Seanad Éireann

Vol. 224 Wednesday, No. 8 3 July 2013

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Insert Date Here

Business of Seanad ��614 Order of Business ��615 Parental Leave Bill 2013: First Stage ��633 Further Education and Training Bill 2013: Committee and Remaining Stages��634 An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: An Dara Céim (Atógáil) ��637 Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Re- sumed) ��637 Food Provenance Bill 2013: Second Stage ��668 Adjournment Debate ��690

03/07/2013QQ00600Sunbed Usage ��690

03/07/2013RR00600Hospital Services ��693

03/07/2013SS00200Tobacco Control Measures ��694 SEANAD ÉIREANN

Dé Céadaoin, 03 Iúil 2013

Wednesday, 03 July 2013

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

Machnamh agus Paidir. Reflection and Prayer.

Business of Seanad

03/07/2013A00200An Cathaoirleach: I have received notice from Senator John Crown that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter:

Recognising the commitment of the Government to initiate legislation to regulate the use of sunbeds and recognising the strong link between sunbed use and skin cancer, the most common cause of cancer in Ireland, the urgent need for the Minister for Health to draft legislation regulating sunbed use.

I have also received notice from Senator Jimmy Harte of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to outline the future for community hospitals in County Donegal, in particular, those in Dungloe and Carndonagh and St. Joseph’s in Stra- norlar.

I have also received notice from Senator Martin Conway of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to regulate the tobacco industry by banning the sale of packs of 25 and 23 cigarettes at promotional prices.

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

The need for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to indicate when funding will be made available from his Department for the construction of a roundabout in County Galway (details supplied) in the interests of the health and safety of the people utilising it on a daily basis.

I have also received notice from Senator John Whelan of the following matter:

The plans the Minister for Justice and Equality has to relocate Portlaoise Courthouse to a 614 3 July 2013 new and more appropriate premises and location as its current position on Main Street is no longer appropriate or fit for purpose and is completely disruptive on the main thoroughfare of the county town.

I have also received notice from Senator Paschal Mooney of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to consider requesting local authorities to adopt a public light system developed by an Irish company which claims it could save local authorities up to €14 million a year.

I regard the matters raised by Senators Martin Conway, John Crown, Jimmy Harte, Lorraine Higgins and John Whelan as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment. I have selected the matters raised by Senators John Crown, Jimmy Harte, Martin Conway and Lorraine Higgins and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. I regret that I have to rule out of order the matter raised by Senator Paschal Mooney as the Minister has no official responsibility in the matter. Senator John Whelan may give notice on another day of the matter he wishes to raise.

Order of Business

03/07/2013A00400Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. 1, Further Education and Train- ing Bill 2013 - Committee Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and conclude not later than 1.30 p.m.; as no amendments have been submitted to the Bill, I propose we deal with Committee and Remaining Stages today, if Members agree; No. 2, Thirty- second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013 - Second Stage (resumed), to be taken at 1.30 p.m. and adjourned not later than 4 p.m.; and No. 4, Private Members’ business, Food Provenance Bill 2013 - Second Stage, to be taken at 4.30 p.m. and conclude not later than 6.30 p.m.

03/07/2013A00500Senator Marc MacSharry: We will not oppose that aspect of the Order of Business, but some colleagues may have an amendment to propose. The Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, are elsewhere in Europe today to consider the issue of youth unemployment and the moneys that will be made available Europe-wide for that purpose. That is welcome and hope it will lead to tangible action on the ground in job creation here, as opposed to some wooly policy that will not deliver on the ground. It is extremely worrying to see Europe-wide the level of youth unemployment as high as it is.

Sadly, yesterday we had further bad news with Ulster Bank announcing it would close a further 40 branches. The Irish Bank Officials Association, IBOA, has stated up to 1,850 jobs are at risk, although the bank has denied this. The IBOA said up to 1,850 jobs were at risk although that has been denied by the bank. In any event, it is a significant blow. Further redundancies to take place in Hewlett-Packard meant that yesterday was quite a dark day.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to the mortgage arrears crisis in the House yesterday. The Leader of the Seanad mentioned that the Central Bank legislation presented an ideal opportunity to raise such issues but I take issue with that. This is a silent crisis and requires a debate. It requires a rolling debate because what I predicted in 2009 when on the other side of the House and what was predicted at the time by Fine Gael Members, including Senator Healy Eames, is

615 Seanad Éireann now bringing itself to bear. The Dunne judgment, which found a loophole in the conveyancing and land Acts that prevented repossessions, will now be undone by the Government. The chief risk officer for Ulster Bank implied that the bank intends to plough ahead with repossessions as a matter of urgency, and he estimated that up to 35% of defaulters are strategic defaulters. I do not believe the Leader believes that those families throughout the country who are struggling at present are strategic defaulters. I regret very much that the code of conduct will strengthen the hand of the banks and weaken that of struggling families. The code of conduct prevents the potential for success of aspects of the insolvency legislation introduced by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter. We must have a meaningful debate on this issue and introduce tangible measures that will give real relief to people. We must not leave the fox in charge of the henhouse. The banks cannot be trusted and this has been proven time and again. We have heard tapes in recent weeks and now the banks cannot be trusted to put the people first. They always put themselves first and it is our responsibility to face up to that and do something about it.

03/07/2013B00200Senator Ivana Bacik: I join Senator MacSharry in expressing great regret over the an- nouncements yesterday of job losses in Ulster Bank and Hewlett-Packard. This is most disap- pointing and regrettable. However, we are hearing positive news today in terms of the vote that we hope MEPs will support the EU budget, the seven-year budget worth €690 million. The negotiations on this were led by the Tánaiste, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, who is in Strasbourg today to be present for the vote. Critical to the vote on the budget is the emphasis on the youth guarantee. As others stated, this is important across the European Union, which has appalling levels of youth unemployment. The guarantee, which was pioneered by Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, will be very specific. What we are seeing is a front-loading of €6 billion in the EU youth employment initiative. It is to be spent in 2014 and 2015 to ensure the guarantee can be given. The intention is to guarantee those who do not find a job within four months of leaving school further education, a training place or employment under the programmes. It is vital that the budget be passed so we can give effect to the guarantee.

There is another vote in Europe that is of great interest to us here, namely, the vote on the European Ombudsman. I wish Ms Emily O’Reilly luck with that vote. She is the favourite to succeed and would be a really excellent European Ombudsman.

I welcome the passage of Second Stage in the Dáil yesterday of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill. It was an historic day, 21 years after the X case judgment, in that the Oireachtas finally took responsibility for passing legislation to give effect to the Supreme Court judgment. I look forward to the debate in this House.

In due course, we will be debating in this House the whistleblower legislation, the Protected Disclosures in the Public Interest Bill, which the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform is publishing today. One of its objectives is the protection of confidential communication between members of the public and Members of the Oireachtas. This is the kind of measure we need to see put in place to ensure that more robust inquiries can be conducted by the Oireachtas.

03/07/2013B00300Senator David Norris: I also welcome the publication of whistleblower legislation. It has taken a hell of a long time to come out. I will examine it with interest. Whistleblowers have not been protected. I raised a very serious case about misdoings of the Irish Financial Services Centre that involved international banks and not living up to the regulatory requirements. My whistleblower was correct and I was correct. The story was picked up by a German newspaper but largely ignored here. The man in question was sacked. Recently, a very decent garda was sacked. His position was basically made untenable because he reported the circumstances re- 616 3 July 2013 garding traffic offences. We really need to address this, particularly given the story of Edward Snowden, which I raised yesterday.

I propose an amendment to the order of business, namely, that instead of taking the first item, we invite the Minister for Justice and Equality to the House to explain Ireland’s position on this matter. Mr. Snowden’s predicament has apparently caused the private airplane of the President of Bolivia to be diverted out of French and Portuguese airspace. The slobbering referred to by Deputy Clare Daly in the other House seems to have become a European conta- gion. It is nothing other than an act of air piracy. As individual Members, we should nominate Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden for the Nobel Prize for peace for what they have done in revealing the military atrocities one of our friends committed against civil- ian populations in various parts of the world. We must know about these events and that Mr. Obama has betrayed those of us who believed he stood for legality and decency considering the intensity of the drone attacks that murder people without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves in a court of law. In nominating these three brave people, we should ask the Swed- ish Academy, which gave US President Mr. Barack Obama the Nobel Prize for peace on spec, to strip him of it. Now we know the colour of his money.

I deplore the fact that the Joint Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport has supported the drinks industry in opposing a ban on advertising during sport. It is lamentable that it did not call any evidence about the health impact. Some of the members went on the wireless talking about the health impact but they do not know what they are talking about as they received no evidence. They are a disgrace and should reconsider this matter carefully without the interfer- ence of the drinks lobby.

03/07/2013B00400Senator Michael Mullins: I am pleased to note that the issue I wish to raise this morning is also the subject of an Adjournment debate tabled for this evening by Senator John Crown. I refer to the lack of regulation of sunbeds in the State, despite commitments to regulate them by previous Governments and the current Government. Children under 18 and people with very fair skin can use sunbeds without any proper advice or supervision. There is a commitment in the programme for Government to legislate on this matter. I urge the Government to bring forward that legislation as a matter of urgency. There is evidence that there is a very strong link between sunbed use and skin cancer. In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer placed sunbeds in the highest risk category and listed them as being as carcinogenic as tobacco and plutonium. Young people are particularly vulnerable. They are 75% more likely to develop melanoma if sunbed use starts before the age of 25. For every year that the legislation is delayed, as many as 28,000 people, according to the Irish Cancer Society, put their lives at risk in search of a suntan. I urge the Minister for Health to introduce the legislation in the next session of the Dáil. I am sure it will have the support of everybody in the House.

03/07/2013B00500An Cathaoirleach: I am sure the Members of the House would like to join me in welcoming to the House Mr. Basil McCrea and Mr. John McCallister, Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

03/07/2013B00600Senator Mary M. White: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that No. 11 be taken today.

03/07/2013C00100Senator Cáit Keane: I did not get an opportunity yesterday to welcome Senator David Norris back but it is worth doing. While I will not indulge in slobbering, it is worth repeating that he has contributed much to this House, particularly in the area of gender recognition. The 617 Seanad Éireann Seanad has been noted for the work it has done on gender issues and human rights issues. Only yesterday, Senator Katherine Zappone launched the Legal Recognition of Gender Bill. With regard to gender, human rights and women’s issues in particular, and the history of these issues, one need look no further than this House. The innovative ideas which came from this House were taken up by the second House and then eventually passed. This is a point to bear in mind.

On 1 July, the Government announced a national broadband mapping system for the entire country to identify where the black spots and gaps are, and Senator Ned O’Sullivan yesterday raised the issue of gaps in mobile broadband. We have been talking about jobs, particularly for our youth, and nothing is as important in this country as jobs and home-grown SMEs. Very many of these SMEs are in areas of the country which are not served at present by the national broadband scheme. The Government launched the mapping system yesterday, and one could ask why this was not done earlier or why the onus was not on the commercial companies that supply broadband to ensure they mapped where the systems were and how many megabits per second were provided in each area. The Government has asked all of the broadband companies to co-operate, although this is on a voluntary basis and they do not have to do it. I would like a debate in the House on the national broadband scheme. The Government wants to identify where Government intervention will be needed, given that the commercial companies will not supply all services because it would not be commercially viable to do so. The Government has said it will intervene, but it needs help in regard to the mapping system. The Government also said it would work community by community. The community here in Leinster House, including the Seanad, has a role to play in ensuring the black spots are identified as quickly as possible and that broadband services of 30 Mbps are provided, as promised, for every community in the country. That is the way we will get jobs up and running. It is the way we should be going and it should have been done long ago.

03/07/2013C00200Senator David Cullinane: Yesterday, a report was published which followed an independent audit of the management of child neglect cases in Roscommon, Waterford and the south- east of Dublin. This report was carried out in advance of a national audit, which was one of the main recommendations that followed the Roscommon child care case inquiry of 2010.

As we know, neglect is the single biggest reason children come to the attention of social services. The main finding of the report was that, despite the involvement of statutory services, the circumstances of vulnerable children had not improved. It found many problems still in the system. The report stated: “Words such as “dirty” and “unhygienic” do not adequately describe the situation endured by some children in homes where beds were saturated in urine, there was no heat, there was dog excrement in the living room and bedrooms, a worker’s shoe stuck to the carpet, mouldy food had adhered to kitchen counters and the toilet was black with dirt and excrement.” That is the reality for children in some homes in this State, unfortunately.

We need to make sure we learn the lessons from what happened in Roscommon and in other cases throughout this State. As this is just an audit of three counties and we have yet to see the national audit, it obviously points to very significant problems that still have not been addressed. We need to make sure that we properly protect children and that the services are in place and are properly resourced. We also need to make sure that, where there are systems failures, as there have been in the past, senior management in the HSE can be held responsible. In the wake of the publication of this report, it is important to have a debate in this House on its contents so we can all make sure we are making the best possible provisions and providing the resources to ensure children are being properly cared for in this State.

618 3 July 2013

03/07/2013C00300Senator Jimmy Harte: I would like to extend a welcome to Mr. John McCallister MLA and Mr. Basil McCrea MLA. As a fellow Donegal man from Ramelton, a very good town just outside Letterkenny, Mr. McCrea is very welcome to the Chamber.

I ask that we debate the future of retail banking in rural areas. I have an office in a small town, Raphoe, where at one stage there were three banks, two building societies, a post office and a credit union. Now, there is just one bank, Ulster Bank, and the news in the past few days is that Ulster Bank is closing branches. We all know the structural problems and the debts of the banks. On the ground, however, where banks are part of the community, we have to maintain at least one of the pillar banks in small towns that have businesses. For example, Raphoe has two secondary schools, a cattle mart and departmental offices. It is important that the banks, which have been supported by the community, now support the community. I ask that the Minister come to the House to outline some kind of roadmap for the future of the small retail banking offices that are in every small town in the country. If Ulster Bank closes in a small town like Raphoe, all that will be left is the credit union, which, while it will have an opportunity to develop, is a different type of banking facility, and the post office, which provides a different service. I ask that the Minister for Finance or the Minister of State at that Department come to the House to tell us whether they have a roadmap for rural towns, which need banks to help to promote their areas. I ask that we get some clarity from Ulster Bank on what closures it intends to implement.

03/07/2013C00400Senator Terry Leyden: I want to second the amendment proposed by Senator Mary White in regard to her parental leave Bill. I commend and compliment her on preparing this Bill and putting so much work into it. I hope it will get the support of the House in transferring the matter back to the Government to show that the Seanad can introduce private Members’ legislation that is worthwhile and successful.

I would like to ask the Leader to arrange an early debate on volunteerism. A wonderful example of community spirit in my own village of Castlecoote in Roscommon is the success of the tidy towns committee in winning Ireland’s Best Kept Town competition. Castlecoote also won the best kept village category. Truly, this is the Sam Maguire cup of tidy towns and villages - it is an All-Ireland win. I congratulate Castlecoote tidy towns committee, Roscommon County Council, all the young boys and girls involved, Active Age and the whole community and commend them on their hard work, pride and dedication in maintaining their community. Indeed, as local councillors are sometimes not mentioned, I would like to mention Councillor Orla Leyden of Roscommon County Council for her input. A councillor who went before her was very active in the area too-----

03/07/2013C00500An Cathaoirleach: Senator, as you well know, you are not supposed to mention names on the record of the House. People are not here to defend themselves.

03/07/2013C00600Senator Terry Leyden: Would it be in order to mention my own name? In any case, I will abide by the ruling of the Chair. Nothing happens by chance but through dedication and commitment. I want, finally, to compliment one of the longest serving members of the Castlecoote tidy towns committee, Mrs. Mainie Delaney, and her late, great husband and my dear friend, Mr. Mark Delaney, RIP, on their dedication.

03/07/2013C00700An Cathaoirleach: You cannot mention names.

03/07/2013C00800Senator Terry Leyden: I ask the Cathaoirleach and every Member of the House to come

619 Seanad Éireann and visit us in Castlecoote, and we will give them a night to remember. They can view our village and-----

03/07/2013C00900An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator calling for a debate?

03/07/2013C01000Senator Terry Leyden: I wish the tidy towns committee in Castlecoote, the winner of the best kept village category in County Roscommon and now the best in Ireland, well with regard to winning the overall Tidy Towns competition for 2014.

03/07/2013C01100An Cathaoirleach: You can make those points during the debate.

03/07/2013C01200Senator Terry Leyden: I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence and I hope he will take me up on my invitation in the near future and come and visit me, maybe in a hostelry.

03/07/2013C01300Senator Michael Comiskey: I will certainly take up my colleague’s invitation to visit the town of Castlecoote. Perhaps when we are finished there, we could take Members on into north Leitrim and give them a tour to see some of the very good scenery there.

I call for a debate on the issue of wind farms, which has been called for previously. There are a number of problems in some areas where wind farms have been developed. I see a number of positives at present.

11 o’clock

A wind farm is being developed in north Leitrim at present and up to 100 people have started working there in the last two weeks. This could be a huge opportunity for local communities and for people who want to get work in their local area. Also, when the wind farms are being developed it will put money into the local communities and help them to build community centres, football fields and the like. I acknowledge that where people are living close to wind farms there can be problems with noise and so on, but the hills in the west and north west of Ireland, far away from where people are living, are the places to develop those farms.

03/07/2013D00200Senator Sean D. Barrett: I welcome Mr. Basil McCrea, MLA, and Mr. John McCallis- ter, MLA. Their hospitality in Stormont is so good that it will be hard for us to live up to that standard.

Will the Leader take account of what happened in the House last night in addressing the issue of bank regulation? The Department of Finance and the Central Bank closed ranks against even the mildest reforms in banking regulation in this country, as if the banks had not done enough harm to us. That illustrates the direction in which the banking inquiry should go. The Fianna Fáil part is done. It lost 58 seats and there are 42 new Members of the Seanad. The real part is to examine the collusion with the Department of Finance, the way the Department treated its whistleblowers and its refusal to countenance any form of bank regulation that would take account of reform based on the whistleblowing or, indeed, regulation that would take into account the views of the National Competitiveness Council or the Competition Authority. This is about bankers running banks of the type that got us into so much trouble. We must get away from that. It should not be a political witch hunt but it must concern the officials and the al- leged banking regulation we had in the past, which caused so many problems in this country. We must achieve that emphasis because, as we saw last night, the officials will not do it of their own volition. The House must insist that we examine their role in the disastrous events of Sep- tember 2008.

620 3 July 2013 The independence of the Members on these benches is a highly prized part of this Seanad. It will be replaced by committees, according to the Taoiseach, but, as we know from events today, if one does not agree with the Taoiseach, one will be expelled from committees-----

03/07/2013D00300Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

03/07/2013D00400Senator Sean D. Barrett: -----and that is no substitute for the independence that these benches bring to the House.

03/07/2013D00500Senator Mary M. White: All power corrupts.

03/07/2013D00600An Cathaoirleach: I welcome a former Member of the House, Mr. Paddy Harte, and his wife to the Seanad. I call Senator Kelly.

03/07/2013D00700Senator David Norris: On a point of order, while I also strongly support the welcome to Paddy Harte, I wish to inform the House that the congratulations that were offered in advance to Emily O’Reilly are now applicable. She has now been elected European Ombudsman and I am sure the House will wish to congratulate her.

03/07/2013D00800Senator John Kelly: I, too, pay tribute to the tidy towns committee in Castlecoote on the great work it has done. It is a beautiful village. The committee has put Castlecoote and Roscommon on the map. Roscommon has always been the forgotten county when it comes to tourism, but many villages such as Keadue, Ballintober and Castlecoote have a great deal to offer tourists. Indeed, Senator Leyden is preparing to open a hostelry in Castlecoote to further entice people to the village. However, the Senator forgot to mention that along with his daugh- ter on the tidy towns committee, Councillors Dominick Connolly and Martin Connaughton have been very active in the village as well. He might not like to admit that, but fair play to all concerned.

The issue I wish to raise, like Senator MacSharry, is the code of conduct for the banks. I raised this issue a week ago as I feel very strongly about it. The point I made a week ago was that when we were voting on the Personal Insolvency Bill, if we had been privy to what was happening in Anglo Irish Bank and other banks, as we have heard from the tapes, we would not have given the banks a veto. Now that they have the veto, the code of conduct will give them all the power they need to repossess homes. If a personal insolvency practitioner works out a plan with somebody who has a distressed mortgage and the person sticks to that plan, the recommendations the practitioner makes should be enough for the banks to agree to deal with the person. However, having looked at the newspapers today and hearing what Senator MacSharry has said, it appears that if somebody cannot-----

03/07/2013D00900An Cathaoirleach: Do you have a question for the Leader?

03/07/2013D01000Senator John Kelly: I have. It appears that if somebody cannot acquire the type of money required to satisfy the bank - in other words, if he or she has a debt of €150,000 and the most he or she can come up with is €90,000, and the bank realises it can get more by selling the person’s home, it can sell the person’s home. I ask the Leader to ask the Minister for Finance to intervene personally in these cases, because people will lose their homes. The banks have proven that they will do whatever it takes to get their money.

03/07/2013D01100Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The issue I wish to raise is one I raised last week and also in a recent Adjournment debate, but I got no satisfaction. It pertains to two specialist preschools

621 Seanad Éireann in County Donegal, one in Ballaghderg, just outside Letterkenny, and the other, St. Agnes’s, in Donegal town. The direction given by the Minister for Health to local HSE management is that both preschools should close. This will affect children with very severe disabilities. These include children with epilepsy, children who cannot drink fluids and children who need to be closely monitored or need the full-time services of a nurse. They require sensory toys and specialist equipment. These children deserve an opportunity for educational advancement as well.

I received an e-mail from a parent of one of the children. It states that as the child is unable to voice his own opinion, the parent must do it for him. From him she gives the following three lines: “I am disabled but I am here. I am disabled but I want to attend school. I am disabled but I would like to live my life.” Why are the Minister for Health and his Department not allowing for those three basic principles in the case of that child and other children at the two schools? Yes, there is a cost. The cost of the two schools in 2012 was €600,000. That is €600,000 for 25 to 30 children who will have short lives, according to the paediatricians at Letterkenny General Hospital, but whose lives should be cherished equally. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business that the Minister for Health come to the House today and answer the basic question of why he is directing one of those schools to be closed this September. Parents who tried to enrol their children this week were told the school will not be open in September even though there has been no consultation with the parents.

03/07/2013D01200An Cathaoirleach: Can the Senator give me the name of the school?

03/07/2013D01300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Minister should come to the House to explain this to us and give us the opportunity to ask questions about both schools.

03/07/2013D01400An Cathaoirleach: We need the names of the schools.

03/07/2013D01500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: They are Ballaghderg specialist preschool and St. Agnes’s specialist preschool. A third preschool in County Sligo is experiencing similar difficulties and Senator MacSharry has been raising that issue with the HSE.

03/07/2013D01600Senator Paul Coghlan: I join the Cathaoirleach and others in extending a very warm welcome to our esteemed Northern colleagues and to our good friend Paddy Harte and his wife.

There was a very measured contribution from Senator MacSharry this morning, and I agree with much of it. All Members would agree with it. It is very disturbing that Ulster Bank will let approximately 1,800 people go and close a number of branches. That is certainly very bad news for provincial towns in Ireland, which have suffered so much in many other respects. Some time ago I asked the finance committee to invite the chairmen and chief executive officers of the non-Irish banks to appear before the committee so we could learn something concrete about their plans for the future of those banks in this country. It goes without saying that it is very important to have competition in banking. However, it is more disturbing to hear that they and others have lined up so many repossession orders. Society simply cannot afford to turf so many people out on the side of the street. Has the suite of options been fully exhausted? It looks like it has not.

03/07/2013E00200Senator Marc MacSharry: Absolutely.

03/07/2013E00300Senator Paul Coghlan: As I said, the banks have to suffer some pain for what they have inflicted on so many people by virtue of their actions. They have to face up to their responsibili- ties, and allow people to remain in their homes and pay a proper market rent or whatever is in 622 3 July 2013 accordance with the suite of options and the code of conduct. I know the Leader is prepared to facilitate such a debate. Perhaps he will comment on when it can be arranged.

03/07/2013E00400Senator Feargal Quinn: We recently passed Second Stage of the defibrillator Bill. It got quite a lot of attention. I was approached by a number of people in regard to it. A young man was mentioned by Senator Power as somebody who had experienced a heart attack, was taken for dead and was rescued because a man in his club had the ability and knowledge to operate a defibrillator. He was saved. He suggested it would be very easy for everybody to learn how to use a defibrillator. It does not take very long and it could be part of the transition year programme. Apparently the training takes half an hour. Within a couple of years everybody in the country would be able to use the equipment. I wish to pass my suggestion to the Minister for Education and Skills. It would be a worthy exercise.

About four years ago the House debated the issue of presumed consent for organ donation. The matter was shelved and nothing has happened since then. Wales yesterday passed a law with the same intention we had some four years ago. I understand the law was passed by a vote of 34 to ten. It is a worthy step. One can automatically opt out if one does not want to participate.

I refer to what Senator Barrett said about yesterday’s debate. It was very interesting but, as he said, the Minister did not accept any amendments. He gave the impression that the amendments pertaining to banks would be accepted.

Senator Barrett drew attention to one particular amendment, namely, that the Central Bank may consult different bodies for advice. He tabled an amendment which stated among those which would have to be consulted would be the Competition Authority-----

03/07/2013E00500An Cathaoirleach: We cannot discuss yesterday’s business.

03/07/2013E00600Senator Feargal Quinn: Senator Barrett was correct to say not having this House would be a huge threat to our democracy.

03/07/2013E00700Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

03/07/2013E00800Senator Denis Landy: The Carers Association of Ireland plays a very important role in society. It provides services for family members in their homes and ensures their quality of life is improved on a daily basis. Today it made its prebudget submission in the audiovisual room. I am cognisant of the fact that as a result of the promissory note deal it is aware there is an opportunity for it to push forward many of its needs in next year’s budget.

It raised a number of issues today, including the protection of the rates of carer’s allowance paid and the household benefits scheme. It is calling for an improvement in the appeals process to reduce the waiting period for applicants to 12 weeks. It is also calling for increased transparency in eligibility criteria, specifically financial assessments. It has asked for the abolition of the double charge for medical card holders in receipt of prescriptions whereby the same drug may need to be dispensed in different weight units and patients are being charged twice.

The Carers Association needs and deserves the support of the people in this House and of Government in general. I support it wholeheartedly. Its prebudget submission is reasonable. It is cognisant of the current economic situation. I ask the Leader to put his support behind the submission and the House to do likewise.

623 Seanad Éireann

03/07/2013E00900Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I dtosach báire, ba mhaith liom cuidiú leis an leasú atá molta ar an Riar Gnó ag an Seanadóir Norris.

I second Senator Norris’s amendment to the Order of Business. I would also like to make a correction to a statement I made yesterday. When I mentioned Senator Whelan I inadvertently said he made an address to a group of turf cutters at Camross. I would like to correct that statement because it was actually Tullamore.

03/07/2013E01000Senator Denis Landy: Is that an apology?

03/07/2013E01100Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: No, it is a correction. The statement was made to about 2,000 people in Tullamore and he gave his full support to turf cutters there.

I also congratulate Emily O’Reilly. She has been a fantastic Ombudsman and will be a hard act to follow. I congratulate her wholeheartedly on her appointment as European Ombudsman.

I concur with Senator Landy. I was at the Carers Association presentation. It was a practical and essential submission. I hope when we vote on the social protection Bill he will follow through on his commitment today.

The Leader agreed that there should be a series of prebudget debates in the House. We should not leave that too late because the budget will be announced in October. He indicated he hoped we would have a number of such debates before the recess. I suggest a debate on social protection be one of the starting points because it is one of the most contentious areas of the budget. We could take all of the suggestions made by the Carers Association on board. I call for a debate on prebudget submissions on social protection before the recess, if possible. It would be timely and would give the Minister, Deputy Burton, food for thought over the summer recess to take all of the suggestions in the House on board.

03/07/2013E01200Senator Martin Conway: I congratulate Aer Lingus on its terrific announcement that there will be services all year round between Shannon and Chicago and New York. It is further indication that the Government’s aviation policy of giving Shannon Airport its independence is working. It is a further boost to the good news we have had this week about the increase in tourism throughout Ireland, in particular from the North American market. When there is good news we should acknowledge it and acknowledge the senior management in Aer Lingus.

I call for a debate with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade on rebuilding our international reputation following the tapes from hell which horrified all of us last week. The Minister needs to come to the House and outline to us what he is doing to restore our reputation internationally. We are being pilloried in the German media. One of the more conservative newspapers in Germany suggested some of the people involved in the tapes should be beaten with a stick until such time as they are senseless and not to stop beating them until the screams become too much for the Irish people to bear.

03/07/2013E01300Senator David Norris: That is not a very good idea from that particular country, is it?

03/07/2013E01400Senator Martin Conway: I am not advocating that.

03/07/2013E01500Senator Mary M. White: It sounds as though you are.

03/07/2013E01600Senator Martin Conway: That is what is being written about this country internationally. We have a problem. In the past two years the Government has done serious work to rebuild our 624 3 July 2013 reputation. We need to redouble our efforts in continuing that. I commend Shaun Connolly of the Irish Examiner-----

03/07/2013E01700An Cathaoirleach: Are you calling for a debate on this issue?

03/07/2013E01800Senator Martin Conway: -----on his article today. He outlined in detail what is being said in Germany and German publications about what happened under the previous regime and in Anglo Irish Bank. There is a lot of work to be done. It would be useful to hear what our embassies throughout the world are doing to address this serious problem.

03/07/2013E01900Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I second Senator Ó Domhnaill’s amendment to the Order of Business. I join with Senator MacSharry in wishing the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Burton, good luck today in their negotiations on the youth guarantee scheme. The scheme which was agreed by the Commission and is awaiting approval by the European Parliament proposes a ring-fenced allocation of €9 billion in the next seven years to combat youth unemployment. Areas of this country with a youth unemployment level of more than 25% will be eligible for funding under the scheme, but I hope it will cater also for regions with levels of 15% or 20%. Experts on this issue throughout Europe maintain that a minimum of €25 billion is required up to 2020 to tackle the problem of youth unemployment. I wish the Taoiseach and the Minister well in their negotiations to secure as much as possible for Ireland of the €9 billion allocated.

I join the Cathaoirleach and other speakers in welcoming my three Ulster colleagues to the Visitors Gallery. I particularly welcome former Deputy Paddy Harte from County Donegal who reached out to our nearest neighbours when it was neither popular nor safe to do so. I wish him and his wife well.

03/07/2013F00200Senator Aideen Hayden: I join colleagues in expressing my frustration at the comments yesterday by the chief executive officer of Ulster Bank. They seemed to imply that responsibility for the high level of mortgage arrears should be laid at the door of the media, on the one hand, for their comments on debt forgiveness and, on the other, the mortgage arrears resolution process, MARP, and the Dunne judgment. There is a very worrying change of tone emerging from the banking sector which is seeking to assign the blame for the high level of mortgage arrears to others and, moreover, to intensify the debate around the cannot pay versus will not pay debacle.

I reiterate the call I have made on several occasions for two separate debates in this House. The first should focus specifically on the new code of conduct on mortgage arrears. I am particularly concerned at the emerging information on what is to be considered a sustainable or affordable debt and at the level of power the banks now have under the new MARP system to determine the fate of borrowers. The second debate should be a more general discussion on the banking system. It was not possible or feasible to accommodate either of these debates in the context of our consideration of the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011. I ask the Leader to allocate time for two stand-alone debates as a matter of urgency.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 passed Second Stage in the Dáil yesterday. Many Members welcomed the announcement of the co-location plans for Holles Street and St. Vincent’s hospitals during a debate in this House some weeks ago. Anybody who attended the hearings of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children on the Bill would have been struck by the successive comments by representatives of the Institute of Obstetricians

625 Seanad Éireann and Gynaecologists and individual specialists on the inadequacy of maternity services. Will the Leader accommodate a debate on this specific issue? If we are truly to protect the lives of women and children, we must prioritise the provision of maternity services.

03/07/2013F00300Senator Rónán Mullen: On the issue raised by Senator Martin Conway, the less said about the comments made in that particular German newspaper the better. References to violence, even in jest, are unhelpful. People say certain things will never happen, but then they do.

I support the comments made by my colleague, Senator David Norris, on the decision of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications on alcohol sponsorship. As a person who is very concerned about the so-called Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, I wish advocates for the unborn had the same clout with the Government as the drinks industry seems to have. The transport committee is, apparently, being used to push back against the Government’s stated commitment in regard to alcohol advertising and sponsorship. It is chill- ing to read about the way in which the drinks industry hints at withdrawing business if Ireland is seen to be anti-alcohol. That type of language beggars belief when one considers the problem we as a nation have with alcohol. It is also disturbing to see the Government piggy-backing on this image, tweeting images to the world of the Canadian Prime Minister holding a pint of Guin- ness. As Brian O’Connell puts it in The Irish Times today: “The interesting question though is how did we get to the point where it was OK for the Government to support the stereotypical boozy image of Ireland through such blatant product promotion”. It is a question that is well asked and to which we must have an answer.

Will the Leader allow the same ample time for Second Stage of the so-called Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill as he has promised for the debate on the legislation to hold a referendum to abolish the Seanad? It is very important that we have an open-ended Second Stage debate. I understand Members in the Dáil were allowed 20 minutes each and I hope Senators will be given the same scope. I congratulate the 24 Deputies who followed their conscience in voting yesterday for the protection of unborn children.

03/07/2013F00600An Cathaoirleach: That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

03/07/2013F00700Senator Rónán Mullen: I am almost finished. There are many more who share their views. It is about time we had a debate on the capacity to vote in accordance with one’s conscience, particularly on life and death issues. I certainly would not be able to live with my conscience if I voted for such legislation. Everybody should have maximum freedom on issues such as this.

03/07/2013F00800Senator Colm Burke: I join colleagues in welcoming the appointment of the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly, as European Ombudsman. Ms O’Reilly played a major role in identifying, more than ten years ago, the inadequacies and irregularities in the procedures for charging nursing home residents. Unfortunately, the Department of Health ignored her advice. The news of her new appointment is very welcome.

Will the Leader arrange a debate on the problem of staff absenteeism in the Health Ser- vice Executive? The average rate of absenteeism was 4.7% in 2010, 4.9% in 2011 and, as we learned in recent days, 4.79% in 2012. This means that last year 4,790 people were absent from work in the HSE every day. The target rate of absenteeism is 3.5%. Absenteeism represents a huge cost to the taxpayer and one that must be tackled. I accept that people are working under significant pressures and that there has been a failure to review and improve working practices. Nevertheless, the figures are very worrying. In February this year, in one area alone, the rate

626 3 July 2013 of absenteeism among medical staff was 0.85%, whereas the rate for general support staff was 7.97%. That is a huge difference in the incidence of absenteeism among different categories of worker in the same organisation. We must have a debate on this issue. If there are work practices which do not suit employees, there is an obligation to see how they might be amended. A situation in which 4,790 people are absent every day cannot be allowed to continue.

03/07/2013F00900Senator Mark Daly: I welcome the announcement by Aer Lingus of its intention to restore the route between Dublin and San Francisco. Even though 40% of all international investment in Ireland comes from the bay area of that city, since 2009, when Aer Lingus shut down the route, we have had no direct link with it from this country. It seems that Facebook, Google and the other Internet companies with European headquarters in Ireland have been successful in their negotiations with the airline on this issue. There will now be four flights a week con- necting us to what is essentially our largest trading partner. I compliment all those who played a part in this success, including the Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade who led a delegation to San Francisco last year. The importance of this trade link was impressed upon us all during the course of that visit. The issue was raised again at a meeting of the committee last November and on several occasions on the Order of Business and the Adjournment in this House. The re-establishment of the route will be welcomed by everybody in the Oireachtas.

03/07/2013F01000Senator Catherine Noone: I join colleagues in welcoming the election of Ms Emily O’Reilly to the post of European Ombudsman. She did a fantastic job as Ombudsman and will be a hard act to follow.

I support Senator Rónán Mullen’s comments on Ireland’s international image as a nation of drinkers. I regret that we must constantly see images of leaders of other countries who visit Ireland drinking a pint of Guinness. That irritates me every time I see it happen.

03/07/2013G00200Senator David Norris: President Obama got stuck with it, but the Queen was cute enough. Breeding will out.

03/07/2013G00300Senator Catherine Noone: However, I am not going to get into a debate on alcohol now because I would feel like a killjoy. I want to highlight something I mentioned yesterday regarding the CSO figures and the increase in the number of tourists from emerging markets such as China and India. While conducting some research, I discovered that Fáilte Ireland and the Irish Film Board had succeeded in enticing six top Hollywood producers to visit Ireland at the end of this month, with a view to making more movies here. The Bollywood movie, “Ek Tha Tiger”, which was filmed in Dublin last September was one of the highest grossing movies in India where it was seen by no less than 100 million cinemagoers. The equivalent exposure in advertising terms for future blockbuster Bollywood movies filmed here is incalculable. Such exposure sends powerful images of Ireland to far flung parts of the world.

Another innovative initiative-----

03/07/2013G00400An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

03/07/2013G00500Senator Catherine Noone: I am getting to it. Another noteworthy point concerns a Fáilte Ireland initiative involving a celebrity Chinese couple. This may sound frivolous, but it is interesting and important. The couple spent their honeymoon in Ireland last November and gener- ated approximately €500,000 worth of publicity in China, for the meagre investment of €8,000, because they blogged and posted pictures of themselves in Ireland. Initiatives such as this are 627 Seanad Éireann seriously worthwhile. While we need to keep value for money as a key factor in tourism initiatives, ingenious initiatives such as these are something for which we need to give huge credit to Fáilte Ireland and the Department responsible for tourism.

03/07/2013G00600Senator John Crown: I inform the House of the sad death this morning, in his 91st year, of Mr. Dermot Clarke who for many years was director of operations in Aer Lingus, in which job he toiled dutifully for a long time. His curriculum vitae began at a much younger age. When he was a young man and a recent graduate of the college on Kevin Street in the new field of elec- trical engineering, he took to sea in 1941 with the British Merchant Navy, at a time when there was great peril associated with that job. His ship was bombed and torpedoed by the Nazis. He was present in Bari Harbour in 1943, in one of the greatest disasters of the Second World War, when the Anglo-American invasion fleet was bombed by the Luftwaffe, resulting in a major escape of mustard gas which the Allies had brought with them to be used in retaliation if the Germans used chemical weapons first. Chemical weapons were not used much in the Second World War, but the Allies used to bring them with them in case the Germans used them. The mustard gas brought by the Allies was released and, tragically, 1,000 young men and women died. As a result of the medical observations made in the post mortems-----

03/07/2013G00700An Cathaoirleach: It is not usual for us to allow this type of tribute to be paid on the Order of Business.

03/07/2013G00800Senator John Crown: We have done it before.

03/07/2013G00900An Cathaoirleach: Only following a proposal from the Leader and for former Members of the House.

03/07/2013G01000Senator John Crown: May I ask for the Leader’s permission to continue for 30 seconds?

03/07/2013G01100An Cathaoirleach: Okay.

03/07/2013G01200Senator John Crown: The observations made as a result led, in many ways, to the discov- ery of cancer chemotherapy. I think it is appropriate that this man who lived such a wonderful and heroic life, who gave such great service to the State and who in the post-war years, after his part in the downfall of the Nazis, took part in the relief of the Berlin blockade by the Soviet communists should be remembered. He did his bit against despotism in the 20th century. I would like the record of the House to reflect our appreciation of what he did and our sympathy to his wife, Margaret, and wonderful family.

03/07/2013G01300An Cathaoirleach: I, too, wish Emily O’Reilly well on her election to the position of Om- budsman for Europe.

03/07/2013G01400Senator Maurice Cummins: The acting Leader of the Opposition, Senator Marc Mac- Sharry, raised the question of youth unemployment and mentioned the visit of the Taoiseach and the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, to Strasbourg today. It is very important that we get our share of the funding voted through by the European Parliament. The matter was raised by Senator Diarmuid Wilson and others and we all wish the Taoiseach and the Minister well in their deliberations and negotiations on the funding to tackle youth unemployment.

On the issue of mortgage arrears, this is a matter which has been raised by a number of Sen- ators. On a number of occasions I have made a request for the relevant Minister to come to the

628 3 July 2013 House to discuss it, but I have not yet received a positive reaction from the Department. I will continue to seek the attendance of a Minister to discuss the issue, but all I can do is ask. I will do my best to push it again and arrange for a Minister to come to the House to discuss the issues of the code of conduct, banking and mortgage arrears, as requested by a number of Senators.

Senators Ivana Bacik, David Norris, Catherine Noone and the Cathaoirleach have all expressed good wishes to Emily O’Reilly on becoming European Ombudsman. We all wish her every success in her new position.

I note the points made by Senator David Norris on the whistleblower legislation. Yesterday the issue of asylum for Mr. Edward Snowden was raised. The position is that asylum applications are not generally accepted from persons resident or present in other countries as our refugee status determination process is based on applications for asylum being made within the Irish jurisdiction. Asylum applications made at Irish embassies abroad are not accepted. Therefore, I do not propose to accept the amendment to the Order of Business proposed by the Senator.

The Senator also mentioned the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications on the issue of alcohol sponsorship. This matter has been raised by a number of Senators. The Minister of State, Deputy Alex White, indicated he would come to the House when the committee’s report was published and I am sure we can arrange a debate on the issue soon.

Senator Michael Mullins raised an issue which has been submitted as an Adjournment matter regarding the use of sunbeds and the need for legislation. Senator John Crown has also raised this matter. Perhaps after the Adjournment debate we might know more about what the Government intends to do in that regard and might then address the matter.

Senator Mary M. White proposed an amendment to the Order of Business to allow her Bill on parental leave to be published. I have no problem in that regard and will agree to her amendment to the Order of Business.

Senator Cáit Keane raised the issue of the national mapping of broadband and the identification of black spots. This is a matter Senator Ned O’Sullivan raised in connection to mobile phones. There is certainly a need to act on and address this issue. If necessary, we will ask for the relevant Minister to come to the House to update us on it.

Senator David Cullinane referred to the HSE’s report on neglected children. This issue was raised by a number of Senators yesterday when I responded on it. The Government is acutely aware of the neglect for decades of Irish children and has sought to take real action to address the serious inadequacies in the care system. It is only an initial report. It is on phase one of the audit and there is a lot more to be done in that regard. Everybody must realise the Government is very serious about the matter. A new model for family based multi-agency assessment and early intervention has already been trialled in two regions and is being mainstreamed in the establishment of the new child and family agency. Last summer, after the report was completed, HIQA published inspection standards for the HSE’s child welfare and protection services. The Children First guidelines have been updated and it is intended to make them statutory. The referendum on children was passed. These are positive actions in the area, but we must continue to be vigilant where the care of children is concerned. I note Senator Cullinane’s points. Senator Harte asked for a debate on the future of retail banking in rural Ireland in particular. I

629 Seanad Éireann have requested the Minister for Finance to come to the House to debate that issue. A debate on the post office network will be held tomorrow and some of the issues can be discussed then. Senator Leyden asked for a debate on volunteerism. We had that debate previously but I will see what can be arranged. He lauded Castlecoote on its success, as did Senator Kelly, who also referred to tourism in Roscommon. Many Senators praised their own towns, and rightly so. Some of them will probably be auditioning for jobs in Fáilte Ireland if anything should ever happen to the Seanad.

03/07/2013H00200Senator Terry Leyden: Tip O’Neill said that all politics is local.

03/07/2013H00300Senator Maurice Cummins: Of course.

Senator Comiskey spoke about the advantages and disadvantages of wind farms. He highlighted the benefits for local communities in his area, where more than 100 jobs have been created. Senator Barrett asked for a debate on bank regulation or the lack of it. He referred to the position of officials in the Department of Finance and the need for a change in attitudes. I listened to last night’s debate. I agree that some of the amendments proposed by Senator Barrett, particularly that which proposed to replace “may” with “shall”, should have been accepted. However, that is a decision for the Government. I note Senator Barrett’s point. I do not propose to accept Senator Ó Domhnaill’s amendment to the Order of Business. He tabled a matter on the Adjournment and perhaps he may need to table a further matter if the response was not satisfactory.

Senator Paul Coghlan called for the chairmen and chief executive officers of the non-Irish- owned banks to be brought before the finance committee. I am sure the committee will arrange such a meeting. I agree with Senator Coghlan that banks must suffer some of the pain that mortgage holders and people in arrears are suffering and that banks should be brought to book at the finance committee. Senator Quinn made an excellent suggestion about the defibrillator Bill and transition year students being taught how to use defibrillators. I will bring that matter to the attention of the Minister for Education and Skills.

The question of presumed consent for organ donation was raised in the House by Senator Quinn. This has been lying to one side for a number of years. Similar legislation has been passed in Wales this week. I have inquired of the Department its intentions with regard to such legislation. I will revert to the Senator when I know when the Department intends to publish legislation. Senator Landy spoke about the pre-budget submission from the Carers’ Associa- tion. I agree with Senator Landy that we should all praise the excellent work of carers all over the country. Senator Ó Clochartaigh spoke on pre-budget submissions to the Department of Social Protection. The Minister for Social Protection has agreed to come to the House when we return in September. Senator Conway praised Aer Lingus on its winter and summer services from Shannon to Chicago and New York. This is welcomed by everyone in the mid-west in particular.

There has been negative publicity in some countries as a result of the Anglo Irish Bank tapes debacle, which I am confident the Government is attempting to redress. Senator Wilson asked for a debate on youth unemployment and the €6 billion fund. Experts have said there is a need for €25 billion. In my view, €6 billion is a good start and perhaps that sum can be increased in the future. Senator Hayden called for a debate on banking. I have addressed that matter. I have asked the Minister to come to the House but I have not received a positive response in that regard. She also called for a debate on maternity services. I will ask the Minister for Health 630 3 July 2013 to come to the House for a debate on that subject. In reply to Senator Mullen, I have stated on many occasions that ample time for debate will be afforded to the House. As with the arrangements for the Seanad referendum Bill, I propose that ten minutes be allocated to every Senator on Second Stage and that ample time be afforded on Committee and Report Stages. I hope the debate will be conducted in a very dignified manner and that points will be made once and not rehashed a hundred times. I hope we will not have a filibuster on the Bill. I can assure the House that adequate time will be afforded to all Members to make their points. I hope that making a point once will be sufficient for everyone.

03/07/2013H00400Senator Rónán Mullen: Ten minutes would not be ample on Second Stage.

03/07/2013H00500Senator Maurice Cummins: That is what I am proposing and that is what will be happening.

Senator Burke asked for a debate on the level of absenteeism in the HSE and the need, if necessary, for a change in work practices. Senator Daly welcomed the news that Aer Lingus proposes to resume flights to San Francisco. This is a very important proposal. The matter was raised at the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade. Everyone wanted this to happen and it is welcome. Senator Noone referred to the positive CSO figures on tourism and the importance of the film industry and other initiatives. These demonstrate the importance of niche activities that the Senator mentioned as being important for the tourism industry. Sena- tor Crown referred to the death of Dermot Clarke. I extend the sympathies of the House to his family.

03/07/2013H00600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That No. 1 be deleted and a debate on the position of Mr. Edward Snowden be substituted therefor.” Is the amendment being pressed?

03/07/2013H00700Senator David Norris: Yes.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 31. Tá Níl Barrett, Sean D. Bacik, Ivana. Byrne, Thomas. Bradford, Paul. Crown, John. Brennan, Terry. Cullinane, David. Burke, Colm. Daly, Mark. Clune, Deirdre. Leyden, Terry. Coghlan, Eamonn. MacSharry, Marc. Coghlan, Paul. Mullen, Rónán. Comiskey, Michael. Norris, David. Conway, Martin. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Cummins, Maurice. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. D’Arcy, Jim. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Donovan, Denis. Harte, Jimmy. O’Sullivan, Ned. Hayden, Aideen.

631 Seanad Éireann Power, Averil. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Quinn, Feargal. Henry, Imelda. Reilly, Kathryn. Higgins, Lorraine. White, Mary M. Keane, Cáit. Wilson, Diarmuid. Kelly, John. Zappone, Katherine. Landy, Denis. Moloney, Marie. Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Noone, Catherine. O’Brien, Mary Ann. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. O’Keeffe, Susan. O’Neill, Pat. Sheahan, Tom. Whelan, John.

Tellers: Tá, Senators David Norris and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden..

Amendment declared lost.

03/07/2013K00100An Cathaoirleach: Senator White has moved an amendment to the Order of Business, “That No. 11 be taken before No.1.” The Leader has indicated he is prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

03/07/2013K00300An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ó Domhnaill has moved an amendment to the Order of Busi- ness, “That a debate on the proposed closure of Ballaghderg and St. Agnes’s specialist preschools in County Donegal be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?

03/07/2013K00400Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Yes.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 32. Tá Níl Barrett, Sean D. Bacik, Ivana. Byrne, Thomas. Bradford, Paul. Crown, John. Brennan, Terry.

632 3 July 2013 Cullinane, David. Burke, Colm. Daly, Mark. Clune, Deirdre. Leyden, Terry. Coghlan, Eamonn. MacSharry, Marc. Coghlan, Paul. Mullen, Rónán. Comiskey, Michael. Norris, David. Conway, Martin. O’Donovan, Denis. Cummins, Maurice. O’Sullivan, Ned. D’Arcy, Jim. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. D’Arcy, Michael. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Harte, Jimmy. Power, Averil. Hayden, Aideen. Quinn, Feargal. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Reilly, Kathryn. Henry, Imelda. White, Mary M. Higgins, Lorraine. Wilson, Diarmuid. Keane, Cáit. Kelly, John. Landy, Denis. Moloney, Marie. Moran, Mary. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Noone, Catherine. O’Brien, Mary Ann. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. O’Keeffe, Susan. O’Neill, Pat. Sheahan, Tom. Whelan, John. Zappone, Katherine.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O’Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Paul Coghlan and Aideen Hayden.

Amendment declared lost.

Order of Business, as amended, agreed to.

Parental Leave Bill 2013: First Stage 633 Seanad Éireann

03/07/2013L00100Senator Mary M. White: I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend Part II of the Maternity Protection Acts 1994 and 2004 to provide for both maternity and paternity leave for parents of a new born child and to provide for related matters.

03/07/2013L00200Senator Denis O’Donovan: I second the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

03/07/2013L00400An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Second Stage?

03/07/2013L00500Senator Mary M. White: Next Wednesday, 10 July 2013.

Second Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10 July 2013.

Further Education and Training Bill 2013: Committee and Remaining Stages

03/07/2013L00700Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills, Deputy Ciaran Cannon, to the House which is familiar territory to him.

Sections 1 to 36, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 37

Question proposed: “That section 37 stand part of the Bill.”

03/07/2013L01100Senator Averil Power: Will the Minister of State provide further clarification on when it is expected FÁS will be dissolved, with particular reference to arrangements in the interim? Given that the VECs have evolved into education and training boards, what will be the relationship between the boards and FÁS in the intervening period, particularly in respect of the training aspect of their brief and how it is to be managed? Is there to be a co-ordinated planning relationship between the two bodies over the summer and into September, with the delivery of training courses during that period? Will all of its budget stay with FÁS until it is dissolved, or is any of it to be given to the education and training boards to fund any training provision they might undertake? I seek clarity on these points and also on the issue of when FÁS will be wound up to give SOLAS full responsibility for the sector. FÁS will be gone and SOLAS will have responsibility for the entire sector. I ask what arrangements will be in place in the interim.

03/07/2013M00200Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): The legislation allows the Minister, Deputy Quinn, to decide on the commencement of the legislation, thus signalling the dissolution of FÁS and the creation of SOLAS and the further education and training authority. It is envisaged that will happen in the near future. It will certainly happen in the next two to four months. I cannot provide an exact timeframe at this stage but I will be discussing the issue further with the Minister and my officials in the coming days. It certainly will not be left lingering for any lengthy period.

In regard to the relationship between ETBs and the existing FÁS structures, the SOLAS

634 3 July 2013 implementation process has involved considerable work at VEC level in a number of loca- tions, including Dublin and Cork in particular, to determine how the amalgamation of further education and training provision should proceed. In essence, the process involved a paper- based merger in order to determine what issues might arise. It has provided us with valuable information and I have already seen a number of instances of collaboration between senior FÁS officials and VEC officials at local level. That collaboration reflects the ethos that underpins the ETB model. Once FÁS ceases to exist and SOLAS is created there will be a seamless transition and the collaboration will continue for the foreseeable future.

03/07/2013M00300Senator Averil Power: I thank the Minister of State for his response. I acknowledge that a considerable amount of preparatory work has been done over the lead-in period. It is important that the transition is as seamless as possible, particularly in respect of amalgamating courses and getting rid of the duplication that existed in the past. This is very progressive legislation and we strongly support it because it has potential for bringing greater coherence to the sector and making it better for learners at the end of the day, provided the process is properly planned and the services come together in a well-managed way. The service provided by the sector could be improved in respect of vocational education and training.

When the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, was in the House for our previous discussions on the Bill, many of us expressed our appreciation for the way that the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, approached the Bill and for accepting amendments in the Dáil. He also took on board suggestions made by interest groups and people involved in VECs and other bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 38 to 52, inclusive, agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

03/07/2013M00900Acting Chairman (Deputy Diarmuid Wilson): When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

03/07/2013M01000Senator Jim D’Arcy: Now.

Bill received for final consideration.

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

03/07/2013M01300Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Can- non): I thank Senator Power for her kind comments. This is ground-breaking legislation that seeks to introduce significant reform in the way we provide further education and training in this country. It provides a structure and a delivery mechanism to ensure that every time a person seeks our support and assistance in accessing further education or training, the programmes provided will be of the highest standard and our intervention will be meaningful for the individual concerned. Our intention is to provide opportunities for every learner who wants to enter education for the first time or re-enter having exited the education system at some point in the past.

635 Seanad Éireann We often look to other countries for benchmarks and examples of how things should be done in education. Having worked in this role for the past two and a half years and after meeting numerous people involved in the delivery of further education and training in Ireland, whether they work in FÁS, the VECs or the private sector, I believe we provide excellent education and training opportunities. Rather than looking to others for examples, we can and will set the standard for the future. We are bringing together the collective expertise and wisdom of two sectors that have done excellent work in the past and I am convinced their roles will be greatly enhanced by the provisions of this Bill.

In regard to how the legislation developed over the past several months, both the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and I were anxious to engage in a strongly collaborative process rather than an adversarial one. The Minister and I agree that legislation as important as this Bill undergoes an evolutionary process while it is in draft form or travelling through the Houses of the Oireachtas. Any good idea on how we can improve legislation, irrespective of where it emanates, should be taken on board.

On Committee Stage we were careful to take on board good suggestions on how the Bill could be improved. This is how we should work in future when developing legislation. There should be a strongly collaborative process across all parties and none to ensure that the legislation we ultimately pass is the best it can be. This has been a very rewarding experience not only in working with my colleagues and officials in the Department, who have worked incredibly hard, but also in terms of engaging with spokespersons from other parties to hear their ideas for improving the Bill and those who work in the sector who offer valuable experience. To all of these individuals I offer my sincere thanks. At the end of the process we will have a job well done and a Bill of which we can be proud.

03/07/2013M01400Senator Averil Power: I welcome the passage of this Bill. It is the third Bill on further education we have taken in recent months as part of a process of improving co-ordination across the sector and ensuring that individuals can access education and courses that meet their employment and personal development needs.

As we conclude, I would like to mention the importance of community education. It is very important to get people on the first rung of the ladder so that they can then progress through the education system. It is important that people get basic skills such as literacy and numeracy. It is very positive that this Bill is passed today. About €900 million is spent in the sector and we need to ensure that the focus is on the learner and on constantly changing the services we provide to make sure that they meet current needs. The strategy to be put in place by SOLAS when it is planning for the full sector gives us the potential to do that.

I welcome the fact that the Bill is being passed. As we head into the budget process, I would ask the Minister of State to be cognisant of the importance of this sector and to fight for it. It is all very well to have the right framework and strategies in place, but we also need to have the finances on the ground to be able to deliver programmes. I have one word of criticism for the Government, rather than for the Minister of State. The PTR cuts that were brought in at the last budget have had a very negative impact. PLC colleges and further education colleges are finding it difficult to deliver important courses at a time when they are most needed. That is not just the responsibility of the Minister of State; I would like to see the Cabinet prioritis- ing education for the next budget. Education will help people who are currently unemployed but will also plan for the future. If we are going to turn the country around, it will be through education. While welcoming the Bill and congratulating the Minister of State, I would plead 636 3 July 2013 with him to fight for the sector at the budget table, and to ensure that the Minister for Education and Skills does so as well.

03/07/2013N00200Senator Jim D’Arcy: I compliment the Minister of State and his officials on bringing this very important Bill through the Houses. Hopefully it will lead to a bright new start for the workers in FÁS who will be moving on to work in collaboration with the education and training boards and the VECs. FÁS definitely was a toxic brand, even though most of the workers in it were blameless in that respect. It will be a bright new day for them. I support Senator Power’s request that it be done quickly. There is no better man than the Minister of State to do that.

The Education and Training Boards Act 2013 and this Bill are very important pieces of legislation. Our future depends on the education and training our young people and our unemployed receive. The Minister of State has a big task and I wish him well, but today I would just like to congratulate him and his officials on how they dealt with this Bill. We all wish SOLAS well.

03/07/2013N00300Senator Mary Moran: I join with other speakers in commending the Minister of State and his officials for their work on this Bill. It is an extremely important Bill and it will certainly pave the way forward. I agree with his assertion that Ireland can now lead the way in this area. The collaborative process has been very important and the Minister of State is to be commended for taking on board people’s views in this House and in the Dáil. That is testament to how serious he is in his work. It is a new era for education in this sector, and the important thing is that it must be learner focused. I have every confidence that this Bill will achieve that.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 12.35 p.m. and resumed at 1.30 p.m.

An Bille um an Dara Leasú is Tríocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad Éireann) 2013: An Dara Céim (Atógáil)

Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad Éireann) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)

Thairg an tairiscint seo ar Dé Céadaoin, 26 Meitheamh 2013:

Go léifear an Bill an Dara hUair anois.

The following motion was moved on Wednesday, 26 June 2013:

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Atógadh an Díospóireacht ar leasú a 1:

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:

637 Seanad Éireann To delete all words after ‘‘That’’ and substitute the following:

“the Bill be read a second time on 17 September, 2013, for the following reasons:

(i) to request the Constitutional Convention to consider the constitutional role of the Seanad and to allow time for such consideration;

(ii) to facilitate a consultation process with the Nominating Bodies and the Nominating Universities who have for more than 75 years fulfilled the constitutional role for Seanad General Elections as required by Article 18 of Bunreacht na hÉireann;

(iii) to allow other interested parties to make submissions; and

(iv) to have the views arising from these consultations and discussions available to the people as they prepare to vote in the Referendum.”

- (Senator Feargal Quinn).

03/07/2013O00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House.

It is probably unusual as Leas-Chathaoirleach to welcome a Minister to the House for the debate we are having. That is how the business is ordered. Senator Eamonn Coghlan had finished speaking and now I call on Senator Mac Conghail.

03/07/2013O00700Senator Ivana Bacik: I think Senator Eamonn Coghlan was in possession.

03/07/2013O00800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I was not sure.

03/07/2013O00900Senator Eamonn Coghlan: I was about to conclude.

03/07/2013O01000Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: The final lap.

03/07/2013O01100Senator Eamonn Coghlan: The Minister of State is welcome back to the House. This is more like my old life as a runner. When I ran the Penn relays I was always the anchor man on the team and that is how it was last week, I was the anchor man but today I am the lead-off man.

It is a great honour for me and my family that I was nominated by the Taoiseach to the Se- anad and I referred to the fact that most of the people I met in my new role in the Seanad over the past two years or so did not know how many Senators there are, how the Members of the Seanad were elected or the real function of the Seanad. Now they are being asked literally at the stroke of a pen to vote either “Yes”, to retain the Seanad or “No”, to abolish it or vice versa, whatever way it will be put, and I think that is a bit unfair. I did, however, allude to the fact that I support this Bill and I support the fact that the Government wants to deliver the biggest reform in politics and public service in the history of the State but I am not sure that abolishing the Seanad is the way to go to reduce the number of politicians in government.

If the people do decide to keep the Seanad, does the Government have a plan B in place to reform either the Seanad or the Dáil?

03/07/2013O01200Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus fearaim fáilte romhat chuig an Seanad a Aire Stáit áit go bhfuil aithne mhaith agat air, do shean Teach. It has been a great honour and a privilege for me, as director of the Abbey Theatre, to have been nomi- 638 3 July 2013 nated by An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, to Seanad Éireann. It has been an enormous privilege and a responsibility. Every day that I attend the Chamber I am aware of the historical connection and the constitutional obligation of my role in a constituent part of the Oireachtas. The fact also that I was nominated by An Taoiseach has given the Abbey Theatre and the arts community an endorsement, a recognition and a part to play in our parliamentary democracy. My role as a Senator has been to give voice to debates on legislation and topical issues from the point of view of my experience and my position as theatre person and an activist within the arts community. In other words, when I felt competent to speak or to vote on an issue, I did so, within the context of my background and vocational experience.

I have no particular mandate as such; I was not elected nor have I contested any election to any position within the Oireachtas. I do strongly believe, however, that the arts community should be represented in an upper chamber. This has rarely been achieved with the existing so-called cultural panel as a part of the Senate’s obtuse election system. There are exceptions and my esteemed colleague, Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú, is one and of course among my pre- decessors, W.B. Yeats, Oliver St. John Gogarty, the late Éamon de Buitléir and Brian Friel, to name but a few.

Whatever about the technical specifics of the bicameral model with regards to constituen- cies and elections, if we advocate a two-tier parliamentary democracy, then the idea is that they both together should broadly reflect Irish civil society. In other words, the Upper and Lower Houses should not duplicate or look alike and should between both of them, and the Office of the Presidency, encourage a greater relationship of trust, connectedness and inclusivity between our parliamentary democracy and our fellow citizens. An electorate of fewer than 1,000 people electing 43 Senators is not that. My personal and philosophical challenge is that I do believe in bicameralism but not in the Seanad, and in the particular way it is constituted. To quote Profes- sor Michael Laver “once the subject is put on the table it is hard to construct a principled argument in favour of retaining Seanad Éireann in its current form”. That is what has been asked of us in voting on the 32nd amendment of the Constitution, abolition or retention.

I graduated from Trinity College, as did the Minister of State, with a degree in political science and, therefore, I have had the privilege of being able to cast my vote in the Trinity constituency of Seanad Éireann. During the Second Stage debate on the 32nd amendment of the Constitution Bill there has been a discussion about the benefits of a bicameral system. In other words, is it necessary to have a second chamber in our parliamentary democracy or is it just an old-fashioned nineteenth century mode of empowering the elite of the nation? I am a member of an elite class, whether I like it or not, a nominated Senator and a vote in Seanad Éireann as a Trinity graduate.

There is no universal suffrage for the election to the Seanad, a voting right which the overwhelming majority of our Republic is denied. The mode of election is anachronistic and byz- antine. The constitutional and emotional connection between citizens of this Republic and the Seanad is limited, non-existent or at best peripheral. What this amendment to the Constitution proposes, for the first time, is to provide everyone who is eligible to vote an opportunity to offer an opinion on the Seanad. This is the closest they will have got to a connection to Seanad Éireann.

We have been asked in this Chamber to support or oppose this Bill as a way of endorsing the political reform agenda of the Government. It is a conundrum that I am grappling with because we are not voting in a vacuum and we are asked to take other proposals, such as reform 639 Seanad Éireann of the Dáil and committees on trust or on the nod. I do not see any reform of the other two constituent parts of the Houses of the Oireachtas in this Bill. When I consider political reform, I do not think of saving money; I do not think of too many politicians; I do not think of Friday sittings. When I consider strengthening our parliamentary democracy, I think of the two objectives, namely, trust and participation. The Taoiseach described the abolition of the Seanad as modernising the political system. I respectfully disagree with him. Modernising our political system is about increasing the level of trust between our citizens and our system of democracy. It is about changing the political culture of our Republic.

Modernising our political system is about a deeper engagement between our fellow citizens and the Oireachtas, other than just voting every four to five years. Modernising our political system is about enabling a greater accountability and transparency at local and national level. I agree with an Taoiseach that the Seanad does not work and, in truth, probably never has. In fact, in a bizarre way an Taoiseach has clearly contributed to the wider debate about the nature of our parliamentary democracy by proposing the abolition of the Seanad.

What concerns me, however, is that if the Seanad is abolished, what is left? If the Seanad is abolished in October, the Government’s intention is to strengthen the Dáil through better working procedures, more committees with better organised and greater scrutiny of legislation. We are being asked to abolish the Seanad in a referendum on the basis of some procedural changes that will not be enshrined in the Constitution. The crux of the argument is what Professor David Farrell describes as “the serious power imbalance between legislature and government”.

What the Government is proposing is so much change and yet so little reform. If we decide to abolish the Seanad, can we trust the Government to give more power to the 158 Deputies of the next Dáil, decentralise power from the Cabinet and provide adequate space and time to legislate? I am not sure whether abolishing the Seanad achieves that. Reducing the number of politicians would be more a populist than a reforming move. I would not be in favour of reducing the number of Deputies if effective local and parliamentary reform were in place. Compara- tive analysis indicates that, as it stands, the Dáil is just about the right size for our population. According to the influential cube root rule set out by political scientists Taagepera and Shugart, with a population of 4.59 million, our Dáil should have 166 Deputies, not the 158 proposed for the next election.

In my two years as a Senator, I have noticed and come to recognise some traits and observations which I would like to comment on. I am doing this in light of the debate on reform and the fact that there are two Seanad reform Bills on the Order Paper, one of which was introduced by my colleague Senator Zappone. There is no doubt that every individual Senator whom I have come to know and work with in this Chamber has reform at heart and cares deeply about the future of the Upper House. There is always talk of reform and how to do our business better, no more so than from the Leader, Senator Maurice Cummins. I congratulate him on his eloquent and elegant defence of the Seanad during this debate. However, the elephant in the reform room is not the Seanad nor the Dáil but the Cabinet. The Government controls the agenda of the Dáil and the Seanad. The Seanad gets choked and starved of legislative business and is dependent on the goodwill of certain Ministers to show up in this Chamber. The Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, has expressed that goodwill constantly and consistently. The Leader has toiled hard for the Seanad to remain relevant not only to the public but to his Government. The Seanad is under pressure to sit as many days as possible to justify its existence and our salaries. That is a dysfunctional, negative and ultimately soul-destroying motivation.

640 3 July 2013 Collectively, it is impossible to reform the Seanad. I can imagine a reformed Upper House, sitting five days a month to do its business, debating important and topical issues, scrutinising, debating and amending legislation. An Upper Chamber does not need any more power but needs clarity, diversity, less power of political groupings, no Whip and fewer sitting days. I would also curtail the theatrics of the Order of Business.

I have witnessed and participated in excellent debates in the House. I am not questioning quality, just quantity. In the report on Seanad reform issued by the Seanad Éireann Committee on Procedure and Privileges in 2004, one single sentence stands out in lights: “It has no dis- tinctive role in the Irish political system”. This is what Senators collectively accepted. What we have in our democracy is an increasingly disenchanted and disenfranchised citizenry with no power, connection or participation at local government level. On the other side, there is a highly centralised, presidential-style government which is not de facto accountable to the Dáil. In a backwater the Seanad has languished for 90 years.

Surely an Taoiseach and the Government must approach political reform holistically so that we can improve the political culture of our Republic. There is no joined-up strategic thinking. There are four roads being taken by the Government in devising its disconnected political reform plan. As the saying goes, when asking for directions in south Kerry, “Well, if you want to get there, I wouldn’t be starting from here.” Elements of Oireachtas reform such as the President’s term of office and electoral reform are being deliberated by the Constitutional Convention. That is one road. Another road is local government reform, which is driven by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, but this will not include real powers for revenue-raising or spending. A third road is Dáil reform, one that has not yet been built or delivered on in any meaningful way. This was alluded to by Deputy Charlie Flanagan, no less, chairperson of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party. The final byroad we are asked to ven- ture down is Seanad abolition by way of constitutional amendment and this Bill. This is some Ordnance Survey map of political reform with no compass, no map and no idea. It is incoherent and confusing. I have no idea where we will finally end up.

The potential worth of the Seanad will only be at its highest the minute a Dáil with only 158 Deputies and no actual Dáil reform comes into existence. That is the challenge facing me today. There has been no appetite for Seanad reform from the only institution that can effect change - namely, successive Governments. So many reports, so little change. The major and possibly only current function of the Seanad is that it allows legislation time to breathe, to cool a little, as George Washington said of the role of an Upper House. Maybe the proposals put forward by an Taoiseach with regard to the reform of the committees would achieve this. My worry is whether this will actually happen. Yesterday, the Taoiseach promised a more serious look at reforming the Lower House. However, it has not been achieved yet.

I will not stand in the way of an Taoiseach’s decision to put this amendment of the Constitu- tion to the people. However, political reform is about increasing trust in our political institutions and encouraging greater participation in our parliamentary democracy that reflects and represents the pluralistic society of the Republic. This piecemeal, stuttering, incoherent political reform agenda does not invite confidence. My personal challenge is whether the abolition of the Seanad is the right question to be asking.

03/07/2013P00200Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House. I hope he has happy memories of the time he was with us here.

641 Seanad Éireann

03/07/2013P00300Senator David Cullinane: He will not be coming back.

03/07/2013P00400Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: I recall when the Minister of State sat on this side of the House. He was particularly successful in holding the Government to account in those days and always researched his contributions exceptionally well. For those of us on the other side of the House, we always felt what he had to say was worthwhile, meaningful and responsible, and ensured that what we were doing for the citizens was right.

When I first decided to go forward for Seanad election, I believed I was doing so as a public service. I was not aware at the time that there was a salary or that it was as good as it was. At that time, it was not about salary; I just wanted to give public service. I felt the same of most of the other Senators I have met.

There are perceptions, contrived or otherwise, about the Seanad’s role that exist outside this House. The idea of abolishing the Seanad came right in the middle of an emotional general election campaign. It was dropped like a bombshell with no preparation or consultation. For anyone wanting to get rid of Seanad Éireann, the climate was right at that time to do so. The climate was also right for getting rid of Dáil Éireann. The people were angry and had every reason to be. The issues being raised during the general election campaign concerned every individual. There was fear in the land, fear for the future. People were suicidal at the way things were developing. Nothing really has changed. Those fears are still out there, by the way, with people feeling hurt, let down and not properly represented. The mood was that the people must be given a sacrificial offering from the political system. Seanad Éireann was selected to be just that. I do not believe any greater thought was given to the proposal. Unfortunately, we have not had a focused and constructive debate with a White Paper or Green Paper on the proposal. I do not believe the abolition of a House of Parliament in the manner suggested at that time would have satisfied the people in the long term. Eventually, they would have seen it for what it was, and realised that Seanad Éireann was being treated as the sacrificial lamb.

Unfortunately, the approach taken at the time condemned the debate to cul-de-sac status. It is as simple as that. The debate has really been all over the place since then. I will give some examples. Incidentally, I have great admiration for the Taoiseach. He knows that I think he is genuine and sincere. I have to say that some of the arguments that were initially put forward, precisely because we did not have a focused debate, ensured this debate would be fragmented and inconclusive. At that time, we were asking people to vote on something without giving them all the background information on it. It is absolutely unreal to say this House did not stop the breakdown of the Celtic tiger.

03/07/2013Q00200Senator Darragh O’Brien: Hear, hear.

03/07/2013Q00300Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: What was happening in Dáil Éireann at exactly the same time? Why pick Seanad Éireann as an example when referring to institutions that failed to do their jobs? In fact, we did our job. On several occasions, I spoke from the Government benches on various issues in a way that would have seemed anti-Government. I adopted an independent line on many economic issues at that time. We need to be fair when it comes to the economy. I am no economist, but I know one basic concept when it comes to the economy. The economy is like a turning wheel. What is at the top does not stay there and what is at the bottom does not stay there. During the Celtic tiger years, the man in the street, the man in the pub and the woman in the street could tell it could not last. All of that was already out there. We tried to represent that in our contributions here. 642 3 July 2013 Having brought that into the equation, the Taoiseach went on to suggest that we failed to reform this House when we do not have the authority or the right to do so. We participated in a reform process. I was very central to it on behalf of Fianna Fáil. Even now, I feel the paper we drew up at that time was worthwhile. It was radical in many ways. We were not just looking at where we were at that time. We were looking at what the potential was. I will mention one of the examples of that potential that we cited. We tend to forget the dreadful days of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. During that period, many contributions on the Troubles were made in this House on the Order of Business every single morning.

Following the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, when there was some light at the end of the tunnel, the Seanad had an opportunity to help to copperfasten what had been achieved. At that time, there was an opportunity for representatives from the Northern Ireland Assembly to come and address this House. In fairness, that would never happen with Dáil Éireann. We did not avail of that opportunity, but it is still there. I am sad because I feel we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to Northern Ireland. There are still serious sectarian and other issues under the surface in the North of Ireland. We do not want to go back to the dark days. The only hope of dialogue we had involved this House and the Assembly in the North of Ireland.

How many people on the street are talking about the hundreds of directives that are coming from Europe? I know we have committees, but they are not being examined, in fairness. They are being accepted willy-nilly. We end up wondering where the change came from and what directive brought it about. This House is ideally placed to deal with those directives. As Senator Mac Conghail said, there are people in this House - professionals and others - who have huge expertise, experience and common sense. It is better to have people who have come through an electoral system than some kind of toothless think-tank of people, put together by the Govern- ment, who will do exactly what the Civil Service tells them to do. That is not the case here. We have people with expertise.

I cannot think of any better people to deal with all the directives from Europe than the Mem- bers of this House who have backgrounds in the arts, business and industry and who understand they are accountable to their own electorates. That continues to be the mandate that is required for democracy. It does not stand up to examination to suggest in some way that getting rid of the Seanad will make a major contribution to reform. It is quite clear that we have been lack- ing accountability in the past. In the past, there was a chance for accountability in this House. We were not just rubber-stamping legislation that came from the Dáil. A third of all legislation was initiated here. One of the most major pieces of legislation in the history of the State, the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, was initiated in Seanad Éireann.

Why is the perception at odds with the reality? I think there are a number of reasons for that. Ministers in this Government, the last Government and every Government - I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, is different - do not really like the idea of coming in, sitting in the ministerial chair and being rigorously asked to account in minute detail for their handling of certain issues. That is one of the reasons there is a view out there that life could be made easier by getting rid of the Seanad. It does not fit in with what the public is being told, however, because what is being proposed involves the removal of accountability. I still believe this House has done an exceptionally good job with regard to accountability.

I would like to mention a second reason for the widespread perception which is at odds with the reality. There is nobody from the media in the Press Gallery at the moment. They are never there. They will come in if they think there is going to be a row or a fight. They have a 643 Seanad Éireann holier-than-thou attitude. I ask them to leave aside the sensationalist issues and sit in this House - perhaps for the next four weeks - while we go through legislation and deal with the issues of the day. It is very easy to give a caricature of what a Senator is or to poke fun, but it might not be real or based on fact.

It seems we are prepared to sacrifice a House of Parliament rather than look at how we might improve it. An opportunity is being lost. Constitutional change is required if we are to do any meaningful and worthwhile reform. A single question - “to be or not to be” - will be asked in the referendum. It is as simple as that. We could easily have gone the whole hog while still giving the people their say. That is what we want to do. We are not trying to deny the people their say. We could have given them their say on the question of “to be or not to be” while going a step further and also asking them whether they would be happier about the Seanad if A, B and C were done to change the way it works.

It is a sad time for democracy. It is a sad time for the people because they have not been served well by the manner in which this has been handled. This referendum will not give a conclusive answer. It will leave a vacuum. I have not seen any plan B. The Taoiseach spoke about a kind of plan B - a second House that would not be elected, almost - but that seems to have been sidelined. I suggest it has been sidelined because it was not thought out. Similarly, his argument about the cost of the Seanad was not thought out. It was sidelined after we were told by officials that it was not costed. Those examples suggest the arguments we were given were not correct.

We find ourselves in this position because of a precipitative move that was made in the middle of a general election campaign. It is now up to the people. Our only hope at this stage is that the people will stop, reflect and think. They need to decide whether they are being well served, whether they are being given an offer that is worthwhile, whether the Seanad is being blamed for something it should not be blamed for and whether an opportunity to develop the Seanad in a meaningful and proper way is being missed.

2 o’clock

03/07/2013R00100Senator John Whelan: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, who I know to be a fair-minded man who takes an interest in debate in this House. Even at this late stage, I ask him to hear us out in a meaningful way and to convey our observations and concerns to Cabinet. It is not too late for a change of tack.

I admit that the Seanad is a stacked deck. It is a creature of the Government of the day. As constituted, it may not be fit for purpose. Not one Member or anyone else to whom I have spoken as part of the general discourse on the issue wishes to retain the Seanad as it is. The Seanad is over 90 years old. Any organisation which has been in existence that long is overdue for reform. All we are seeking is an opportunity for that to be considered. Senator Ó Murchú is correct to say that this policy was a whim and a flight of fancy in the heat of battle during a general election. It was not thought through. I suggest that not only was there no plan B, there was no plan A. No one knew what the game plan was at all. That is abundantly clear from the reasons which have been set out to promote the idea that the Seanad requires outright abolition. They ring hollow and are threadbare.

When the Taoiseach was here last week, I formed the view that his own heart was no longer in the idea. I am an admirer of the Taoiseach who is an honest and honourable man. I appeal

644 3 July 2013 to him, therefore, at this late stage to step back and provide us with the opportunity to have a referendum in due course. When he spoke to the House last week, he engaged in a pedestrian amble through the sections of the Bill. It was not convincing and he did not speak with any great conviction. I make these comments as an observation not a criticism. I do not think there is anyone at the Cabinet table who continues to believe this is a good idea which should be followed through at this juncture.

If people are genuinely interested in reform, why do they not bring forward reform ideas? The Government has it within its power to reform the Seanad. No one else has the power. In terms of a plan A or plan B, is the Government going to ignore the will of the people if they decide to oppose the referendum and to vote for the retention of the Seanad? Are we to believe the Government will ignore that decision and not then proceed to reform the Seanad? How ab- surd would that be? Perhaps, we will have a second Seanad referendum to get the Government the result it wants.

I direct the attention of the Minister of State to an opportunity Governments have had for 30 years. The proposal is the 32nd proposal to amend the Constitution. It is a monstrous one which will vandalise and dismantle many articles. The seventh amendment to the Constitution in 1979 authorised the Government to extend the franchise within the Seanad election process to universities across the country. Not one Government since 1979 has seen fit to abide by the will of the people and to follow through on the mandate and instruction the people gave them in the referendum result. What is the purpose or point in having a referendum if the result is to be ignored?

It is not right that the Government continues to ignore the vacancy in the Seanad. The seat must be filled if there is to be any respect for the democratic process. Over the last 20 years, a range of politicians have gone on non-stop about the diaspora. Perhaps, the Taoiseach would like to take the opportunity to fill the vacant seat in the Seanad with a representative of the emi- grant community - someone who has experienced having to emigrate? There are 300,000 citizens who have been forced to emigrate in the last five years alone. Would it not be a good idea to fill the vacancy with someone who could speak on their behalf or represent their perspective? There continue to be over 400,000 unemployed people in the country. Would it not be an option for the Taoiseach to nominate an unemployed person or representative of the interests, perspectives and life experiences of the unemployed? Would that not be a worthy perspective to embed in the Seanad to be taken into account in the legislative process. There will be an Oireachtas banking inquiry, which I support. It is not before time. Perhaps, there is an opportunity to fill the vacant Seanad seat with a person with judicial or legal expertise to head up the inquiry in an independent fashion on behalf of the Oireachtas.

There are all sorts of options and opportunities for reform which the Government could grasp if it was so minded. I do not believe it is. The Government has bought into this idea on a knee-jerk basis and is now stuck with it. The Government does not know how to get out of it. As Senator Ó Murchú said, one need only look at the reasons which have been set out. The Government had two years to formulate the Bill yet its proposal is for a hasty referendum in the autumn. I ask the Minister of State to set out the date of the referendum. Senators and the public are entitled to know. Are we going to return in September to be given three weeks’ notice? Are we to be ambushed? It would be poor judgment and a poor thing to do. There is no benefit or purpose in this proposal. The Government should adopt Senator Quinn’s reasoned amendment and adjourn the process to allow for further debate and consideration in September. The referendum could duly take place next year in tandem with local and European elections and 645 Seanad Éireann be discussed in the round as part of a reform package. Such an approach would have a number of benefits. It would lead to further consultation and public discourse and save the Govern- ment the €20 million price of a costly autumn referendum. Even if the proposal is carried, the Seanad will continue to sit until the next general election. There is no benefit, therefore, to front-loading an autumn referendum.

On the issue of costs, I record for the purposes of accuracy that the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission confirmed in its annual report that the direct cost of the Seanad is €8.8 million. While that is a great deal of money, it is not the €20 million or €30 million figure which was unfairly bandied about by the Taoiseach and Tánaiste when they set this process in motion. The Seanad has been unfairly characterised as elitist. It is easy to use that word and to fail to follow up with what one means by it. Is it a reference to the chandeliers in the Chamber? Perhaps, if we changed them to florescent lights and got gaudy curtains as opposed to the nice drapes, people would feel more comfortable.

03/07/2013R00200Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): That is the OPW’s job.

03/07/2013R00300Senator John Whelan: Would it be less elite?

I was elected to the Seanad from the dole queue. I come from 1266 St. Evin’s Park in Mon- asterevin, which is a local authority housing estate. Everyone has his or her own story. The Seanad has a great diversity of representation, which is one of its riches. It represents and reflects a broad cross-section of Irish life, interests, perspectives, vocations, values and expertise. The Taoiseach has tried to rubbish what he has referred to as a 1930s vocational values system. There is nothing wrong with that. We do not need less expertise. I learn here from Members who contribute according to their life experience and expertise. As Senator Mac Conghaile pointed out, rather than contributing to everything, perhaps Members would be better contributing only on their areas of expertise.

It is not true that the Seanad is not elected and has no mandate. For 30 years as a journalist, I covered council meetings. It has become fashionable to disparage the role of councillors but they are the building blocks of our democratic process and model. They are judged harshly by neighbours and peers in their communities, towns, villages and townlands. They must get over 1,000 votes in their communities. In turn, they have a mandate to elect a certain number of Senate seats. I see that as a mandate by proxy. The idea that people mushroom up and find themselves in the Seanad is not true. The same applies to the university panels. People must go before their peers for judgment. The idea the Seanad is elite is wrong.

The Taoiseach has taken no account of the 110 nominating bodies who take part in the process of putting forward people to contest the Seanad elections. This includes bodies like the IFA, IBEC, Chambers Ireland, trade unions and the Irish Exporters Association. Are we to take it that they are elitist? Has anyone consulted them about this process? I implore the Minister of State to take back to Government the need to put back the referendum. Why the indecent haste?

I would not like to have it on my political CV that I was part of the Government that marks and celebrates the centenary of 1916 by dismantling a key component of our democracy by abolishing the Seanad. That is how it will be marked in 2016. It is a short-sighted move and needs to be considered. It needs to go back to the Constitutional Convention. I implore the Minister of State to put a stop to this. We need more accountability, more transparency, more

646 3 July 2013 expertise and more discourse, not less.

03/07/2013S00200Senator Darragh O’Brien: Well said.

03/07/2013S00300Senator David Cullinane: In equal measure, I agree and disagree with what the previous Senator said. I also agree with a huge amount of what was said by earlier speakers. It is ironic that the debate is happening in this way, with every Senator being given ten minutes, with equality of speaking time and with everyone having the opportunity to speak. There is no rush and we will work our way through Second Stage and move onto Committee Stage with no guillotine and with sufficient debate. That should apply to every item of legislation but it is not the case. The reality is that 56% of legislation introduced by this Government was guillotined. Can someone in government explain to me if we have eight fewer Deputies and no Senators, how in God’s name we will improve the situation?

The Taoiseach says we will have an added layer of scrutiny of legislation in the Dáil once the Seanad is abolished. How is that possible if the Dáil, as it is, is incapable of properly scrutinising legislation given that 56% legislation has been guillotined? That does not make sense. It feeds into what the previous Senators were saying. The Taoiseach bounced us all into this issue. He made the announcement in the heat of an election campaign but unfortunately he was not big enough to say that he made a mistake and that we need to take a step back and examine it in more detail.

There is merit in people putting forward the view that the Seanad should be abolished. I always held the view that the Seanad, as it is, should be abolished. I disagree with the previous Senator because I believed the Seanad, as it is, is undemocratic and elitist because the vast majority of citizens outside the Chamber cannot vote for people in the Chamber. As long as that is the case, people will not have an affinity or a close relationship with the Seanad. The starting point must be universal franchise. While I want the Seanad as it is to be abolished, the option of reform should be put to the people. We should have properly explored all options. Many ideas have been floated by all parties. I attended the Seanad Chamber in 2003, when I was a member of Waterford City Council, as part of a delegation from my party, with Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin and Conor Murphy, MP, who was then in the Northern Ireland Assembly. At the time, Mary O’Rourke was the Leader of the House and was seeking presentations from all parties and outside groups. I took part in that discussion.

There have been several attempts to reform the Seanad. The Taoiseach made reference to this when delivering his speech on Second Stage on the Bill. He referred to successive Govern- ments having failed to reform the Seanad. He is as responsible as anyone else for this. Simply to say that the political establishment has failed to reform the Seanad and, because of that, we should press the nuclear button and go for abolition is wrong and ill thought out.

The Taoiseach was given any number of opportunities to do the right thing. He set up the Constitutional Convention and my party supported him on that. I am a member of the Consti- tutional Convention and I have enjoyed all contributions. The reality is that the remit of the Constitutional Convention was very narrow. There have been very good debates on good issues but they should have been given the opportunity to have a profound look at real electoral and political reform. The only reform it was allowed to look at was the narrow issue of Dáil electoral reform. Surprise, surprise, the vast majority came back to say that the current system is working well. It is no surprise to anyone because the least contentious of any of the issues in respect of electoral and political reform was the PR-STV system in the State, which most 647 Seanad Éireann parties support. They think it is a good system and do not want to fix it if it is not broke. It was no surprise that over 90% of the members of the convention suggested no change. They should have been asked to examine wider electoral reform and political reform.

This brings me to one of the reasons I do not support the abolition of the Seanad without the option of reform being put to the people. The first option should have been whether people want a reformed Seanad and to have that discussion at the Constitutional Convention, allowing the convention to discuss the issue and examine whether there is a need for a second Cham- ber. If they decide there is, the Government can come back with proposals and put them to the people. Unfortunately, that was not done.

Where is the Government at the moment in terms of its political reform agenda? The Gov- ernment has flunked because it has been all about abolition and reduction. It started with local government. The previous Senator spoke about the importance of local government. I was a councillor and I will testify to the fact that councillors are the building blocks. They do a difficult job but it is also worthwhile and adds value to our democracy. The problem is that local government is very weak and, like the Seanad, the one thing it needs most is more power. Central Government has consistently refused to give local government more powers. Every previous Government has refused to properly reform local government, the same as they have refused to properly reform the Seanad. It is not the fault of councillors or local government or the people who work in local government; it is the fault of the system. We are not arguing that we need to abolish local government because of that. To reform it, we need to give local government the power it needs. The problem with the Government’s approach is that it is about reducing numbers. I challenged the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, asking him to explain the new powers given to local government since he came into office. He has merged local authorities, abolished some councils and is reducing the number of councillors. I asked him to show us the colour of his money in respect of real reform and the new powers granted to local government. The reality is that there is none and he has been unable to show any real powers given to local government. In this state we have a weak system of local government and a national Parliament with two Houses which are dysfunctional and need to be reformed. The Dáil needs to be reformed as much as the Seanad. The Minister is fortunate to be in office, but the vast majority of backbench Deputies, Government and Op- position, do not have the powers they should because all power is in the hands of the Cabinet. That is an unfortunate reality of our political system. It is often argued that perhaps four or five Ministers run the country. That is not democratic or healthy and not the way to do business.

The Government’s solution is to reduce the number of Deputies and abolish the Seanad, with no consideration given to rebalancing power between central and local government and transfer powers from the Executive to the Legislature. We have Mickey Mouse cosmetic so- lutions, including sitting four days each week which is great for mná na hÉireann living in counties Donegal, Waterford, Kerry and Wexford. Few women’s groups would be in favour of this and the implications it would have for enticing women into politics. The problem is the Government parties are not thinking through any of these proposals. They are rushing into cosmetic Dáil reform because they have not properly thought through the consequences of Seanad reform.

The Taoiseach made a comparison with other countries of similar size which have single chambers. What he has failed to point out is that every country with a unicameral parliament has a much stronger local government system. Some have presidents with executive powers, while in others there is a separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. The 648 3 July 2013 Taoiseach, therefore, did not compare like with like. He was comparing apples with oranges. The Minister cannot argue in favour of a single chamber in a country with such a centralised system of governance where all power lies in the hands of the Cabinet and the Dáil and local government are as weak as they are. If so, he should explain where the checks and balances will be because I cannot see them. If the Seanad is abolished, there will be fewer Deputies and a weak system of local government. I oppose the Bill for the reasons I have outlined.

03/07/2013T00200Senator Paul Bradford: I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this important legislation. A ten minute slot is in no way sufficient to make the substantial arguments I need to present on this subject, but I hope I will have an opportunity on Committee Stage and during the referendum campaign to expand on my views.

I welcome the legislation because it fulfils a commitment given by both the Government and Fine Gael. I believe in parties keeping their promises. It is welcome that we will vote in a referendum, but I will not simply oppose the referendum on polling day because between now and then I will do everything possible to encourage people to vote “No” because I believe in democracy and, as I have said in the House on many occasions, that this proposal was never about political reform. I saw it previously and see it now as a cynical political exercise to win Dáil seats and not to change politics. I would be the first to say politics needs urgent reform at national and local level, but scrapping a House of the Oireachtas and demolishing one third of the Oireachtas is not real reform or brave politics; it is simplistic populism which the people will see through.

The Minister served in this House. I have served in it for many years and had the fortunate experience of serving in the other House. We can both compare and contrast the debates that take place in both Houses. I have often described the Dáil, as I did when I served in it, as a Punch and Judy show. Governments say “Yes” and the Opposition says “No”. It has always been the case. This House, historically, has engaged in the great debates on legal, social, cultural and historical matters which led to societal change. I was privileged to serve in it when Professor John A. Murphy made mind-changing speeches about Ireland, Northern Ireland and the future of the island. I was honoured to serve with Mrs. Mary Robinson who some years previous to my membership had taken the courageous decision in this House, which she could not have done in the Lower House, to bring forward legislation on abortion and contraception as part of the social agenda. I am privileged that one of my colleagues, Senator DAaid Norris, used this House to pursue the rights of gay people on this island, which could not have happened in the Dáil. None of these advances could have happened without the Seanad.

We are debating a proposal that is bad politics. We often speak about flawed politics. When the Opposition tables a motion, the Government states it is flawed andvice versa. This is truly bad, cynical politics and I will stand over that statement. Unfortunately, I missed the Taoise- ach’s contribution to the debate last week. It was his second visit to the House. He suggested - I agreed with him at the time - when he was Leader of the Opposition that the Taoiseach of this land should attend the Seanad once a month. That was part of the radical, effective and real politics document put forward by the Taoiseach, the Minister and Fine Gael in early 2009. We proposed a new Seanad with significant new powers and a directly elected membership which would truly represent modern Ireland. It would not have been a mini-Dáil or a semi-Dáil but a new Seanad. I fully agreed with this, as did every member of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party who endorsed that document. I was present at the MacGill Summer School when the Taoise- ach expanded on these views and referred to how we could play such a significant role in the turnaround of the economy. His views in spring and summer 2009 were correct, but something 649 Seanad Éireann happened politically. Days before a famous Fine Gael dinner in October or November 2009, there was a transformation in political thinking within the party and I am not sure who was responsible. I know some of them work as well paid advisers in Government Buildings earning twice and three times the salary of Members of this House. Some might call that good politics or thinking politics, but I believe it is nothing but cynical politics.

The public will eventually make the decision as to whether the Seanad should be abolished and we must make the case for our existence and I do not mean for our individual seats. A new Seanad will have to have a new electoral system and it will probably not involve the majority of current Members, myself included. However, this is not about saving our seats; it is about saving an institution that has served the country well. No one can name a country that has been better served politically by reducing democracy or which has been better served by giving more power to government.

Some people talk about the cost of the Seanad. A figure of €20 million plucked from the air is presented, but the direct cost is €6 million. We are promised that the Dáil will suddenly become much more active. If the Dáil is to be more active, sit more often and have more committees, that will cost money. However, there will not be Dáil reform. The only reform of the current Dáil is the fraudulent Friday, whereby the House sits one Friday each month. No questions can be asked; no vote can be called and the Dáil generally adjourns at 12.30 p.m., with all of the Members going home.

That is Dáil reform under the current Administration. Of course, we are promised there will be an expanded agenda of Dáil reform, but I would not wait for that. Politics need to be reformed, the Dáil and Seanad need reform, the electoral system and local government need reform. The Seanad electoral system is a mystery to most people on this island and while I will not say it is exclusive it is certainly not an inclusive system of electing people to the Houses of the Oireachtas. The Dáil’s electoral system can also be quite mysterious. On the last occasion that I put my name before the people in a Dáil election I got 9,000 first preference votes but did not win a seat, while on the same day a candidate in another constituency won a seat after getting just 900 first preference votes. The Dáil, therefore, can be a mysterious political place and proportional representation can be a mysterious system too.

The Minister knows that this country needs new politics that are substantial and thinking, not sloganeering, simplistic, catch-all politics. Traditionally, in this House we do not generally refer to what is happening in the other House. When I first became a Member of this House, the then Cathaoirleach, former Senator Treas Honan, would jump out of the Chair if one mentioned the other House. However, let us call a spade a spade. There is a substantive debate taking place in the other House at present and, in a sense, it shows the need for the calm and reassuring debates that take place in this House, where Members are not afraid to speak, where they present their opinions in all their complexity and are listened to with respect. My question to the people of Ireland who will vote in this referendum is, do they really feel that the other House should be given all the power, for example, to remove a President? Do they feel that the Members of Dáil Éireann should alone decide whether, for example, President Michael D. Hig- gins should be removed from office? Do they believe that the other House alone should have the power to remove judges from office? I do not believe so. This House is about checks and balances, and Irish politics and the Irish public need checks and balances.

The Chair is going to call on me to conclude although I have a great deal more to say. Ire- land needs new, substantial politics, new Government structures, a new Dáil, new Seanad and 650 3 July 2013 new local government. The Minister of State was with me some years ago when the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party was given an excellent presentation by a Mr. Molloy, who spoke about the structures of Government that need to be changed and about the drive and ambition we could have for this country. We must think bigger than simply saying that our problems will go away if the Seanad is abolished. The Seanad has not been perfect but it was not solely responsible for the grievous state in which this Government found the country. Members of the Dáil, Ministers and the Opposition, in terms of their excess and silence, were surely equally guilty.

In conclusion, I am proud to have been a Member of the Oireachtas. I am proud to have been a Deputy and very proud to have been a Senator. Perhaps the new electoral and political system which I believe must be put in place will mean that my time here will conclude, but I believe this House is worth saving. We need a space and place where people can speak freely and call a spade a spade, not the double speak that is often the only debate in the other House.

03/07/2013U00200Senator Marc MacSharry: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points on this issue. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes. One wonders what he did wrong to be sent here for this debate because I know he does not agree with the abolition of the Seanad.

We have had this debate many times. First, may I say how pleased I am to see so many members of the media here to listen to us. I suppose it is testament to much of the reasoning behind the wish to abolish part of the Oireachtas. People have spoken about the various thirds but if we were abolishing the Presidency or the Dáil, the Press Gallery would be full. I do not wish to be over political but I will certainly criticise the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach, because he wants this House to be abolished, is manipulating a scenario that will ensure no other outcome.

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

03/07/2013U00400Senator Marc MacSharry: He has a very willing partner in that cause in the media. As I have said to other Members for years, one had to be either gay, a former president of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, ICTU, or a Sunday Independent journalist to get coverage in this House. Otherwise, one did not get coverage in “Oireachtas Report”. Of course that is for the alcoholic insomniacs, as Deputy Pat Rabbitte once called them, who stay up until the middle of the night to watch that programme. Other than that, despite the efforts of Jimmy Walsh, there was no coverage of this House or its work. What the media like to do is cover the Marc Mac- Sharry intemperate outburst or the colourful language of Senator Terry Leyden on whatever issue, and such scenarios are replicated time and again. They do not want to talk about the family home Bill, the FGM Bill which Senator Bacik tabled and the countless Private Members’ Bills all of us have had a hand in over the years, myself included. They just want to cover what they choose.

I had a row with a journalist on air, which probably did me no good considering the coverage which followed for a few days afterwards, a few weeks ago. I asked him if he knew how many Private Members’ Bills were passed by the Seanad and he said he did not. I told him he should inform himself. He came on to RTE as a paid commentator in addition to his salary as a journalist to tell people authoritatively what he thinks should happen to the Seanad when he has not taken the time to educate himself about what goes on here. That is the truth.

They do not know what is going on here. They say if we were doing stuff that was more useful and interesting to the public maybe they would cover it, but that is just a cover for people

651 Seanad Éireann being too lazy to cover it, not wanting to cover it and hiding from the fact they do not by saying it is not worthy of coverage. That has been replicated over the 11 years I have been here. I am sure the father of the House, Senator Norris, and others can say that was always the case.

It is the fault of all taoisigh that the Seanad was never reformed. In the commentary I hear on the airwaves, the one group of people who have nothing to do with it are Senators. I have known no Senator who is not an avid enthusiast not just of reform but radical reform. Those of us who are here long enough to remember the Mary O’Rourke report all provided submissions to it. Some of our issues were taken on board and others were not. We may have refined our views further since the report was published.

It was Fianna Fáil policy to reform the Seanad in its 2007 manifesto. As we know, the wheels came off the economy and so on and things moved on from there. In October 2009, as Senator Bradford said, in a rush of blood to the head on the way into the Fine Gael president’s dinner and to the shock of the then Fine Gael leader in the House, now Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, the now Taoiseach said he would abolish the Seanad.

As I have said many times, I can fully understand people in politics playing the ball. I can even understand people playing the man from time to time. How a leader with the experience of the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, wants to go about digging up the pitch makes no sense to me. I think of the Iranians wanting to get rid of the Shah without thinking what would replace him. I think of the Enabling Act in Berlin and things like that.

Real leadership is having the courage to take on vested interests and reform. It is not about abolishing things. It was a purely populist move which naturally captured the public’s imagi- nation at the time. There is, rightly, a level of apathy from people towards all politics at the moment. People will vote to abolish the Seanad, and we will spend 50 years trying to replace it and will not be able to get agreement on something to replace it.

In terms of more general reform of the entire system, it is not a criticism of this Government or an absolution of previous Governments, but what we have is a functional dictatorship which is called a democracy. The Taoiseach of the day decides on policy, advised by senior civil servants, political advisers and so on. A core group in Cabinet has the balance of power and influence and the Whip does the rest. There is very little, other than tokenism at parliamentary party meetings and some amendments here and there, that gets through the system.

As a result, the people are completely detached from the political process. They have no sense of ownership of the policy platform of the day because they do not feed into it. What radical policy difference was implemented by each of the six last Administrations? The reality is there is probably not much at all. A permanent Government is in place all the time.

I would love to see a scenario where the Cabinet would be elected and then step out. As in the American system they would have to sell their policies to the Parliament of the day. Both Houses are mere tools of the Cabinet of the day and the three or four people who decide what will happen. Love or hate the Taoiseach, his view is that the House should be abolished. The reality is that the full energy of Government will push that agenda. The Minister, Deputy Rich- ard Bruton, is the director of elections.

The matter is being taken seriously because the Government wants to abolish the Seanad. There is no information on what will replace it. There has been loose talk about a committee 652 3 July 2013 which will have experts on it. Who will they be? Will it lend itself to cronyism no matter who is in government? It is not a question of Fine Gael, the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin or any other party. Much could be done with the vehicle that is Seanad Éireann. All of us are in favour of reform.

There is one thing I find offensive when I hear commentary. We rightly hear praise of Gor- don Wilson, Maurice Hayes, Senator David Norris and Senator Zappone. I find it offensive that because I happen to be from a political party that in some way my contribution is compromised. I am on the industrial and commercial panel. I was a CEO in the Chambers of Commerce movement in which I was involved for years. I have started businesses which have gone bust, I have been unemployed and I have been employed. I have taken the vocational interest to which I am elected very seriously. I do not think anybody would be as qualified as me to be in it.

The theory of vocational sectoral interests being represented here is sound. Of course we should be directly elected by the people; that is something with which none of us disagrees. As I said, it is a question of the political will from the top four people who run the whole show. It happens to be the Taoiseach at the moment; it was Brian Cowen, Bertie Ahern and countless others over the years. Unless that will is there will be can be no reform. If it was up to us the Seanad would have been reformed already.

I pay tribute to the current Leader. Even though in the heat of debate we often clash, during my 11 years here he has been the best Leader. I know his hands are tied behind his back at a higher level within his political party. He has done great things to enhance the role of the Se- anad and is always very well organised when he comes to the House. He often has the answers prepared for questions we did not know we were about to ask.

It is a very sad day that it has come to this. To be truly remembered, if that were the wish of the Taoiseach, would be to have the courage to reform the Houses and make them a true instrument of the people. Sadly, I believe the people, as things are currently constructed within our political system, do not have any sense of ownership of the policy platform of the day. Unless that changes there will always be a certain level of apathy.

The Taoiseach should be careful for what he wishes. The people, sadly, will vote to abolish the Seanad. There will be a vacuum. One need only look at the number of amendments tabled over the course of the past year to see that. There are empty seats in the Gallery. Nobody wants to cover that and are only waiting for the next intemperate outburst from Marc MacSharry, Senator Leyden, Senator Norris or whoever.

It does an injustice to the Irish people to allow them to abolish one third of the instrument of the State without truly informing them what has gone on within the Houses. With the noble exception of Jimmy Walsh who recently retired, this House has only ever had token coverage. I do not mean to be overcritical of any journalist or media organisation, but it happens to be an absolute fact. As a result, there is no Referendum Commission or campaign which can accu- rately capture the amount of contribution the House has made to Irish society since its founda- tion. That is a very sad situation.

Sadly, nobody wants to hear from Senators in this debate because they will say we are being subjective and want to keep our jobs. That may be the case. Nevertheless, I hope some people want to keep the Seanad. Open It, Don’t Close It, Democracy Matters and those who have tabled Private Members’ Bills on Seanad reform all have the best possible intentions. If the

653 Seanad Éireann House is to be saved it will require civil society taking a stand and not former senior Ministers, however good they are, like Michael McDowell, saying they want to keep the House but want it reformed.

03/07/2013W00100Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: I was stunned the other day when Senator Sean Barrett re- vealed how much had been spent on legal advice in drawing up this Bill. Between that and the cost of holding the referendum, we are looking at a bill of some €23 million to ask the people whether the Seanad should be abolished. I will speak more about that in due course. Suffice to say, it seems an extraordinarily expensive exercise in these difficult times. We are all agreed that to retain the Upper House in its present form is not acceptable. The referendum the Gov- ernment proposes, however, is not giving people a fair choice. We are asking a nation of 4.6 million people, a considerable portion of whom have never attended a Seanad debate, could not say where the Chamber is located and have no idea what they are voting for, to say either “Yes” or “No” to the question of whether it should be abolished outright. It is one thing to ask people which meat they would prefer, beef or horse, as most citizens are very sure which of those two flavours they prefer. From conversations I have had with people around the country, however, it seems clear that citizens are not altogether informed and furnished with the facts in regard to what the Government is proposing. As such, they are not in a position to reach a decision that is in their own best interests and which best safeguards the future of their country, its future generations and its Constitution.

There are never any journalists here to report on what we are saying, but I very deliberately chose the horsemeat versus beef analogy in the context of the brilliant Bill being presented to the House later today by Senator Feargal Quinn, which deals with food provenance. The food industry in this country endured a series of disastrous events at the end of last year and earlier this year. One of the great successes of our economy, as we work towards Food Harvest 2020, very nearly came toppling down. Senator Quinn has come up with an excellent proposal which would allow us to lead the way on this issue in Europe and restore trust and transparency for the consumer. Yet again it is the Seanad that is to the fore when it comes to legislative innovation. The financial argument for the abolition of the Upper House has gone out the window, as we have discovered. The Government’s alternative plan for ensuring legislation is given the time and scrutiny it needs, a function which should be performed by the Seanad, will be a costly exercise with no appreciable savings. That is the word from the Minister for Public Expendi- ture and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, who is surely the person who would know. We are talking about a major constitutional change to the way in which our country has been governed for the past 91 years.

It is interesting to recall that the abolition of the first Senate in 1936 was a reaction to what was perceived as the unacceptable reach of its powers, which allowed Senators to obstruct constitutional reforms favoured by the Government of the day. The new Seanad created by Éamon de Valera - the gelded version - is the body we are left with today, a House which is badly in need of reform if it is to make a valuable contribution to Irish democracy. A more prudent, in- tellectual and sophisticated Government would see the public appetite for political reform as a remarkable opportunity to embrace the cream of the reform proposals that have been presented by Members of this House and others. Indeed, some very insightful and visionary reforms were proposed by the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, when he was a Senator. I salute him for listening to us yesterday and today, but the reality is that he is a poacher turned game- keeper. I long to look into his head and discover what he is really thinking. He was passionate about reform of this House in his time here. Like Senator Paul Bradford and others, he has had

654 3 July 2013 experience of both Houses. I would love to know his real thoughts on the subject. In the extraordinarily challenging times in which we now live, where life seems to move at the speed of light, it is more important than ever that our Government seek to build a new process for leading and governing this country. There is an opportunity to set out new standards for the business of restoring a modern, fit-for-purpose, efficient and healthy nation that is the envy of all other democracies for many years to come.

If I thought that Irish democracy would somehow be improved by abolishing rather than reforming the Seanad, I would be swayed by the Government’s proposal. I have heard nothing, however, to convince me it will, nor have I read any research which supports the case. In fact, I fear that the reformation of the Oireachtas envisaged by this Government will merely further concentrate power in the hands of a Dáil elite and exclude other voices or opinions in Parlia- ment. When preparing for debates in this House, I am often dismayed and have low motivation when I consider that any such effort is essentially pointless as a consequence of the Whip system. Too often we see politicians voting against what they believe in because the powers that be tell them they must do so. Even when the 31 Government Senators have strong opinions or special interests and wisdom on a subject matter, it simply does not matter as they are obliged to vote as directed by the Whip. As a non-political person entering the Oireachtas for the first time, I was very demotivated when I discovered the tightness of the grip of the Government Whip on Senators and Deputies in what I thought was a democratic institution. This is one of the greatest problems we face in this Chamber - namely, that the rigid Whip system does not allow for independent thought. I appreciate the need for the Whip in some cases, but it should not be applied as rigidly as it is in the Seanad, particularly on social or moral issues. We will see the problems that causes next week.

The Government, in advancing its argument to abolish the Chamber, has pointed to several European countries and their parliamentary and political systems. I encourage it to consider whether we might also embrace the practice in those countries as it applies to the Whip system. Three areas in which a dedicated function for the Seanad would greatly enhance its relevance and bring it closer to the general public are scrutiny of European Union legislation, examination of public appointments and the holding of inquiries. More importantly, these are three functions in which the Oireachtas currently falls way short in its duty to the Irish people. That is particularly evident in respect of EU legislation, which is often not debated at all in the Oireachtas before it becomes law. Rubber-stamping of those proposals happens every week in the committees. There is serious cause for concern that a failure to subject EU laws to intensive examination could have an impact on the welfare of Irish people and the safeguarding of our beautiful country. The Seanad has clear potential to step up to the plate in this regard and fill the void. Such a role makes perfect sense in a context in which the Lisbon treaty strengthens the ability of the Oireachtas to scrutinise proposed EU legislation and assess its impact on the everyday lives of Irish citizens. Perhaps I am being very optimistic, but I remain convinced that the Seanad will ultimately be reformed rather than abolished. I agree with much of what Senator Marc MacSharry had to say, but I am very hopeful that the Irish public might surprise him. I certainly hope it does.

03/07/2013W00200Senator Marc MacSharry: As do I.

03/07/2013W00300Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: We must, in any case, have a plan B. It is just as well the Minister of State has all those reform proposals stored in his head. An issue that concerns me greatly is the additional workload that will be placed on committees under the Taoiseach’s plan for Oireachtas reform in the event that the Seanad is indeed abolished. The current committee 655 Seanad Éireann system does not work and, like the Upper House, is much in need of reform. Attendance at committee meetings can be quite poor and participation is sometimes hit and miss. My own experience as a member of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine is that members often make an excellent contribution. In general, however, meetings are often shy of members and would be very shy indeed in the absence of Senators. This low attendance culture could not be allowed to continue if the Seanad were no more. I seek assurance from the Government that Deputies will be gently forced to attend committee meetings and actively participate if the Seanad is no longer part of the political system. The Government might consider scheduling committee meetings at times when the Dáil is not sitting. Holding them at 8 a.m., for example, would allow full engagement by members before beginning the parliamentary business of the day at 10.30 a.m. Consideration should also be given to a 48-week year. Senator David Cullinane mentioned that mná na hÉireann have to get home, but a 48-week year should become the norm for both Dáil and Seanad, if the latter is retained.

The decision to hold the referendum in late September or early October should be revisited. As other Members suggested, it would surely be economically prudent to have it at the same time as the local and European elections. As a realist, I recognise that the ink is more or less dry on that particular decision and it will not be changed. At the very least, however, I hope the Government will commit to holding the vote at the weekend so that schools are not obliged to close. This would afford the greatest possible number of people the opportunity to cast their vote and would not require working families to fork out for additional child care. I have to commend the Government on its strategy and foresight in timing the referendum so that people who are feeling pre-budget discontent will have a nice opportunity to vent their frustration by abolishing at least one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It might well seem an attractive option in the face of a prolonged banking crisis, mortgage arrears, unemployment, emigration and the frustration and misery that so many citizens continue to experience in these very difficult times.

3 o’clock

The expensive referendum offered to the nation is antidemocratic and belittles all of us. I believe in democracy and I believe in Ireland and its future, but most of all, I want to know for certain that we will work together to protect democracy and the rights of our citizens and our country. We are planning to carve out one-third of our Oireachtas and we are doing it in a very haphazard, rushed manner. I support Senator Feargal Quinn’s amendment because we need to slow down on this. There is more debate to happen and I would like to ensure we inform our citizens before they go to the polls.

03/07/2013X00200Senator Terry Brennan: Níl mórán le rá agamsa, ach ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an Aire Stáit go dtí an Seanad ar an drochlá seo. Ceapaim gur drochlá é seo don Seanad.

03/07/2013X00300Senator Sean D. Barrett: Aontaím leat.

03/07/2013X00400Senator Terry Brennan: This is a very difficult Bill to deal with for all of us, for the Gov- ernment, the Opposition and Independents. As the Leader, Senator Cummins, stated here last week, the Taoiseach pointed out in his statement to the House that countless reports on Seanad reform are gathering dust or have been consigned to the scrap heap by successive governments.

As has been mentioned, hundreds of amendments to legislation have been initiated in this House by the current Seanad. Many of these amendments have been accepted by the Lower House, which is testimony to the contribution made by Members of this Seanad to the legisla-

656 3 July 2013 tive process. Some ten different reforms in the Seanad have been completed over the years, but several governments have not felt it important or worthwhile to reform this House. The Taoiseach himself sat around the Cabinet table in the past and obviously did not promote the implementation of any of the proposed reforms. However, he is now leading the charge for the total abolition of the Seanad.

Committees, outsiders and unelected individuals will have all the answers, but I am not so sure that is right. I do not believe it is. There appears to be expertise from all walks of life, from people who are unelected and who have no responsibility to the people of Ireland, friends of the Taoiseach of the day. In time to come, this proposal will lead to a dictatorship in this country. I honestly believe this. How sure can we be that outside experts have all the answers on reform? The Taoiseach has stated that he intends to strengthen the existing committee system. From my experience of this system to date, people hop in and out of the committees. While they may sign in, many of them do not contribute to the committees. If the current committee system is an example of what we will have, I fear for the future.

A cost benefit analysis of the establishment of a strengthened committee system should be completed in advance of the referendum. Before they have their say, the people of Ireland should be made aware of the anticipated cost of these committees. We do not know how many committees will be set up, what they will cost or whether they will cost more than the Seanad. The issue of Seanad costs has been mentioned by many Senators. The costs mentioned vary from €3.9 million to €100 million. The Taoiseach has stated that the likely saving will be from €20 million to €50 million. If he had said from €20 million to €25 million, the figures might seem valid, but he said from €20 million to €50 million.

There are varied opinions on the cost of the Seanad. Some of the figures mentioned are €3.9 million, €4.1 million, €6 million, €7 million and €8 million. I have done my own cost benefit analysis and I believe that if a Senator is earning €65,000 a year and he is taking home €35,000, the cost to the State is only €35,000, not €65,000. I see the saving to be made as something in the order of €6 million to €7 million. I have looked at this in some detail. If the Seanad is abolished, nobody working in the House will lose his or her job, apart from the 60 Senators. I hope that none of the staff or experts working here lose theirs. Realistically, the Seanad costs €7 million per annum, but to make allowances I will say it costs €10 million. It does not cost that, but that is a more realistic figure than the figure suggested by the Taoiseach, which was between €20 million and €50 million.

If it is the case that the Seanad costs €10 million gross and we have 1.7 million taxpayers paying tax, and if we divide the €10 million by 1.7 million, we end up dividing 100 by 17, making the cost of the Seanad €6 per taxpayer per annum. I ask myself whether that is value for money. Based on my experience here for just over two years and on the contributions made-----

03/07/2013X00500Deputy Brian Hayes: Based on those figures, it would be €2 per head of population, slightly less than what the Senator said.

03/07/2013X00600Senator Terry Brennan: I suggest it would be €6 per annum.

03/07/2013X00700Deputy Brian Hayes: Based on that number of taxpayers. However, there are an awful lot more taxpayers.

03/07/2013X00800Senator Terry Brennan: Of course there are. If we divided the figure by the population of the country, it would be even cheaper, not even the cost of a newspaper per day. 657 Seanad Éireann I have put the question on the cost. I admire the expertise here from all walks of life, including those from humble beginnings like mine, and of professional people including lawyers, teachers, economists and doctors. We have expertise here. I defy the new committee to have the equivalent of the people here who contribute to the running of this country. This is not and should not be a question of economics. I want to see the Taoiseach state publicly in the media what he hopes to save. I do not mind if he provides a gross figure, but I would like him to quantify the saving.

Like Senator Bradford, this reminds me of applying for a job in my early days. The question one never wanted to be asked was the one stating there were 54 other people looking for the job and asking you to explain why it should be given to you. I am not going to campaign on this issue. I am going to vote “No” and I am going to advocate to anybody I meet that they vote “No” because of the concern I have that any committee under the Cabinet will do whatever the Cabinet wants it to do. That is what we will find in the future. We are unanimous in our opinion on this proposal. The Minister of State agrees with us. He himself performed very ef- fectively in the Seanad and I admire him for that. We agree that we need to reform the Seanad so we can continue to ensure citizens are protected from legislation that might have a negative effect on their daily lives.

My own experience began as a councillor. This was my third time to go for the Seanad as I had previously tried in 1997. Fourteen years later I decided to play a part in the history of this country. What galls me is that I have entertained people from different panels and different walks of life who have come to my home in Carlingford and to my office. They have cried at my kitchen table, saying why they needed my vote and what it would mean to them, to their families and to the country. I do not include the Minister of State but some of them cried at my kitchen table and these are now some of the greatest advocates for the abolition of the House to which they wanted to go. It is very difficult to listen to them, those who said, “Brennan, you have got to give it to me.”

03/07/2013Y00200An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute remaining.

03/07/2013Y00300Senator Terry Brennan: Ní beidh mé ro-fhada. Níl ach le rá agam that it is a sad day for democracy.

03/07/2013Y00400An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullen has ten minutes.

03/07/2013Y00500Senator Rónán Mullen: I hope the Cathaoirleach will not be too hard on me as this is an important debate. While I welcome the Minister of State to the House there have been many occasions lately when I have had major concerns about the direction this Government has taken. While this may not be the most important issue before these Houses in these days, it is an extremely important issue. The fact that we are in this place at this time in this particular way discussing this particular proposal reflects very badly on the Taoiseach.

This current proposal originates in a speech delivered by the Taoiseach at a Fine Gael president’s dinner in 2009. The announcement that he was going to propose the abolition of the Seanad by way of a referendum - the only way to propose the abolition of the Seanad - took the commentariat by surprise and took people in his own party by surprise. This was not least because nine months earlier in the NewERA policy document he had committed himself to a reformed Seanad as part of a broader package of political reform. However, he has stuck doggedly to his idea since then, as he does stick doggedly to ideas, no matter how bad or dangerous

658 3 July 2013 some of them are. Notwithstanding the Labour Party’s commitment in its election manifesto to place the issue before the Constitutional Convention, the programme for Government committed the Government to a referendum to abolish the Seanad. This is an Enda Kenny production, first and last.

When one considers the substance behind the proposal, one realises that it is a very shallow little proposal indeed. When the Taoiseach announced the referendum Bill he gave a number of reasons for getting rid of the Seanad. He said the Seanad had failed the people by not doing anything to stop the unattainable policies of the Celtic tiger. How farcical that was. What did he and his party do? He has been in the Dáil since 1975. The Fine Gael election manifesto of 2007 shows that the party was seeking lower taxes and more spending. It was brazen indeed to go offering that as a reason for abolishing the Seanad.

The Taoiseach said the Seanad was a relic of British rule. Again, that was farcical. The Senate of 1922 was elected, unlike the House of Lords. It was got rid of in 1935, as we all know, because de Valera thought it was not fit for purpose or perhaps it was too enthusiastic about its purpose. The same people who decided that and who ruled with one Chamber for a short period, decided to bring the second Chamber back. We have been down this road before. The Taoiseach also attempted - rather disingenuously in my view - to tie up the abolition of the Seanad with the question of Dáil reform, as part of a wider package of political reform. It is a case of live horse and get grass. It is a case of, “If you abolish the Seanad, I will reform the Dáil’s processes.” The Taoiseach said there will be an extra Stage at the start of Bills at which the heads of Bills would be considered by a committee, with experts brought in and a stronger Committee Stage to consider Bills in detail. All of that is farcical, to use that word again, because the issue of Dáil reform is separate from that of Seanad reform. The Taoiseach could amend the Standing Orders of the Dáil in the morning and Irish people are entitled to a stronger, more effective Dáil, a more effective process of legislative scrutiny, regardless of what they decide about the Seanad. In fact, they are entitled to Dáil reform and they are still entitled to have their Seanad.

Rather than changing the Dáil first and showing how it could work, the Taoiseach is asking us to take all of this on faith; pay up our money up-front and we might get delivery of political reform some time in the future. It seems to me it is difficult to give credit to such protestations of a desire to reform things politically when one looks at what happened to the promise to cut the membership of the Dáil by 20 seats. When the relevant boundary commission report was published we were told that it was no longer possible because in order to stay within the constitutional requirement, one would need to have at least one Deputy for every 30,000 people and no more than one Deputy for every 20,000. That is the current constitutional position. We were told we can only cut eight seats because otherwise a constitutional referendum would be required. However, we are having a constitutional amendment to abolish the Seanad. Where is the sincerity and the credibility? Why should we trust anything the Government tells us when even the Chief Whip has admitted that the current Government has not been great on Dáil reform to date.

Other people have spoken about the different foreign comparators which the Taoiseach has invoked to suggest that countries of our size can function well with one Chamber. Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and New Zealand have all been mentioned. However, these are all false comparators because the Nordic countries have a highly decentralised form of government and the majority of issues affecting citizens in their daily lives are dealt with at local level. Denmark, for example, has one House of Parliament but five regional authorities and about 90 659 Seanad Éireann municipal authorities, dealing with roads, sanitation, schooling and so on. Denmark also has a system of local referenda so that the citizens in a particular area can decide on a particular issue in their locality. By comparison, in Ireland this Government is abolishing town councils, where local authorities deal with far fewer issues and where power is generally held by the county manager and not by the locally elected representatives. There is far more democracy in these Scandinavian countries than in Ireland. It is also a red herring to invoke New Zealand because its Upper House was a straight copy of the British House of Lords, membership was by appointment for life, it was completely undemocratic and the House did nothing. It only commented on about 8% of the legislation that came before it. That is the reason it was abolished in 1953.

I recall another important difference between the role of the legislature in some parts of Scandinavia and the role of the Legislature in Ireland. The constitution of Finland expressly provides that it is the responsibility of an individual legislator to act at all times in accordance with his or her conscience and for the common good. How I wish that conscience was the key decider on how Deputies and Senators vote in these days and particularly on the abortion legislation, a life and death issue.

Surely, we have a better chance of having a searching debate by having two Houses. This was evident during the civil partnership legislation. It does not matter what side of the issue one is on because we have, time and again, recalled the contributions in the Seanad, particularly on various social issues, which were the kind of contributions not heard in the Dáil because most people there were adhering too closely to the party line. It is fair to say that the university Senators and the Taoiseach’s nominees have often brought a depth and a scope to debates, particularly on social issues, that has not been heard in the Dáil. That is not praising ourselves; it is a function of how we came to be here. I refer to the civil partnership legislation. Amendments were introduced to protect freedom of conscience, for example, to allow people running businesses to act according to their particular perspective on the meaning and purpose of marriage. This did not happen in the Dáil where that debate was guillotined. The overwhelming power of Government was invoked but at least there was an attempt to ventilate issues and give expression to the sincerely held views of many thousands of decent people in the country who did not hear their views expressed in the Dáil on that occasion.

The same may well happen with the current abortion debate. Thank God for the 24 people - and counting - who are voting with their consciences on this issue. There is a better chance of a closer debate in the Seanad, where I believe issues will be ventilated thoroughly in a way that might not happen to the extent it should in the Dáil.

03/07/2013Z00200Deputy Brian Hayes: The rest of us, the other 130, have no conscience.

03/07/2013Z00300Senator Rónán Mullen: I did not say that.

03/07/2013Z00400Deputy Brian Hayes: That is the insidious inference in what the Senator is saying.

03/07/2013Z00500Senator Rónán Mullen: My point is that many of them appear to have an elastic conscience.

03/07/2013Z00600Deputy Brian Hayes: That is an insidious reference.

03/07/2013Z00700Senator Rónán Mullen: The expression of their conscience appears to be tied up with parties of interest.

660 3 July 2013

03/07/2013Z00800An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has one minute left.

03/07/2013Z00900Senator Rónán Mullen: By no means am I tarring all those who voted the other way with that brush, but certainly some of them deserve to be so tarred.

To reiterate, that is an important feature of life in Finland. It is one we should contrast with the upcoming vote on the Seanad where quite a few will vote for the Seanad referendum legislation even though they do not believe the Seanad should be abolished. I include the Labour Party Chief Whip, Deputy Emmet Stagg, as one such example who has stated he does not agree the Seanad should be abolished but will vote for the legislation nonetheless.

The consequences are bad for democracy. The ability to consider issues properly and fully depends on our having a second Chamber. Each time the Government has proposed or accepted an amendment to a Bill in this Chamber, it has made an argument against its own proposal. Legislation that has started in the Dáil and continued into the Seanad has frequently been amended. Admittedly, these are almost always Government-sponsored amendments but in itself that illustrates the value of the second Chamber and the second scrutiny of legislation. What would happen if there were only one House? It would all happen far too quickly; legislation would not be considered in the same way. The reality is that when there is a Government with a strong majority, as we have now, it is very tempting for it to drive its agenda forward ruthlessly and not to answer the hard questions, as we are seeing these days. That will be more likely to happen in the event that we opt for a unicameral system.

If it were the case that the Seanad provided no value the Government would never propose any changes here because those changes would already have been made in the Dáil. If the Se- anad is abolished, the Dáil will be the only place where legislation will be considered. In addition, the operation by the Government of the guillotine on Bills shows that adequate time is not being given to discussion of legislation in the Dáil. This very Bill was guillotined disgracefully in that Chamber. How can the Government argue that people would be better served by the Dáil when it did not allow its own Deputies the opportunity to comment in full on the legislation for a referendum on the abolition of the Seanad?

On a related point, the Government stated that the recent committee hearings on the abortion Bill showed the value of a committee. Regardless of one’s view of that legislation, Senators and Deputies were allowed only three minutes to ventilate their questions at each individual session. It was nothing like the scrutiny that would be granted to committees in other countries to consider legislation. We simply do not have a track record of serious committee scrutiny in this country.

All of this shows the value of a properly functioning second Chamber, in addition to the Dáil, which can consider and discuss legislation. This allows the Government an additional period to reflect on legislation and propose changes in the Seanad. It is also ironic-----

03/07/2013Z01000An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is way over time.

03/07/2013Z01100Senator Rónán Mullen: -----that the Government is talking about legislating to give effect to the Constitution by asking the people to abolish the Seanad, without first giving effect to the will of the people as expressed in the 1979 referendum, when they voted to broaden the franchise in elections to the Seanad and on the university panel. Legislation was never brought forward to give effect to the will of the people, as expressed. Here the Government is going to the end of the process without ever giving the Seanad a chance to function well----- 661 Seanad Éireann

03/07/2013Z01200An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is way over time.

03/07/2013Z01300Senator Rónán Mullen: -----either in the means by which Senators come to be elected or also in how it functions. Nobody would argue the current Seanad system is perfect. As one elected by more than 6,400 voters, I am glad to say-----

03/07/2013Z01400An Cathaoirleach: I have to ask the Senator to conclude.

03/07/2013Z01500Senator Rónán Mullen: -----I am democratically elected. However, I believe every citi- zen of this country should be entitled to vote in Seanad elections. We live in a democracy where the Constitution vests-----

03/07/2013Z01600An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can make those points on Committee Stage.

03/07/2013Z01700Senator Rónán Mullen: With respect, we will not be able to make these points on Com- mittee Stage because when we try we will be informed we should not be making Second Stage speeches.

03/07/2013Z01800An Cathaoirleach: You can make your point without making a speech, can you not? You are well capable of that, Senator.

03/07/2013Z01900Senator Rónán Mullen: I agree. I am nearly there, and am not repeating myself, as the Cathaoirleach will have noticed. I reiterate that we live in a democracy where the Constitu- tion vests the sole and exclusive law-making authority of the State in the President and the two Houses of the Oireachtas. Yet in this democracy, the vast majority of citizens alive today have never been entitled to vote in elections for the second Chamber. In an era when people across the world are protesting in an attempt to open their democracies and their democratic practices, why are we seeking to reduce our democratic institutions without ever giving our people the opportunity to vote in this way?

03/07/2013Z02000An Cathaoirleach: I must ask the Senator to conclude.

03/07/2013Z02100Senator Rónán Mullen: If it is for grounds of cost we could talk about abolishing both Houses, or abolishing our democracy altogether. We could cut salaries or change the expenses regime. I would totally support whatever measures are necessary in order to make our entire system leaner.

03/07/2013Z02200An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator please resume his seat.

03/07/2013Z02300Senator Rónán Mullen: I am almost there. The Government should remember, however, that the salaries of Senators cost in the region of €4 million, roughly the same, very little more, than the cost of the unelected ministerial advisors whose names will be unfamiliar to most members of the public and about whose role the public knows nothing.

03/07/2013Z02400An Cathaoirleach: I have to ask the Senator to conclude.

03/07/2013Z02500Senator Rónán Mullen: The choice people will be presented with in October is a false choice. By asking them to either abolish the Seanad or retain the status quo the vast majority of people are being robbed.

03/07/2013Z02600An Cathaoirleach: Senator, you are way over time.

03/07/2013Z02700Senator Rónán Mullen: Yes, a Chathaoirligh, but we are talking about our democratic 662 3 July 2013 institutions.

03/07/2013Z02800An Cathaoirleach: You can make those points on Committee Stage.

03/07/2013Z02900Senator Rónán Mullen: Rather than ask the vast majority of Irish people a question that denies them the possibility of ever considering reform, we should amend this proposal. I recall the words of George Washington, who is said to have told Thomas Jefferson that the framers of the American Senate designed it to cool legislation, just as a saucer cools hot tea. Madison talked about the Senate as a necessary fence against the fickleness and passion that are intended to influence attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. We should be no less ambitious for Seanad Éireann. I ask colleagues, particularly those on the Government side, not to vote this legislation through.

03/07/2013Z03000An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Harte.

03/07/2013Z03100Senator Rónán Mullen: They will not deprive the people of their referendum.

03/07/2013Z03200An Cathaoirleach: Resume your seat, please.

03/07/2013Z03300Senator Rónán Mullen: We should insist on an amended referendum proposal that allows people to vote for a reformed Seanad which would include franchise for everybody in electing the Seanad, as well as a more clearly defined function for this House.

03/07/2013Z03400Senator Jimmy Harte: I wish to share some of my 15 minutes, or what I call my ten minutes plus injury time.

03/07/2013Z03500An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has ten minutes.

03/07/2013Z03600Senator Jimmy Harte: I will share three minutes with Senator Mary Moran.

03/07/2013Z03700An Cathaoirleach: Seven minutes and three minutes - is that what the Senator wants? Is that agreed? Agreed.

03/07/2013Z03800Senator Jimmy Harte: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the Cham- ber. This issue is difficult for most Senators to speak about. Some former Members, among whom I do not include the Minister of State, have stated blatantly on the radio and in the media that the Seanad is rotten. That is a disservice to democracy in this country and to all politicians. Even the smallest town council in the country is respected by citizens, whether it represents 500 or 20,000 people. The public generally have regard for it because of its powers, no matter how little work it carries out. For a former Senator to describe this House as useless and rotten is a slur on the previous generations who served here. I do not include the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, in this. Such attitudes play to those who say that all politicians deserve to be sacked. The public deserve a serious debate instead of a populist one.

I have previously quoted from the book Lustrum, a novel about ancient Rome during the period when Cicero served as consul. The book described Cicero’s response to a tedious law restricting the right of senators to claim expenses for unofficial trips to the provinces. The law was described as the sort of self-interested legislation that attracts every elected bore in politics. Cicero lined up an entire bench of such bores and promised them they could speak for as long as they wished. That was 2,500 years ago but nothing much has changed. Election campaigns in ancient Rome usually lasted four weeks but one election campaign mentioned in the book continued for eight weeks and resulted an amazing amount of money being spent. Patricians 663 Seanad Éireann set up a war chest to fund each other. Roman politics was corrupt but the idea that its senate should be abolished due to financial irregularities was knocked on the head. In regard to the cost of this Seanad, even if its abolition resulted in the highest estimated savings of €10 million per annum, it would take 300 years to repay the €3 billion provided to bail out Quinn Insurance. Democracy cannot be measured in financial terms.

I never got a clear reason for the proposed abolition of the Seanad. Some have argued on the basis of financial reasons-----

Notice taken that 12 Members were not present; House counted and 12 Members being present,

03/07/2013AA00300Senator Jimmy Harte: I have no problem with the holding of a referendum as promised in the programme for Government, but a considerable number of people are cynical about politics. If a referendum was held on abolishing all tiers of Government, at least 25% of voters would vote “Yes” because the politics we are trying to promote is being destroyed from within. I will abide by the people’s decision, however, whatever it may be.

Senator Cullinane interrupted my speech and has now left the Chamber. He suggested that the Government has not introduced reform and he is opposed to the abolition of town and county councils. I hate to point out the obvious but the number of county councils in Northern Ireland has been cut from 26 to 11. Sinn Féin and the DUP wanted to reduce the number further to seven, with the intention that one side of the River Bann would be controlled by Sinn Féin and the other by the DUP, with Belfast up for grabs. Sinn Féin’s policy across the Border calls for the restructuring of local government. I do not accept the Senator’s argument that the Gov- ernment is destroying councils. I was a town councillor for 17 years. They play a particular beneficial role. The new district councils will give more power to representatives in areas like Letterkenny, which is an urban and rural mix. Councillors will come from both areas. Until now I always felt that the town council was pulling against the county council and vice versa, so that is a positive thing.

The first speech I made in the Seanad contained a request that we go around the country and have a Senate in Kerry, Donegal, Galway and Cork, so that the public might recognise that the Senate does a lot of legislative work. The record is there but it is not emphasised in the press and people do not hear about the work that is done in here. I do not know if we can still take a few sections of the Seanad out of this building and let the people in the regions decide on the benefits of the Seanad. It would be a good idea to raise its profile because as soon as the referendum takes place and if the result is to abolish it, then there is no going back. In ten or 15 years, the next generation might say that it was a hasty move by this Government to get rid of an arm of democracy that we might need.

I was in Bucharest last week at the conference against human trafficking. I spoke to a Dutch MP who told me that their Senate, which does not meet as often as our own, is very important to the Dutch people and that the Senate is always there to take on the Government in certain types of legislation. The role of the Seanad should not just be to rubber stamp legislation, but to make sure that TDs in the Dáil would pass legislation mindful of the fact that the Senate next door may have a different view. The public could reflect that view through the Senators because at the moment they feel that everything is being pushed through without a second opinion. As Senator O’Brien said, what the Minister is saying probably does not reflect what he is thinking about the abolition of the Senate. He is smiling at me now. 664 3 July 2013

03/07/2013BB00200An Cathaoirleach: You are eating into Senator Moran’s time.

03/07/2013BB00300Senator Jimmy Harte: Senator Mullen ate into my time, so I wish the best of luck to whoever comes after Senator Moran. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his indulgence.

I have said it locally on radio that I have no problem with a referendum being put to the people, who will ultimately decide. If they decide to abolish it, then so be it. However, there should be an honest debate because the debate that has taken place until now has been populist. The novel Lustrum shows how people in ancient Rome viewed the Senate. There were many layers of government in ancient Rome, and not just one Parliament. People valued the work of two or three different layers of government.

I met a farmer one day when I was cutting the grass and he told me he hoped we were not going to get rid of the Seanad because we all need a second opinion, even if we are just digging the spuds. He saw it simply that we need more advice in these hard times. Perhaps the man digging the spuds has a better view of democracy than many other informed people.

03/07/2013BB00400Senator Mary Moran: I thank the Minister of State for coming into the House. Along with many of my colleagues in both Houses, I have serious issues with this Bill. The waters have been muddied considerably by some of the facts and figures thrown about by those pushing forward this amendment to the Constitution. It has been said that the abolition of the Se- anad would save €20 million, but this has been shown not to be the case. The Houses of the Oireachtas have made it clear that a proper cost-benefit analysis has not been carried out. It has been argued that considerable Dáil reform has taken place. I would argue that the word “considerable” means something different to me than it does to some of those who claim it. It has been said that the Seanad did nothing to stop the excesses of the Celtic tiger. If we are to start pointing fingers, I would start by pointing them straight back at the Cabinet that was here at the time and the Members of Dáil Éireann who presided over that period.

I believe that a referendum is the way to go to decide the future of the Seanad. I have no problem with that, but why is reform not part of the option? Why are we putting an incomplete referendum to the people? Why is the call of the people outside of these gates not being listened to in this instance? It is unfortunate that the Taoiseach is not here for all of this debate on the future of our democracy. In my view, we have already been written off by some and pushed aside. I would like to relay to the people involved in this debate, including the Taoiseach, the important work being carried out inside and outside the Chamber. We have properly debated legislation in this Chamber, unlike the system in the Dáil of merely reading out statements to be put on the record. My Opposition colleagues in this Chamber have brought forward important amendments that have greatly enhanced legislation, for example during the debate on the recent Taxi Regulation Bill 2012. As Senator O’Brien pointed out last week, 529 amendments have been made in this House. I am delighted that I have some amendments accepted. If that is not what is democracy is about, then I do not know what is.

Outside the Chamber we have met and lobbied on behalf of campaigns and causes that we believe are just and important. We hold clinics and we connect with people every day. We make it our business to represent the people of Ireland. To call us rotten or useless or any other number of negative comments, as has been done by people who are now TDs but were glad to take a Senator’s salary when they were in here, is both ignorant and populist.

I will support having a referendum as it is important to put such issues to the people. I will

665 Seanad Éireann accept and respect whatever the people of Ireland choose, but I cannot support what is being done at the moment. The Taoiseach has decided to bring forward legislation that will forever change the landscape of Irish politics, without providing concrete answers on what will replace it. There has been talk of groups of experts, strengthened committees and so on. Frankly, one does not propose to abolish one thing without strong proposals for its replacement. The Taoise- ach did not address that issue last week.

We could be looking at a very similar but smaller structure to Seanad Éireann with this so- called expert group appointed to the Cabinet, but is this really the answer?

03/07/2013BB00500An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to conclude.

03/07/2013BB00600Senator Mary Moran: I will conclude in a few minutes.

03/07/2013BB00700An Cathaoirleach: You do not have a few minutes.

03/07/2013BB00800Senator Mary Moran: I do not think I have had the full use of my allotted time.

03/07/2013BB00900An Cathaoirleach: I think you have. The Chair has been very generous.

03/07/2013BB01000Senator Mary Moran: All the men have been quite liberal with their time. You know how women like to speak, so I would beg your indulgence for just a few more moments.

03/07/2013BB01100Deputy Brian Hayes: Hear, hear.

03/07/2013BB01200Senator Mary Moran: Reference was made last week to Scandinavian countries, New Zealand and other countries with a unicameral system. We live in Ireland; we do not live in these countries. We have to promote our democracy that is suitable for the Irish people. I do not represent the people of Norway or New Zealand. I represent the people of Ireland and I do not believe that what works for them should automatically be applied to us. We are unique, we are ourselves, so let us show our strength.

We need this double system. I taught for over 20 years in a school. The last thing I would say to my class every evening was to check their homework and get it checked. If we do not have the fail safe system of scrutinising the legislation, as has been proven several times in debates in here over the last two years, then we have a problem.

03/07/2013BB01300Senator Denis O’Donovan: I would like to start by quoting Gray’s “Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard,” which we remember from our school days, such is the sense of forebod- ing I have this evening when speaking on this issue:

The curfew tolls the knell of parting day,The lowing herd winds slowly o’er the lea,The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,And leaves the world to darkness and to me.

We will be in a very dark place once this Seanad is abolished. It is appropriate, in the evening that is in it, to say that.

Up to 15 Members of the previous Seanad, primarily from Fine Gael and the Labour Party, were elected to the Lower House. Some former Senators seemed to have forgotten their political crèche when voting for the Bill in the Lower House.

Reform of the Seanad is essential and I support the efforts made by Senator Feargal Quinn and others in their proposed reform Bill. While I have my views and proposals, united we 666 3 July 2013 might have some chance of saving this important institution. I was tasked by my party leader some 18 months ago to examine the issue of Seanad reform and produce a report on it. I found in favour of reform rather than abolition.

Some of the reforms proposed included putting greater emphasis in Seanad business on the Northern Ireland peace process and extending membership to people from Northern Ireland representing various communities there. This would enhance cross-Border interaction in areas such as health, education, fisheries and tourism. The Chamber could properly be used as a platform for discussing European legislation and directives. Up to 75% of all our laws emanate from the European Union, yet there is little or no debate on them. Existing scrutiny is more in ghost form rather than reality, which is a significant loss. Senior public appointments could also be scrutinised in the Seanad. The former Leader of the Opposition in the 23rd Seanad, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, is Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. Future Seanad Leaders should by right be a member of the Cabinet, too. That would show respect to the Seanad and give it an extra dimension.

The failure of Seanad reform is not entirely the Government’s fault as the previous two Governments also neglected the Seanad. Reforms have essentially been put on the slow burner for the past 40 years. Groups representing ethnic minorities and people with disabilities should be represented in the Seanad as a matter of right. The Diaspora should be represented in the Seanad as a matter of right, too. There is a tradition of emigration from Ireland going back 200 years, which needs to be recognised in the membership of the Seanad. I come from a family of 11, eight of whom emigrated. I lived in London for some time and five of my family still live abroad, but they have a great affinity for Ireland. There should be some link with them through having a representative of the Diaspora in the Seanad as such a seat would not be available in the Lower House.

This House is often referred to as being elitist. When I was compiling my report, I wrote to every Fianna Fáil and some Independent councillors to ask for their views on the abolition of the Seanad. I was disappointed with the responses, but those whom I met did not have a problem with maintaining the Seanad, albeit reformed. All of them, bar one, had no problem with this, even if reform meant they would lose their franchise in electing Members.

I also proposed that elections to both the Dáil and the Seanad would be held at the same time in order that one would run for one House or the other. I explored the notion of having a list system, as used in other jurisdictions. However, we are now facing a referendum in which we will have the simple choice of saying “Yes” or “No”. The media are very indifferent to the future of the Seanad. If anything, they are against us. The public is cynical and angry because of the economic decline, the bursting of the property bubble and the bank bailout. It is not un- reasonable to expect it to give the Seanad a kick in the backside. If there were to be a vote on the abolition of the Dáil, a substantial number of people would vote in favour of this, too.

If the referendum is passed in October, we will be in the unusual situation where 60 Mem- bers, both elected and appointed, will be seeing out the last couple of years of the Government like a dead man walking. I challenge those on the Government side of the House who have expressed deep concern about the way the referendum is being conducted, with no choice being given to the people for reform, to vote against the Bill. It would not be the end of the world for them, as the House will be abolished anyway and that will mark the end of many political careers. What would they have to lose - they are facing the guillotine - if they were to state they did not accept the Government’s proposal? 667 Seanad Éireann It is disingenuous of Members to shed crocodile tears about the future of the Seanad when, like a herd of sheep, they will be pushed into the pen by the sheepdog when it comes to voting on the legislation. I have lost the Whip here before on a rural Ireland issue which was close to my heart and came close to losing it a second time, but I am a better person for having done so. I was expelled from the Fianna Fáil Party, but I was asked to rejoin two months before the last general election. If I had not rejoined, I might have been re-elected to the Dáil as an Indepen- dent. However, a leopard never changes its spots. I am old-fashioned and slow to change, but I am still happy to be back here.

This is my job and livelihood. Although I am a qualified solicitor, I have not actively prac- tised for some time. I will be very sorry if the Seanad goes. A greater effort should be made to ensure we retain it. When I visited Queensland, Australia, I spoke to some senior politicians from different parties who expressed great regret that their Upper House in the state’s parliament had been abolished back in the 1920s. Surveys there have shown many people want to have the Upper House restored.

4 o’clock

If we also look at this historically, one of the principal advocates of an Upper House was the late Michael Collins. Many forget that he was an advocate and a protagonist for the Upper House.

03/07/2013DD00200An Cathaoirleach: I would ask Senator O’Donovan to conclude.

03/07/2013DD00300Senator Denis O’Donovan: Research has shown that. The Taoiseach and some on the other side should reflect seriously on his wishes because in a few weeks’ time no doubt there will be a huge crowd at Béal na Blath, which is close to my constituency.

The Taoiseach and the Government will probably succeed in this Bill, but I will conclude on this point. We have now a situation of a diminution of democracy. In the area I represent in the west of Cork, we have lost four county councillors and three town councils with nine members each, which is 31 in all. If I go, there will be 32 public representatives gone from a peripheral area west of Clonakilty where there are islands and very remote regions. We are developing a dangerous situation in this country, namely, the setting up of a politburo of four or five persons within the Cabinet who are running the show and calling the shots. Abolish the Seanad and there will be one less leg of democracy left. Eventually, this country and politicians will regret going down this road. I ask those in whose remit it is on that side of the House to call a halt and vote with their heart for a change. They have nothing to lose.

Cuireadh an díospóireacht ar athló.

Debate adjourned.

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

Food Provenance Bill 2013: Second Stage

03/07/2013EE00300Acting Chairman (Deputy Paschal Mooney): Before we commence the debate, as his

668 3 July 2013 former colleague in the Seanad where he started his national political career, I am delighted to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Tom Hayes, on his first official attendance to deal with legislation. The Minister of State has already been present to take some Adjournment matters, but this is his first time to take legislation in the House. I am sure Senators will join me in wishing him well not only in this instance but also with his ministerial brief. It is a great pleasure to have him with us.

03/07/2013EE00600Senator Feargal Quinn: I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

I am delighted to see the Minister of State back in the House. I hardly got to talk to him to congratulate him on his new position, which I do now. It seems like almost 200 years since we served together in the House, although a little less time has probably passed. I am delighted to see see him wearing the hat of responsibility for food and agriculture. He will be able to achieve a great deal during his period in office.

I am particularly pleased that the Minister of State is here to take the Food Provenance Bill, on which I am delighted to have received a great deal of help during the years. That assistance has helped me to realise what we need to do and what it is important to achieve. I remember well going to a customer panel in Superquinn perhaps in 1989. Some women had arrived before me. They told me that just before I had arrived, they had been talking about the radio ads which said of a particular product, “It has a quare name but it is great stuff”. They said that having heard such ads, they were prompted to discuss their concern and worry about the food they ate and asked me if I could put their minds at rest. That certainly put me on this path. I am delighted that the Minister of State is here for what will be a very useful Seanad debate. The debate should be constructive and stimulating, given that this is an issue of importance, not just for consumers but also for producers, processors and retailers.

I spent most of my career as a retailer in the food sector and the issues addressed in the Bill are close to my heart. I am proud of the strong reputation and relationships Ireland enjoys internationally on the basis of the quality and consistency of the foods we produce. Our farmers produce the finest beef which is in demand around the world. That is recognised. We have been earning a strong reputation for producing high-quality dairy products, with the result that Dairygold and Glanbia are highly regarded international brands. We have been making quite a name for ourselves in the alcohol sector also, with brands such as Guinness, Baileys and Jameson. However, if we are to maintain our standing, we must not rest on our laurels. We must ensure we work hard and collectively to enhance Ireland’s reputation as a producer of high-quality food. We must look for opportunities to differentiate ourselves from our competitors in an increasingly crowded international marketplace. We can do this by sticking stead- fastly to our drive for high quality and consistency and by being innovative in the presentation of our products through openness and transparency on all aspects of food provenance and the stages of production. That is what the Bill aims to achieve. There are many other provisions which might have been included in the Bill, but I have decided to concentrate on the issue of food provenance at this stage.

The provenance of beef has been an important issue for many years. After the event referred to involving the customer panel, I wondered how we could do something. I later discovered ours was the first supermarket to guarantee traceability of beef from the pasture to the plate. We later introduced the traceback system in 2001. We had introduced a paper-based traceability programme as far back as 1991 when the need for consumers to be informed about the traceability of meat was unheard of. We could not guarantee any more than the fact that there was 669 Seanad Éireann good husbandry on the farm, but we had a sign with the farm and a photograph of the farmer. The information was also listed on the checkout receipt. Traceability has since become increasingly important for consumers of many other foods. As policymakers and legislators, we must seek to act in the consumers’ basic interests and give them the transparency they need and to which they are entitled.

The passing-off of horsemeat in beef products has brought the issue of food provenance to the fore. I compliment the Food Safety Authority of Ireland on exposing what was ultimately identified as a Europe-wide problem, possibly wider. While the scandal has, undoubtedly, shaken the confidence and trust of consumers, it has caused them to be more aware of the importance of food provenance, from where food originates. They have a right to know where the ingredients of a product have been sourced, where the item was manufactured and where it was packed. They should no longer be kept in the dark on the real origins of the food they eat.

The food labelling legislation currently applied in Ireland derives mainly from the European Union in the form of regulations and directives from Brussels. While the European Union is moving in the right direction towards increasing the level of information presented to consumers, the Union has been slow to introduce the rules that would require producers and retailers to be fully transparent about food provenance. We have strong labelling requirements in certain areas such as for beef and fish, but the time for taking incremental steps has passed. The horsemeat crisis was a watershed and, as law makers and as a nation with a strong reputation in food production, we must now move to equip consumers with all available information on the source of the food they consume. I refer not only to the original source but also everything that goes into it.

In order to make an informed decision in any aspect of life, we need to establish the facts, weigh up the options and consider the risks. When purchasing most items of food, consumers are unable to make informed decisions because we, as law makers, and the producers have failed to ensure they are presented with all available information. That is what the Bill seeks to change. It does not seek to oust any existing law on food or meat labelling. The requirements contained in the Bill are intended to be additional to existing statutory requirements.

Food labelling laws applied in Ireland derive mainly from the European Union, but that does not mean that Senators, or the Minister, are precluded from introducing additional food labelling requirements. The main EU law in this area, EU Directive 2000/13, explicitly permits a member state to introduce additional requirements in the labelling and presentation of foods in circumstances where these requirements can be justified on certain grounds such as the protection of public health, the prevention of fraud, the protection of industrial and commercial property rights, indications of provenance, registered designations of origin and the prevention of unfair competition. I have been guided in the development of the Bill by a leading expert in European food law who is in the Visitors Gallery. Mr. Raymond O’Rourke has been hugely helpful to me and I also had the help of Mr. Brian Hunt. I am satisfied that the proposals contained in the Bill fall squarely within the terms of Article 18 of EU Directive 2000/13 and can be justified as being required on three specific grounds, namely, requiring indications of provenance, the protection of public health and the prevention of fraud.

The Bill is about informing and empowering the consumer. I want to equip the consumer with all key information on the product on the shelf, be it on the origins of ingredients, the place of manufacture, the date of manufacture and the place of packing, and also with other new requirements regarding meat and fish. One of the key innovations in the Bill is the requirement 670 3 July 2013 for food provenance infographics. The infographics will set out the information in a straight- forward way and I have tried to avoid using cryptic codes and numbers. The idea is to present the information to consumers in a way they can easily understand it.

I have had a look at food products in the past few days. The current food labelling requirements are not so easy to understand. When I look at a litre of milk at home, I see a little oval diagram with the codes IE, 1419 and EC. On butter I see the same diagram with the codes IE, 1087 and EC. I have no clue what these codes mean. There is no way a shopper can easily know what they mean. A consumer should not need a degree in food science to understand food labelling, which is almost the case. We need to make it easy for consumers to know exactly what they are getting. The day of pulling the wool over the eyes of the consumer is long gone and we, as legislators in Ireland and at EU level, need to ensure our laws reflect a demand for greater transparency for consumers. There is such a demand and consumers will respond to it.

I will outline some of the key aspects of the Bill.

03/07/2013FF00200Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I am very reluctant to intervene as the Senator is speaking on his own Bill, but he is over time.

03/07/2013FF00300Senator Feargal Quinn: The Bill seeks to introduce food labelling for all kinds of foods, including fruit and vegetables, as well as meat and fish. Drinks also come within the scope of the Bill. The European Consumers Organisation recommends that the origin label become mandatory for all meats, milk, unprocessed foods, single ingredient foods such as flour and sugar, and ingredients that make up more than 50% of a food item.

There is more I could say and perhaps I might say more later. There is great interest in the Bill, for which there is a need. I look for support for it.

03/07/2013FF00400Senator Sean D. Barrett: I echo the warm words of welcome to the Minister of State. I served with him when he was Chairman of one of the committees of the Houses. I am sure he will do very well in his new role. His predecessor, the late Shane McEntee, was hugely popular everywhere, including in this House.

The Bill which I commend to the House is also welcome. It goes without saying Senator Feargal Quinn knows his stuff. He has been an innovator in this field for ages and introduced many innovations, including the provenance measures and the shamrock symbol on receipts to tell consumers how many of their purchases are Irish. At a time when there is criticism of the Seanad for not having expertise, we have leading individuals such as Senator Feargal Quinn who is proposing this Bill and Senator Susan O’Keeffe who has major experience in this area. I think of Senator Quinn as Edmund Burke did of the New Englanders when he said not moun- tains of Arctic ice nor the torrid equators knew the bounds of their labours. He was speaking in favour of the New Englanders at the time.

Provenance is important. The horsemeat scandal did a great deal of damage. The Minister of State will agree that it was not good enough that people went on television to say there just happened to be a load of horsemeat in their fridge or some guy was driving by last week and asked them to mind it, like Father Ted saying the money was resting in his account. We want to emerge from this in a much better position than we have from the banking scandal, which we discussed last night, in order that nobody can say the Seanad did nothing when the horsemeat issue endangered our agriculture industry.

671 Seanad Éireann As Senator Quinn said, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland was in first to show burgers comprised 39% horsemeat in other jurisdictions. We led the way on that and it is important that we continue to do so. We have the best produce and we need to ensure provenance to prevent fraud and to address health and safety issues. At a time the health sector is tackling obesity issues, it is important that people know what is in the their food and can judge the correct quantities. If we allow this to become a medical problem, it will be hugely expensive. Recent research is warning, for instance, about low fat products in that if one consumes a double helping, one will be worse off than if one had eaten the full fat product. We need this information to be sensible to consumers. We do not want to end up with a fraudulent food industry and obese population.

The explanatory memorandum contains an infographic. I thank the Senator for introducing a new word. It is eminently desirable and worthwhile to get information on own brand products. This is all to do good. It is important to develop our best natural resources through our fine farmers who have the best production methods and to put our best foot forward. It is important not to wait for the EU. That was critical in the banking sector which has done so much to damage our international reputation. There was a doubt about jurisdiction and whether responsibility for what happened on 29 September 2008 lay in Dublin or should have transferred to Frankfurt. Let us not wait to address food provenance. It has been a problem sometimes when Ministers come to the House that rather than taking the national initiative, they say they want to see what the EU does. We are all conscious of that given the country has stepped down from the EU Presidency. Let us take the lead on this ourselves. Senator Quinn has given us the mechanism to do so.

I doubt it will cost much but the Senator can provide information later in this regard. None of these innovations costs much in comparison to the price of food. They will increase the standing of Ireland internationally, protect the health of consumers and protect us against fraud. Unlike what happened in the banking sector, we have to develop ethics in the sector. We will do well in and this will enable the Minister of State while wearing his other hat to promote Ireland as a centre of world excellence in food. I am sure such a Bill is welcome news. We have had adverse publicity in other sectors. Let us make food a more firm sector than finance on which the economy can be based and welcome the success of Glanbia, Kerry Group, Dairygold and the other products mentioned by Senator Quinn.

I am sure the Bill will receive a warm welcome. It goes right back to the early days of the House when people such as Horace Plunkett were founding the co-operatives and developing agricultural education. This is a great step forward and I am sure we will rebound to the benefit and credit of the nation. I am delighted and honoured to second Senator Quinn’s Bill.

03/07/2013GG00200Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Tom Hayes): I am delighted to be present for this important discussion. I thank the Acting Chairman and Members for the welcome they have given me. I sat in the House for four years many years ago but I learned a great deal. We had some good discussions. The abolition of the House is discussed from time to time but my memories of it are positive. It helped me a great deal on the political ladder.

This is the first Bill I have taken as Minister of State and I would like the debate to be constructive. We can all learn from it. It is important and timely that we discuss this issue. I recognise that the purpose of the Bill is to create transparency regarding the origin of processed foods, beverages, fruit and vegetables as well as meat and fish. This Bill is focused on origin, 672 3 July 2013 covering both ingredients and manufacture. It is based on the whole of the product and the production process and is, therefore, comprehensive regarding the origin of the main ingredients, the place of manufacture and packing. The Senator is concerned that the mislabelling of beef due to equine contamination has exposed a number of shortcomings when it comes to the provenance of the food we eat. However, amended labelling legislation alone would not have stopped certain individuals intent on fraud from misleading the consumer by incorporating into finished products ingredients not properly declared in the ingredients list for the products concerned.

Under current EU regulations, the issue of origin as an essential part of consumer information has traditionally only been a focus for products under the EU scheme of protected geo- graphical indications where quality is considered to be intrinsically linked to certain regions. In other cases, it is considered that origin has to be declared where its absence might mislead consumers to a material degree. However, a great deal of good work and positive developments on labelling legislation are ongoing at EU level on this issue. In 2011 the Union passed a new Council regulation on food information for the consumers, FIC, Regulation 1169/2011, which has updated the requirements for consumer information and labelling in a number of areas, including country of origin or place of provenance, including the origin labelling for meats other than beef, voluntary labelling of all foods and the mandatory labelling of meat as an ingredient. These requirements will have to be implemented by way of EU Commission implementing regulations and it is expected that they will come into force between December 2013 and the end of 2014. A Commission working group is dealing with this legislation and it is discussing the mandatory origin labelling of fresh meat from species other than beef, voluntary origin labelling of foods and the mandatory origin labelling of meat as an ingredient.

We need to bear in mind that the EU operates a Single Market for food and it is in Ireland’s interest, as a food exporting nation, to adhere to this concept. Harmonised rules on traceability, animal health and welfare and food labelling are of great advantage to Ireland, which has to export the vast majority of its agricultural output in either a raw or processed form. This is important as we continue to develop access to other markets. Ireland has an excellent reputation with a robust food safety system underpinned by the European institutes such as the food and veterinary office and the European Food Safety Authority.

5 o’clock

If Ireland, as one of 28 member states of the European Union, sets out new mandatory rules for food labelling in advance of agreed EU rules, it will impose additional costs on our food processing sector compared to competitor countries. Such unilateral action could also set a precedent for the introduction of similar rules in other member states, which may reduce the opportunities for Irish produce to be sold on EU markets.

Some 90% of all Irish beef is sold within the European Union, with some 50% of these exports going to the United Kingdom alone. With an increasing and bigger market in Germany and given the possibilities for the export of beef to that country, if it, or France, had different rules and regulations, both countries could stop our meat going to these countries. While consumers are often assumed to place great importance on origin labelling, the fact is that the available market intelligence suggests that when it comes to purchasing practice, price is the dominant factor in determining final purchasing decisions. It is very important that we do not force the industry to incur unnecessary costs, particularly at a time when we are pushing expansion of the agrifood sector. Irish food and drinks firms export to 170 markets worldwide and 673 Seanad Éireann exports are growing faster than in many other sectors in recent years. The value of these exports reached €9 billion in 2012. In fact, the value of Irish agrifood exports outside Europe overall grew strongly, for example, agrifood exports to Africa are now worth over €500 million.

This morning I attended the open day in Moorepark and saw the enthusiasm and commitment of the food producers, that is, the farmers and the milk and beef producers. Thousands of people flocked there. They want to build on the Food Harvest 2020 strategy and produce more food. The milk they produce goes to companies such as Glanbia which Senator Feargal Quinn mentioned. The consumer and the producer must work hand in hand. What I saw today, the green grass and the excellent product we have, will give us a huge advantage when compet- ing in markets. However, markets can be cyclical. The milk market, in particular, can be very cyclical and there will be difficulties in the future. The same applies to the beef and sheep sectors. They will all face difficulties; therefore, we must take advantage of the wonderful grass growing conditions in this country and the efforts of Teagasc to make us more efficient across the board.

Members will appreciate that legislation on food labelling is still evolving. This Bill is a useful contribution to the debate on food labelling and Senator Feargal Quinn is to be congratu- lated on his work on it. Consumers want to know more about the origins of their food, but the timing of this Bill is not right, bearing in mind the ongoing EU discussions that I mentioned. To proceed unilaterally with the Bill would increase costs for the industry and place greater demands and costs on the sector than are being considered at EU level.

Information on food provenance should address the legitimate concerns of consumers in an appropriate way and without excessive complexity, while avoiding any unnecessary imposi- tion of additional costs on consumers. Any such approach should take into consideration the potential impact on the food industry and the farm sector as it could negatively impact on the sector and its dependence on exports. The potential of the Bill to increase costs for industry and, therefore, for consumers and place greater demands and costs than those being considered at EU level would have to be fully analysed against the benefits it might confer on consumers. We need to be mindful of this, particularly with our focus on further developing the agrifood industry as outlined in Food Harvest 2020.

It is proposed not to accept the Bill but to engage with the Senator on its contents at a later stage when the EU process has moved forward. I will ask the officials in the Department to take on board the many good aspects of the Bill, with many of which I agree. I will give a commitment that what the Senator has said and what is contained in the Bill will be part of the overall legislative issues dealt with by the Department which will be brought back before the House. While I cannot accept the Bill at this stage, I hope the Senator will agree not to put it to a vote. All of us have the aim of protecting our food and giving the consumer what they want in a product.

What the European Union does is also of interest to this country. Ireland is a net exporter of food and depends on many other EU countries. Only last week there was an example of how difficult this was. One can say we should leave the European Union out of this, but the reality is that we are part of it and gaining from it. There are 28 member states and I saw last week at first hand that it was a huge job of work to get them to come together on issues. Every effort will be made by the Department to deal with this issue as soon as possible and take on board what the Senator has included in the Bill and what the many other contributors will say in this debate.

674 3 July 2013

03/07/2013HH00200Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill has six minutes.

03/07/2013HH00300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire go dtí an Seanad and ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh-----

03/07/2013HH00400Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but I was incorrect in my time assessment. It has been indicated to me that the Senator has ten minutes.

03/07/2013HH00500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: You are in a very powerful position, Acting Chairman.

03/07/2013HH00600Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): Very powerful. I could do anything.

03/07/2013HH00700Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I welcome the new Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, and wish him well in his very important role. While I did not have any influence in ensuring he was appointed Minister of State, on several occasions in the House I called for the position to be filled0. I am glad that it has been filled. It is an important role as its remit covers food safety, forestry and horticulture. We had many good debates with the Minister’s predecessor, the late Shane McEntee, with whom I had an excellent working relationship. He was a friend and it is sad and tragic that he is no longer with us. One misses him around the Houses. I wish the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, well.

We are debating a practical legislative measure brought forward by a man with expertise and wisdom on the food industry, particularly the retail end. Everybody recognises that there is a real and substantive need for such legislation to be brought forward, for more regulations to be implemented and for better governance in the food industry in respect of food safety and labelling, particularly in the light of the horsemeat scandal that rocked the beef industry late last year and earlier this year. I am a member of the agriculture committee, as are a number of other Senators, and that matter is one we examined and reflected on at the time. It was hugely damaging to the beef industry.

I agree with the Minister of State that there were rogues operating in the industry and they must be dealt with stringently and clinically. I am not sure if there has been an update on what is happening in that regard. They were engaged in criminal activity. They were availing of certain loopholes in European and Irish legislation.

Senator Quinn’s contribution and the amount of work he has done must be commended. A lot of detailed research and work went in to the Bill, which has to be acknowledged. It is a massive step in the right direction and clearly indicates the need for a proper labelling system to be introduced. Oddly enough, I met fishermen in Donegal and west Cork recently. One of the issues they raised with me was the issue of labelling. Their concerns would be eased by the recommendations contained within Senator Quinn’s Bill. Sections 9 and 10 address the queries the fishermen had.

It may be an unrelated issue, but the Bill would close loopholes that are affecting the Irish fishing sector. That is within the remit of the Minister. The vast majority of fish consumed in the Republic of Ireland are imported into the State. It is unbelievable. We are an island community but most of our fish are imported. They are caught by Spanish vessels. For example, 88% of whitefish caught in Irish waters are caught by French or Spanish vessels. The fish are then imported into this country. They are cheaper and it is pushing down the prices Irish fishermen obtain for their catch. There is a real need for the Bill. It is an additional benefit, which has been addressed by Senator Quinn. It is something I wholeheartedly support. However, that 675 Seanad Éireann is only one element of the Bill.

The food industry has been rocked by the horsemeat scandal but it has opened everyone’s eyes to what can happen if there is a lack of adequate provision or supervision in the sector. Serious questions need to be asked of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and about the work being done in factories. I applaud the Food Safety Authority of Ireland for the work it did, the identification procedures it had in place and so on. In addition to the Bill, there is a need to introduce compulsory DNA sampling in the beef sector. It is our primary export product and we cannot allow anything to happen to it, given the importance of the Food Harvest 2020 targets to our economic recovery and the need to ensure that Irish farmers get a premium price for their products. Products such as the Silver Crest burgers which comprised 29% horsemeat should not be sold to Irish consumers. That is what Senator Quinn is trying to eliminate. A food safety issue is involved if the horsemeat has been treated with phenylbutazone, or bute. The FSAI was quick to point out it believed there was no bute in the horsemeat. However, it did not know where the horsemeat had come from. I must acknowledge that I did not fully subscribe to the assurances given at the time by the FSAI, and I said so at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

In saying that, we cannot go back; we have to deal with the current situation. I agree with the Minister of State that there is a need for very clear guidelines and for the European Union to play a central role, but that does not mean we should sit back and wait for Europe to get its house in order. We have to take the initiative. Why can we not implement Irish legislation and let Europe follow? We can do that, and there is a need for us to do so given the importance of the food industry in this country. We need to protect that industry in every way possible, eliminate rogue traders who are importing products and ensure that never again are falsely labelled Irish products sold in Irish supermarkets. That is breaking the law. There is an issue of misleading the consumer and I am not sure whether that has been followed up on by the Consumers’ Association of Ireland. I contacted it at the time of the scandal. It stepped back and said there was an inquiry by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I am not sure what discussions have taken place with it on that.

We on this side of the House fully support Senator Quinn’s Bill. I am not sure of the views of the Senator on whether restaurants should be included. Should meat in restaurants contain labels of origin? That would help the agricultural sector. There is a need for that because if one is buying a Brazilian steak in a restaurant and there is also an Irish one on the menu, one should know which one is authentically Irish. It is something that could be incorporated into the Bill.

I hope Senator Quinn’s Bill will be accepted by the Government. I encourage the Minister of State not to wait for what Europe will decide to do, even though we depend greatly on it. This is an issue that does not affect only Ireland, but we should take the lead, given the importance of the agrifood sector to the future economic development of the economy.

The Acting Chairman has given me some latitude, for which I thank him. I wish the Min- ister of State well in his work.

03/07/2013JJ00200Senator Michael Comiskey: I congratulate the Minister of State on his recent appointment and welcome him to the House on his inaugural visit.

I commend Senator Quinn on publishing the Bill. Many of the issues addressed in it reflect the values which I, as spokesperson on agriculture and as a farmer, have a keen interest in

676 3 July 2013 promoting. It reflects the fact that for many years consumers have been developing a greater awareness in regard to the quality of their food and there is an association between the origin and particular characteristics of some foods.

Ireland has, for many years, been identified on the export market as a high-quality producer of food. The agri-food sector contributes massively to the total value of our exports. Ireland has enormous potential, owing to the county’s grassland-based output, and exports to similar markets where consumers demand high quality and standards but where there is a deficit in food self-sufficiency.

Unlike many other sectors of the economy, agri-food sources the majority of its inputs, goods and services from the domestic market. It is estimated that the sector retains 76% of its expenditure in the Irish economy. Retention is approximately 30% across the rest of the manufacturing sector. These figures demonstrate the continued importance of the agri-sector and its potential to drive the economy as new markets and consumers recognise the quality and competitiveness of Irish goods.

There are, perhaps, advantages in promoting the providence of foods, in particular in contrast to organic food, most of which is imported. There are benefits for the local economy in encouraging direct market connection between farmers and consumers and encouraging consumers to become more aware of the origin of their foods and to buy local produce in local shops. However, this growth may be constrained by the size of the locality.

Evidence is emerging that larger retailers are responding to consumer sentiment by developing regional sourcing offices. It is important, however, that labelling of providence - although it is an indication of origin, giving rise to an indication of quality - does not result in higher prices for consumers. Anecdotal evidence suggests providence-labelled foods are being sold by some retailers at a premium of 10% to 20%. Providence must not be used as a means of simply adding value. All consumers make choices when purchasing foods, but some are constrained by price.

If the intention is to source local produce for local consumers, by inference transport and storage costs should be significantly lower and should offset any savings made through buying in larger quantities. While Ireland is a substantial producer of food, national demand is limited and therefore the importance of the European and international markets cannot be ignored. Following membership of the Common Market and subsequently the Single Market, the Irish agricultural sector has been transformed. The Single Market created access to a market of 500 million people for Irish goods by removing administrative burdens for food exporters. The European food market has dramatically changed over the past 40 years and new challenges are emerging. There is, for example, increased demand for traceability from farm to fork. An excellent example of accountability in this regard is the scheme run by An Bord Bia. While I recognise the merits of the Bill, I am also mindful that Irish producers operate as part of that European market. As such, a universal system of labelling would perhaps offer consumers the greatest protection and best position from which to make a choice.

The Bill’s requirement that origin must be specified for the first three ingredients could mean that producers are constrained in changing suppliers, as that would necessitate a change in labelling. Any such change will carry an associated cost. I note that the Bill refers to the use-by date of products. I am concerned that in the absence of best-before dates, food wastage may inadvertently be encouraged. In addition, the Bill proposes the inclusion of place of pack- 677 Seanad Éireann aging and processing among other details on food packaging. The inclusion of these details may cause confusion among consumers. There is also a concern that these labels might have an impact on the cost of liability insurance, particularly for small producers and processors in an industry where margins are already narrow.

Reputation is paramount for any business, particularly in the food sector. Where a product is bought in small quantities and on a regular basis, reputation and consumer confidence can be particularly fragile. The intense desire to protect their reputation often helps to ensure good practice by manufacturers. It is important that new producers are not discouraged from entering the market.

I acknowledge that there are deficiencies in the current labelling system, which became headline news in respect of beef products some months ago. That incident highlighted how complex the food chain can be and how susceptible it is to fraud. While labelling might enhance consumer confidence, it is not of itself sufficient to ensure against fraud, which is the deliberate and intentional substitution, addition, tampering or misrepresentation of food or a food ingredient. Reform of the labelling system across Europe is expected before the end of the year, with the principal legislation governing food labelling to be repealed and superseded by EU Regulation No. 1169/2011. This wide-ranging regulation is likely to create a positive impact for both consumers and producers. The definition of “ingredient” contained therein includes any substance, additive or enzyme which is used in the manufacture or preparation of foodstuff and still present in the finished product, even if in altered form. The regulation will ensure that accurate and clear information is given to consumers and will help to protect Irish producers from reputational damage. This provision will work in tandem with traceability and DNA testing protocols to ensure confidence in European foodstuffs.

The detection of horsemeat in beef products highlighted serious issues in the food chain, but it is important to remember the role played by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in highlighting the matter. I have little doubt that the FSAI and other European food safety agencies will take an increasingly aggressive approach to identifying food fraud. Once the new regulation is in place, food processors and producers must endeavour to carry out strict due diligence to ensure both they and their suppliers are up to date and compliant with all existing labelling rules and consumer protection codes.

I once again acknowledge the merit of this Bill Senator Quinn has brought forward today. However, as a member state of the European Union whose agrifood sector in particular has benefited enormously from accession, time should be taken to allow the updated regulation to come into effect. Considerable debate took place with a wide variety of interested parties in advance of formulating that regulation. The measures set out therein will apply across Europe and thus create a level playing field for producers. That is the best position in which our exports can operate.

03/07/2013KK00200Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, to the House on his inaugural visit. I thank Senator Feargal Quinn for his hard work in putting together the legislation he has presented to the House today. I disagree with Senator Martin Comiskey’s argument that as member states operating in the Single Market we should follow Europe’s lead in this matter. I am delighted Senator Quinn has taken the initiative and hope he can continue a journey which would see Ireland showing the way for others to follow. We are in a unique position as a small country on the edge of Europe, the only country in the world which shows up almost entirely green on satellite pictures. Our abundance of rain produces the 678 3 July 2013 lush grass which helps us to produce the best milk and beef in the world. In a context where the horsemeat scandal was discovered by the authorities in this country, why should we not seek to be leaders in formulating law in this area? I warn Senator Quinn at the outset, however, that while warmly welcoming his Bill, as a food manufacturer, I have many questions to ask and several amendments to propose.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill pointed out that the export of beef is our greatest success story and represents our largest manufacturing sector. Another major success of ours is the export of milk powder, mainly to China. Back in 2008, melamine was discovered in infant formula in that country, a nasty chemical which is added to watered down milk to bring up the protein level. Having been detected in dog food four years earlier in the United States, and having caused a number of canine deaths there due to kidney failure, the Chinese got a battering from which they have yet to recover. As a manufacturer, some of the great success I have enjoyed in countries like Australia, New Zealand and the United States is because, in the wake of that scare, people there do not trust Chinese chocolate manufacturers. Thankfully, the Irish beef sector seems largely to have recovered from the horsemeat controversy. Consumers are doing fine and are mostly back in the butcher’s shop. When one considers what happened in China, however, the timeliness of Senator Quinn’s Bill is clear.

Will the Senator define what is encompassed in the references in the Bill to “place of manufacture”? This is an issue I grapple with all the time. Colleagues will probably know what I am talking about when I refer to a major company which used to manufacture many of our favourite brands, the delicious items one would have with a cup of tea. After the company was sold off, production moved to Poland, Portugal and elsewhere, yet its products still come under the Guaranteed Irish label. Some people might be buying them under false assumptions. There are manufacturers masking the reality of their so-called Irish status. Foe instance, I could buy blueberries in France and have a factory there coat them in chocolate and package them. Once I bring them home, however, I could decide to repackage them in O’Brien’s Berries boxes and put them on the market. Can such a product be said to have been manufactured in Ireland simply because it is repackaged here? We must have a precise definition in this regard.

I have some concern about people being put out of business. Many of the food manufacturers I know would operate on the basis of 50% branded products and 50% private label. A friend of mine who works in Marks and Spencer advised me last year to purchase its own brand make- up because, she told me, it is made by the same companies that manufacture the very expensive make-up one would find in Brown Thomas or Harrods. The only difference is that it is half the price in Marks and Spencer. The situation is the same for various biscuits and crisps and many other famous brands. People put significant money into their private brands, but they must do private label work with the likes of Sainsbury’s and Asda, or Woolworths, which is the Tesco of Australia. However, they never want to compromise their brand. Therefore, requiring the place or factory of manufacture to be on the label could cause some challenges for the commerciality of a business.

I love the idea of including the top three ingredients. However, taking my brand as an example, in an assorted box of chocolates I have milk chocolate, dark chocolate and white chocolate. Under new EU legislation it is not good enough for me to put on the label that the box contains milk, dark and white chocolate. I need to break down the dark chocolate into cocoa mass, sugar, cocoa butter, emulsifier, soy lecithin, natural vanilla flavouring and so on. The sugar in the dark chocolate is possibly from a different country than the sugar in the milk chocolate, but is of a similar level. The requirements for labelling are quite onerous and complicated, and when I 679 Seanad Éireann brought them to my technicians they said, “Oh my gosh, what a lot more work for our suppliers and ourselves.” They would welcome that because they love being audited and ensuring our product is safe. However, the requirements are quite complex.

I believe the Senator’s Bill is very timely in its application to chicken, fish, meat and per- ishable foods such as dairy food. However, I am not quite so sure it is right for prepacked food such as my product. I do not mean to focus on mine, but it would be simpler to attack the problem for products such as fish and chicken. I feel strongly about these two items. I and most consumers want to know where they is from. Even if it comes down to a question of cost, I still want to know that what I am buying is not from Thailand and I want to know whether it has been frozen and where it came from. There is a huge need for that information. On the issue of the top three ingredients, I am also very interested in knowing - for example, with Tesco burgers - what fillers are put into a product to make it so cheap. I have concerns in that regard. Sometimes it is the additives the consumer wants to know more about.

I was very glad to see the Senator mentioned beverages and alcoholic drinks. I love a glass of wine or a vodka now and again, but I often wonder what is in those drinks. I would love to be in the drinks business because one does not have to put detailed labelling on anything. Does the Minister of State ever think about the fact that one is not required to say what is a drink? I do not want to bore the other Senators as I often do, but I want to refer to a speech I made long ago in the Seanad. I pointed out to the Minister of State in the House then that EU regulations allow for 50 or more flavourings, additives and preservatives to be added to wine, but none of them needs to be listed. One of those additives, isinglass, comes from the bladder of a fish. That goes into both white and red wine. Perhaps when the Minister of State is having a glass of wine at the weekend, he will remember he may be imbibing some part of the bladder of a fish. Other ingredients in wine include copper sulfate, diammonium phosphate and thiamine hydrochloride. We need to know what additives are in our alcoholic beverages. We know we have obesity problems, so we also need to know how many calories are in a glass or bottle of wine. Is the Minister of State a coeliac? If one is a coeliac, one needs to know which drinks contain gluten. I know I may be contradicting myself in regard to requiring more detailed labelling for alcohol, as I said I would prefer to concentrate on labelling for chicken, meat and fish. However, let us be the first country in Europe to talk to the Union and to Brussels about proper labelling for alcoholic drinks.

We want to restore confidence and trust among consumers in Ireland Inc. Nobody loves the goal of Harvest 2020 more than I do. I urge the Minister of State not to return this issue to the shelf in the Department. This brilliant man, Senator Quinn, has gone to a lot of trouble and has done extraordinary work to get this Bill together. Let us go and present it to Europe and say we are ready for this. I would love this Bill to be taken to another stage because I have so much more to say and would love us to drill down on the issues and get the Bill absolutely right so that we can take it to Europe. Let us be the best in the class. We produce the best beef, the best milk powder and the best chocolates.

03/07/2013LL00200Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Minister of State to the House and to congratulate him on his well-deserved appointment. It was not before time.

03/07/2013LL00300Senator Susan O’Keeffe: The Minister of State is very welcome. It is good to have him in the House for his first outing and I hope he is enjoying the robust and informative exchanges we always have here. I hope the glass of wine he may have at the weekend will be even more 680 3 July 2013 enjoyable now that Senator O’Brien has alerted him to its contents.

Like others, I welcome the great hard work done by Senator Quinn in producing this Bill. It demonstrates again that the Seanad has a role, because in their own time Members here take up issues that are of importance to them. I remember when Senator Quinn introduced umbrellas to Superquinn for the protection of shoppers and I remember thinking at the time that it was a very clever idea. While it was a simple idea, it was clever because it said he cared about his customers. This Bill demonstrates that the Senator still cares about his customers. It was not today nor yesterday he introduced umbrellas, but he is still in the business of caring for the customers of Ireland. I applaud him for that.

Like Senator O’Brien, I take issue with some elements of the Bill, but the purpose of the Bill is to provoke the debate and to encourage all of us to think more about the importance of labelling, not least because of the enormous increase in diabetes type 2, the growth in obesity and the fact that we have enormous issues with regard to how food is produced. Many of us here of a certain age never needed labels, because our food came from our own gardens and farms or those of neighbours, sometimes via the shop, to our tables. However, once we went into food production or into industrial or factory food, we bowed to the need for labelling. This is what has us in the mess we are in today, because labelling is an extraordinarily difficult area. Labelling is difficult to get right, because once we start on the issue it becomes even more complicated.

Members are aware that one could have a label saying “Smoked Irish Salmon” or one saying “Irish Smoked Salmon”. Which is Irish? How many people remember when they go to the shelf which one they should buy? They do not know because of the confusion created by the very people who are paid to brand things properly but who do not. The labelling describing something as 90% fat-free means the product is 10% fat, which is quite high. If a product says it is flavoured with something, or says it has a strawberry flavour, it means the product tastes like strawberry, but does not mean it contains strawberry. On the other hand, if the product is strawberry-flavoured, it tastes like strawberries because there are strawberries in it. How many people know that when they go to the shelf to decide on a product? Even when we try to improve labelling and care about providing correct information, we still manage to create enormous confusion. However, that is not to say we should not have this conversation.

One of the elements of the Bill with which I have an issue is the proposal regarding the first three ingredients. As Senator O’Brien has said, this leads to a difficulty with regard to the other ingredients. If we look at the Food Safety Authority of Ireland website today, we will see that Green Isle has recalled its Harvest stir-fry mix due to possible contamination with datura seeds. I do not know what a datura seed is and have never heard of it. However, I imagine the Harvest Stir Fry is not full of them, but that they are a minor ingredient. Obviously, the company is concerned about a possible contaminant. Much contamination is of smaller ingredients whose provenance is not known. Much of the time these ingredients come from countries where tem- peratures spike and they become infected easily, particularly with fungal infections. Recently, Tesco recalled its Tesco Yeast Extract due to high levels of histamine. Who would have thought that was a problem? There is a list of other products on the site that have been recalled. Of course, this shows us that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is doing a good job, but it also informs us that there are great difficulties with regard to food ingredients. Where does one start and where does one stop with the labelling? I accept that it is important to list the three most important ingredients in a product and it is right in principle to require them to be listed. How- ever, in practice such labelling fails when these problems arise with other ingredients whose 681 Seanad Éireann provenance is not listed. In fact, they might be the very things that caused the problem with the food in the first instance and be the cause for it to be recalled. I particularly agree with regard to alcohol as it is plainly disgraceful that we have no idea what it contains. Neither do we know what is in toothpaste. I often wonder what on earth we are putting in our mouths as we profess to be cleaning our teeth. I would love to know what is in toothpaste and I have not quite got to the bottom of it. All I know is that the tubes are becoming more complicated and it is difficult to get the toothpaste out of them. However, that is not the subject of our discussion today.

I do not mind being a good European when progress is being made with regard to food labelling. The 2011 regulation is making progress, in my view. It provides a framework for the label listing of fat, saturated fat and carbohydrates. This is significant progress, in my view. I am fortunate to have a degree in food science and perhaps that means it is easier for me but the system needs to be simplified. For example, the traffic lights system or similar might be the best option. At least we are persuading food producers of the importance of putting that information on the food and it is becoming part of people’s language. At least they can interpret the figures and decide whether a figure is too high and they can make a choice about eating the food. Food labelling is not enough, particularly in the battle against obesity. The cost of food is lower than it used to be and people are being encouraged to eat food that is not very healthy. There is a pretence that labelling food means it is the responsibility of the consumer to decide whether to eat it. That is not what could be called food education.

EU regulations stipulate that the origin of foods such as beef, honey, olive oil and fresh fruit and vegetables must be stated on the label in accordance with sector-specific legislation. The EU is currently concluding the examination of whether this labelling should be extended to beef. This audit is nearly concluded and the information will be provided by the end of the year. Within a further year the Commission will have to introduce rules on foods such as milk and dairy products. The past two years has seen much activity across all member states and this lends weight to the regulations by making them more robust. While I am happy to shout it from the rooftops that Ireland has a very fine record for very good food I am not sure on this occasion that trying to lay another piece of legislation on top of existing legislation will neces- sarily make it easier for legislators or make the legislation any better. Aspects of the legislation might be useful - particularly with regard to alcohol and the fresh fish and fresh food bought in certain shops - if a way can be found to inform the consumer of the provenance of the fish such as, “This fish was caught today in Donegal”, or that the fish had been frozen. That might be of assistance. However, I would not be in favour of a twin-track approach with the EU regulations as there is already too much confusion. Many examples of labelling such as, “strawberry flavour” cause confusion. I am concerned that this Bill might add to that confusion and I do not think for a moment that this was the Senator’s intention.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has responsibility for food labelling. In my view it should be a completely independent body which should be better resourced. As Senator Quinn said, the horsemeat scandal highlighted the length and also the complexity of the food chain. It is now a horse-traders’ market, if I can be excused the description. Everyone wants to get into the market and to trade as much as possible. This was not the case even ten years ago. Even if every piece of food were to be labelled, it will not stop those who want to cheat the system. Even if food had every label under the sun, a person who wants to use horsemeat will do so, regardless. The labelling will not stop the use of horsemeat but the length and complexity of the food chain, the fact that more products are being included in foodstuffs, is the difficulty. That is why the Food Safety Authority of Ireland needs full independence and more resources

682 3 July 2013 to ensure it can continue to do its good work and also to support our good farmers who continue to produce good product in the name of Ireland and which is sold abroad. That is my request to the Minister of State.

03/07/2013MM00200Senator John Crown: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I support my colleague’s Bill. Few people can speak with as much authority on the subject as Senator Quinn. Few people have looked at the food supply industry as well as considered the needs and wants of consumers. Food, water and energy are the big three in determining our survival as a species in the 21st century. The supply and shepherding of the resources of food, water and energy are critical for our survival. Long after the last investment banker is flipping burgers in a fast-food joint and long after the last hedge-fund manager is dancing for hen parties in Temple Bar, we are still going to need farmers, fishermen and food producers in the future. Ireland has few enough natural resources but one critical resource is our ability to produce food. It has been estimated that our little windswept, wet island could support in food alone a population of between 30 and 50 times the current population, and equal to the population of Japan plus that of the United King- dom. Many countries are considered as economic powerhouses with huge economies. China and Japan are in the top three of world economies but they are not food-independent and they require large imports of food to keep themselves afloat. While we consider our awful economic vulnerability to the tides of international commerce, we are pretty secure because it is unlikely we will run out of water and food although we will need to put on our thinking caps with regard to energy. It is critical to develop our food sector to its maximum efficiency.

We probably do not have the mega industrial-scale ranches nor the huge international food producers - although we have some - but we can leverage certain aspects. Our reputation has been somewhat sullied by the horsemeat scandal and by a number of scandals over the past 30 years but it exists with regard to our food produce, our tourism, our culture and for having a relatively close to nature, rural and less polluted society. These aspects resonate with many of those who visit our country and many of those who want to buy food from our country. It is critical to do everything in our power to protect this resource. It is a no-brainer, in my view. We should be way out ahead of the curve and the posse. Not everything Europe does is right; some of what it does is unbelievably swayed by, in some cases, very influential and, in my view, corrupt lobbyists. I argue there is no law which we enact that cannot be repealed if it is ultimately brought to our attention that this is necessary. We have sadly seen what can happen to even a crusading, campaigning health Minister like Deputy Reilly. I refer to the one bit of tobacco legislation he brought to the House which liberalised the sale of tobacco as a result of highly nefarious rulings made by the European courts on behalf of really regrettable forces in Europe, some of which are related to agriculture. For that reason our European colleagues must be regarded as our partners in Europe but also as our customers. They buy most of the food we sell and they will be reassured if we set the bar extremely high. However, I remind the Minister of State that they are also our competitors. We must do everything by way of product differentia- tion to make Brand Ireland food wholesome, healthy, traceable, back to nature, less processed and with known provenance. The marketing opportunities are endless. This has been done domestically in some of the campaigns of both the supermarkets and some of the food suppliers, where individual farmers are filmed walking their herds across the fields. This is what we should be aiming to do internationally. An essential part of the campaign is that people know the food they think is from Ireland was actually grown, reared and processed in Ireland, and is not some kind of swiz put out by less reliable markets, branded here and marketed as being from here by packaging or preparation.

683 Seanad Éireann I thank the Minister of State for his time and wish him all the best in his Ministry in the years to come.

03/07/2013NN00200Senator Catherine Noone: I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment which, as previous speakers remarked, is well-deserved. We look forward to welcoming him in this House many times, at least as long as we are here.

I commend Senator Quinn for his hard work in bringing this sensible Bill to the House. It is a bid to provide an enhanced level of information regarding food, whether fresh or pre-packaged, to introduce a new, more stringent level of requirements for food labelling and signage, and to amend the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 in light of these matters. These amendments come against the backdrop of the recent horsemeat scandal and highlight how legislation might be strengthened as a consequence of these recent issues. I may be on the other side in that I am now somewhat paranoid about what I eat. I worry about everything, even where fish oils come from, and will not buy chicken or any meat in supermarkets. I have become quite a vegetarian because I am almost paranoid about what I eat. The other thing that really gets my goat is the sugar aspect. When one sees something labelled as “low fat”, the label might as well read “full of toxins, full of sugar”. If one eats it one might blow up.

Children suffer in many circumstances from the lack of labelling. Brands such as Actimel contain five, six or seven spoonfuls of sugar. It is fascinating how producers manage to label things so that they appear to be really good for one’s health. They may not damage one but one certainly is not eating what one intends to eat. There is a particular yogurt that is labelled low-fat and organic, which it is, but it also has a great deal of sugar in it, some 12 spoonfuls. In that sense, I may be coming from another side of the argument in that I am nearly demented thinking about what I am eating.

I agree, however, with Senator Crown and other speakers in regard to comments about Europe. This Bill represents an opportunity for us to lead the way on this issue. I hope the Minister will go to Europe taking this Bill as a proposal and to show them how things can be done. We have a really proud tradition in this country of food production and are very lucky to have such fine produce to export. We need to think about a unified EU approach, which is necessary. If nothing else, the horsemeat issue has highlighted this. We should lead the charge on this because we are eminently qualified to do so.

In regard to recent problems like horsemeat, the other thing this or any future Bills can do is to prevent food growers and manufacturers from misleading people by using Irish brands or, as other speakers mentioned, using branding to masquerade their real origins. We see this every day in a number of brands and products, many of which trade with green packaging or the word “Irish” in their title, which is misleading. As long as they are produced - tampered is the wrong word - or have something done to them in this country they can be called Irish. With clear labelling that shows where a given product comes from the impact of such misleading packaging could be minimised or possibly nullified, thus helping Irish manufacturers and producers. The proposed labels, as outlined, are very clear and perfectly easy to understand and it is clear that a great deal of thought has gone into them. On sizing, however, it is my view that a proportional approach would be best, whereby the label would be in a prominent place on the front of a given package, where it would have to occupy a certain percentage of the surface area label. This is as important, as on bigger items the importance and relevance of the information could easily be lost.

684 3 July 2013 This Bill is thoughtful, highlights a number of serious issues and seeks to ensure a legislative solution to them but there are a few aspects that concern me. One issue to be considered is simplicity of labelling. I have got to the point of reading labels, wishing almost to see behind them or to ring up the producer to find out things, but most people are not at all interested. Senator O’Keeffe mentioned the traffic light system. Something like this must be considered within this whole context. While most of us present are very interested, the vast majority of people just want to eat, be fed, move on and do what they are doing. There is a fine line to be drawn concerning over-complication which, by trying to give people more information, may bamboozle the consumer and end up achieving the opposite to what was hoped.

Although it is laudable to have as much information as possible, I wonder whether the provisions of section 7, laying out as separate and distinct the places where the animal was farmed and slaughtered, might lead to some confusion. Similarly, in section 9, on seafood, the required names of the seas in question would seem bound to cause confusion among consumers who might, regrettably, begin to ignore labelling altogether. I have praise for one practical element in section 12 which I believe must be incorporated in any given solution, namely, where the provision of the Act is specifically not applied to restaurants and cafés.

03/07/2013NN00300Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): The Senator’s time is nigh.

03/07/2013NN00400Senator Catherine Noone: I did not realise I was over time. I commend Senator Quinn for his very hard work and for producing a fine Bill which, in so far as it is possible, the Minister of State should use and bring to Europe, allowing us to lead the charge in food labelling. If there must be a harmonised approach within Europe, as I believe is the case with food provenance, we should be the ones to lead.

03/07/2013NN00500Senator Paschal Mooney: I compliment our colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, for introducing this initiative. He has a tough battle ahead of him. Judging from the Minister of State’s reply, once again this will be kicked into Europe where the most powerful of all lobbies is operating. The food lobby is one of the biggest in Europe and features the major multinationals in particular. These have continually resisted types of proposals such as that of Senator Quinn that are in the interests of openness and transparency, consumer information and protection. It would be a coup of sorts for this country to lead on this issue, rather than kick it back into the melting pot of Europe and wait for the Commission. Time and again, whenever proposals have been brought forward to make labelling more transparent, the food lobby has somehow managed to undermine the very best intentions of Members of the European Parliament and, indeed, the Commission’s original proposals. The past decade in particular is littered with examples of where the food industry has managed to get its way, even on the most basic point. For example, I am sure that if the Minister of State were to go into any supermarket or corner store, and read the labelling on any food-related product, as I do, he would find nine or ten times out of ten a reference to sodium. We call it salt, not sodium. That is just one example of where the food industry has resisted, by not using the word “salt”. In the context of sugar content, the industry has played around with words time and again to ensure there is a high sugar content, especially in children’s cereals. This is exceptionally damaging to the young population, not only of this country but of Europe in general.

As a result of consumer pressure, some of the major international food companies such as Nestlé and, at more local level, Marks and Spencer, have responded, albeit belatedly and, in my opinion, somewhat timidly, and have said they will reduce the salt and sugar content of their goods. They are beginning to dismantle this to a degree in the United States, primarily because 685 Seanad Éireann of consumer pressure. There are blatant examples of sugar being used in so-called health foods.

6 o’clock

That is why I am passionate about this subject. It is long past time the food companies were brought to heel in this regard. I hope this will be an instructive and informed debate. If the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, cannot take this legislation on, he should take on the issue in the interests of the consumer and fight the good fight with the major food industries which are an exceptionally powerful lobby. They use millions of euro to ensure legislation such as this is resisted right down the line.

I compliment Senator Feargal Quinn on introducing the Bill. I hope this is the beginning, not the end, of a serious debate on protecting the consumer, which is long overdue.

03/07/2013OO00200Senator Marie Moloney: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes. I worked with him when he was Chairman of the transport committee. We always got on well and it was a pleasure to work with him. I commend Senator Feargal Quinn for bringing the Bill to the House. It is a pity the Minister of State has said the timing is wrong and that he cannot accept the Bill. Ireland has always prided itself on producing food of the highest quality for the domestic market, restaurants and industry. Our food producers have worked hard to build a good reputation. I welcome any measure that would enhance their attempts to further build on this reputation.

The horsemeat scandal rocked consumer confidence. When it comes to food safety, we can never be too vigilant. On the back of this, we need to find ways of ensuring it will never happen again. Tighter rules and regulations around food provenance are one way of doing this. Com- ing from a community in County Kerry that is deeply rooted in farming, I know the importance of food provenance. When one goes to the local market, one knows from where the food has come, that is home-grown. Why should shopping in supermarkets be any different?

It is an ill wind that does not blow good in some direction. People became very vigilant after the horsemeat scandal and it heightened their awareness of what ingredients were in their food. I believe it drove people back to the local butchers to buy their meat. Meat from a butcher is much healthier and less expensive. Ready meals are expensive when 1 lb of beef or lamb from a butcher can be made into a stew and go much further. It is also more substantial and healthier for a family. Ready meals may be handy and convenient, but they are not as healthy as a home cooked meal.

It is difficult to have all ingredients labelled. In food processing one could even be using ingredients from different countries. While we can have control over products made in Ireland, we cannot control non-Irish products. One would have to be a scientist to know what half of the ingredients in a food product comprise. Senator Susan O’Keeffe called out various products and ingredients that I had never heard of before. When I shop for groceries abroad, I always look for Irish products. There is safety in knowing they are Irish because we trust Irish produced foods.

Senator Feargal Quinn has worked long and hard in the food industry. I commend his work on the Bill. His caring for the people of Ireland is coming through in it. It would ensure people would know what they were eating and buying. Sometimes one would want a magnifying glass to find the best-before-date on food products.

686 3 July 2013

03/07/2013OO00300Senator Paschal Mooney: That is done deliberately.

03/07/2013OO00400Senator Marie Moloney: Yes, that is the case.

I hope the Minister of State will not allow the Bill to stagnate on a shelf but work with Sena- tor Feargal Quinn on enhancing his proposals. Why can we not be the leader in Europe in food provenance? It would be a feather in our cap and we could always say it came from the Seanad, whether we are here in time to come, but, please God, we will be.

03/07/2013OO00500Senator Kathryn Reilly: I thank Senator Feargal Quinn for bringing forward this welcome Bill. He has been consistent on this issue for several years. He has raised it a number of times and we have had the opportunity to debate it.

Food labelling is a key source of information by which consumers can determine what food to buy. It serves a primary purpose of informing the consumer who has the right to clear and understandable information on food products and their true origins. The European Union is required by treaty to contribute to protecting the health, safety and the economic interests of consumers, as well as promoting their rights to information, education and organise themselves to safeguard their interests. While the initial food labelling legislation was to provide rules for the labelling of foods as a tool in the free circulation of food, over time the protection of consumer rights has emerged as a specific objective. The consumer may be interested in obtaining additional information on health, product sustainability, animal welfare and food miles. The absence of definitive country-of-origin labelling for some products means that some can masquerade as being from elsewhere, which leads to misinformation and, down the line, potential health risks. This is a concern, with some food products being passed off as Irish which have undergone substantial transformation.

The credence characteristic of goods is defined as those the consumer cannot evaluate ac- curately, even after use, owing to insufficient information and the consumer’s lack of expert knowledge. In the light of this, are consumers winners in a liberal trade regime when often they are in the dark about the characteristics of the products they are consuming? For example, if we assume that foreign suppliers are able to adopt some technology in their businesses such as biotechnology and that producers in the importing country cannot use that technology because it is not applicable there, as the biotechnology used relates to product preservation, the imported product may utilise the same sell by date as the domestic product but could have been processed earlier. In theory, labelling should be used as a signalling device to indicate to consumers the difference in production dates, but the use of technology, coupled with regulation, means that a foreign company does not have to do this. Consumers who buy foreign products over domestic products might not be aware of the credence attribute of the product which is, in fact, older than the domestic product. Many of the World Trade Organisation rules for the labelling of imports do not actually account for the market failure arising from these characteristics. They need to be addressed urgently. The Department of Health has a big say in country of origin food labelling, but what dialogue is ongoing between the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Irish Codex Advisory Committee and the Codex Alimentarius Commission on substantial transformation to deal with these issues?

We can start to properly mitigate food crises and health risks when there is transparency in the food production system. I call on the Minister to give strong consideration to this Bill which is a fantastic piece of work by a Senator who has been consistent in his work in this area.

687 Seanad Éireann

03/07/2013PP00200Senator Pat O’Neill: I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his recent appointment. I look forward to meeting him next Saturday night in Nowlan Park, Kilkenny for the real all-Ireland final.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for allocating me time to speak on the Bill. I compliment Senator Feargal Quinn on bringing it before the House. It addresses some important legislative points on the origins and labelling of food, but in places it seems to pre-empt or even clash with legislation currently being discussed at EU level such as Regulation No. 1169/2011, as pointed out by the Minister of State, which should be in place by next year. The Bill has its background in the recent and well publicised horsemeat scandal which was dealt with very well by the Gov- ernment, in particular by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Co- veney. It claims that the scandal exposed a number of shortcomings regarding the provenance of food we consume. While the origins of the meat in question were certainly a factor in the scandal, at its core was the most serious case of food fraud the European Union had experienced in its history. Someone, somewhere, seems to have profited from illegally labelling horsemeat as beef and selling the lie, not just to the Irish people but also across Europe. While knowing the place of origin of the food in question may have aided the current investigation in its infant stages, it would not have prevented these criminals from blatantly lying to consumers about what they were eating. This was the first country to introduce DNA testing for food products and this was how the horsemeat scandal was exposed. A problem that started in Ireland turned out to be a European and a worldwide problem. Every country has since followed our lead and introduced DNA testing for food.

There does not seem to be an exact costing for the labelling included in this legislation. However, these measures would be costly. The labels would require research by producers into the origins of a multitude of ingredients and confirmation and compliance by the State. We can also safely assume that the extra packaging required to comply with the legislation, as well as the obvious time and effort required to effect it, would increase the price of these goods. That money would have to come from somewhere. The people of Ireland would be hit with the added cost, as companies would pass the added cost of this packaging to consumers, while the State would require extra tax revenue from the people to fund its investigative work. With these increases in mind, we should consider the effect of such a cost increase on consumers should the cost be passed onto them, while our international competitiveness might also suffer as a result.

Members are aware of the reliance of this country on its exports, particularly those from the agrifood sector. What would happen to these exports if they were to become more expensive? A product can only stand on its superior quality to a given extent before customers begin fac- toring in cost. When foreign markets begin to take account of superior Irish products becoming much more expensive just in order that they know from what farm they came, of course there would be a drop in demand for these products. Our export-led recovery could quickly be jeopardised for the sake of providing a little extra information. That is not to say consumers should not know from where food comes. Every consumer has a right to know what he or she is eating and from where it came. However, what can be difficult to ascertain is the point at which to draw the line on these issues. A pack of butter traced back to a cow in a field in County Kilkenny might be flavoured with some salt from the Middle East, which itself must be traced to whatever Iraqi salt flats it came from. The same requirements would need to be met for a wrapped toffee with Irish milk and Brazilian sugar. Before we know it, the nanny state would take over and this would begin to cost more than it was worth. We should trust in the quality of the food currently produced in this country and rely on its status as some of the best products

688 3 July 2013 in the world. We should rely for the moment on the standards, checks and balances already in place in Ireland and we should stand on the national and international reputation of the quality of our food sector.

As previous speakers have pointed out, with a few changes the Bill could only be for the benefit of consumers, producers and retailers, as it would ease the mind and provide confidence in the food products they were buying. The primary producers, namely, the farmers, have been used to inspections and legislation in recent years and have helped to build our worldwide reputation as the safest food producer in the world. Any meat bought can be traced back to the original animal and even the generations before it.

There is no doubt that we need proper labelling, but the country cannot go on a solo run. We need all 28 countries in the European Union to be governed by the same legislation in order that the consumer can have full confidence in the food products he or she is purchasing. All our retailers and purchasers have different standards in the labelling of food and they need to be standardised. We have labels with the words “product of Ireland” or “produced in Ireland”, as well as the Irish tricolour on some products, all of which is confusing as it means that in some cases imported food products, if repackaged or reconfigured in Ireland, can carry these labels.

I thank Senator Feargal Quinn for bringing the Bill before and the Minister of State for his attention. I hope the Senator will wait for the EU directives and legislation before he brings the Bill to Committee Stage in the House.

03/07/2013PP00300Deputy Tom Hayes: I assure the House that it is in our interests to push this issue through in the European Union. I guarantee that all of the issues raised will be brought immediately to the European Union by our officials. It is in our interests to provide for labelling on which so much depends. As I said, today I attended the Moorepark open day which thousands of farmers also attended. They have expansion plans to develop their businesses across the agriculture sector. Only yesterday I was in Bord Bia headquarters. The country is so dependent on this issue. Perhaps I did not explain this properly in my opening statement, but I would like to give Senators that full assurance.

03/07/2013PP00400Senator Susan O’Keeffe: On a point of information, I want to clarify the rules on the guaranteed Irish label. Any product or service in respect of which at least 50% of the value was added in Ireland can qualify as guaranteed Irish. The figure for the “Love Irish Food” brand is over 80%.

03/07/2013PP00500Senator Feargal Quinn: I thank the Minister of State for his clarification and Senator Susan O’Keeffe for her explanation. My job is to sum up, but I do not have that much time to do so.

We want to push on Europe the ideas brought forward by the Senators this evening. I will bring them to the attention of our officials. Our Minister, Deputy Coveney, is currently away dealing with this issue and we will be shown to lead the way as we did last week on the Com- mon Agricultural Policy. Perhaps I did not explain that properly in my ow I accept the points that the Minister of State has made. As I believe we can influence Europe, I am not going to seek a vote on Second Stage. Senator Crown and I have had experience of adjourning a Second Stage debate and revisiting the Bill when the issues arising have been clarified. That is what happened in respect of Senator Crown’s Seanad reform legislation and a number of Bills I introduced in the past.

689 Seanad Éireann Speakers in the debate made a range of interesting points but I will not attempt to address all of them. Senator Comiskey referred to best before dates. One of the reasons we are opposed to best before dates is because they can be vague. This is why we prefer a use by date. I recall one occasion in which a supplier of potatoes listed a best before date that was only four days after we received the stock. We received the potatoes on a Friday but people refused to purchase them because they believed they would have gone off by the Monday. The potato supplier’s argument was that new potatoes are at their tastiest when eaten in the first three or four days. They are still edible two weeks later but they do not have the same taste. Senator Ó Domhnaill asked whether we would consider extending the Bill to cover restaurants. We did not attempt to include restaurants because we wanted compact legislation. I loved Senator Mary Ann O’Brien’s comments. She emphasised the importance of confidence and trust, which are what we are trying to achieve. We have greatly benefited from her experience as a manufacturer. Senator O’Neill pointed out that good labelling is beneficial to consumers and retailers.

The Minister of State indicated that he was reluctant to accept the Bill was because of the costs it might incur. I have been in business long enough to realise that consumers are good at balancing price and quality. When I started out as a retailer people were very interested in price but they later became interested in taste, health and where products come from. I have tried to incorporate as much of that as I was able.

One of the incidents that sparked off this Bill occurred when my executive assistant, Ms Anne Ó Broin, was shopping in Carrick-on-Suir a couple of weeks ago. She purchased loose fish from a van and the seller had hand written on the label the area of the sea from which the fish had been caught. I received considerable assistance from Mr. Raymond O’Rourke, who is a barrister and an expert in food technology. I was also assisted by Mr. Brian Hunt, who is an expert in drafting Bills. The help I received this evening has also been particularly useful. I propose that we adjourn our debate on Second Stage and I hope we will be able to resume when the Minister of State is ready. I will spend the interim trying to convince him of the Bill’s value.

Debate adjourned.

03/07/2013QQ00300An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

03/07/2013QQ00400Senator Michael Comiskey: Ar 10.30 a.m. amárach.

Adjournment Debate

03/07/2013QQ00600Sunbed Usage

03/07/2013QQ00700Senator John Crown: I urge the Government to introduce legislation regulating the sunbed sector at the earliest opportunity. I am pleased to say the Minister of State at the Depart- ment of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, has graciously informed me that such legislation will be introduced very shortly. I will be taking a non-controversial stance because I regard myself as a partner with the Government and Ministers on this topic. I will, however, take advantage of the debate to emphasise why it is important to regulate the sector.

690 3 July 2013 The updated figures on the incidence of malignant melanoma in this country are frighten- ing. I have previously quoted figures for this potentially lethal skin cancer. I must stress that most skin cancers are cured by the simple expedient of being recognised at an early stage and removed before they can spread. Of the three major kinds of skin cancer the least common, malignant melanoma, is potentially the most fatal and it also has the greatest potential for secondary spread, dissemination and lethality. The incidence of this cancer doubled between 1998 to 2008, from 400 to 800 cases, and the most recent figures indicate that its incidence has increased to nearly 1,000 since 2008. A bitter fruit is being harvested from the unhealthy habits we have developed in respect of both the real sun and sun beds. Worryingly, the sector is largely unregulated. It is still legal for children under the age of 18 years to partake in sunbed bathing. This activity is recognised as presenting a defined incremental risk in the incidence of malignant melanoma. The figures show that one sunbed session increases an individual’s lifetime chance of developing melanoma by 20% compared to someone who never used one. Each additional session during the same year may increase the risk by a further 2% to 3%. The average risk of skin cancer from sunbeds is more than double that of spending the same length of time in the midday Mediterranean sun. People who regularly use high pressure sunlamps may be exposed to as much as 12 times the annual ultraviolet A dose than they would get from sun exposure.

A number of jurisdictions have already introduced legislation to ban sunbed use by those who are under age. These include Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, British Columbia, New- foundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec, California, New York, Vermont and Iceland. Brazil has banned all commercial tanning beds. Australia, where the biggest demographic presenting with skin cancer is of Irish extraction, plans to introduce a similar ban from 2014 onwards. New Zealand is also introducing stringent regulations.

Three attempts to have been made to introduce legislation in this area over the years. I laud my colleagues in this House and the Dáil for their efforts in this regard and, without missing any opportunity to launch a save the Seanad campaign, it should be noted that one of these Bills was introduced in the last Seanad by Senators Healy Eames, Cummins, Bradford and Paul Coghlan. Unfortunately, the Bill ran out of steam with the 2011 elections. More recently, a Bill was introduced in the other House by my friend and colleague, Deputy Kelleher, and another Bill was introduced by the now Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan. I am not sure what will happen to Deputy Kelle- her’s Bill and whether it will be supplanted by other legislation but we must remain committed to putting legislation on the Statute Book at the earliest opportunity. Every year, 28,000 young people use sunbeds, which means 28,000 more young people are being exposed to skin cancer every year we delay legislating. I would also take this opportunity to ask the Minister of State, separate from the subject matter of this Adjournment debate, to find out what is happening to the Protection of Children’s Health from Tobacco Smoke Bill 2012, which deals with smoking in cars. It was supposed to be in place to protect children during last year’s summer holidays, but that did not happen. I am getting very nervous about whether it will happen in 2013.

03/07/2013RR00200Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): I am responding to Senator Crown on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly. I should mention that my script refers to the Senator as “Deputy Crown”.

03/07/2013RR00300Senator John Crown: I have been promoted.

691 Seanad Éireann

03/07/2013RR00400Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I was about to say I do not know whether it is a promotion or a demotion. I thank the Senator for raising this matter and giving me an opportunity to outline to the House the current state of play with regard to the proposed public health legislation governing the use of sunbeds. There has been a growing body of evidence over recent years that the use of sunbeds, especially by children, should be restricted because of the associated increased risk of skin cancer and other health problems. In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is an expert body under the World Health Organization, reclassified sunbed use as a group 1 carcinogenic. This higher-risk classification now places sunbed use on a par with cigarette smoking.

The World Health Organization, the Irish Cancer Society, the Environmental Health Of- ficers Association and other bodies have expressed growing concern about the use of sunbeds. The Department of Health has taken these developments fully into account in its consideration of the measures in the proposed legislation. The Department has conducted two public consultations on the matter and has met a number of interested parties, including the Sunbed Associa- tion of Ireland, Quality and Qualifications Ireland, the Health Service Executive, the National Consumer Agency, the National Standards Authority of Ireland and the Irish Cancer Society. The Department has also consulted the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, which has responsibility for safety matters relating to sunbeds and other types of tanning equipment.

The Government has approved the drafting of legislation. I can confirm that the Bill has been accorded priority status in the Office of the Attorney General. Officials from the Depart- ment are working closely with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel to complete the drafting of this important public health legislation. The Minister’s key priority in the legislation is to prohibit people under the age of 18 from using sunbeds on a sunbed premises and from purchasing or hiring sunbeds. The Bill will also set out a comprehensive range of measures to promote greater public awareness across all age groups of the dangers of skin cancer, prema- ture ageing and eye damage caused by exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The Bill will require those involved in this sector to supervise sunbed use, issue notifications to the HSE, train staff, provide protective eyewear to sunbed users and display warning signs. Sunbed businesses will be required to provide comprehensive information setting out the health risks associated with sunbed use to anyone over the age of 18 who is considering sunbed use. Those who choose to use sunbeds despite the risks involved will be required to sign a form indicating they have been made fully aware of the potential dangers of sunbed use. In addition, there will be a prohibition on certain promotional and marketing practices. Comprehensive enforcement provisions will also be included in the Bill.

The drafting of the public health (sunbeds) Bill will be finalised in the next six to eight weeks. Thereafter, the legislation must be notified to the EU Commission under the EU transparency directive prior to its publication and introduction in the Oireachtas. This EU notifica- tion requirement will take a minimum of three months to complete. I hope my reply has been of some help to the Senator. I will inquiries about the Protection of Children’s Health from Tobacco Smoke Bill 2012.

03/07/2013RR00500Senator John Crown: I thank the Minister of State. I am tremendously grateful for the effort that has been made in this regard by the Minister and the Ministers of State and their officials in the Department of Health. We will raise the question again in approximately three months’ time to see what the status of the legislation is at that stage.

692 3 July 2013

03/07/2013RR00600Hospital Services

03/07/2013RR00700Senator Jimmy Harte: I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House for this debate on the future of three community hospitals in County Donegal, in Stranorlar, Carndonagh and Dungloe. They are as geographically spread out as any three hospitals in the county could be. This issue, which affects every corner of County Donegal, was brought into focus recently when HIQA reports found that the hospitals in question were not 100% satisfactory. Many of these problems stem from the staffing of the hospitals. The communities served by these hospitals and the families of the hospitals’ patients need to get some clarity. That would be better than certain individuals going on the airwaves to say that the hospitals will close, or that there will be a reduction in services. Older people would rather have clarity. Many of them would regard the community hospital in the same way as their sitting room or kitchen. That is where they spend their time and where their families visit them.

County Donegal may be unique in how its community hospital service is structured. Lifford Community Hospital, which is roughly in the same boat, provides a useful step-down service to those treated at Letterkenny General Hospital. The local community and the local doctors came together when that hospital was under threat to speak to the Minister and draw up a plan to help the hospital improve structurally. It has been suggested recently that the three hospitals I mentioned at the outset could lose beds and never get them back. Older people find it difficult to accept that possibility. A local councillor, Martin Farren, has attended some meetings about the future of Carndonagh Community Hospital. Another councillor, Frank McBrearty, has been dealing with St. Joseph’s Community Hospital in Stranorlar. I have also spoken to people who have attended meetings in Dungloe.

The HSE has a communications problem. Its management should play a more proactive role and say exactly what is happening here. When rumours are spread about hospitals - this seems to be a regular occurrence - politicians from all parties have to find out what is happening and go on the airwaves to explain the position before someone from the HSE eventually issues a statement. The HSE should be more proactive in explaining what is actually happening to the public, the community and the patients in our community hospitals and thereby providing reassurance. The worst thing for a hospital is for a rumour to get legs. In such circumstances, everyone believes the rumours rather than the facts. Maybe that should be considered in the overall context of how the HSE communicates. These rumours should be nipped in the bud more quickly. Perhaps the Minister of State can provide some clarity on the future of these three hospitals.

03/07/2013RR00800Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I do not need to tell anyone in this country, and definitely not anyone involved in politics, that we are facing challenging times as we try to keep the finances, the services and the infrastructure of our community units in place. These challenges relate to finances, to staffing and to the ageing structures in which these units are housed. All -de velopments have to be addressed in light of current economic and budgetary pressures. Any decisions taken by the HSE must have regard to these pressures and to the current recruitment moratorium.

The 11 community hospitals in County Donegal provide 400 public beds, of which 238 are short-stay beds and 162 are long-stay beds. They are supported by a wide range of community- based services. Primary care centres are attached to six units, which means there is access to services including public health nurse services, community psychiatric nursing, home help

693 Seanad Éireann services and old age psychiatry. These services are available to residents of the units as need requires. The use of short-stay beds has enabled older people to access the services and supports they need to maximise their independence and remain at home for longer. This is demonstrated by the fact that just 2.7% of older people in County Donegal are in long-term care, compared to a figure of 4% nationally. There is an emphasis in the county on supporting acute services to discharge older people in a timely manner to step-down facilities in community hospitals. Some 976, or 29%, of the 3,353 admissions to community hospitals were from acute hospitals in 2012. The availability and use of short-stay beds in community hospitals minimises acute hospital admissions as it allows general practitioners to admit patients to community hospitals directly.

Dungloe Community Hospital, like Carndonagh and Stranorlar community hospitals, was registered with the Health Information and Quality Authority on 22 June 2012. The registration period is three years and the current capacity is 35 beds. In addition to long-term care, there is a day hospital, outpatient clinics, X-ray and other specialist services. The hospital has recently experienced an increased number of staff retirements, long-term sick leave and maternity leave. In order to maintain a sate level of care to patients the HSE decided temporarily to reduce the number of short-stay beds by ten. Long-stay beds are unaffected. The decision to close the beds temporarily was taken to ensure that there is an adequate number of staff to meet all of the needs of the residents safely. The hospital will continue to provide respite and rehab care within its current capacity.

Carndonagh Community Hospital is the focal point for health care delivery in north In- ishowen, delivering a comprehensive service to meet a wide range of patient needs. Services include long-term care, respite, rehabilitation, palliative and dementia-specific care. There is a wide catchment area with 14% of the population over 65, many of whom live in isolated areas and alone. This places greater demands on services, particularly inpatient services. The current bed capacity in Carndonagh Community Hospital is 38. The recent decision to reduce capacity from 42 to 38 beds was also taken to maintain safe and appropriate levels of care to patients. The situation will be kept under review and as sick leave resolves the beds will re-open.

The current capacity of St.Joseph’s Community Hospital is 75 beds. Services include respite, rehabilitation, palliative and intermediate care and there are 27 beds available for long- term residential care. When the hospital was last inspected by HIQA in April 2013, inspectors observed that while staff provided care in a knowledgeable, competent and respectful manner, there was a concern that this complex mix of residents can make it more difficult for the staff to meet the needs of long-term residents. In order to address this issue one ward, with a dedicated staff, has now been designated for long-stay residents only. The changes mean St. Joseph’s will now have an operational capacity of 67 beds. I am confident that this response will facilitate improved compliance with residential standards. Residents and their families can be assured that management and staff will continue to work to provide the highest standards of care in all the community hospitals in Donegal. The HSE has asked me to assure the House that the residents at all these facilities are receiving a safe and quality service. Bed capacity across community hospitals in Donegal will be kept under on-going review. However, there are no current plans to further reduce bed capacity. I hope this is of some help to the Senator.

03/07/2013SS00200Tobacco Control Measures

694 3 July 2013

03/07/2013SS00300Senator Martin Conway: I would like to share time with Senator Crown if that is acceptable.

03/07/2013SS00400An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

03/07/2013SS00500Senator Martin Conway: I have raised the issue of the sale of tobacco in this House previously and this Government has demonstrated its dedication to dealing with the scourge of tobacco smoking. The Minister for Health and the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, whom I welcome to the House, are committed to dealing with this. As part of my other profession I run a shop and I tend to know what the cigarette companies are up to, probably sooner than everybody else. I highlighted in this House how these companies were offering financial incentives to young staff in shops to promote branded cigarettes. I have discovered that this has not been happening since I highlighted it.

I am, however, greatly troubled by promotional material from one of the major cigarette companies offering packs of 25 cigarettes. Originally they were sold in tens and 20s until the ten packs were banned. The cigarette companies have very cleverly developed a 23 pack and now a 25 pack which they sell for less than €10. Per cigarette the price has been reduced. This is a very clever tactic for reducing the price of cigarettes. I want the Government immediately to ban the 25 and 23 packs or else ban 20 packs and introduce one pack with a single quantity, whether 20 or 25. I do not want the Government to wait to do this. It is within the Minister’s power to ban this immediately, to issue a directive to the cigarette companies that they can sell only one packet of cigarettes with a particular dedicated quantity.

Senator Crown has been very active in the anti-tobacco campaign and highlighting the health issues surrounding tobacco use. I am very grateful to him for participating in this debate and I am glad to give him some of my time.

03/07/2013SS00600Senator John Crown: I am very grateful to my friend and colleague, Senator Conway, for giving me a moment to speak. I am very supportive of his efforts and request. We must understand that on no level is the tobacco industry collectively our partner. It is on every level the adversary of good governance and good public policy. It is us versus them - we “ain’t” partners on this. Senator Conway deserves great credit for highlighting this really sneaky marketing effort on the industry’s part to try to circumvent several regulations related to tobacco. I was not aware of this. I warmly commend his efforts and I hope that the Minister of State is able to follow his advice that there be one standard pack size. Ultimately, we are hoping that by 2030 there will no standard pack size legally available.

03/07/2013SS00700Deputy Kathleen Lynch: I thank the Senator for raising this issue. My Department, in consultation with the HSE, is continuously monitoring the ever-evolving market tactics of the tobacco industry. As these evolve so too must our legislation and policy framework. I appreciate the Senator’s bringing this new development to our attention. As the Senator may be aware the European Court of Justice ruling has obliged us to cease the practice of placing a minimum price on tobacco products and to amend our legislation in this regard. The Public Health (To- bacco)(Amendment) Act 2013, however, allows for the regulation of various promotional de- vices used by the tobacco industry.

While the Senator is right to be concerned at the introduction of these new packs of 23 and 25 cigarettes, the main issue of concern to the Minister is preventing people and especially young people starting to smoke. The ban on the sale of packs containing fewer than 20 ciga-

695 Seanad Éireann rettes was introduced as a measure to deter children and young people from smoking. A com- bination of measures is required in order to make an impact on the numbers smoking in Ireland. These include raising awareness, education, price increases, developing legislation related to tobacco products and to smoke-free measures. It also includes support and services for those who want to escape nicotine addiction. These measures are aimed at saving lives and not in- terfering with smokers’ rights.

One in two of all long-term smokers will die from a smoking-related disease. A comprehensive range of tobacco legislation is in place in Ireland which places us in the top rank of countries internationally. Some of these significant initiatives include: a ban on in-store display and advertising; a ban on self-service vending machines except in licensed premises; a ban on the sale of tobacco to individuals under 18 years of age; cigarette price increases; social marketing and media campaigns and graphic warnings on cigarette packs. All these measures have the effect of denormalising tobacco use in our society which is the most effective way to prevent future generations from continuing the habit. More, however, needs to be done. My Department is finalising a new tobacco policy which sets out a range of measures to achieve a tobacco-free society. These measures include the development of legislation to ban smoking in cars where children are present and the development of legislation for the introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco products. The plain packaging of tobacco will ensure that cigarette packets are no longer a mobile advertisement for the tobacco industry. Evidence shows that young people in particular find plain packaging tobacco products less appealing. As almost 80% of smokers start when they are children it is important that many of our measures should be aimed at young people.

In conclusion I would like to confirm the Minister’s and this Government’s commitment to health promotion and the introduction of tobacco control measures. I can assure the Sena- tor that the Department and the HSE will continue to monitor the tobacco industry promotion. The aim is to de-normalise smoking and ultimately move to a tobacco-free society. We will, with everyone’s assistance, work constructively with all stakeholders to achieve this goal. We cannot but say that the type of packaging that we have been seeing lately, the smart, sleek, long packages are very clearly directed at young women. The pink sleek packaging is not something that would appeal to young men. It is clearly directed towards young women. The criticism of that type of marketing which we must state loudly and clearly is that this is a clear attempt to get more young people as customers for the tobacco sector.

03/07/2013TT00200Senator Martin Conway: I thank the Minister of State for her reply. The Government banned ten packs of cigarettes because they were attractive to young people. Let us now ban 20 and 23 packs; let them have their 25 packs. While I take on board the reply, we need to be up-front and forward thinking and move quickly on this issue. They are sneaky and cheeky in the way they do business. We need to be as sneaky and cheeky as they are in dealing with them. I would prefer to see a packet of cigarettes priced at €20, which would definitely put it beyond the reach of many young people. We need to send a clear message to the cigarette companies that when they introduce a new sneaky product, we will deal with the issue head-on and, if necessary, use a sledgehammer in dealing with it. I was appalled when I saw the literature the other day. If there was any way to deal with this more urgently than having a review, I would urge the Minister to do it.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 4 July 2013.

696