoirleach: There is no provision under Standing Order 127 for a seconder.

17/07/2013ZZ01000Senator David Norris: But there is nothing to prevent it, and I am asking the Cathaoirleach to use his discretion. They are talking about cutting cleaners. Do they mean they are going to sell this place as they sold out Gandon’s Parliament to the Bank of Ireland?

315 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013ZZ01100An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, resume your seat.

17/07/2013ZZ01200Senator David Norris: They mentioned ink cartridges. It was not a Member of this House who spent €40,000 on ink cartridges. They are going to fire a whole load of people.

17/07/2013ZZ01300An Cathaoirleach: Senator, resume your seat.

17/07/2013ZZ01400Senator David Norris: How does that fit in with its jobs initiative?

17/07/2013ZZ01500An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is completely out of order.

17/07/2013ZZ01600Senator David Norris: With all the pensions and-----

17/07/2013ZZ01700An Cathaoirleach: Senator, you are completely out of order. Under Standing Order 127 there is no provision for the seconder of the motion to speak to the motion.

17/07/2013ZZ01800Senator David Norris: There is no provision against it either. The Cathaoirleach has failed to produce any provision to prevent me from speaking.

17/07/2013ZZ01900An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Leader to make a statement as to the reason he is opposing the recommittal motion.

17/07/2013ZZ02000Senator Maurice Cummins: I do not propose to accept Senator Feargal Quinn’s motion on the recommittal of the Bill under the Standing Order 127. I have no remit for what has been said or what happened in the other House. What I can say is that we commenced discussion of the Bill on 26 June and this continued over the course of four separate days. Ten hours were allocated for Second Stage and 54 Members availed of the opportunity to speak during that debate. Committee Stage took place over two days last week, with more than 12 hours of debate. I would point out that eight of those hours was spent on a discussion about section 1, which, in my view, was not the best use of the allocated time for that Bill. I am on the record as stating that the timing of a statement by my own party members was less than helpful and was disrespectful when the Bill had not gone through the Houses of the Oireachtas. I stand over that statement, but as the Government representative I have allocated more than sufficient time on Second and Committee Stages. As we are now on Report Stage and will have further time to debate the matter, I do not propose to accept the Senator’s proposition.

17/07/2013ZZ02100An Cathaoirleach: I am putting the question.

17/07/2013ZZ02200Senator Paul Bradford: On a point of order, before the House divides, will the Cathao- irleach advise on the impact of the recommittal? What would it entail?

17/07/2013ZZ02300An Cathaoirleach: A recommittal would bring the Bill back to Committee Stage in the Seanad.

17/07/2013ZZ02400Senator Paul Bradford: Would that entail a full debate of the Bill, section by section?

17/07/2013ZZ02500An Cathaoirleach: Yes.

17/07/2013ZZ02600Senator Paul Bradford: Would there be a prescribed time for such a debate?

17/07/2013ZZ02700An Cathaoirleach: That would be a matter for the House to decide.

Cuireadh an cheist.

316 17 July 2013 Question put.

Rinne an Seanad vótáil ar bhealach leictreonach.

The Seanad divided by electronic means.

17/07/2013AAA00200Senator David Norris: Faoi Bhuan Ordú 62(3)(b) ba mhaith liom go gcaithfear vóta ar bhealach seachas ar bhealach leictreonach.

Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

Cuireadh an cheist.

Question put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 31. Tá Níl Barrett, Sean D. Bacik, Ivana. Bradford, Paul. Brennan, Terry. Byrne, Thomas. Burke, Colm. Crown, John. Clune, Deirdre. Cullinane, David. Coghlan, Eamonn. Daly, Mark. Coghlan, Paul. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Comiskey, Michael. Heffernan, James. Conway, Martin. Leyden, Terry. Cummins, Maurice. MacSharry, Marc. D’Arcy, Jim. Mooney, Paschal. D’Arcy, Michael. Mullen, Rónán. Gilroy, John. Norris, David. Harte, Jimmy. O’Brien, Darragh. Hayden, Aideen. O’Brien, Mary Ann. Henry, Imelda. O’Donovan, Denis. Higgins, Lorraine. O’Sullivan, Ned. Keane, Cáit. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Kelly, John. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Landy, Denis. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Mac Conghail, Fiach. Power, Averil. Moloney, Marie. Quinn, Feargal. Moran, Mary. Reilly, Kathryn. Mulcahy, Tony. Walsh, Jim. Mullins, Michael. White, Mary M. Noone, Catherine. Wilson, Diarmuid. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. Zappone, Katherine. O’Keeffe, Susan. O’Neill, Pat.

317 Seanad Éireann Sheahan, Tom. van Turnhout, Jillian. Whelan, John.

Tellers: Tá, Senators David Norris and Feargal Quinn; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Ai- deen Hayden.

Question declared lost.

An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: An Tuarascáil

Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Report Stage

17/07/2013BBB00300An Cathaoirleach: Before we commence, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage, each amendment must be seconded.

Amendments Nos. 1 to 27, inclusive, are ruled out of order.

17/07/2013BBB00400Senator David Norris: On a point of order, I consider this more disgraceful bullying by the Government. I do not believe for one minute that this an appropriate ruling from the Chair.

17/07/2013BBB00500Senator Maurice Cummins: It has nothing to do with us. That is the ruling from the Chair.

17/07/2013BBB00600Senator David Norris: One of my amendments is a simple description of the Title of the Bill-----

17/07/2013BBB00700An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris is out of order.

17/07/2013BBB00800Senator David Norris: -----and it could not possibly conflict.

17/07/2013BBB00900An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris should resume his seat.

17/07/2013BBB01000Senator David Norris: I do not believe for one second that the Cathaoirleach’s ruling is appropriate and I challenge it.

17/07/2013BBB01100An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris is out of order completely. I have ruled on this issue. 318 17 July 2013 Amendments Nos. 1 to 27, inclusive, not moved.

17/07/2013BBB01200An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Barrett on amendment No. 28, which is in the names of Senators Barrett, Norris and Quinn and arises out of committee proceedings.

17/07/2013BBB01300Senator Sean D. Barrett: Tairgim leasú a 28:

In page 8, to delete lines 8 to 11 and substitute the following:

“2° Is é an lá dá dtagraítear i bhfo-alt 1° den alt seo an 91ú lá a thiocfaidh Dáil Éire- ann le chéile den chéad uair tar éis an olltoghcháin do chomhaltaí de Dháil Éireann is túisce a bheidh ann tar eis an tAirteagal seo a achtú.”.

and

In page 8, to delete lines 26 to 29 and substitute the following:

“2° The day referred to in subsection 1° hereof is the 91st day on which Dáil Éireann first meets after the general election for members of Dáil Éireann that next takes place after the enactment of this Article.”.

I move amendment No. 28:

I leathanach 9, línte 8 go 11 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n-ionad:

agus

I leathanach 9, línte 26 go 29 a scriosadh agus an méid seo a leanas a chur ina n- ionad:

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Cathaoirleach on this extremely sad evening in light of the vote we have just had. I do not believe in the abolition of Seanad Éireann. I hope that all those opposite do not dare to ever come into this House again when we win the referendum. They have shamed themselves by their vote. This was a splendid Parliament.

I am always keen to update the Minister on what we do. Yesterday, a motion was accepted by the Leader to have a discussion on Northern Ireland and possibly invite the Orange Order to the House. The debate on prisons was informed by the great T. K. Whitaker, a former Member, and the Minister of State’s colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, accepted our concerns about tenants in accommodation where a landlord goes broke. We are still doing all the work that the Taoiseach ignores by turning up here once a year just for a one-hour period, and that is why the Seanad should not be abolished.

We have not consulted the electorate in Northern Ireland. My estimate is that there are approximately 8,000 of them between the two university constituencies. No attempt was made to 319 Seanad Éireann vindicate their rights under the Belfast Agreement of 1998 or the rights given to them under the Constitution, and the Government has never used the machinery under the Anglo-Irish Agree- ment in its treatment of the voting rights of those persons. That partitionist thinking is a shame. We were saying yesterday, in reference to the Orange Order’s previous visit, that part of its my- thology, which informs the rioting in Belfast at present, is that its population in the Border counties has shrunk to an extremely low level while the Nationalist minority in Northern Ireland has increased. I asked the question, which jurisdiction treated its minorities better. The way they have casually cast aside agreements that we made with them, which were ratified by the United Nations in 1988, means that we will vote for more arms and protective clothing for the members of the PSNI who must handle the situation. It is extremely insensitive not to recognise that we need all of the contacts in both parts of the island. The matter has been treated casually.

We have heard no reply from the Minister, the Government or the Taoiseach which is a major mistake regarding the abolition of Seanad Éireann Part II. Instead, we have a completely daft, and not just misleading, but absurd collection of costings-----

17/07/2013CCC00200Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

17/07/2013CCC00300Senator Sean D. Barrett: -----published by the Government as part of its case to abolish the House, the €20 million. A Senator’s salary is €65,000 and multiplied by 60 equals €3.9 million but the Government gets half that sum back in taxes. The salaries of Members of the Dáil, who face a very small cut of under 5%, are 34% higher. The Government wants to transfer the work that we do for 34% less to a more expensive body that lacks the expertise that one gets here. The Taoiseach’s Departmental budget for the abolition is €2.1 million which is 84% of what he spent on the EU Presidency. He is very proud of the EU Presidency, and so are we. However, a large amount of money has been spent trying to do away with the House. If the pay of Deputies was reduced to that of Senators one could save about €3.7 billion.

Amazing numbers have been produced. For example, we use €36,000 per year each on computers, €46,000 each on parliamentary draftsmanship, €26,000 each for ushers and stew- ards. Those numbers have managed to inflate the €3.9 million wage bill paid to Senators to €20.1 million. We should have been given a Green Paper and a White Paper and, as Senator Quinn asked, an interval for a discussion. On the contrary, we have gone for a totalitarian approach. We will lose an extremely valuable part of the Legislature, this House.

17/07/2013CCC00400Senator Paschal Mooney: Not yet, Senator.

17/07/2013CCC00500Senator Sean D. Barrett: When I think of Northern Ireland I think of Gordon Wilson, Ken Whitaker, John D. A. Robb Bríd Rodgers, Maurice Hayes and Seamus Mallon who were splendid people. They will never be elected to the Dáil but I am sure that will satisfy the Minister of State and his supporters.

17/07/2013CCC00600Deputy Brian Hayes: The Senator knows that is not true.

17/07/2013CCC00700Senator Sean D. Barrett: I propose that we do not proceed with the abolition of the Se- anad. We have not consulted the universities who send six people here. I speak as a member of the board of a university and can vouch that the matter has not been discussed. It was dropped on us. We have not consulted the other nominating bodies either.

With regard to the amendment which states that no general election for Seanad Éireann shall take place until after the dissolution of Dáil Éireann that next occurs after the enactment of this 320 17 July 2013 article, it should be delayed. We may have a new Government and perhaps a new leader of the Fine Gael Party who might have a more positive attitude to the excellent work of this House.

17/07/2013CCC00800Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

17/07/2013CCC00900Senator Sean D. Barrett: He or she might even turn up here for more than an odd hour a year. The Taoiseach is an employee of the people and nobody will accept a person’s judgment which is based on one hour’s visit per year. It would be unacceptable for the closure of a hospital, school or business. That is what the Government is asking us to do. It is shamelessly neglecting the good work done by the House, the work on all of the Bills and amendments and the views of the people who are not represented in the Dáil.

Please remember that this House exists because of a meeting between Arthur Griffith and the provost of Trinity College, Andrew Jameson, and Lord Middleton during the Treaty negotiations, a topic covered in Donal O’Sullivan’s book The Irish Free State and Its Senate. We are trying to continue that tradition which has served this country well. I gave the quotes to the Minister of State when he attended here on another day. It has served the country well to represent those viewpoints. In particular, one ought to think about what is happening in Northern Ireland because the Good Friday Agreement is not being observed by people who feel that the Seanad has become a cold house for minority viewpoints and minority people whom Arthur Griffith sought to protect, and that this House has always protected. We should join up the dots to discover what is happening.

It has been stated - but the argument has been turned around - that the abolition of the House is necessary because we want to reform the Dáil. That is absolute nonsense. No proposal to reform the Dáil has ever come before this House. In fact, we probably would approve same. I commend the proposal made by the former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, that the Ceann Com- hairle should be selected by a secret ballot in the other House. There are no proposals here so the Government cannot say that it cannot reform the Dáil because the Seanad has not been abolished.

May I give a picture that reflects the reality in this country? Stephen Collins, in his newspaper article published in The Irish Times last Saturday, stated:

During the lull in debate during the week one Minister - with long experience in office - mused about the unwillingness of successive governments to reform the operation of the Dáil to give TDs a meaningful say in the construction of legislation.

The following is important. The article continues:

His thesis was that the problem stems from the higher echelons of the civil service who control the legislative process. “Legislation may be instigated by Ministers but the detail only emerges after consideration by civil servants, the Attorney General’s office and parliamentary draftsmen. Once that process is complete and the Government signs off on a Bill nobody wants TDs messing around with its provisions,” he said. That effectively makes TDs redundant.

We have fought against that in this House by bringing forward Bills and tabling hundreds of amendments, as Senator Quinn has shown. I fear, when I see Ministers come in here, that they are controlled by their advisers sitting behind them. As journalist Stephen Collins has said, that reflects the reality. 321 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013CCC01000Deputy Brian Hayes: That is not true. That is not true of me.

17/07/2013CCC01100Senator Sean D. Barrett: The Minister of State does not want universities here either, that is fine.

17/07/2013CCC01200Deputy Brian Hayes: That is not true.

17/07/2013CCC01300Senator David Norris: It is true

17/07/2013CCC01400Deputy Brian Hayes: Rubbish.

17/07/2013CCC01500Senator Sean D. Barrett: We must remember that we have universities of the highest rank and with 65 departments. I have brought the knowledge of those departments to this parliamentary Chamber. I shall tell them that the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, in obedience to Taoiseach Kenny does not want any university representation, does not want a second Chamber and does not want anybody from Northern Ireland. That is a power grab which everybody in the House should resist. All this has been done on completely spurious grounds in terms of Parliament and utterly spurious figures.

Deputy Finian McGrath asked Deputy Michael Noonan questions about the referendum figures that stated it will cost between €17 million and €21 million, plus the €2.1 million that has already been spent. That money is needed in a country with 14.7% unemployment and where 300,000 people have left. The Government has reformed nothing in the country. The Seanad has been made a scapegoat but we were not responsible for the collapse of the Celtic tiger or the Government’s failure to reform the Dáil. I have tabled stronger measures, as the Minister of State well knows, on the regulation of banks. I thought the Minister for Finance would accept them but the Minister of State turned them down. Therefore, we are not responsible for the failure to reform the banking system either. Every day that we are in here we creatively help the Leader and the Government to get this country back from its condition in 2008. Our reward has been a Taoiseach who wants to abolish a vital part of the Legislature.

Today is my worst day since I joined this House. We really did try. Some 42 new people joined but we have been judged by people who do not want to hear us or are judging us on a Se- anad that no longer exists. We wanted to play our part. All of the council of people, nominated by the Government, will not be nearly as effective. I have served on many of those councils and boards for various Governments. The Seanad is the best place for policy-making I have ever come across. That is my experience and I think it would also be the Taoiseach’s if he turned up a bit more frequently. He promised us, now that we no longer hold the EU Presidency, that he would come to the House more frequently, but I see he is sending the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, instead. That probably explains why he is badly informed about the work this House does.

I am very happy to support this amendment. This is a tragedy for the Parliament and the people of this country. It is a power grab and it saves no money. It will reduce the ability of the Legislature to address the serious questions that face this country.

We need people from Northern Ireland here. We need to comply with the terms of the Good Friday Agreement 1998 and to honour what is in the Constitution and what was given by Éamon de Valera in 1937 to residents of the North. We may even need to try to emulate the Irish Rugby Football Union, which is able to have unionists and nationalists playing on the one side.

322 17 July 2013 When I visit my constituency, I draw bigger attendances in Enniskillen, Belfast and Dun- gannon. I will have to go to those people and say that because of this Taoiseach, supported by people who did not bother to work through the consequences, they will no longer be able to vote for Members of the Oireachtas as it is being redefined to exclude people like them. They will be excluded from this House by a referendum in which they will have no vote. I think that is a scandalous situation in breach of an agreement which we registered with the United Na- tions. When there is rioting and we wonder why many people on the extreme unionist side do not want anything to do with this State, the hand of friendship we tried to offer is being pulled back by this Government. I am happy to propose the amendment that we do not proceed with the abolition of Seanad Éireann.

17/07/2013DDD00200Senator David Norris: I am happy and honoured to second this amendment. This is the most disgraceful night. The behaviour of many people, including officeholders, is completely reprehensible. I have been in this House longer than the Cathaoirleach and any other person in it. I have been here for 26 years and sometimes I have behaved vociferously. I have no apology whatever to make because when I came into this place it was a pretty dull joint. In the 26 years since I have been here, I cannot recall this number of amendments being cavalierly ruled out of order on specious grounds. It is a disgrace. Seventy-eight amendments have been tabled but only one has been allowed. What kind of democracy is that? Whose strings are being pulled and by whom? That is what I would like to ask. I would also like to ask the people over there what is being offered. Last time it was Grattan’s Parliament in Gandon’s great building-----

17/07/2013DDD00300An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris-----

17/07/2013DDD00400Senator David Norris: We hear all the rumours about bribery and I am damn sure it is going on.

17/07/2013DDD00500An Cathaoirleach: There are no strings being pulled.

17/07/2013DDD00600Senator David Norris: I am perfectly certain there are.

17/07/2013DDD00700An Cathaoirleach: I have made my decision on those amendments.

17/07/2013DDD00800Senator David Norris: How do you know there are not?

17/07/2013DDD00900An Cathaoirleach: I know.

17/07/2013DDD01000Senator David Norris: You know. That is pretty childish. I know because I know.

17/07/2013DDD01100Senator Rónán Mullen: I did not know omniscience went with the job as well.

17/07/2013DDD01200Senator David Norris: Let us get on with the job, since I am allowed one occasion to speak.

17/07/2013DDD01300An Cathaoirleach: On amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013DDD01400Senator David Norris: On amendment No. 28, this is a stunt.

17/07/2013DDD01500Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: On a point of order-----

17/07/2013DDD01600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames, on a point of order.

17/07/2013DDD01700Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Did I hear there that the Cathaoirleach is not an impartial 323 Seanad Éireann Chair and that he knows strings are not being pulled?

17/07/2013DDD01800An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013DDD01900Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Impartial, a Chathaoirligh. Go raibh maith agat.

17/07/2013DDD02000Senator David Norris: Let us be clear what this is. This is a triple stunt. Reference was made to excellent articles by my colleague, Senator Barrett. Even if the rest of us were dross, what he has brought to this House has been superb. I say that even though he is a constituency rival and at the next election we will be competing for the same vote. However, I refer to an excellent article by Vincent Browne in The Irish Times on 17 July 2013 in which he quotes the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, who spoke at the MacGill summer school in July 2009 about a new role for the Seanad, before stating on 17 October 2009:

I believe the Seanad should be abolished and the next Fine Gael Government will put this to the people. I have come to the conclusion that a second House of the Oireachtas can no longer be justified.

Stunt number one. Was it a stunt?

I hope we have the money to pay for television advertisements showing that glorious moment when Enda dropped it on Frances Fitzgerald, who was the leader of Fine Gael in this House but had never heard a word about it. Talk about a rabbit caught in the headlights. This was a pygmy shrew caught in the glare of a full regiment of panzer tanks. Nothing like it was ever seen in the history of politics.

17/07/2013DDD02100An Cathaoirleach: Senator, can you stick to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013DDD02200Senator David Norris: I am sticking to it. Then there was the idea that he had taken a leader’s initiative. This is what Vincent Browne - who, I can assure Members, has been survey- ing political life in Ireland longer than I and who is a very wise old bird - said. Vincent Browne stated:

Enda Kenny had never taken a “leader’s initiative” on anything in his life until October 17th, 2009. He had been in the Dáil for 34 years-----

17/07/2013DDD02300An Cathaoirleach: What has this do with amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013DDD02400Senator David Norris: This is about amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013DDD02500Senator Darragh O’Brien: It is very relevant. We have a fraud of a Taoiseach.

17/07/2013DDD02600Senator David Norris: Vincent Browne stated:

He had been in the Dáil for 34 years by then and nobody I have spoken to can remember a single initiative he ever took on anything or any indication that he had reflected at all on any political reform or anything else of consequence-----

17/07/2013DDD02700An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013DDD02800Senator David Norris: -----in that third of a century. Certainly not a word about Seanad reform or abolition.”

He went on to state: “That a major change to our political institutions should have been 324 17 July 2013 prompted by a stunt, and almost certainly nothing else, to ease political pressure at a time of peril to career of a political dilettante, is beyond depressing.”

17/07/2013DDD02900Senator Tony Mulcahy: On a point of order-----

17/07/2013DDD03000An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mulcahy, on a point of order

17/07/2013DDD03100Senator Tony Mulcahy: Any Member of this House is entitled to give his or her opinion, but reading the opinion of a journalist outside this House into the record is unfair and-----

17/07/2013DDD03200An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. Senator Norris, stick to the amendment.

17/07/2013DDD03300Senator David Norris: It shows that the Senator does not know much, even though his heart is in the right place.

17/07/2013DDD03400An Cathaoirleach: Senator, can you stick to the amendment?

17/07/2013DDD03500Senator David Norris: We are often asked to quote the newspapers and give references. The Senator should come in more often and get his leader, the Taoiseach, to come in.

17/07/2013DDD03600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, stick to the amendment.

17/07/2013DDD03700Senator David Norris: Do those opposite realise they are voting for their extinction? I refer to Richard Bruton. God help the poor man. The poor devil. Was it not bad enough that he flopped in his leadership bid? Enda rightly screwed him to the wall.

17/07/2013DDD03800An Cathaoirleach: On amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013DDD03900Senator David Norris: Enda really-----

17/07/2013DDD04000An Cathaoirleach: Can you stick to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013DDD04100Senator David Norris: I am making a point.

17/07/2013DDD04200An Cathaoirleach: You are not on amendment No. 28. You have moved away from it.

17/07/2013DDD04300Senator David Norris: This is an act of revenge.

17/07/2013DDD04400Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

17/07/2013DDD04500Senator David Norris: Enda is grinding his nose into the dirt and forcing him to come out on this.

17/07/2013DDD04600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, you are completely-----

17/07/2013DDD04700Senator David Norris: That is dishonest.

17/07/2013DDD04800An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris, you are completely out of order.

17/07/2013DDD04900Senator David Norris: I am talking about the complete and determined position of the Government to stifle debate in every possible way to prevent the Irish people from getting the opportunity-----

17/07/2013DDD05000An Cathaoirleach: Can you stick to the amendment, please?

325 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013DDD05100Senator David Norris: I am allowed to make my argument.

17/07/2013DDD05200An Cathaoirleach: I will have to put the question if you do not stick the amendment.

17/07/2013DDD05300Senator David Norris: I am sticking to the argument.

17/07/2013DDD05400Senator Mary M. White: This is a historic moment. We have to listen to the Senator.

17/07/2013DDD05500Senator David Norris: I am sticking to my argument. In any court of law, one is allowed to lay the bases and then one ties them together. I am tying them together. We have a specific date for the extinction of this Parliament. How is that not tying it together?

17/07/2013DDD05600An Cathaoirleach: You are relevant at the moment.

17/07/2013DDD05700Senator David Norris: I am relevant at the moment and I was retrospectively relevant if you had only given me the latitude that you usually do. I suppose I cannot say you have got your orders. I will leave that thought completely unspoken.

Can I point out that the travel allowance for Dáil Éireann would cover the wages of this House for a year? Why does the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, not go down there and let them get bicycles for themselves? How about that? It would be environmentally friendly. I hope the people of Ireland hear this. The travel allowance for Dáil Éireann would cover the wages of this House.

Let us look at the rest of the lies, and damn lies they are too, that we will save money on this thing. My friend Senator Barrett was brilliant on this. What will the Government do? It will fire the cleaners and all the secretarial staff. It says the Bills Office and the Journal Of- fice will be affected, so it will fire a few more there. That is wonderful economics. Why did the Minister of State not take into account the fact that the Government will have to pay social welfare to these people? The Government is putting people on the dole. That is its wonderful jobs programme. It will actually throw people out of work in the centre of Parliament. I hope the people of Ireland take note of this and see that the policy of this Government is the policy of unemployment, except of its fat self. The money its gets down there-----

17/07/2013DDD05800An Cathaoirleach: On amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013DDD05900Senator David Norris: By God, it is shameless. It is appalling to think of it. If one looks at the figures certified by the Government, they show the clear situation. Dáil Éireann costs €41 million.

17/07/2013DDD06000An Cathaoirleach: We are not discussing Dáil Éireann. We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013DDD06100Senator David Norris: We are discussing the comparative figures.

17/07/2013DDD06200Senator Mary M. White: This is like the Act of Union 1800.

17/07/2013DDD06300Senator David Norris: Yes. I am not going to be stopped. If the Cathaoirleach wishes to throw me out, that is his prerogative. I invite him to do so. People will see what way things are going in the House if, after 77 amendments, I am thrown out of the House for telling the truth. I am making a comparison and defy the Chair to show me that this is not relevant to amendment No. 28. The Seanad is going to be extinguished on the specified date with the consent of the House because of the nincompoops. The most we cost is €8 million. Of €108 million, we cost €8 million and the Dáil, €41 million. They intend to save money, but it will actually cost 326 17 July 2013 money. As Senator Sean D. Barrett said, the cost of the referendum must be taken into account, including the cost of legal advice, and already one is up to €20 million to €25 million, whatever way they fudge it. However, they will not tell the people that, as they look for every digression. They all jumped on a few hasty words of mine. They want to avoid the truth, which they cannot bear. I have challenged the Taoiseach, since the beginning of June, to meet me on television to debate the matter and have yet to receive a reply.

17/07/2013EEE00400Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: He is afraid of the Senator.

17/07/2013EEE00500Senator David Norris: I will go and find him in the restaurant where he has plenty of time to launch a book. They intend to get rid of the lighting and maintenance in the Chamber. Are they going to sell it? Are they going to scrap it? If not, maintenance will continue to be required. That must be taken out of the equation. That lie should be stopped. I am glad that the Minister of State admired the ceiling. You were so ignorant that none of you knew it was done by Michael Stapleton.

17/07/2013EEE00600An Cathaoirleach: That is unparliamentary language and completely out of order.

17/07/2013EEE00700Senator David Norris: Thank you very much. The Cathaoirleach has had a long and distinguished career in the House. Can he remember any other time when every amendment but one of approximately 100 amendments was ruled out of order? If not, why not? Why is there so much fudging? Why is the Government stifling debate? The reason the specified dates have been chosen is simple. The Government shoved this in while all of the attention was on the abortion debate to ensure we would never be covered. We are moving into the silly season, during which we will not be covered at all. The next thing will be the vote, which was why it was important for us to delay the Bill.

I appeal to Members on the other side. If they have any integrity, they will come out and vote to remit the Bill with at least one amendment. This is the only amendment we have, which is why they must vote on it. If they do not, they will have sold out the people whom they will not have allowed to discuss the matter properly. We will just have the fudge, the lies and taxpayers’ money spent to spread this odious rubbish.

I was grossly offended by what the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton said. How dare he say what he did about people in the House who oppose the referendum? He has said we claim the Seanad should be retained and reformed when the reality is that attempts to reform the Seanad in the past have failed. Of course, they failed. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and the rest of them all opposed reform. Fine Gael and the Taoiseach played a leading role in this. The smoking gun is in the statement they made and I hope someone will pick it up. Hello, out there. If anyone is listening, there is a smoking gun here. One of the people who signed the statement said she was offered a candidacy for the Seanad in 2007. In 2007 the then Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Enda Kenny, now Taoiseach, was assisting in the business of corrupt- ing the Seanad in a way he now decries. There is the smoking gun. What happened to him that he suddenly saw the light? He was deeply involved in the corruption of Seanad Éireann and in impeding reform, yet he suddenly comes along to say he wants to reform the Seanad by abolishing it. He will not even give the people the credit of being intelligent enough to decide between reform and abolition.

The lying, trickery and knavery goes on. Of course, they are not confronting the people with the reality of what they are doing on their coy and evasive ballot paper which one might

327 Seanad Éireann easily sign in the flicker of an eye. I wonder if it is legal. They should rehearse. This was the point of one of the amendments the Cathaoirleach ruled out of order. I have no idea why he did so, as he gave no explanation.

17/07/2013EEE00800An Cathaoirleach: I have made my rulings on the amendments.

17/07/2013EEE00900Senator David Norris: As usual, it was one-line nonsense to the effect that the amendments were outside the scope of the Bill or in conflict with its principles. God help us. Do not expect me to respect these kinds of rulings.

17/07/2013EEE01000An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should have respect for the Chair.

17/07/2013EEE01100Senator David Norris: As I have said before, I respect the Chair, but I do not repect the judgments.

17/07/2013EEE01200An Cathaoirleach: I have made my rulings on the amendments.

17/07/2013EEE01300Senator David Norris: I do not respect them. How could anybody?

17/07/2013EEE01400An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013EEE01500Senator David Norris: I am not talking about the Cathaoirleach, but he challenged me and I will give it back. I remember a day when I put down something on an emergency basis. Fianna Fáil was in government and the item was ruled out of order on the basis that it was not an emergency. At that very moment Charlie Haughey was declaring a national emergency in the other House. How can I respect rulings of that kind? I am not saying the Cathaoirleach ever did that, but it happened in the House and can be looked up. Why should we respect the rulings when they are all nonsense? The earlier ruling was that I could not speak because there was no provision for me to do so. There was nothing to stop me, except the ruling, in which case why was it given?

17/07/2013EEE01600An Cathaoirleach: I made my ruling.

17/07/2013EEE01700Senator David Norris: I know, but you had no basis for it.

17/07/2013EEE01800An Cathaoirleach: It was made under Standing Order 127.

17/07/2013EEE01900Senator David Norris: That is not true. Let us go on a little more. I suppose we will have to go into voting. The Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, said ten reports had been published, yet we still had the same undemocratic, ineffective Upper House. Members opposite are undemocratic and ineffective according to their Government. Is that what they want to be? I challenge the people over there. The one opportunity they had to save the House was related to carer’s allowance. One brave man acted, while the rest sang dumb. Now, some are using it as an excuse not to change. They say the people will say they are only seeking to save their own skins as they failed to vote on the issue of carer’s allowance. Why did they fail to vote on it? Shame on them.

17/07/2013EEE02000An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013EEE02100Senator David Norris: They are going to leave the House on the 21st day after the referendum is passed, if it is passed. I think the people have more sense. The Senators should not take their pay, even if they insist on turning up here. It is what they would do if they had any decency. They have said they are worthless and that we are a waste of money. The Minister, 328 17 July 2013 Deputy Richard Bruton said one could spend €400,000 on disability services. It was a disgraceful abuse of people with disabilities.

17/07/2013EEE02200An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013EEE02300Senator David Norris: I am speaking about why the Bill should be opposed. There are 31 Senators who voted against Senator Feargal Quinn’s splendid amendment. They get more than €65,000 a year.

17/07/2013EEE02400An Cathaoirleach: That amendment was disposed of.

17/07/2013EEE02500Senator David Norris: Let us make it €80,000 and multiply it by 31. Can Senator Sean D. Barrett tell me what that comes to?

17/07/2013EEE02600An Cathaoirleach: Will Senator David Norris speak to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013EEE02700Senator David Norris: He says it is €2.4 million per year. If the Senators opposite feel so strongly that the money is needed, they should leave or stay and shame themselves but without taking their pay. They have voted to say they are not worth it. Why are they staying? Why do they not buzz off?

I am glad to say I have had an apology from the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton. How- ever, the real insult he delivered was in saying those who called for reform now wanted the 75 year search for a purpose for this ineffective institution to continue. He said those who had refused to change the Seanad over so many years and were now calling for reform rather than abolition really meant more of the same. He said he was not persuaded by the new-found ap- petite for reform and believed the public would see the belated calls for what they were. It was a dirty, calculated little smear. I was surprised to see this from the Minister who is a decent individual. Probably, some minion wrote it for him. He should retract his statement and I call on him to retract it in its entirety. It is a disgrace and a lie from beginning to end. Any decent person would be ashamed of it. I am very happy to support Senator Barrett. I very much regret that we will be stifled, guillotined and muzzled in the House. Let the Irish people take note that this is what is in store when the dictatorship in the Lower House takes over. There will be no mercy. Those people are ruthless. Let us look at the way the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, eliminated Deputy Richard Bruton. He may not be that intelligent but by God he is ruthless.

17/07/2013FFF00200An Cathaoirleach: That has nothing to do with the amendment.

17/07/2013FFF00300Senator David Norris: It does-----

17/07/2013FFF00400An Cathaoirleach: Absolutely nothing.

17/07/2013FFF00500Senator David Norris: -----but I know the Cathaoirleach must keep ruling in that way and my heart goes out to him. It must be an awful shame to be the Cathaoirleach in the Senate when he will preside over the extinction of his office.

17/07/2013FFF00600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris is bringing the Chair into disrepute.

17/07/2013FFF00700Senator Mary M. White: The Cathaoirleach is very happy.

17/07/2013FFF00800Senator David Norris: I do not think I am, the Bill is bringing the Chair into disrepute. It is an absolute utter and total disgrace. This is our only opportunity. Will we be allowed, please Sir, to speak on the sections? 329 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013FFF00900An Cathaoirleach: Has Senator Norris finished speaking on amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013FFF01000Senator David Norris: I am just wondering whether we can speak on sections.

17/07/2013FFF01100An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris will not be allowed to speak on this amendment again. It is not Committee Stage.

17/07/2013FFF01300Senator Darragh O’Brien: Senator Norris can speak on Fifth Stage.

17/07/2013FFF01400Senator David Norris: I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence. My heart goes out to him, my prayers are with him and I feel deeply sorry for him and the embarrassing position he has been put in by what was once his Government. I hope he has severed all contact like decent people would.

17/07/2013FFF01500Senator Darragh O’Brien: This is a depressing evening. I have no selfish vested interest in the House. I served in the Lower House and I am proud to serve here. Like most of my colleagues, I do my best to serve the State and to do the job we are elected or appointed to do. I make no distinction between one Senator and another, we are all here to do a job.

I do not use the word likely but what has happened here tonight is shameful. Government Senators should be ashamed of themselves for their own dignity to come in here. Why should I listen to any argument they make on any item of legislation? What does it matter? They do not respect the House enough to stand up and fight for it. What is the point? Why should I even facilitate another Government amendment? Over 540 Government amendments were made this year in this House. They were either omissions or errors from Dáil Eireann when the prospective law comes into this House. Why should I or my colleagues facilitate the passage of any of these amendments? Why should I or my colleagues attempt to produce Bills or ideas for Government or to try to assist?

The Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, and I have had many good debates in the House. Only yesterday, another disgusting and disgraceful item of legislation, the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Bill, was discussed in the House. The Minister for Justice and Equality essentially accepted Senator Barrett’s amendment. Are we useless to the Government? Perhaps the Leader of the House or the Cathaoirleach can inform us about the Taoiseach’s commitment on Second Stage, given on only the second time he was in the House in two and a half years, that he would be back here on Committee Stage and on Report Stage. Cá bhfuil an Taoiseach? Where is the guy? He is launching a book. He did not even come in here to listen to me. He may have no regard for me as a Fianna Fáil Member of Parliament but I would have thought he would have greater regard for fellow party members in Fine Gael and coalition partners in the Labour Party. At the very least, he could listen to us.

He has produced a Bill that is very simply about the abolition of the Seanad. There is no date for a referendum or anything about a referendum. Let us abolish it. What is in its place? Nothing. He may reform committees or put a few extra people in the committees but they cannot be run as they are. Let us watch the committees and, with the exception of the Committee of Public Accounts, we can ask people what is done there. What is done in the Joint Committee on European Union affairs? Nothing. It is a rubber stamp. Thousands of items of EU legislation come in, with over 75% of our laws passed in Europe, without any scrutiny. There is one yellow card under the Lisbon treaty and the State has made one observation on prospective EU law since the passing of the Lisbon treaty. It is a joke. For two years after we asked, the Leader of the House endeavoured to get us the facilities so that we can scrutinise EU legislation but he 330 17 July 2013 was refused.

It was not lost on me who I saw sitting in the Public Gallery while the vote was taking place. It was the boot boy, the Chief Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, making sure that all Senators did what they were told to do. He is a boot boy and he acted in a thuggish way the last time he was in the House.

17/07/2013FFF01600An Cathaoirleach: I do not think Senator Darragh O’Brien should use that type of language.

17/07/2013FFF01700Senator Darragh O’Brien: I withdraw “boot boy” but he acted in a thuggish manner. I was disgusted by his behaviour.

17/07/2013FFF01800An Cathaoirleach: Senator Darragh O’Brien should not use that language.

17/07/2013FFF01900Senator Darragh O’Brien: Why not?

17/07/2013FFF02000Senator Mary M. White: It is everyday language.

17/07/2013FFF02100Senator Darragh O’Brien: In my opinion, he acted in a most inappropriate way on the only occasion he came into the House. He sat here and watched the few Government Senators who are present vote and made sure they did. I would love to know what discussion took place in advance of some of the apparently Independent Members to ensure they would not allow the recommital.

17/07/2013FFF02200Senator Mary M. White: Shame.

17/07/2013FFF02300Senator Darragh O’Brien: They will have to answer for that. I am annoyed about this but, as I said to the Taoiseach, I will live if this House is abolished. What people want is more, rather than less, effective scrutiny and oversight. If anything was proven over the crisis that occurred in this country, it is that less scrutiny and regulation did the country more damage. We are living with that. Is it right that a Government with the largest majority in the history of the State, at 58 seats and declining, vested power it four Ministers so that even the Cabinet is irrelevant and that budgets are decided by four people? A trade union official and three teachers decide what happens in this country.

Four of those people have served in this House, nearly 30 years each and they are good par- liamentarians but every Government needs to be challenged. Removing the Seanad removes the checks and balances. The Taoiseach proposed a mini Seanad of his own appointees. Once that suggestion was out there and he saw the reaction, it was pulled back in.

I asked the Taoiseach what would replace Seanad Éireann if the public votes for its abolition. He was vague in the extreme because he does not know. His big reform in the Dáil was Friday sittings and topical issues. It is farcical and it is a joke. There is never a vote on a topical debate on a Friday, it is always taken on a Tuesday so that Members travelling all over the country are not discommoded. One can go in and talk about the school bus in Malahide or a beach in Garretstown or propose a Bill in Dáil Eireann and the vote is held off until Tuesday. There is a window dressing of reform. The Minister is proposing a reduction of eight Deputies in Dáil Eireann, which is a massive reform. I really commend the Government for its reform agenda, which is second to none. It will go from 166 Deputies to 158. That is absolutely magnificent reform. They did not go for 20, as promised, because it would require a referendum. The referendum to reduce the number of Deputies by 20 should be on the same day, apparently 5 Octo- 331 Seanad Éireann ber. The Government will not do this because what is occurring is not about Oireachtas reform. The Government is a grubby, small-minded government. I do not say that lightly. Members should have no doubt that the referendum will be a smokescreen for the Government’s budget, which will be announced two weeks later. I warn the Minister of State that he should never underestimate the intelligence of the electorate. Our individual efforts from here on in will be to inform the people about the importance of this Chamber and what could happen here. This Chamber has a role and could have a much greater one if it were permitted to have it and if the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, actually permitted EU scrutiny. It is not permitted and the Taoiseach does not want to know. The Taoiseach promised he would be here today. I am used to hearing broken promises from him. He is not here although he said he would be.

I may have been a little over the top in making some of my comments and I do not wish to offend anyone, but I am particularly annoyed over this. I heard Members on the other side of the House railing against the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, when he lied about the cost of this House. I will not withdraw the word “lied” because the Minister did so. I have the correspondence and the figure is €8.8 million.

17/07/2013GGG00200An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to withdraw that.

17/07/2013GGG00300Senator Darragh O’Brien: He lied, and I will not withdraw my remark.

17/07/2013GGG00400An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to withdraw that.

17/07/2013GGG00500Senator Darragh O’Brien: I respect the Cathaoirleach, but the Minister lied knowingly and misinformed the people. Worse, the most disgusting thing he could possibly have done was to say that the money accruing from Seanad abolition would be invested in the areas of disability and health. Since the Government took over two and half years ago, the one opportunity we lost here was to kick the Social Welfare Bill that cut the respite care grant by over 20% far back down the hall.

17/07/2013GGG00600An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is moving away from the amendment.

17/07/2013GGG00700Senator Darragh O’Brien: I want to know from my colleague from County Clare, whom I respect, whether the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, gave him the clarification he sought in advance of 7 p.m. this evening on the apparent saving of €20 million that would accrue if this House were abolished. What he said was a lie.

I have no fear of a referendum whatsoever but simply ask for an honest debate. I am not sure how I can take seriously anything ever said again by a Government Senator in this House after what has happened this evening. There is no point in listening to them because they have rolled over and allowed themselves to be walked upon by the most centralised Government we have ever had in this State. For the Government, reform is abolition. The Members opposite should never introduce a Private Members’ motion again in this House, nor should they come in and cry about mortgage arrears; there is no point.

17/07/2013GGG00800An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is moving away from the amendment, No. 28.

17/07/2013GGG00900Senator Darragh O’Brien: I am not. After this legislation is passed, even though this House will sit, it will be irrelevant. This is because the Members opposite, by their vote this evening, have actually expressed no confidence in this House. It is not a question of allowing a referendum. Members should show me one line in the text that refers to a referendum or a date

332 17 July 2013 therefor. There is none. The Members voted to express no confidence in this institution and, therefore, should not bother introducing anything in this House again because there is no point.

This House shall sit again on 16 September. The Taoiseach will move straight away and have a referendum within three weeks. We will hear all the nonsense and lies that started with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, on costs and on this, that and the other. The Taoiseach will try to ram this through. I will do my level best to fight it, not as a Senator but as an Irish citizen, because I really believe that what the Taoiseach is doing is van- dalising the Constitution. I said this to him. He is ripping the Oireachtas asunder. Admittedly, it is not perfect, but I would rather imperfect oversight in all its various guises than no oversight at all. I am absolutely disgusted with what has happened today. The Members opposite should take a really good look at themselves and acknowledge what they have done this evening.

17/07/2013GGG01000Senator David Norris: To be helpful to the Cathaoirleach in his ruling that Senator O’Brien and I moved away from the amendment, it is impossible to move away from a black hole or a brown dwarf, which is what this Bill is. They lack any kind of spatial dimension.

17/07/2013GGG01100An Cathaoirleach: I have made my ruling on the amendment. I call Senator Cullinane.

17/07/2013GGG01200Senator David Cullinane: I have made two contributions on this Bill thus far, a Second Stage speech and a semi-Second Stage speech on Committee Stage. Owing to the way in which Committee Stage was taken, that is just the way it turned out. There was a series of Second Stage speeches. This may be the last chance I have to speak on this Bill. I do not intend to give a third Second Stage speech but I want to make a number of points.

It seems the Government, with the assistance of the Government Senators, is intent on passing this Bill. We are all realistic and believe that is what will happen. The day of its passage will be a sad day, but not because I believe this House should be saved in its current incarnation. I said in my Second Stage and semi-Second Stage speeches that I genuinely believe this House is undemocratic, elitist and not fit for purpose. I stated that if it is to have any future, it must be reformed radically. The people would not accept anything more or less than radical reform. It may not make me popular in this House to say this was not a good week for the Seanad. We face a campaign and increasingly there will be a focus on this House. We must examine our performances in the House in the coming weeks and months as the campaign progresses.

What I am genuinely concerned about is not whether this House is retained but the political institutions of this State that we will be left with if the Seanad is abolished. That is my chief concern. Will we have an overly centralised system of governance? I believe we will. Will there be considerable power in the hands of a very small number of people, the members of the Cabinet, or an even smaller number, given the number of Ministers who actually run the State? I believe there will. Has this State a very weak system of local government? It does. Do we have enough checks and balances in our political system? Are our political institutions fit for purpose in the 21st century, and are they serving the people well? Do we have proper account- ability? Do we have proper scrutiny? The answer is “No”.

My argument with the Government is not that it is going too far by abolishing the Seanad but that is not going far enough because it is not reforming local government or the Dáil, nor is it making the political institutions any more democratic, accountable or representative. In- clusiveness and all the principles that underpin political reform are being cast to one side. If we and the Government were truthful and honest about this, we would admit that, in reality,

333 Seanad Éireann the Seanad is being offered up as a sacrificial lamb in the absence of genuine and meaningful political reform.

Subsequent to Deputy Enda Kenny’s first contribution as Taoiseach in the Lower House after his election, there was much excitement among people who voted for the Government parties. The Government won a massive majority in the Dáil, having received a huge number of votes for its two constituent parties’ members in the general election. Many people genuinely believed there would be change. The Taoiseach said there was a political revolution and promised profound social, economic and political change. All people have seen is more of the same; in fact, circumstances have got worse. We have seen very bad social and economic policy and absolutely pathetic policy on political reform. The reforms have all been about reducing numbers and saving money.

There is something shameful about what is occurring, despite the views people might have on the Seanad. There is a range of views among various parties. There are different opinions in my party on whether we should have a unicameral or a bicameral system. I am sure there are also different views within the Minister of State’s party, the Labour Party, the Fianna Fáil Party and among Independent Members. What people want, first and foremost, is an informed and genuine debate. After that, they want real reform, not a tinkering at the edges. It is not all about reducing numbers.

What is most reprehensible about the Government’s conduct in all of this is the decision to hold the referendum a few weeks in advance of the budget while claiming it is all about saving money. My own view is that the Seanad, as constituted, is undemocratic, elitist and not fit for purpose. I also believe the Dáil is not fit for purpose, although it is at least democratically elected. The claim by the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, that the money saved by the abolition of the Seanad could be used to provide services for people with disabilities was a particular low. Even the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, must accept that it was inappropriate and not the right way to make a genuine argument for political reform. That is not the way to conduct the campaign. It is absolutely inappropriate and, more importantly, unfair to all those suffering under austerity policies and cutbacks to claim that if the Upper House is done away with, everything will be okay. Fortunately, because people have been fooled so often in the past and have seen so many bad decisions by the Government, I am confident they will not buy that argument.

The greatest tragedy in all of this is that the people are not being given the option of reforming the Seanad. That is the point I have emphasised in all my contributions and it is the focus of all the amendments we have tabled. I have spoken to many people about this issue in recent weeks. Members will know that people like to come up to talk to elected representatives about all sorts of matters. Everybody to whom I have spoken, with one exception, has said he or she is in favour of reform rather than abolition. If that option were put to the people, I am confident they would choose it. Unfortunately, they are not being given that option and are instead being presented with the simple proposition that this House will either be kept as it is or it will be abolished. It might very well transpire that people who have grave concerns at the continuation of an undemocratic and elitist institution will opt, in the absence of a choice for reform, to abolish it. That is the most regrettable aspect of all of this.

The Government will succeed in getting the Bill through the Seanad and holding a referendum on the abolition of the Upper House. Whatever about making the case for retention of the Seanad, I hope the coming campaign will allow for a genuine debate on political reform and 334 17 July 2013 how we can ensure our political institutions are fit for purpose, inclusive, representative and relevant to the 21st century. If we are honest, we will acknowledge that the institutions of the State have failed the people for far too long.

17/07/2013HHH00200Senator Jim Walsh: The date of the referendum might not in itself be all that important. However, as several Senators observed, democracy is a very tender flower. We see many countries where democracy has been distorted and abused by people in power. This is not the first country to experience that type of attack on democracy. Others have been through the same, sometimes with disastrous consequences for their populations.

I agree with the point made by the leader of my party in this House on the scrutiny of Eu- ropean Union proposals. It is an absolute shame that the 226 Members of the Oireachtas give almost no attention to such proposals which have far and away the greatest input into the laws of this country. When it came to power, the Government decided to be populist by combin- ing Oireachtas committees in order to reduce their number, thereby making them unworkable. I acknowledge that the previous arrangement in regard to committees was far from perfect. However, the Government has aborted any attempt at proper scrutiny of EU legislation. We had a special committee of the Houses which dealt with this work, but the Government abolished it. Again, this is symptomatic of people going on solo runs for the sake of it in order that they can given the impression of being engaged in meaningful reform.

I agree with the points made by Senator Sean D. Barrett who represents the Trinity College Dublin constituency on Northern Ireland representation in the Seanad. This House has enjoyed a long and distinguished record of input by people from the North during difficult times on this island. I have in mind people like John Robb, Maurice Hayes, Gordon Wilson, Seamus Mal- lon and Brid Rodgers. Their participation worked as a bridgehead with politics and politicians in Northern Ireland. As somebody who has aspired all my life to achieving a united Ireland, I regret the Taoiseach’s decision not to appoint any Northern representatives to the Seanad.

17/07/2013HHH00300Senator Sean D. Barrett: He is now abolishing their votes. Shameful man.

17/07/2013HHH00400Senator Jim Walsh: It is a retrograde step. In previous debates in this House I have proposed that reform of the Seanad include a greater role for representatives from Northern Ireland. From talking to Unionist politicians with whom I am friendly, there would be a willingness on their part to accept a seat in this House, with the proviso that there were sufficient numbers across all of the Unionist parties to ensure nobody would be put in the position where he or she would be isolated. That could and should have been done. There is a great deal we could do with this House.

I am appalled that we are seeing an abortion spree on a range of issues, the proposal to abolish the Seanad being just one. Last week we had the expulsion of Deputies from the Fine Gael Party, some of whom had given tremendous service, because they would not abrogate their conscience to meet the demands of somebody whose conscience was far less sensitive and less finely tuned than theirs. This week the people concerned are being aborted from their offices. We have had discussion in the House this week about people being evicted from their homes because they cannot meet their mortgage payments. Yesterday Senator Sean D. Barrett pointed out that the banks were being given the power to evict people in rented accommodation, even where they had met all the tenets of their lease and were paying their rent on time. We have seen powers being given to the Revenue Commissioners to take money from people’s accounts if they do not pay the property tax. This is slowly but surely becoming a totalitarian state. The 335 Seanad Éireann worst aspects of the Fine Gael Party, particularly the Blueshirt element, as well as the strong socialist and Marxist tendencies within elements of the Labour Party, are being allowed to come to the surface. That is regrettable and as a nation we will come to regret it. We see people being bullied, in Fine Gael in particular.

17/07/2013JJJ00200Senator John Whelan: The Senator would know a lot about bullying.

17/07/2013JJJ00300Senator Jim Walsh: If it happened in any other employment, the people concerned would be held to account by due process.

17/07/2013JJJ00400Senator John Whelan: The 12 Apostles were socialists.

17/07/2013JJJ00500Senator Jim Walsh: People in Fine Gael admit that members are being booted out of the party. As a consequence, they have to make decisions they do not want to make.

17/07/2013JJJ00600Senator John Whelan: The Senator is such a great Christian.

17/07/2013JJJ00700Senator Jim Walsh: There are those who will feel the Taoiseach is intoxicated by power and a sense of self-importance. Some have said to me that the man may well be suffering from megalomania. I do not know whether that has been diagnosed, but perhaps he should be referred to Dr. Reilly for examination. However, I do know that he is certainly starting to display all the symptoms of it. If we dismantle this House, town councils and all of that, we will create a political elite that will grind the people into the ground. The man to whom I refer is now almost qualified to start growing the ‘tache.

17/07/2013JJJ00800Senator Katherine Zappone: I agree with my colleague, Senator Darragh O’Brien, that this is a sad evening, particularly in the light of the vote earlier. It did not make sense that we should not be given time to recommit the Bill. As Senator Feargal Quinn said, we were not able to debate and discuss many articles of the Constitution and, as matters stand, the people will now have to vote in the referendum without having had the opportunity to hear these deliberations.

We are dealing with amendment No. 28, as the amendments put forward by me and Senator Darragh O’Brien were overruled. An esteemed Member asked previously:

What added value does the Seanad give? We should be prepared to face the awful prospect of asking what it would be like if there was no Seanad. Would matters be any worse? I happen to believe they would, but it is a case to be made. The case is that we are a revising Chamber, that we can have more thematic and reasoned debates than the other House, that the atmosphere is not as adversarial and that business can be done. However, I often wonder if that is enough for the general public. We must show that we are in some way different from the other House and not just a pale replica thereof.

Those are the words of the now Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, around the time of publication of the O’Rourke report. We are aware that he has changed some of his views and have heard some of the reasons for this. However, his question of what added value the Seanad gives is a good one.

What difference has this Seanad made? I wish to say something about this and will base my comments on three questions. Has it been an effective check and balance? Has it been a substantive forum for democratic deliberation that improves our policies and legislative choices? Has it been a House that generates new ideas for law? 336 17 July 2013 On the first question, many of my colleagues, as well as the Minister of State, have referred to the fact that in the past couple of years some 529 amendments have been made by this Se- anad to Bills that have been passed. All of these amendments came about in the context of deliberations in this House. I noted that the Minister of State indicated on the first occasion we gathered to debate the Bill that many of these amendments had been Government amendments. I went back and reviewed the Bills amended here and the amendments we had made in terms of checking and balancing the work of the Oireachtas. I looked at the list and noted, for example, that with regard to the local property tax, a Government amendment had originally been recommended by Senator Jillian van Turnhout, namely, the exemption for children and youth organisations. This amendment was accepted by the Government and became a Government amendment.

In the case of the personal insolvency legislation, many proposals made here regarding that legislation became Government amendments. The Minister of State was gracious enough to meet me in regard to that legislation. I have e-mails from some organisations with which I work and these organisations have noted to me in my work with them that this was the first time they were able to raise the issue that the State provide decent, minimum income guidelines for people who were insolvent. This became part of the personal insolvency legislation, but they were not my amendments. However, they came about because of my work with these organisations and the robust exchanges with the Minister of State who was gracious enough to meet them in his office and listen to them.

The Education and Training Bill provides another example of our effectiveness. A critical amendment brought forward by the Government had to do with putting a learner on the boards. This came about because my experience and that of others here encouraged the Government to do this. It may be the case that a number of the amendments made in this House were Govern- ment amendments, but they were made because of the exchange here with people with expertise.

When I looked at the list of 529 amendments made here to 14 Bills, I noticed some Acts had been omitted. For example, three finance Acts which had been influenced by exchanges I had had were not included. The Minister of State is aware of this and was gracious enough to hear me when I raised the fact that there was no equivalence of treatment to an adequate level between spouses and civil partners in tax matters. Three finance Acts were changed because of this. However, the amendments made were not my amendments but Government amendments.

The Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was also influenced by exchanges here and issues raised by me. This is not about me, but these are just some examples that I have noted which were not even listed on the list of 529 amendments. In the Civil Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, because of exchanges here, the Government brought forward amendments to ensure equivalence of treatment between civil partners and spouses in seeking citizenship. Many of the amendments made to the Health and Animal Welfare Bill were as a result of exchanges here. These are just a few examples from one Senator on the question of whether the Seanad was an effective check and balance in the past few years. Even as it stands, we could answer “Yes”.

My second question was whether this had been a substantive forum for democratic deliberation. I will give some examples from my experience, but I know colleagues can identify others. The Independents group to which I belong put forward two motions on the issue of the future of prostitution legislation, as a result of which the issue was brought to the Oireachtas Joint Com- 337 Seanad Éireann mittee on Justice, Defence and Equality. A huge public consultation took place and a report has issued, with radical recommendations for changes in legislation, and is being laid before both Houses. Yes, this is an effective forum for deliberation.

Another example is the motion tabled by Senator Mary Ann O’Brien on charities and the need for a charity regulator. The Minister for Justice and Equality announced last week that we were now going to establish such a regulator. I know this is the result of the work of Senator Mary Ann O’Brien and others on a motion that was debated here. Therefore, on the question of whether this House is a forum for democratic deliberation on improvements in policy and legislative choices, the answer is “Yes”. I have given some examples from my experience.

My third question was whether this was a House that generated new ideas for law? I congratulate my colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, whose Construction Contracts Bill has moved to the Dáil. Other Bills have also been brought forward here, for example, Senator Ivana Bacik’s Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill which will allow humanists to officiate at mar- riages. Senator Kelly’s wind energy Bill went to Committee Stage but is sitting there. Just a couple weeks ago, with a couple of my colleagues, I published the Legal Recognition of Gender Bill and, today, the Government unexpectedly published the heads of Bill on gender recognition, so I wonder if that had any impact. Senator Averil Power addressed section 37 of the Equal Status (Amendment) Act. Two Ministers came in to debate that and it was agreed that this issue would go to the new Irish human rights and equality commission, if it is established relatively soon.

New ideas have been generated even in the past couple of years, and these are just a couple of examples. However, this is before we have reformed the House. Senators Crown, Quinn and I prepared two big Bills with many recommendations for reform that would make this House distinct from the Dáil and enable it to have perhaps even more expertise than it does now and greater diversity. There has been a lot of discussion, debate and reflection on the two big Bills on Seanad reform that are here but sitting waiting.

Let us contrast that with the ideas in regard to Dáil reform. This is where I am quite surprised, and perhaps this is my political naivete, given I have only been a politician a couple of years. I think that is part of my identity-----

17/07/2013KKK00200Deputy Brian Hayes: It is longer than that.

17/07/2013KKK00300Senator Mark Daly: Just because people are not elected does not mean they are not politicians.

17/07/2013KKK00400Senator Katherine Zappone: I am shocked by all of this. I know the Government had this big agenda for substantive Dáil reform to ensure a check and a balance when the Seanad goes, but the first set of ideas came out in a press release with the abolition Bill.

17/07/2013KKK00500Senator Mark Daly: That is effective Government.

17/07/2013KKK00600Senator Katherine Zappone: I saw that press release. The second time I saw ideas being developed was on the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton’s website. When the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, came to the House on the abolition Bill, he expanded a little on those reform ideas. I have already spoken of what I think about those ideas, which is that I do not believe they are substantive enough, by any means, to ensure a check and a balance to ensure the generation of good ideas and a different type of democratic deliberation. 338 17 July 2013 As for the costs, I received in my pigeonhole this week a message from the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission regarding the estimate of the amount of moneys required in respect of ongoing expenditure for the period January 2014 to December 2014, and it also contains the costs for 2013. It states in black and white that the cost of Seanad Éireann is under €10 million. We had this deliberation when the Minister of State was in the House recently about where the €20 million comes from and why that figure is still being put out.

17/07/2013KKK00700Senator Sean D. Barrett: They made it up.

17/07/2013KKK00800Senator Katherine Zappone: The €10 million figure is there in black and white.

The Seanad has been effective. We have put forward ideas for reform. As other colleagues have said, on every single amendment to try to include the possibility for reform to be put before the people, the answer is “No”, “ruled out of order”, “in conflict with the Bill” or “no way to get it in the Bill”. The abolition Bill was not brought to a committee ahead of time, even though the Government claims this would be done with everything else once the Seanad is gone. The Government has provided no rationale for this.

I just do not understand this move from the perspective of the use of the taxpayers’ money. What was the rush in putting before the people a referendum to abolish the Seanad? Why did the Government have to do it now? Why could it not have waited a couple more years, when it would have time to introduce some Dáil reforms, which we do not have now? Moreover, as Senator O’Brien has indicated, suppose the people vote to abolish the Seanad because they do not have the possibility of reform in front of them, yet we still have two more years.

17/07/2013KKK00900Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: It does not add up.

17/07/2013KKK01000Senator Katherine Zappone: Is that not ultimately a waste of taxpayers’ money? I cannot get any answer or an appropriate rationale for why the Government is doing it now.

17/07/2013KKK01100Senator Ned O’Sullivan: I do not have a lot to say as it is a bit after the event and anything I would say is probably obair in aisce. However, I would not let the occasion go without saying some few words. This is probably the saddest day in my lifetime in politics. I came into politics at a very young age. I was born into a political family and was the secretary of my local Fianna Fáil cumann at the age of 15. I served 22 years in local authorities before I was elevated to this Chamber. I understood the political world fairly well, I think, and I always have the greatest respect for people in this business. I have never in my life been judgmental about people who vote in a different way from me.

I speak in support of Senator Barrett’s excellent amendment and I want to commend him on his sterling performance here, not only in this amendment but right through this term of the Seanad, along with his other university comrades. I never thought I would see a day like this. I always had tremendous faith in our political system. Even as a young man and right through my life, I always looked up to Dáil Éireann, no matter who was in government. I always looked up to the Seanad and to the Presidency of Ireland with great pride. Right up to an hour ago, I never thought I would actually witness a House of the Oireachtas effectively voting for its own destruction, because, really and truly, I believe that is what the people on other side have done.

I do not at all blame those in the Fine Gael Party or the Labour Party. I am a political war- horse myself and I understand the constraints we all operate under. However, I have something to say about the Taoiseach’s 11. When they were appointed, they were heralded here as the 339 Seanad Éireann team of stars - all singing and dancing, all the talents. We were to admire them, and we did, and we appreciated their delivery and contribution here. In contrast, we were just supposed to be ordinary foot soldiers. In any case, that was the perception the media created and, in fairness, some of the Taoiseach’s 11 actually believed that themselves. Tonight was their night, however, and they came up very short tonight, with the exception of two gracious colleagues who stood with democracy, in my view.

The point I am trying to make is this. What the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, is proposing is that, instead of this Chamber, there would be a star chamber, as I describe it, of people he will select himself. What chance have those people of showing any bit of independence when the 11 here tonight failed us? They did not have to toe the line. I do not believe that, when the Taoiseach picked up the telephone and rang Senator Katherine Zappone, Senator Mary Ann O’Brien or anybody else, he said “I want you to come into the Seanad and do everything I tell you to do”, because I do not believe people of their integrity would have accepted that condition. However, they went missing tonight, which is very disappointing for me.

People can point the finger in future at political parties and the way we operate, and many of the 11 were quite critical of our Whip system and all of that down through the years. Maybe we will have a look back at them and ask, when push came to shove, were they able for the job?

It is a sad day, as I said. I am probably a defeatist but tomorrow, more than likely, when I have had a night’s sleep, I will gird my loins for the battle that is coming and perhaps I will be more optimistic about our chances of winning this referendum. Quite possibly, we can do it, but not if the Government continues as it has started; not if it continues with this lying campaign, telling people the Seanad costs €50 million, then €20 million, then €10 million - maybe tomorrow it will be €25 million; not if it continues putting people on our screens like the Fine Gael deputy director of elections, who is two and a half years up here and knows nothing about the Seanad, according to her own admission, but who will still dump down on 75 years of tradition, achievement and contribution; and not if the Taoiseach continues to steamroll his party and the nation, as he has done. He is proving quite a dangerous man to democracy. However, I believe people can pull together. I am optimistic. It is all about the people, and they will see through this.

I am a student of history and have quoted from it at times. The last Parliament to be suppressed in this country was Grattan’s, in 1800. At the time, the Gaelic poets and scholars fa- mously said that the parliament was defeated by mealadh, breabadh agus bagairt - persuasion, bribery and threats. I have no doubt that bribery is not a factor in the decision of any person here, and would not suggest so for a second. Persuasion and threats, yes. We have seen a very threatening Government which causes real concern for me and for the body politic. Let us move on and try to win this issue.

17/07/2013LLL00200Senator Paul Bradford: I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this amendment and on the motion. I assure Senator Darragh O’Brien that the Government Whip, the Minister of State, Deputy Paul Kehoe, is not a boot boy and was not present tonight to perform as a boot boy. He was here to perform as a postman. He came to deliver a letter to me and to my colleague, Senator Fidelma Healy Eames, informing us that because of our decision to vote in a certain way yesterday on the abortion Bill we would be expelled from the parliamentary party. It is politics.

In a sense, it is most interesting that the letter, the diktat, was delivered personally to us in 340 17 July 2013 this House when at the same time we were discussing the future of democracy and the future of this House.

17/07/2013LLL00300Senator Ned O’Sullivan: Hear, hear.

17/07/2013LLL00400Senator Paul Bradford: If we need any proof as to the need for a second House and the idea of independence of thought in politics, or any proof of the need for a second Chamber, a second voice and a place and space for people to speak their minds, the letters delivered by the Government Chief Whip to me and Senator Healy Eames during the course of this debate make the case more strongly for us than we could make ourselves. I appreciate that the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, has his political job to do, as we have ours.

17/07/2013LLL00700Senator Sean D. Barrett: Shame.

17/07/2013LLL00800Senator Paul Bradford: We must accept that a referendum will be held. I accept this was a commitment made by my party, one of those we are managing to keep. We must also accept that if most colleagues here believe in the House in which we serve we will have to take a message to the people asking them to reject the referendum, not to save our jobs but to save an institution which, since the foundation of the State, has played an exceptionally valuable role in parliamentary democracy and scrutiny. It can do so again.

Senator Zappone outlined some of the measures advocated and taken here during the course of the current Seanad. The list is endless. When I think of the people with whom I have served, including the former Senators Mary Robinson, Joe O’Toole, John A. Murphy, Brendan Ryan and Gordon Wilson, I find it deeply depressing and exceptionally worrying that a member of my party could say she had never heard of the Seanad. That really frightens me.

17/07/2013LLL00900Senator Martin Conway: That was outrageous.

17/07/2013LLL01000Senator Paul Bradford: Rather than being depressed, we must now go forward and begin to explain to the people of this island why we believe the Seanad should be maintained. As I have stated on numerous occasions, I would be the first to accept that we need considerable reform, not only of this House but of Irish politics. We need reform of the Dáil and of local government. When my Government colleagues and friends remark that Scandinavian countries and many others make do with a single parliamentary system they very comfortably gloss over the fact that all of those countries have very strong and democratic local government, which we do not. They have parliamentary safeguards, checks and balances.

I look forward to that part of the debate and I look forward to debating the question of costs. The €15 million has become €20 million. However, if we are really serious about saving money in the building that is Leinster House we can ask ourselves whether the cost of a Deputy, who costs two and a half, three or four times as much as a Senator by way of his or her additional staff, office and other allowances, is not something that could be examined. We can look at the whole area of Government advisors and pose the question, as I have done, of whether unelected advisors, who are in every Department of Government, are worth two or three times the salary of perhaps imperfectly elected Senators. We look at the quangos and the list of those that were to be abolished and see they are still standing strong. All of these matters must become part of the genuine debate, as I know the Minister of State, with his own tradition of parliamentary democracy and political reform, will wish them to be. Those questions need to be asked.

What I would say to my colleagues is that although we are losing tonight’s battle, there 341 Seanad Éireann is a message that must be given to the people. They must be told about what we have seen here in recent times in regard to the centralising of power. One of the parties in Government is very much influenced by the concept of democratic centralism, in which a small number of people decide what the policy of that party is, hand out the scripts and literally give people their thoughts. This is not speculation or supposition but historical fact. I do not want that cancer of politics to spread throughout the body politic and Leinster House.

17/07/2013LLL01100Senator Denis Landy: That is a very unfair comment and should be withdrawn.

17/07/2013LLL01200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Bradford without interruption.

17/07/2013LLL01300Senator Paul Bradford: It may be an uncomfortable comment.

17/07/2013LLL01400Senator Denis Landy: It is a very unfair comment and should be withdrawn.

17/07/2013LLL01500Senator Paul Bradford: It may be an inconvenient comment but it is a truthful one.

17/07/2013LLL01600Senator Denis Landy: It is not a true comment. True comments require proof.

17/07/2013LLL01700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Bradford without interruption. If Senator Landy wishes to speak later, I will allow him in. Please do not interrupt.

17/07/2013LLL01800Senator Denis Landy: It is very unfair that that comment should be brought into the debate tonight. If the comment is true let the Senator put up the proof, or else let him withdraw it.

17/07/2013LLL01900Senator David Norris: As a person who has cancer, I can say it is a lot worse than cancer.

17/07/2013LLL02000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Bradford without interruption, please.

17/07/2013LLL02100Senator Paul Bradford: I was in this and the other House-----

17/07/2013LLL02200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I accept it is a very emotional night for many people, but I would like a balanced debate. I will allow Senator Bradford to continue.

17/07/2013LLL02300Senator Denis Landy: Nobody doubts that Senator Bradford has been in both Houses, but that does not give him the entitlement to make comments on other political parties without being challenged.

(Interruptions).

17/07/2013LLL02500Senator Paul Bradford: I have been asked for an explanation and wish to provide it. I was in this House when a party named the Workers’ Party had seven Members in Dáil Éireann. As they will readily concede, they practised a system of politics called democratic centralism, whereby one or two people within the party, generally unelected members, decided the policies of the party and used the party to transmit and transpose those policies. Most members of that party joined another party, which is now very much the dominant element of the old Irish Labour Party.

17/07/2013LLL02600Senator Denis Landy: That is complete supposition on the part of Senator Bradford.

(Interruptions).

17/07/2013LLL02800Senator Denis Landy: He has no evidence to stand over what he is saying. I ask him to withdraw the comment. 342 17 July 2013

17/07/2013LLL02900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Landy, you can-----

17/07/2013LLL03000Senator Denis Landy: I ask him to withdraw the comment. He is making a supposition about my party that should not be allowed.

17/07/2013LLL03100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: He is entitled to make-----

17/07/2013LLL03200Senator Denis Landy: It is completely unnecessary for him to make these comments tonight. I ask him to withdraw them.

17/07/2013LLL03300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Landy, please respect the Chair.

17/07/2013LLL03400Senator Denis Landy: I am respecting the Chair. I ask Senator Bradford to do the same.

17/07/2013LLL03500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: If you do not agree with Senator Bradford you can speak later and disagree with him.

17/07/2013LLL03600Senator Paul Bradford: If the Senator comes from the old Labour Party constituency of south Tipperary-----

17/07/2013LLL03700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are wandering a bit from the subject.

17/07/2013LLL03800Senator Paul Bradford: If he wishes that I withdraw the comment, I will willingly do so.

17/07/2013LLL03900Senator Denis Landy: I appreciate that. I thank the Senator.

17/07/2013LLL04000Senator Paul Bradford: Major questions of democracy, representation and checks and balances face us in the referendum and I look forward to engaging in that debate. Our Seanad is not perfect - neither are our politics - but this proposal before us for a rushed referendum, when the questions have not been deliberated in full, is not the best way of conducting our parliamentary or political business.

Sometimes we have to remove ourselves from the realms of reality if we want to ignore fact. In my party we all know the genesis of this proposal, the policy of spring 2009 and that of summer and early autumn 2009. We all know why there was such an about-turn. If people want to hear the dates of meetings, who was present and when, and the opinion polls that would happen the following Monday and Tuesday, it could bring an interesting texture to the forthcoming debate. I presume we will have a referendum in October and we must put our best foot forward not just for ourselves but on behalf of this House, which has served our nation well. We are not just talking about getting rid of 60 Senators, as that is irrelevant, but we are talking about demolishing one third of the Oireachtas. We are talking about changing the manner in which a President of Ireland can be dismissed, how a judge can be run from office and how politics is done and democracy practised. These are major steps which require deep reflection, and I look forward to it in as much as I can during the course of the referendum debate.

17/07/2013MMM00200Senator John Crown: Fáilte a Aire. It is nice to see the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, again, as we spent some pleasant time here the other day. I stated that somebody should really get video camera footage of the ministerial chair during the various Stages of the Seanad abolition Bill debate. We could make a really interesting pictorial calendar for 2014 of stills featur- ing the various faces that appeared.

17/07/2013MMM00300Senator David Norris: Some of them of the same Minister.

343 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013MMM00400Senator John Crown: I am not given to procedural wrangling. I come from a discipline, a day job, which prides itself in being of a rather practical bent, so from time to time I have been somewhat impatient with people using the procedures of the House apparently to delay matters or introduce issues not immediately germane or relevant to the item under discussion. There is a certain sense of getting our own back on this with regard to procedure.

I would be grateful for the attention of the Minister of State and the Leader of the House.

The manner in which this has been conducted by those who are proponents not really of putting the question to the people but rather of abolition of the House has been procedurally suspect. The arguments are well travelled and versed but they are nonetheless valid and bear some brief repetition-----

17/07/2013MMM00450An Cathaoirleach: Please continue Senator Crown.

17/07/2013MMM00475Senator John Crown: I beg your pardon.

17/07/2013MMM00500Deputy Brian Hayes: You lick yourself every night before you go to bed.

17/07/2013MMM00600Senator John Crown: The word “prat” suggests itself sometimes.

17/07/2013MMM00700Senator David Norris: Will the Minister of State make that remark more loudly?

17/07/2013MMM00800Senator Mark Daly: He said the professor licks himself every night-----

17/07/2013MMM00850Deputy Brian Hayes: I am saying-----

17/07/2013MMM00875Senator Mark Daly: -----before he goes to bed.

17/07/2013MMM00900Deputy Brian Hayes: -----in this House that you are talking to yourselves most of the time.

17/07/2013MMM01000An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown-----

17/07/2013MMM01100Senator David Norris: I beg your pardon. We are talking to ourselves, are we?

17/07/2013MMM01200Deputy Brian Hayes: You are talking to yourselves, yes.

17/07/2013MMM01300An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM01400Senator David Norris: I think the Minister of State should withdraw that remark.

17/07/2013MMM01500An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM01600Senator David Norris: We are talking to you Minister of State.

17/07/2013MMM01800An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM01900Senator David Norris: No, I am sorry. The Minister of State says we are talking to ourselves and there is no reason to be here. Could the Cathaoirleach reprimand him on our behalf and ask him to withdraw the remark? It is outrageous.

17/07/2013MMM02000An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM02100Senator David Norris: Will the Cathaoirleach not ask him to withdraw the remark “We are talking to ourselves”? 344 17 July 2013

17/07/2013MMM02200Deputy Brian Hayes: Sanctimonious crap.

17/07/2013MMM02300An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM02400Senator David Norris: I am sorry but I ask you, a Chathaoirlaigh, to ask the Minister of State to withdraw that remark, which is an insult to Seanad Éireann. Will you do that?

17/07/2013MMM02500An Cathaoirleach: I did not hear what he said.

17/07/2013MMM02600Senator David Norris: You did. I will tell you what he said.

17/07/2013MMM02700Deputy Brian Hayes: You insulted me. I have no regard for you.

17/07/2013MMM02800Senator David Norris: He said there was no need for him to be here and we are talking to ourselves.

17/07/2013MMM02900Deputy Brian Hayes: You were insulting me the whole evening.

17/07/2013MMM03000An Cathaoirleach: The record will show-----

17/07/2013MMM03100Senator David Norris: I never said a word about you.

17/07/2013MMM03200Deputy Brian Hayes: All evening, with your nonsense.

17/07/2013MMM03300An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM03400Senator John Crown: Let us just hit the reset button. I am sorry but I would like to treat the Minister of State, this House, the Dáil and the process of Government with respect. I do not consider myself a politician but somebody with a real day job. I am somebody who because of the spirit of our original Constitution has found himself with the opportunity to take a position of advocacy, which I have done outside the House for many years, into the halls of our Oireach- tas, as intended in the 1937 Constitution. I am sorry if I am not perhaps wise to the ways of politics and I beg the Minister of State’s indulgence in that respect.

17/07/2013MMM03500Deputy Brian Hayes: But you are.

17/07/2013MMM03600Senator John Crown: I believe that the way this problem has been tackled from the pro- abolitionist side has been unsatisfactory and it looks unsatisfactory. In the first instance, there were a number of amendments on Committee Stage that were never heard. I will gladly yield to the Minister of State if he wishes to make a point.

17/07/2013MMM03700Deputy Brian Hayes: I said there were ten hours during the debate when all of those issues could have been dealt with properly without the filibuster that occurred. The Senator knows that well, to be honest.

17/07/2013MMM03800An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM03900Deputy Brian Hayes: With respect, at least be honest and admit that.

17/07/2013MMM04000An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM04100Deputy Brian Hayes: The Senator knows that to be true.

17/07/2013MMM04200Senator Mary M. White: He is being disrespectful by being on his iPad. It is the same as

345 Seanad Éireann being on the telephone.

17/07/2013MMM04300An Cathaoirleach: Senator Crown, without interruption.

17/07/2013MMM04400Senator John Crown: I would like to yield the rest of my time.

17/07/2013MMM04500Senator Jimmy Harte: I will not take up too much time.

17/07/2013MMM04600An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013MMM04700Senator Jimmy Harte: The debate has been about the definition of democracy in the State.

17/07/2013MMM04800An Cathaoirleach: The amendment concerns the date of abolition.

17/07/2013MMM04900Senator Jimmy Harte: I hope that day does not arrive, although the public will make up its mind in that regard. As a Government Senator I have no problem with the programme for Government and putting the referendum to the people. Perhaps the Seanad needs the people’s endorsement, as the idea of reforming the Seanad has been kicked around for a generation. It has never happened and it is up to the people as to whether it should be reformed or scrapped. I presume if the vote is against abolition we will end up with a different Seanad.

17/07/2013MMM05000Senator Sean D. Barrett: It should have been done earlier. The chance has been missed.

17/07/2013MMM05100Senator Jimmy Harte: We are not voting to get rid of ourselves, as some have said.

17/07/2013MMM05200Senator David Norris: Of course the Senator is doing so.

17/07/2013MMM05300An Cathaoirleach: Please, allow Senator Harte to make his contribution.

17/07/2013MMM05400Senator Martin Conway: The Senators want democracy but do not want to give the people a say. I am getting fed up listening to the same rigmarole and rambling every day.

17/07/2013MMM05500Senator David Norris: It is fair-----

17/07/2013MMM05600Senator Martin Conway: Will the Cathaoirleach bring things to order?

17/07/2013MMM05700An Cathaoirleach: Allow Senator Harte to make his contribution.

17/07/2013MMM05800Senator Jimmy Harte: May I make a reasonable point? The Senators may agree or disagree but let me finish it.

17/07/2013MMM05900Senator David Norris: Yes, absolutely.

17/07/2013MMM06000Senator Jimmy Harte: I will not interrupt if that is okay, although I have lost my train of thought. We are not voting to get rid of ourselves and if we had that power, I am sure it would not happen. People should freely admit that we are giving the public the opportunity to decide our future. It is part of democracy that people ultimately have the power. Democracy comes from the Greek for “power” and “people”.

I take offence from Members and former Members - although I do not include the Minister of State - who have said this is a totally undemocratic body elected by 1% of the people. The most important position in the country is the Taoiseach and he is chosen by Members of the Dáil. I would never say the Taoiseach was undemocratically elected. Most of us are democratically elected by councillors who stood for election in 2009. I give the people who voted 346 17 July 2013 for such councillors more credit than others might. I was a county councillor in 2009 and the people knew at the time that a councillor would have the power to vote in a Seanad election, so the people conferred their rights to their councillors. Let the councillor make up his or her mind on who to vote for if the Seanad election took place. We are as democratically elected as the Taoiseach and we are as democratically elected as a TD. Someone said recently that democracy is the name we give to the people when we need them. Some people say that the Seanad is not democratic whereas Members of the Dáil are elected democratically. We are elected democratically. I am a citizen of this country and the Constitution states that the Seanad is elected in a certain way by councillors, by university graduates and by the Taoiseach’s nominees, but that is democracy. For anyone who says that we are an unelected Chamber, we can say the same about the Minister of State, any Minister or the Taoiseach. The people may not want the Taoiseach we get, but that is our democracy and that is how we decide it. We cannot go back to the people every six months and ask them who they want as Minister for Education and Skills.

We are given a power and, ultimately, any Minister can become a Minister without facing an election of any kind. He can be nominated to this House by the Taoiseach and be made a Min- ister, as occurred with the late James Dooge, who was made Minister for Foreign Affairs in the early 1980s, which was one of the most important Ministries at the time because of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. The Taoiseach of the day, Garrett FitzGerald, and the Government found it in their wisdom to appoint him as our Minister for Foreign Affairs and he represented the country abroad. He did not secure one vote from any person in this country. The late James Dooge was an undemocratic member of the Government, if I am to use this language that has been thrown out by people every day, who ask what we are doing taking a salary when they did not elect us. People who say that must reflect and realise that the people of the country elected us indirectly.

17/07/2013NNN00200Senator Mary M. White: It is about time somebody said that.

17/07/2013NNN00300Senator Jimmy Harte: I have no problem with the referendum. The people will speak on it. This is about the people of the country and not about us in here. Outside those gates and across the country, people do not care tonight about what happens to the Seanad because they are dealing with severe mortgage debt and are suffering from unemployment. We are talking in a bubble here. Perhaps the Minister of State is partially correct to say that we are talking to ourselves, but we are talking to ourselves within a bubble and we should realise that there is something more important out there than the referendum on the Seanad. The public will decide that and this is where the power of the public comes in. If there is only a 30% turnout some might say that most have not voted, but the people who will not vote are making the same statement that they do not really care. We meet people every day whose biggest concern is how to get to the end of the month, to the end of the week, or even how they get through the day. We have to let the people decide.

Perhaps the people will come out and say that they want to retain the Senate, and then a meaningful reform will take place. It is ultimately their call. We are not voting to get rid of ourselves. We are voting to let the people decide that and we will abide by the decision of the people. That is where democracy comes in.

I must congratulate the Taoiseach on his leadership on difficult issues such as the legislation on the protection of life during pregnancy. It is very easy to run away from it, and other people ran away from it when they were more concerned with telling people to hang themselves because they were giving out about what was happening in the country. Those are megaloma- 347 Seanad Éireann niacs. Those are the guys who put the country in hock to Europe and to the rest of the world. To insult the Taoiseach of the country for any reason is unfair. It does not reflect on us. The Taoiseach can be removed tomorrow if 84 TDs decide to have another leader. That is democracy but we do not have that say, nor does the public. The public will reflect on the value of the Seanad and by bringing the issue into focus, we will see the benefits of it. I do not include the Minister of State among those who are kicking us around the place, because it is an easy thing to do. The very same people are criticising the public out there for kicking the Government, when they are kicking their own colleagues. It is unfair to this institution, which has served the country.

I was a member of a town council for 17 years. They are being done away with. In my experience in Letterkenny, the town councils have provided a fantastic contribution. However, just because they are being abolished, we are not kicking them around saying that town councils are useless. The town council has had a very-----

17/07/2013NNN00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013NNN00500Senator Jimmy Harte: I will conclude. The town councils had a very important role, but things have moved on. If the people decide to move us on, then they will make that decision. The people who are calling for the abolition of the Seanad should start remembering where they came from.

17/07/2013NNN00600Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Like Senator Bradford, I was very disappointed to receive this letter from the Government Chief Whip in this House. This is party business and in my view, it should not have been conducted in a House of the Oireachtas. I am not angry, but I am disappointed. I am really philosophical this evening, because I fundamentally believe we have missed an opportunity for reform. One of the biggest problems we have in this House is a very unhealthy party system. It is fear of the Whip.

We badly need reform in this country because Irish people elect us to think. They do not elect us to say “Leave your brain outside the door and let someone else do the thinking for you.” While we have such a repressive Whip system, that is what is going on. Please God this House will be retained by the voters, and that retention will be a mandate for reform at the next general election. That mandate should be that we do not need a party system in this House. We need people to be able to think on their feet. We need a policy formulation House, and the other House badly needs people to formulate policy. Policy can be decided by democracy in here, by a voting system.

There is much wrong with this Bill. One of the key problems has been pointed out by Senator Barrett. It is wrong that university voters from NUI panels and TCD panels outside this jurisdiction do not have a vote on whether this House should be abolished or not. There is something fundamentally exclusionary and undemocratic about that.

17/07/2013NNN00700Senator Sean D. Barrett: Shameful.

17/07/2013NNN00800Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I lived in America. I lived there for a three and a half years as a very young teacher, from 23 to 26 or 27 years of age, and I had a vote in the Sen- ate during that time while I lived outside this country. I continue to have a say in my country, while a member of the diaspora. I wonder how constitutional it is to rip that away from people without them having a say in it. It is something that should be explored.

348 17 July 2013 It is unbelievable that articles are being deleted from our Constitution that were not debated in this House. That is one reason I supported the motion tabled by Senator Quinn this evening. Our Taoiseach goes around with the Constitution and states that he must live by this book. That is what we heard with the abortion Bill too. All Members live by the Constitution but we did not give enough time for a debate on the constitutional articles that will be deleted. Politics is fundamentally about debate and that debate is about what affects people’s lives. Before we get rid of this House, we should allow enough time for that.

17/07/2013OOO00200Senator Maurice Cummins: On a point of order, there is a suggestion that there was not enough time for debating the articles in this Bill. Ample time was given. Every Member was given ample time on Committee Stage.

17/07/2013OOO00300An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

17/07/2013OOO00400Senator David Norris: There was not enough time to inform the people about this Bill.

17/07/2013OOO00500An Cathaoirleach: Senator Healy Eames without interruption on amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013OOO00600Senator Sean D. Barrett: She will not be silenced by Fine Gael.

17/07/2013OOO00700Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I accept there may have been delays earlier in the debate on this Bill. The central point is this. No matter what is said, not enough time was given to debate every amendment and every article that will be deleted from the Constitution.

17/07/2013OOO00800Senator Maurice Cummins: Twelve hours was given.

17/07/2013OOO00900Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: That is fundamentally wrong.

17/07/2013OOO01000An Cathaoirleach: Will Senator Healy Eames get back to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013OOO01100Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I have said what I want to say on amendment No. 28. There is something fundamentally unhealthy at the core of the way business is being done here and how this House is being abolished without offering the people an opportunity to reform it. This is not good for democracy. Consider how hard people fight-----

17/07/2013OOO01200Senator Mary M. White: To get elected.

17/07/2013OOO01300Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: -----to get democracy when they do not have it. We are about to chuck it out for what was essentially a populist move. We know that very well in the party of which I have been a member and still am.

17/07/2013OOO01400An Cathaoirleach: That is not relevant to the amendment.

17/07/2013OOO01500Senator Mary M. White: Well done.

17/07/2013OOO01600Senator Rónán Mullen: Somebody described this as the most disappointing day in the Se- anad. People will understand that for me yesterday was the most disappointing day but maybe for reasons that are in some way connected.

What disappoints me and others on this issue are the serial failures of leadership through this whole sorry mess, starting with the Taoiseach’s ill-conceived proposal which was about reaching into the cookie jar of popular political ideas within weeks of him sketching out an alternative vision and how the role of the Seanad could be reformed. 349 Seanad Éireann The reactions of his henchmen and henchwomen were disappointing too. They rushed to support what is a very flawed vision for our political institutions. Former Senator, Deputy Rich- ard Bruton, made an utterly groundless case for the abolition of the Seanad, blaming the House itself for the failure to reform itself and its role over 75 years. He knows fine and rightly that the only way reform can happen in this place is when the Government proposes it and it has the backing of a majority of its Deputies and Senators.

17/07/2013OOO01700Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

17/07/2013OOO01800An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullen without interruption.

17/07/2013OOO01900Senator Rónán Mullen: There was a shallowness in that analysis which indicts the Gov- ernment.

Senator Norris has already described the surprised reaction of the then Leader of the Op- position in the Seanad, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, to the announcement to abolish the Seanad. She was Leader of the Opposition here at the time but the Taoiseach did not even inform her of a proposal of such fundamental importance. Again, this illustrates how shoddy the whole proposal was.

The sad point is that instead of accepting this is not the way one reforms our democratic institutions, which are ultimately fragile, we blithely talk about having a unicameral system as though it would not make a difference. Ní hé lá na gaoithe lá na scolb. It is not now when we do not have a crisis that we might regret tampering with our democratic institutions in an ill thought-out way. It is at some future point.

People can already see the unhealthy developments that can flow when there is too strong a majority in the Lower House. I do not want to be partisan about this but we have seen it in recent days on a very important life-and-death Bill. It would perhaps have been much different if the numbers had been closer. In the future, if parties not committed to democratic ideals, root and branch, gain politically in a populist moment or as a reaction to national difficulties, then that will be the time we will benefit from having checks and balances and the capacity to slow down the legislative process, holding it up to scrutiny. That will be important even if we can only delay legislation under current arrangements.

It saddens me to see Ministers, party officials and Members on the Government side acting like ventriloquists’ dummies. It may be becoming the fashion to sit on each other’s laps in the other House but it should not happen on an issue like this.

17/07/2013OOO02000Senator Maurice Cummins: What has this to do with the amendment?

17/07/2013OOO02100Senator Rónán Mullen: It is vital that people show independence of mind. That is the one thing that could give the Seanad its relevance in people’s eyes.

There might be a case for a Whip on some issues at certain times to maintain an overall coherence when it comes to the formulation of policy and legislation. However, just as important, it must be capable of being balanced by allowing people to speak their minds. If that does not happen in the Seanad, it certainly will not happen in the Dáil.

There are three main aspects to the role of a Deputy.

17/07/2013OOO02200An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 28. 350 17 July 2013

17/07/2013OOO02300Senator Rónán Mullen: I am very much on this amendment. The Deputy has to legislate, to scrutinise the actions of the Government-----

17/07/2013OOO02400Senator Maurice Cummins: There has been no reference to amendment No. 28 by the last number of speakers.

17/07/2013OOO02500An Cathaoirleach: Will Senator Mullen please stick to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013OOO02600Senator Rónán Mullen: In my little world I am sticking to it.

17/07/2013OOO02700Senator Maurice Cummins: That is the Senator’s world.

17/07/2013OOO02800Senator Rónán Mullen: The third aspect of a Deputy’s role is dealing with local issues. Only this evening when I asked a Government Senator, a Member for whom I have high es- teem, the reason they were supporting a proposal that they manifestly disagree with, I was informed they had to liaise with Ministers from their party to get things done in their constituency.

17/07/2013OOO02900An Cathaoirleach: Senator, this has nothing to do with the amendment.

17/07/2013OOO03000Senator Rónán Mullen: It has everything to do with the case of delaying the date of the referendum.

17/07/2013OOO03100An Cathaoirleach: It has nothing to do with the amendment.

17/07/2013OOO03200Senator Rónán Mullen: It certainly does. That Senator thought he was a Deputy. He may have ambitions to be one but that should not be the role of a Seanadóir. The primary role of a Senator is to legislate and review legislation. We do not have the constitutional mandate to scrutinise the actions of the Government, at least not as directly as the Dáil. As regards local issues, Senators who are aspiring Deputies work hard on local issues.

17/07/2013OOO03300An Cathaoirleach: What is the relevance of this to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013OOO03400Senator Rónán Mullen: Their job is to represent vocational interests, if they were elected by the vocational panels.

17/07/2013OOO03500Senator Maurice Cummins: This has nothing to do with amendment No. 28.

17/07/2013OOO03600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullen, you are making a Second Stage speech. Can you stick to amendment No. 28?

17/07/2013OOO03700Senator Rónán Mullen: I will stick to it. I thought I was sticking to it.

My point is this. We need more leadership from within the Seanad itself. It can only come - there is still time for it to come - from the Government Senators.

I am disappointed that three of the Taoiseach’s nominees did not vote with the amendment of Senators Quinn and Norris this evening. Senator van Turnhout’s claim she voted with her conscience is not credible.

17/07/2013OOO03800An Cathaoirleach: It does not matter what way Members vote.

17/07/2013OOO03900Senator David Norris: It does matter.

17/07/2013PPP00100An Cathaoirleach: It does not matter what way Senators vote in this House. 351 Seanad Éireann

17/07/2013PPP00200Senator Mary M. White: It does matter.

17/07/2013PPP00300Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: On a point of order, there is no monopoly of independence of mind.

17/07/2013PPP00600Senator Mary M. White: We cannot hear the Senator over here.

17/07/2013PPP00700An Cathaoirleach: As it is now 10 p.m., I am proposing the adjournment of the debate.

17/07/2013PPP00800Senator Jim Walsh: Senator Fiach Mac Conghail certainly did not show independence of mind.

17/07/2013PPP00900Senator Mary M. White: He has no independence of mind.

Debate adjourned.

17/07/2013PPP01000An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

17/07/2013PPP01100Senator Maurice Cummins: At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Adjournment Matters

17/07/2013PPP01500Environmental Policy

17/07/2013PPP01600Senator Kathryn Reilly: The issue I raise arises from proceedings in the European Par- liament last week when the environment committee voted on and updated the environmental impact assessment Directive. One of the key amendments sought to introduce the inclusion of the extraction of unconventional fossil fuels under the directive. Until now only projects that produce at least 500,000 cubic metres of gas daily had to undergo environmental impact assessments. Given that unconventional gas project emissions tend be highly variable and such projects produce less gas but their environmental impact may be as serious as that of conventional gas extraction, it is important that we ensure any impact on the environment is fully considered and fully compliant with environmental impact assessments before any extraction project is approved. I understand the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is waiting until the EPA report on fracking is published before he makes a decision on whether to grant an exploratory licence for the use of the process here. In the light of the amendment made to the environmental impact assessment Directive in the European Parliament, what will this mean for the process under way?

Fracking has been an issue of grave concern, especially in the communities near the Lough Allen Basin and straddling Fermanagh, Leitrim, Cavan and a number of other counties surrounding that area. International experience has warned us of the potential dangers of this method of gas extraction, not just on the environment but also on human health, and of wider issues, too. The health and environmental risks relating to the extraction of shale gas include contamination of groundwater, high water use, high use of toxic chemicals, air and noise pol- lution, the emission of pollutants and it has even been suggested earthquakes can occur. It is important that we close regulatory gaps that may be there for fracking operations within the 352 17 July 2013 European union.

Many people point to America to show the potential dangers of not closely regulating shale gas operations. The Minister should listen to the voices of the communities which live near these potential drilling sites and are, therefore, more at risk from the negative consequences of fracking. Sinn Féin has highlighted the fact that the EPA report will take a very narrow view of the fracking process. We have said fracking does not begin or end with the injection of high pressure fluids into the ground. That is why the issues that need to be addressed include the construction of mining sites, the disposal of wastewater, chemicals and the impact on agricul- tural land. While geologists, engineers and scientists are sufficient in that area of expertise, they would not necessarily be aptly qualified to determine the impact fracking could have, for example, on human and animal health. In other countries there have been several reports on the serious impact of fracking on human health which range from skin and eye sores to respiratory problems. The risk to the people concerned and their families has raised a lot of questions about fracking. Before fracking is allowed in Ireland, there should be a full and thorough study of its potential impacts and the precautionary principle must be applied at all stages. I am referring specifically to the amendment to the environmental impact assessment Directive and how that will relate to the process used here in respect of the EPA report and related issues.

17/07/2013PPP01700Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Gov- ernment (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): I thank the Senator for raising this issue which I am taking on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan.

In October 2012 the European Commission published proposals to amend the environmental impact assessment Directive. According to the Commission, the proposed new directive is aimed at strengthening existing provisions concerning the quality of environmental impact assessment, with the aim of achieving a high level of environmental protection. It is also intended to enhance policy coherence and synergies with other EU law instruments and “simplify” procedures, with a view to reducing unnecessary administrative burdens. Some of the main features of the draft proposals include a requirement that projects which require assessment of environmental impacts under both the EIA Directive and the IPPC Directive, among other directives, would have to be assessed in an integrated or co-ordinated manner, including the appointment of one competent or facilitating authority; mandatory provision of a large amount of screening information, by the applicant, for all Annex II type projects; mandatory and reasonably elaborate screening decisions to be made by consent authorities for all Annex II projects; mandatory scoping of the environmental impact statement, now called the environmental report, by the consent authority in all cases where an EIA is required; accreditation of persons deemed competent to do environmental reports; and all environmental impact assessments to be completed by the competent authority within six months of receipt of all relevant information.

The proposals have been the subject of detailed discussed at the European Council working party on the environment and the Irish Presidency held an orientation debate on some of their key features at the Council of Environment Ministers in March. On foot of this debate, the Irish Presidency prepared and circulated to delegations a revised text of the proposed directive, taking account of the views expressed by Ministers. In parallel with these discussions at the Council, the European Parliament has been considering the draft directive. The European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety voted on the rapporteur’s report on the draft directive last week, adopting a number of amendments to the text. The rapporteur did not propose to cast a vote on the opening of inter-institutional negotiations. 353 Seanad Éireann This issue will, therefore, be submitted to plenary and the Parliament’s First Reading position will then be communicated to the Council.

It is anticipated that further consideration of the draft directive at the working party on the environment under the Lithuanian Presidency will be informed by the final position of the Euro- pean Parliament once the First Reading position has been adopted by plenary vote and formally communicated to the European Council. The two European institutions, the Council and the Parliament, are engaging in the process. The Senator has also referred to the fact that the Min- ister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, has a specific role with regard to fracking, but he is not about to make any decision on it in the near future.

17/07/2013PPP01800Child Protection Issues

17/07/2013PPP01900Senator Deirdre Clune: I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this issue for debate. I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Ciarán Can- non.

Last year the people adopted a new Article 42A in the Constitution recognising that children have rights of their own and inserting these rights into the Constitution. Last week Dr. Geoffrey Shannon, the Government’s special rapporteur on child protection, published and presented his sixth report to the Oireachtas. I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss it in its entirety. There is one recommendation relating to cyberbullying and homophobic bulling on which I wish to concentrate, as it was highlighted as being particularly important by Dr. Geoffrey Shan- non. Cyberbullying has been linked to a number of high-profile deaths and difficult situations. The growth of the Internet, online chat rooms and blogging has caught us all by surprise. It has become a forum for bullying where children are targeted and the area has little or no regulation. I am speaking about schools, and although I recognise that not all responsibility can be laid at the door of schools, they none the less play a role. However, that role is not clear. Where is the demarcation line between the school gate and other environments such as the home? We are aware of high-profile cases from the Association of Community and Comprehensive Schools in which principals have had to deal with, for example, pictures taken in the school and posted online with the school name and school uniform, not necessarily on school grounds but outside the school. There is also bullying of students by other students and there can be interaction between staff and students.

Schools boards of management have a responsibility in the area of bullying and they must set up a code of conduct following guidelines on counteracting bullying behaviour in schools. They have been provided with a template by the Department on how to do so with particular reference to cyberbullying and homophobic bullying. The purpose of these is to protect the student. The school itself can have a liability, as a victim of cyberbullying may seek reparation for damage, as pointed out in Dr. Geoffrey Shannon’s report. School management bodies are engaged in updating existing policies and launching new initiatives.

In his report, Dr. Shannon reviewed what is happening in other jurisdictions, particularly in New South Wales in Australia and in the State of Massachusetts, where legislation was introduced recently to ensure effective implementation of guidelines across the board and no devia- tion from them. The report states that the most effective means of preventing bullying may be to adopt a whole-school approach. This would encompass school policies on, for example, anti-bullying initiatives, codes of behaviour and the use of social media as an educational tool 354 17 July 2013 as well as the involvement of parents. Legislation should be introduced compelling schools to have a strong disciplinary code. Moreover, learning from the observations made regarding the laws in Massachusetts, disciplinary measures should be uniform nationwide, as schools currently have too much latitude in determining how to discipline students who are engaging in bullying.

Those are strong recommendations. Recently the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs sought to put the Children First guidelines on a statutory basis for the reason that there was no uniformity of implementation across different jurisdictions. As we are reviewing the whole area of bullying and homophobic bullying in schools, it is an opportunity to address the suggestion that legislation should be introduced in this area.

17/07/2013QQQ00200Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Can- non): I thank the Deputy for raising this important issue and welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter.

I welcome the sixth report of the special rapporteur on child protection and particularly the focus on bullying. It is important that this issue be kept high on everyone’s agenda. As the Senator is aware, the report focuses on cyberbullying and homophobic bullying in particular. The rapporteur also has comments on Internet safety in general. A number of the recommendations relate to existing legislation and these are a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. A number of the recommendations made by the rapporteur relate to school-based bullying, and I would like to highlight relevant developments on which the Government has made progress since 2012. The Senator will be aware of a specific commitment in the programme for Government to help schools tackle bullying, and particularly homophobic bullying. With this in mind, the Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, with the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, convened an anti-bullying forum last year. As part of that forum the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, decided to issue a call for submissions and establish a working group to further explore what could be done through the school system to address this very complex issue.

The Minister, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, was also very concerned that the Department of Edu- cation and Skills guidelines on bullying had not been updated since they were first issued in 1993 and wanted to ensure this was addressed. A wide range of expertise and experiences were shared through the forum and the submissions to the working group. He launched the report of the group - an Action Plan on Bullying - in January 2013. The action plan consists of 12 actions and recommendations in 13 areas and addresses much of what has been raised by the rapporteur in his report. In regard to the rapporteur’s recommendation that “bullying should be addressed as a public health issue rather than one confined to the sphere of education”, the action plan recognises that bullying needs to be considered in the wider societal context. This is particularly relevant to cyberbullying, which, as we all unfortunately know, can take place anywhere and at any time.

The action plan recommends the development of a national anti-bullying framework to communicate and promote a common vision and policy aims regarding bullying, including respect for diversity and inclusiveness. It recommends that this matter be considered in the development of the new children and young people’s policy framework, which is intended to be the overarching national framework for the development of policies and services to improve outcomes for children and young people and promote all aspects of their development. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has already indicated her willingness to do this. In 355 Seanad Éireann regard to the rapporteur’s recommendation that legislation should be introduced compelling schools to have a strong disciplinary code, to which the Senator specifically referred, there is already a legal obligation on all schools to have that disciplinary code.

Under the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, all schools are required to have in place a code of behaviour. This code must be drawn up in accordance with the guidelines of the National Educational Welfare Board, NEWB, issued to schools in 2008. These guidelines make it clear that each school must have policies to prevent or address bullying and harassment and schools must make clear in their code of behaviour that bullying is unacceptable.

I am pleased to say that the Department is developing new procedures on bullying for primary and post-primary schools to replace the guidelines issued in 1993. The new procedures will issue to schools at the start of the new school year and will include specific references to homophobic bullying and cyberbullying. They will focus on a whole-school approach to addressing all types of bullying behaviour and provide the basis for a consistent approach to tackling bullying across all schools, as mentioned by the Senator. The working group that produced the anti-bullying action plan concluded that, at this time, the focus should be on implementing existing legislative requirements across the system rather than seeking to introduce new legislation.

In relation to the rapporteur’s recommendation that homophobic and trans-phobic bullying should be considered a child protection issue, it should be noted that the Children First National Guidelines provide that serious incidents of all types of bullying behaviour should be referred to the HSE Children and Family Services. The action plan recommends that further consideration be given by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs to providing more detailed guidance for schools and others on what constitutes “serious bullying” under Children First and when referrals to the HSE should be made.

As part of the action plan the Department of Education and Skills is providing for the first time support for the Stand Up! awareness week against homophobic bullying, organised by BeLonGTo Youth Services. Other actions are also being progressed that are relevant to the rapporteur’s report. These include the establishment of a new national anti-bullying website; a media campaign targeted at young people that specifically deals with the issue of cyberbullying, which was run earlier in the year; awareness raising and training for school boards of management and parents; a review of teacher education support services provision to identify teacher training needs; a research project, led by the National Disability Authority, focused on appropriate intervention and prevention strategies for children with special educational needs and disabilities, as these children can be more at risk of being bullied. In addition, the National Office for Suicide Prevention is working with my Department to carry out research on the prevalence and impact of bullying linked to social media on mental health and suicidal behaviour among young people.

In addition to these actions, my officials met representatives of Facebook recently and agreement was reached on a way forward that will involve Facebook, the Department, second-level school management and leadership bodies, including the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals, working together to tackle bullying in Irish schools. This includes provision for an effective channel for school leaders to escalate concerns when required. A briefing was held for second-level management and leadership bodies at Facebook headquarters on 21 June. In her contribution, the Senator quoted directly from the rapporteur’s report outlining the positive influences that social media can have on communication among schools, pupils and their 356 17 July 2013 families. We should not lose sight of that. The issue of tackling bullying covers much more than social media; it is about addressing serious underlying societal issues whereby bullying can be an accepted part of school and societal culture. The challenge for us all is to eliminate that culture and prove to children that it simply is not, and can never be, acceptable.

I again thank the Senator for raising this issue and providing me with the opportunity to update the House on the important work being done in this area.

17/07/2013RRR00200Senator Deirdre Clune: I am grateful for the Minister of State’s report. Much is being done. We have an up-to-date report as of 21 June and the teachers are meeting Facebook, which is important and for which I thank the Minister of State.

17/07/2013RRR00250Garda Vetting Applications

17/07/2013RRR00300An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy John Perry.

17/07/2013RRR00400Senator Denis Landy: I also welcome the Minister of State.

I would be the first to say Garda vetting of staff to ensure the safety of children is imperative and most important. However, the time lapse in seeking approval is completely unacceptable. It is now 14 weeks on average for staff across a wide spectrum to be vetted and accepted or otherwise onto various schemes. This is affecting a wide spectrum of persons and schemes across the country, from trainee nurses to Tús schemes, community employment schemes, staffing in child care facilities, etc.

According to the reply given in a Topical Issue debate in the Lower House on 27 June, 34 new staff were to be allocated to the Garda vetting unit. These staff were to be available from Monday last, 15 July, to work on the backlog for the past few months. Will the Minister of State tell me how this will reduce the waiting time and assure me that it will be brought back to what the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, stated on 27 June would be an acceptable waiting time for vetting of four weeks?

This is an important issue for many who are awaiting clearance, as I have outlined, to take up positions in many schemes across the country and also for their employers to ensure they can fill current vacancies. The timescale of 14 weeks is unacceptable and has been recognised as such by the Government. The question is whether the 34 extra staff, on top of existing staff, will be able to make a dent in the waiting list and what the new timescale will be for Garda vetting.

17/07/2013RRR00500Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy John Perry): On behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter, who is un- avoidably detained elsewhere, I thank the Senator for raising this important matter.

The Garda central vetting unit, GCVU, provides employment vetting for approximately 20,000 organisations in Ireland registered with the unit for this purpose. These organisations employ personnel to work in a full-time, part-time, voluntary or student capacity with children and-or vulnerable adults. Garda vetting is conducted only on behalf of registered organisations and not for individual persons on a personal basis. When an organisation is registered with the Garda central vetting unit, it is entitled to receive Garda vetting services in respect of its employees. 357 Seanad Éireann A vetting disclosure is made in response to a written request and with the permission of the person who is the subject of that request. Garda vetting disclosures are only issued to specified organisations registered with the GCVU for that purpose in respect of a particular post or employment. The unit processed approximately 328,000 vetting applications on behalf of these organisations in 2012. This workload is likely to increase significantly in the future.

The current average processing time for applications is approximately 12 to 14 weeks from date of receipt. However, seasonal fluctuations and the necessity to seek additional information on particular applications can result in this processing time being exceeded on occasion. All organisations registered for Garda vetting are aware of the processing timeframes for the receipt of Garda vetting applications and have been advised to factor this into their recruitment and selection process.

In order to observe equity and fairness in respect of all applicants for Garda vetting, standard processing procedures are such that applications are processed in chronological order, from the date of receipt in the central vetting unit. Each time a new vetting application is received, a full vetting check is conducted to ensure the most recent data available are taken into account. The non-transferability and contemporaneous nature of the certificate protects against the risk of fraud or forgery and is a guarantee of the integrity of the vetting service. It also affords the registered organisation the facility to assess suitability based on the most up-to-date information available on the applicant. The primary objective of the Garda central vetting unit is the protection of children and vulnerable adults and this must remain the case. The House will be aware that the Garda Commissioner is responsible for the vetting service and the detailed al- location of resources, including personnel, throughout the organisation. The Minister remains in ongoing contact with the Commissioner on how best the service can continue to be delivered and improved upon, while at all times protecting the integrity of the process.

As the Senator has highlighted, the Minister has received sanction from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform for the redeployment of additional staff to the vetting offices in Ennis, Tipperary and Thurles. The Garda Commissioner has informed the Minister that there are now one superintendent, three sergeants and approximately 127 whole-time equivalent ci- vilian personnel assigned to the Garda central vetting unit. It is important to note that while the number of people employed in the vetting service is in excess of this, the standard metric for counting staff is in terms of whole-time equivalents.

The staff in Ennis have been fully operational since the end of last year. The other additional staff members have been undergoing training, with the first due to have completed training on 15 July and the last by mid-September. When these staff members have been fully trained in the vetting process, the Minister expects there will be a positive effect on vetting times.

The Department is also examining the scope for the further redeployment of additional personnel from within the public service to the unit and is engaged in ongoing discussions with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in this regard. This is a good example of the value of redeployment within the public service and the contribution it can make to the more effective use of resources. The Minister has been further informed by the Garda Commissioner that sufficient accommodation and equipment have been provided to accommodate all of these additional personnel and facilitate their work when they complete their Garda vetting training.

On behalf of the Minister, I again thank the Senator for raising this matter. I can assure him and the House that it is a matter of utmost importance to the Minister. I will pass on to the 358 17 July 2013 Minister the issues and points raised and he has confirmed that he will convey them directly to the Garda Commissioner.

17/07/2013RRR00600Senator Denis Landy: I thank the Minister of State for the reply. Unfortunately, the question I asked, that is, when and by how much the waiting time will be reduced, has not been answered. Respecting the reply he has given, I ask the Minister, when he has had an opportunity to assess the benefit of the extra staff within the vetting unit, to pass on that information to me as soon as possible. This is an issue of considerable concern. While acknowledging that employers taking on staff must factor it in, nonetheless, it is important that we reduce the waiting time involved. The response does not include that information and I respectfully ask the Minister to pass it on, not only to me but also to all Members of both Houses when it is available and forthcoming and available, obviously after the staff have settled in.

17/07/2013RRR00700Deputy John Perry: I will convey the Senator’s concerns to the Minister. In 2012 there were 328,000 applications processed, a significant number. It is a positive sign that the Minister has received approval for the redeployment of personnel. I have no doubt, with retraining and additional staff, unless there is a massive increase in the volume in work, that there should be a reduction in timescale. As the Minister has clearly stated, he will convey the Senator’s concerns to the Commissioner and will ask him to reply directly to the Senator.

17/07/2013SSS00200Senator Denis Landy: Go raibh maith agat.

17/07/2013SSS00300Disability Allowance Appeals

17/07/2013SSS00400Senator Mary Moran: I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, for coming here to answer my Adjournment matter. Can he explain the long delay in dealing with appeals for the disability allowance? I made inquiries and have been told that over 300 people have had to wait over a year for a decision on their appeal. Also, 4,169 appeals were heard last year but 2,513 of those people had waited over four months. That is an unnecessarily long wait. Why the delay? Why were so many applications disallowed on initial submission yet the Department claims over 50% are granted on appeal? Is there a discrepancy in the initial application? What is the cause of the confusion? Has anyone investigated why so many first round applications are refused? I would be grateful to hear answers.

I rang the Department the other day and was told that the appeals submitted last November are only now being processed. That is an extraordinarily long wait and I look forward to hearing the answer.

17/07/2013SSS00500Deputy John Perry: I shall respond to this Adjournment on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton. She welcomes the opportunity to outline to the Seanad the steps that are being taken to improve the processing of disability allowance applications and the significant improvements made over the past 12 months in the processing of applications for other departmental schemes such as family income supplement, invalidity pension and carer’s allowance.

The processing time for individual social welfare claims may vary in accordance with their relative complexity in terms of the relevant qualifying criteria, people’s circumstances and the information they provide in support of their claim. In addition, a request for a review or an appeal by a person adds to the length of time taken to deal with the claim. 359 Seanad Éireann A major service delivery modernisation project was undertaken to improve the efficiency of administration of a number of social welfare schemes, including disability allowance, and to help deal with substantial backlogs in Longford schemes. This involved the deployment of information technology solutions and associated business process improvement.

The current average time to decide a new disability allowance application is seven weeks. Following completion of the IT phase of the modernisation project in the area, the disability allowance section commenced its business process improvement project in December 2012, at which stage there were 7,800 claims awaiting decision. The backlog elimination plan was implemented at the end of April 2013. All of the backlogged new claims awaiting a decision prior to 29 April 2013 were ring-fenced and additional staff, operating a new streamlined process, were assigned to decide these claims. The backlog of unactioned claims is presently reduced to just over 2,900 and the target is to have all these actioned within the next few weeks. New disability allowance applications received from 1 May 2013 onwards are actioned without undue delay.

Previously, following the roll-out of the IT phase of service delivery modernisation projects, similar business process improvement projects were completed in invalidity pensions, carer’s allowance and also in family income supplement. The Minister is delighted to say that these projects have resulted in the elimination of backlogs of new claims in invalidity pensions and carer’s allowance. They have also eliminated backlogs of both new and renewal claims in family income supplement. For instance, the current average time taken to decide a new invalidity pension claim is six weeks; carer’s allowance is now eight weeks; family income supplement is less than two weeks for new claims and in advance for renewals so that a customer with an ongoing entitlement to family income supplement is not left without payment.

As a consequence of the very high number of decisions made in the past year in all the relevant schemes, and as backlogs were being eliminated, there has been a corresponding substantial increase in the number of appeals being received. Invalidity pensions, carer’s allowance and family income supplement sections are now focused on reducing the appeals on hand. The prompt processing of claims is the priority for all scheme managers. Each scheme area is continuously monitoring its processes, procedures and the organisation of work to ensure that processing capability is maximised.

In conclusion, the Minister wishes to assure Senators that service delivery remains a key priority in her Department and that processes are kept under continuous review to ensure that services are delivered promptly to customers.

17/07/2013SSS00600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Moran can ask a brief question.

17/07/2013SSS00700Senator Mary Moran: I thank the Minister of State for his comments. I noted that the present waiting time for disability allowance is seven weeks but I asked about appeals. The other day a member of the Department informed me, on the telephone, that staff are now examining the backlog of appeals that date back to November. However, I have taken the positive message from the Minister’s statement that applications have been cleared so appeals will be examined soon. I hope so but shall wait and see.

17/07/2013SSS00800Deputy John Perry: I compliment the Minister on the transformation business model in the Department.

17/07/2013SSS00900Senator Mary Moran: I agree. 360 17 July 2013

17/07/2013SSS01000Deputy John Perry: The Minister has clearly stated that the residual claims have been reduced to over 2,000 and are being processed, and will be processed, within the next number of weeks. That is a great transformation when one considers the level of claims that are being processed. Procedures have also been put in place to deal with the backlog. She has also clearly stated that ongoing claims will be dealt with speedily and efficiently. I compliment the staff who have put a great amount of time and effort into the transformation process. They have done a massive amount of work and should be complimented.

17/07/2013SSS01100Senator Mary Moran: I agree with the Minister of State. I welcome the improvements and hope it continues.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 July 2013.

361