Seanad Éireann

Vol. 260 Wednesday, No. 4 26 September 2018

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Insert Date Here

26/09/2018A00100Business of Seanad ��205

26/09/2018A00250Commencement Matters ��206

26/09/2018A00300Water and Sewerage Schemes Funding ��206

26/09/2018C00100Schools Building Projects Status��210

26/09/2018D01200School Transport Provision ��212

26/09/2018E00300Message from Dáil ��215

26/09/2018G00100Order of Business ��215

26/09/2018P00100Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Law Provisions Bill 2018: Second Stage ��231 Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed) ��243

26/09/2018OO00400Message from Joint Committee��265 Inclusion in Sport: Motion ��265 SEANAD ÉIREANN

Dé Céadaoin, 26 Meán Fómhair 2018

Wednesday, 26 September 2018

Chuaigh an Leas-Chathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

Machnamh agus Paidir. Reflection and Prayer.

26/09/2018A00100Business of Seanad

26/09/2018A00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I have received notice from Senator Michelle Mulherin that, on the motion for the Commencement of the House today, she proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government to provide funding for the construction of new rural group water schemes in the areas of Downpatrick, Kilmurray and Furmoyle, County Mayo.

I have also received notice from Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to provide an update on the building works at St. Molaga’s senior national school, Balbriggan, County Dublin.

I have also received notice from Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to make provision for the 30 pupils without a place on buses to secondary schools in Buncrana, County Donegal.

I have also received notice from Senator James Reilly of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to outline his plans to reopen Rush Garda station, County Dublin.

I have also received notice from Senator Colm Burke of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to address the waiting time for cataract procedures and outline how many procedures will be funded by the National Treatment Purchase Fund in 2018.

I have also received notice from Senator Rose Conway-Walsh of the following matter:

205 Seanad Éireann The need for the Minister of State with responsibility for housing and urban development to provide an update on the provision of a redress scheme for pyrite and mica defective homes.

I have also received notice from Senator Maura Hopkins of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to provide an update on plans to develop a greenway between Athlone, County Westmeath and Ballinasloe, County Galway.

I have also received notice from Senator Anthony Lawlor of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to provide an update on afford- able childcare services.

The matters raised by the Senators are suitable for discussion. I have selected the matters raised by Senators Mulherin, Clifford-Lee, Mac Lochlainn and Reilly and they will be taken now. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise. Senator Reilly has withdrawn his Commencement matter which I had selected for discussion.

26/09/2018A00250Commencement Matters

26/09/2018A00300Water and Sewerage Schemes Funding

26/09/2018A00400Senator Michelle Mulherin: I warmly welcome last week’s announcement of a block grant of €3.5 million to Mayo County Council under the multi-annual rural water programme. However, I am very disappointed that under measure 3, which makes specific provision for the funding of new rural group water schemes, we only got €25,000. I am also very disappointed that we are three quarters of the way through 2018 and Mayo County Council is only at this juncture being told what it can spend for 2018.

Under measure 3 Mayo County Council was given €25,000 for the Kilmurray group water scheme. The scheme needs €754,000 to get under way and be delivered. This is a saga that goes back to 2010 when Ceantair Laga Árd-Riachtanais, CLÁR, was abolished and people in Kilmurray had already done tremendous work in conjunction with the county council to bring forward a group water scheme. They had gone to the tender process and had spent almost €40,000 on consultants and to this day those people are out of pocket. They have not been refunded their money. They have been keeping a company going, paying fees to the Company Registration Office. They are all volunteers. People in Downpatrick and Furmoyle are also waiting for water.

We are talking about something that people living in towns and cities take for granted so much that they do not feel they should have to pay for it. They were more than willing to pay for their water. I estimate that approximately 200 households in rural Mayo are affected. There is also a problem in Galway. There have been national monitoring committees and engagement with the National Federation of Group Water Schemes to find a formula because people were told that under the formula applied, not enough money is given per household to deliver a scheme. We were told to go back to the drawing board and find a new formula to fund rural wa- 206 26 September 2018 ter. In 2016, the then Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, announced a three-year multi-annual programme starting then and running to 2018. Guess what? These three areas are still waiting. I acknowledge that Tonacrick, Killeen, Aghaloonteen and Mass- brook have been dealt with. There are a couple of handfuls of houses in these areas. People are rightly cheesed off. They are out of pocket. They feel as though nobody has listened.

There is no parity of esteem between people living in rural Ireland and those in cities and towns. That is all I am asking for and I do not think it is reasonable or acceptable that three quarters of the way through the year, they are getting €25,000 for Kilmurray alone when €1.5 million is required. What will Kilmurray do with that funding? How can a council spend €25,000 at this time of year? It is ridiculous. Will the Minister of State go back to the officials in the Department and ask them to take the provision of new groups water schemes seriously?

I am not talking about clapped out water schemes that need to be upgraded. Elderly people and young families living in rural areas are drilling wells. They cannot drink the water or wash their clothes in it. Nobody would like to live like that yet that is how this group is living. There have been massive protests against water charges and there are people who did not engage in those who are prepared to pay for water. I am a public representative in the Government party and I do not think this is acceptable for 200 households in Mayo. Will somebody listen? Will the Minister of State listen today? Can some good news be given to these people? We are at the end of the three-year, multi-annual programme that the former Minister, Deputy Howlin, announced and where are we for these three groups? We are nowhere. This is not a countrywide problem but a problem that affects people in rural Ireland. I ask the Minister of State to please take it seriously.

26/09/2018B00100Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy Damien English): I thank the Senator for raising this matter which she has raised many times in recent years with me, the Minister, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and the Depart- ment. She has constantly pushed to have money spent on water and sewerage schemes in County Mayo. This is very important work and I hope last week’s announcements and further announcements in the weeks ahead will deliver the funding needed to realise these schemes. I know from speaking to the Senator and many others that the provision of water services for the people of County Mayo, particularly those in rural areas, is an issue of keen interest. I assure the Senator and the House that the Government shares this strong interest. The Minister strongly believes in finding the appropriate resources for rural water schemes. We want to ensure the people of rural Ireland are supported in accessing good quality water and wastewater services. This applies to the people of Mayo and every other county. The Government will continue to back up its intentions in this area with funding.

Two weeks ago, I had the pleasure of attending the annual rural water services conference organised by the National Federation of Group Water Schemes, which took place in Clarem- orris in the Senator’s home county. I announced details of the funding being provided by the Government in 2018 under the Department’s multi-annual rural water programme. We have provided €20 million for 2018, which is an increase of €4 million from the €16 million committed in 2017. Last Friday, the Minister announced details of the allocations to individual local authorities and group water schemes for 2018. The multi-annual rural water programme, which runs for the period from 2016 to 2018, consists of six measures, including funding of new group water schemes under what is known as measure 3. While funding is provided through my Department, the administration and implementation of the rural water programme is the responsibility of local authorities, which work in partnership with group water schemes, and do 207 Seanad Éireann a great job in that regard. I complimented that partnership in recent years when I spoke at the recent conference.

Progress has been sought on the proposed Downpatrick, Kilmurray and Furmoyle group water schemes for many years. I have no doubt that there is a long history with the schemes. In 2018, the Kilmurray group water scheme received an allocation of €25,000 under the rural water programme. This was among the allocations announced last week. It will enable the scheme to commence necessary planning and proceed to construction in due course. As the scheme is now approved in the current programme cycle, which ends this year, it should carry forward to the next programme cycle, which is to run from 2019 to 2021. I stress that the Kil- murray scheme has been approved and is now in the system. Funding is available to undertake the necessary construction works that will follow. It is now a matter for the scheme to proceed as quickly as possible. I have no doubt that the Senator will make sure this happens and will drive it on. Funding of €95 million will be available for the next three-year cycle of the scheme. This is a major increase which has been provided under Project 2040. It has been secured to drive success and improvement under the rural water scheme.

With regard to the Downpatrick group water scheme, in January 2016 Mayo County Coun- cil included a bid for the scheme. It was also submitted under measure 3 of the programme, which deals with new group water schemes. The proposal was ruled out at the time because it involved connecting a new scheme to the public water network operated by Irish Water. Such works are not within the scope of the programme as it currently stands. A further factor was the unit cost of some €18,750 per house, which was considered very expensive. Subsequent to the 2016 approvals, my Department engaged with Mayo County Council to see if an alternative at reduced cost could be found. However, no satisfactory alternative has been established to a supply off the public mains for the proposed scheme.

The multi-annual rural water programme is being reviewed. Having regard to the outcome of the review and decisions to be taken on measures to be included in the programme from 2019 to 2021, applications will be invited from local authorities in respect of funding for that period. These applications are to be sought later this year and there may be scope, in that context, for a further application to be made in respect of the Downpatrick group water scheme. The Minister ordered the review in April last and it is due to report to him in the next month. It will examine how best to ensure the money is spent in the years ahead to get results. It may make some new suggestions and provide an answer on how to address the issue with the Downpatrick group water scheme.

The Furmoyle group water scheme was also included in the 2016 bids by Mayo County Council for the multi-annual programme at a unit cost of some €22,000 per house. The expert panel assembled by the Department to review the bids concluded that the cost of the proposed scheme was too expensive and did not recommend it for funding. Accordingly, the scheme was not included in the current programme.

I hope this clarifies matters in respect of the group water schemes identified in County Mayo. I assure the Senator that the Government and the Department are committed to funding water services in rural areas. There are grant schemes in place for local authorities to make applications for funding for group water schemes. There are also fair processes in place to assess these applications. As I stated, the review will be submitted to the Minister in the next month.

There have been significant increases in funding for rural water services. The Government 208 26 September 2018 is committed to these services and has increased to €95 million the allocation for the next round of the programme, which will run from 2019 to 2021. I again thank the Senator for raising this issue which she has pursued many times with the Department in the past year.

26/09/2018B00200Senator Michelle Mulherin: I acknowledge the Minister of State’s considerable engagement and work on many rural issues, including water and pyrite. I welcome his statement on the Kilmurray group water scheme. Given that the three-year multi-annual programme for 2019 to 2021 has been given the green light, I assume the scheme will be funded, which would be welcome.

The Minister of State has said he is committed to funding water services in rural areas. People have been drilling wells in the Downpatrick and Furmoyle areas. They cannot supply water through their own efforts. It is not enough to say providing water is too expensive. Are these people not entitled to water? What will be done? I understand there is a possibility the council may revise its proposal for a water scheme in Downpatrick. It should be borne in mind that much of the expense arises from the type of terrain through which pipework has to be laid. It would have to go through special areas of conservation and rocky areas. The Minister of State knows about dispersed populations. Many people in these areas have drilled wells which are no good. Something has to be done.

This request to the Government is the last recourse for people in Downpatrick Head and Furmoyle. They have tried everything else. Can they be helped? Perhaps the Minister of State is not aware that Downpatrick Head is one of the signature points on the Wild Atlantic Way. The areas does not even a public toilet because it has no running water, public mains supply or any sort of group water mains supply. That is definitely not something of which we should be proud in this day and age. One cluster of houses in the area has water. Accepting what the Min- ister of State said, I ask that this matter be revisited. We know that the unit cost of providing a mains water supply will be high. This is the problem the people of the area have been facing all along. Telling them that again does not help matters.

26/09/2018B00300Deputy Damien English: I will raise the Senator’s point with the expert group and ask that it focus on the terrain issue. Mayo County Council, in its application under the next round of funding, should make set out in detail the reasons the scheme is so important. I am sure it did so in its previous application, but it may need to add to that and provide more evidence. The expert group will make recommendations on behalf of the Department. There is competition for resources in every county. Schemes that are needed, represent good value for taxpayers’ money and meet all the criteria will receive approval. It is very important that a book of evidence accompanies the application.

The Senator made a very good point on the benefits of the Wild Atlantic Way and the importance of it being well serviced with proper infrastructure in respect of toilet facilities and so on. The local authority can add that to the case it makes. We have all seen the success of the Wild Atlantic Way and the numbers of tourists it brings to many counties. I have visited County Mayo frequently and the Wild Atlantic Way is clearly of great benefit to the local population and tourists. We should try to support it. A cross-Department approach could aid with costs and may be something we should pursue. The local authority can gather the evidence and make a case for extra planning. We can look at all the options.

The Senator mentioned the work being done on pyrite and mica. While I had an opportunity to meet residents in Donegal in July, I have not had a chance to meet residents in Mayo 209 Seanad Éireann again. The work being done by the National Standards Authority of Ireland, NSAI, in respect of standard protocol and procedures is now nearly complete. I made it very clear that as soon as its work is complete, we will be in a position to judge how to proceed. I also made clear to residents in Donegal that once the work in the Department on the legalities involved and other matters had been done, we would be in a strong position to move on. I hope that will be possible in the next couple of weeks.

26/09/2018C00100Schools Building Projects Status

26/09/2018C00200Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Edu- cation and Skills, Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor, for coming to the Chamber to discuss the urgent situation at St. Molaga’s senior national school in Balbriggan. When I submitted this Commencement matter, I used the following wording: “The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to fast-track the essential building works at St. Molaga’s senior national school, Bal- briggan, County Dublin”. Unfortunately I have been in this Chamber on a number of occasions and raised the issue of St. Molaga’s with the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton. I am very sorry and frustrated to be here again today with the Minister of State and her officials to discuss the dire situation in St. Molaga’s senior national school.

St. Molaga’s senior national school based in the town of Balbriggan, County Dublin, has 467 students, 28 teachers and six special needs assistants. For the past 18 years, the expanding school population has been housed in prefabs. Some 58% of the students in the school are housed in prefabs that are 18 years old and these prefabs are crumbling and completely unfit for purpose. There are holes in these leaking prefabs which are damp and completely unacceptable. They have gone past their use by date. The state of disrepair is down to the age of the prefabs. The school has done its best to preserve the buildings in order that the students could be housed for additional years. The prefabs are completely overcrowded, freezing cold in the winter and really hot in the summer time. The situation has become extremely urgent.

Last week during Storm Ali, four prefabs were evacuated and the children and their teachers had to take up residence in the corridors of the main building and in the school hall. The lids of two of the prefab water tanks were blown off and the school had to go into shutdown, meaning that more than half of the school could not access the main school building because they are in prefabs in another part of the site.

These old, damp, crumbling prefabs are posing a serious risk to the students and staff who operate out of them. As I said, more than half of the school population are housed in the prefabs. The students and teachers are constantly sick, they are getting chest infections and students who suffer from asthma have been detrimentally affected by this situation. Students are at absolute breaking point. I know that prior to entering politics the Minister of State, Deputy Mitchell O’Connor was a principal-----

26/09/2018C00300Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor): Two.

26/09/2018C00400Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: -----of two primary schools. I thank the Minister of State for that correction. I am sure she will understand, in particular, the frustration faced by the very excellent principal of this school who has done everything in her power to facilitate the Depart- ment and the learning environment for these students. 210 26 September 2018 St. Molaga’s senior national school is an excellent school. It has an excellent reputation in Balbriggan. It has an excellent teaching culture, an open welcoming policy and an excellent tradition in serving the people of Balbriggan. However, they feel completely neglected at this stage.

The extension to St. Molaga’s was approved a number of years ago, but the principal hit a brick wall when she attempted to get any information whatsoever from the Department of Education and Skills on the timetable for the building work. As a result of sustained pressure, we eventually got a bit of progress last February when a technical team visited the school. Unfortunately, seven months later, we are no further along this path. The technical report is still awaited. We are now into another academic school year with predicted extreme weather conditions for the rest of the winter. I am very afraid, as is the principal, that the situation will get even worse. They are at breaking point.

I am asking the Minister of State to fast-track the work that has been approved for many years. It needs to be given priority. The school is in a serious state of disrepair. I extend an invitation to the Minister of State to visit this excellent school and meet the principal in order that she can see for herself this excellent school that is housed in dire accommodation. Serious harm is being done to the pupils and all the staff in the school.

I am putting the Minister of State on notice of this very serious situation and the very serious risk to everybody involved in the school.

26/09/2018C00500Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: I thank the Senator for raising this matter. I have a further update for her. I thank her very much for extending an invitation to visit St. Molaga’s. I will certainly ensure that the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, is invited to visit. I am afraid that I will stick to my brief of higher education institutes, as I have more than enough to do there. However, I am sure he will visit the school.

A previous Commencement matter on this school was raised on 22 January 2018 and since then the technical site visit has taken place and the project brief for the proposed project at this school is in the final stages of completion. The draft prepared reflects this position. In addition, further temporary accommodation was approved to meet a deficit of accommodation for the existing staffing and enrolment levels. While that approval in principle issued to the school in January 2018, the school did not revert to the Department with the R1 form that is used for detailing tenders received until mid-June.

Final approval issued from the Department on 17 July as additional information was required in respect of some cost in the interim period. The prefabs are in place. The Department of Education and Skills received a letter from the school yesterday, 25 September, advising of the damage caused to three prefabs by Storm Ali last week. As mentioned in the notes with the reply to the Commencement matter, the school is liaising with its insurance company on fixing the damage.

26/09/2018C00700Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: We do not have an update on the position. There is a draft report. When will the school get sight of that draft report? What is the next stage? When will the next stage take place? When will St. Molaga’s have its actual school building? This has been going on for far too long. The new prefab to which the Minister of State referred is to facilitate the reduction in the pupil-teacher ratio. A few classes have gone into the new prefabs, but the vast majority of the students and teachers are working out of these prefabs that are 18

211 Seanad Éireann years old, and beyond repair at this stage, despite the best efforts of the principal and staff. It is completely unacceptable for the situation to go on. They need the school building. Supply- ing additional new prefabs is putting a sticking plaster on the issue. It is not acceptable and it is costing more money. It is discommoding everybody in the school and they are at breaking point.

I am not happy at all with the Minister of State’s answer.

26/09/2018C00800Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: I thank the Senator. I certainly note her comments. Let me repeat that there is approval in principle. It was issued to the school in 2018. We had 11 o’clock to wait for the R1 form which was sent in mid-June, some six months later. Final approval issued. Additional information is now required in respect of some of the cost in the interim period.

I understand the situation with the prefabs is frustrating. There is a process that is open and transparent and on the website. I would say to the Senator that she should ensure that whatever is requested from the Department is sent in immediately.

26/09/2018C00900Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: When will St. Molaga’s get its school building?

26/09/2018C01000Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: The notification on the damage caused by Storm Ail was received in the Department yesterday. The officials are working on it.

26/09/2018D00100Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: When will St. Molaga’s get its school?

26/09/2018D00200Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: When the process has been gone through.

26/09/2018D00300Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: I understand there is a process, but how quickly can we get the school?

26/09/2018D00400Acting Chairman (Senator Michelle Mulherin): The Senator’s time is up and we have another-----

26/09/2018D00500Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: Can we fast-track the process?

26/09/2018D00600Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: That we waited six months for a reply from the school delayed the process.

26/09/2018D00700Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: That related to the prefab.

26/09/2018D00800Acting Chairman (Senator Michelle Mulherin): The Senator should please take her seat.

26/09/2018D00900Senator Lorraine Clifford-Lee: The Minister of State’s comment was disingenuous.

26/09/2018D01000Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: It is the information I have.

26/09/2018D01100Acting Chairman (Senator Michelle Mulherin): The matter has concluded.

26/09/2018D01200School Transport Provision

26/09/2018D01300Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Last Wednesday a delegation of Oireachtas Members from Donegal met the Minister of State with responsibility for school transport, Deputy Hal- 212 26 September 2018 ligan, and outlined to him the serious problems being experienced by the almost 30 pupils from the Kilmacrennan and Termon areas who do not have school transport to the two secondary schools in Milford. We also outlined how nine children did not have seats on the bus to Gle- neely national school, which is in the north Inishowen area of Donegal. The Minister of State agreed to consider both issues. It is to be hoped he will make an intervention and recommendation. Bus Éireann has made it clear to public representatives in Donegal that it cannot provide more buses under the Department’s rules. The Minister of State is to make a decision on the issue.

Since our meeting, though, we have discovered that there is another serious issue in Burn- foot, Bridgend, Tooban and Muff in south Inishowen, which feed into the three secondary schools in Buncrana. Thirty pupils in that area do not have seats on their school buses. All but two of them are eligible for school transport under the Department’s rules.

There was a public meeting in Muff last Monday evening. The parents who attended outlined a range of reasons for tickets not being secured. Clearly, there has been miscommunication and there have been misunderstandings. Similarly, there was a public meeting in Termon on Monday evening regarding the Milford schools. Again, parents reported issues.

There needs to be some flexibility. In south Inishowen, approximately 30 pupils are affected. In the Milford area, approximately 30 pupils are affected. In Gleneely in north Inishowen, nine pupils are affected. That is a large number of pupils and parents who have been disadvantaged. We talk about keeping people in rural communities, yet we are not giving them the supports they need in terms of school transport. Most of these are working families with fixed hours, so they must make arrangements. This is a major problem for them.

Something has gone wrong this year. Advance preparation has been an issue. Surely a sense of the numbers requiring school transport at post-primary level can be achieved by contacting the primary schools that feed into those secondary schools. Preparing properly and knowing the number of buses is not a major task with the understanding that, sometimes, communications can go wrong and deadlines can be missed. We cannot leave people standing on the side of the road and without the proper transport.

I emailed the Minister of State’s ministerial colleague, Deputy Halligan, last night about the issue in south Inishowen. He has all of the facts regarding Gleneely and Milford and he will have all of the details regarding south Inishowen. He needs to make an intervention. We cannot leave that number of pupils and parents behind. It would be unfair.

26/09/2018D01400Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan. I thank the Senator for raising it.

Before I address the specific issues raised, I wish to give Senators an outline of the extent of the school transport service. In the 2017-18 school year, more than 117,000 children, including more than 12,000 with special educational needs, were transported daily in approximately 4,500 vehicles to primary and post-primary schools throughout the country, covering more than 100 million km annually at a total cost of almost €190 million. Parental contributions towards the cost of school transport were €15.4 million in 2017, with the remainder paid for by the State.

Children are generally eligible for school transport if they satisfy the distance criteria and are attending their nearest school. Children who are eligible for school transport and who have 213 Seanad Éireann completed the application process on time have been accommodated on school transport services for the current school year where such services are in operation. Children who are eligible for school transport but for whom no transport service is available may, following an application for transport within the prescribed time limits, receive a remote area grant towards the cost of private transport arrangements.

Children who are not eligible for school transport may apply for transport where spare seats are available after eligible children have been accommodated. This is referred to as concessionary transport. Where the number of ineligible children exceeds the number of spare seats available, Bus Éireann will allocate tickets for the spare seats using an agreed selection process. Under the terms of the scheme, the number of spare seats varies from year to year based on the capacity of the buses running on all of the various routes and the number of eligible children accommodated on each route. Hence, there is no guarantee that an ineligible child who received a place in a previous year will receive a seat the following year. Neither is there a guarantee that a sibling of an ineligible child who receives a ticket will receive a seat. It is included in the terms and conditions on the Bus Éireann online application that availability of seats may vary from year to year and that concessionary transport cannot be guaranteed for the duration of a child’s education.

Under the terms of the scheme, routes will not be extended or altered and additional vehicles will not be introduced. Neither will larger vehicles or extra trips using existing vehicles be provided to cater for children who are not eligible, as no additional State cost will be incurred in covering the cost of providing school transport for children who are not eligible.

More than 74,000 children who are eligible for school transport and who completed the application process on time have been issued with tickets for school transport services for the 2018-19 school year. A further 1,100 children who are eligible for school transport but were late in submitting their payment details were unsuccessful in obtaining seats on school transport services, as buses are operating to capacity. In addition, more than 27,500 children who are not eligible for school transport and who paid by the deadline date have been issued with concessionary tickets for school transport. Some 350 children who are not eligible for school transport and who paid by the deadline date were unsuccessful in obtaining concessionary seats on school transport services for the 2018-19 year, as buses are operating to capacity.

The situation referred to by the Senator relates to a number of children whose payments were not received on time and a further number who are not eligible for school transport. As the services in the area are operating at capacity, it will not be possible to accommodate them on school transport services.

26/09/2018D01500Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: That response is completely unacceptable to me and every other public representative in Donegal. The 30 pupils in south Inishowen whose families are from rural areas and go to Buncrana secondary schools do not have seats on buses. Of the cases we have investigated, this is through no great fault of their own and instead is owing to issues with medical cards and miscommunication. It is unfair.

The Minister of State said “a further number”. All but two of the 30 are eligible for school transport. Under the Department’s rules, they are entitled to school transport. The Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, needs to intervene and examine this case. Of the 29 pupils in the Mil- ford area, 21 are eligible. I understand some of them have special needs. We cannot leave these families behind. Nine schoolchildren in Gleneely do not have school transport. That response 214 26 September 2018 is unacceptable and not in keeping with what the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, said to us last Wednesday. The Oireachtas Members who were present last Wednesday left hopeful there might be a solution and that there could be an intervention because of the number of eligible students. The distinction between “eligible” and “concessionary” is a matter for debate because a family in a rural area may live approximately 100 m closer to a school in another town than to the school to which the family has traditionally gone. For example, in this case the families have gone to the schools in Milford, but they live 100 m closer to a school in Letterkenny and are being punished for it. That is the issue of “eligible” versus “concessionary”. Going by the Minister of State’s own rules, we have approximately 50 pupils who are eligible for school transport who are being left behind. That is unacceptable to me and other public representatives in Donegal who are worth their salt. I appreciate that officials from the Department of Educa- tion and Skills wrote the response the Minister of State is delivering today. I ask her to speak to the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, and ask him to honour the understanding we reached last Wednesday. That is critical at this stage.

26/09/2018E00200Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: I hear what the Senator is saying and will make sure the Minister, Deputy Bruton, and the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, hear the concerns raised by him and the group he brought to meet the Minister of State. I will ask him to revert to the Senator specifically.

26/09/2018E00300Message from Dáil

26/09/2018E00400Acting Chairman (Senator Michelle Mulherin): On 25 September 2018 Dáil Éireann passed the Markets in Financial Instruments Bill 2018, to which the agreement of Seanad Éire- ann is desired.

Sitting suspended at 11.10 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.

26/09/2018G00100Order of Business

26/09/2018G00200Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Order of Business is No. 1, Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Law Provisions Bill 2018 – Second Stage, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and adjourned at 2 p.m., if not previously concluded, with the time allocated to group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes each and to all other Senators not to exceed five minutes each; No. 2, Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017 – Committee Stage (resumed), to be taken at 2 p.m. and adjourned at 5 p.m., if not previously concluded; and No. 70, Private Members’ business, non- Government motion No. 14 re inclusion in sport, to be taken at 5 p.m., with the time allocated for the debate not to exceed two hours.

26/09/2018G00300Senator Mark Daly: We read about the predictions of growth from the ESRI and that it will be near 10%, depending on who is doing the numbers. Yesterday, we had the UN human development index showing that Ireland had jumped from eighth in the world to fourth in terms of health, education and income, which is to be welcomed in terms of life expectancy, educational attainment, health and people’s wages. We also see on the reverse end of that scale, however, homelessness and housing as ongoing issues. The Government is blaming others rather than itself, and it does not seem to have a plan, or rather it has many plans, because we have seen how many times it has announced them, but it does not have plans that it implements. 215 Seanad Éireann No one is being held to account for that, although the blame seems to be transferred from the Department to the local authorities.

We would like to see the real plan and the real figures. The Department continually issues figures, but they have been challenged in the media by Dr. Lorcan Sirr and others who show the Government portraying houses being built when often they are just being reconnected to the electricity system having had their electricity turned off. The Department knows this and knows that it is giving false figures, but we cannot even get it to admit the truth until it is found out by experts.

I would also like to raise the issue of the human tissue Bill, which the Minister for Health has announced again some 13 years after it was first announced. In particular, I want to raise the issue of presumed consent, the idea that every one of us is an organ donor unless we opt out, and that there will be a very expensive system whereby we would opt out if we did not want to be organ donors. This has not worked effectively anywhere else in the world. Mark Murphy, CEO of the Irish Kidney Association, who is an expert in this area, has said time and again that despite the idea of presumed consent, with a register and so on, the family would still be consulted on whether their loved one would be an organ donor. This means that it is not really presumed consent and it is talked of as a soft opt-out. This is all done to distract from the fact the health system is not working properly and that we have so many patients on trolleys. I sup- pose it might provide a brief respite for the Minister.

26/09/2018G00400Senator Jerry Buttimer: Come off it.

26/09/2018G00500Senator Mark Daly: We have a driving licence system through which we collect the information on who wants to be an organ donor. In May we had the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport in the House and we explained to him, although he was not aware of it, that he shared data on people’s driving licences with private companies like eFlow, those doing clamping and the Courts Service. Despite this, he does not allow the health service to access the information that is in the driving licence registry of who does and does not want to be an organ donor. It is a simple systems failure, like the organ donation system, where we spend hundreds of millions every year on dialysis.

If we had proper systems whereby health professionals were able to contact the driving licence authority and then tell people that their son or daughter wanted to be an organ donor and that they had a copy of the driving licence, they would be able to inform families of their loved one’s intentions. While that simple change to the system is not being considered, the Minister is proposing a grandiose opt-out system that will cost millions, even though the family will still have a veto, as they should. Does that sound like a system that is working or a system we should have, when we have a driving licence system in place that checks every ten years whether someone wants to be an organ donor?

26/09/2018G00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is over time.

26/09/2018G00700Senator Mark Daly: By the way, in a ten-year period we will spend over €1 billion on dialysis, whereas if we had a proper, functioning organ donation system, we would not only save money but also save lives.

26/09/2018G00800Senator Victor Boyhan: In the very near future, not necessarily in the next week, I would like a debate on housing. While I will not rehash all the arguments from the debate in the Dáil yesterday, what we can say is that we have 31 local authorities, 10,000 people in emergency 216 26 September 2018 housing, 3,600 of whom are children, and more than 100,000 people on housing waiting lists. That is one side of the problem. The other side is that we have thousands of people who cannot afford either to purchase or rent a home. Many of them are working and they include couples with combined incomes who still cannot afford to purchase or rent. The issue is to increase the supply and have affordability, whether purchasing or renting. We should have a debate on that in the House.

I bring up the issue raised by Independent Deputy Broughan when he questioned the Min- ister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Zappone, in the Dáil last week, namely, the confir- mation by Tusla that there are in excess of 900 vacancies within the organisation and that it is spending €2.5 million a month, on average, to bring in locums and various others to supplement its staff. That is a frightening figure. I am very supportive of the Minister, her work and commitment to reform Tusla, which is an organisation we all know needs reform. Will the Leader ask the Minister to look again at all of that and come back to the House at some stage? We might have statements on Tusla, although not just on the bigger picture, given that it is such a big organisation, but also on resources and the 900 vacancies the Minister confirmed to the Lower House.

A number of county and city councillors have contacted me about pyrite, the Pyrite Reso- lution Board and, more important, pyrite redress. The last seems to be a big issue for many people. Pyrite is a major problem for those whose homes have been affected. I am not 100% sure of the current position in terms of the board or the policy of the Government. Will the Leader ask the relevant Minister with overall responsibility for this particular area to come to the House, make a statement and update the Members on the status of the Pyrite Resolution Board and, more important, how the Government proposes to put in place a meaningful and appropriate redress scheme for the people involved?

26/09/2018H00200Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: The relevant Minister is the Minister of State at the Depart- ment of Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy English, and he is working on the pyrite issue. I support Senator Boyhan’s call for him to come to the House. I tabled a Com- mencement matter on the pyrite redress scheme in the hope that it would be taken today but it was not accepted. It is very important that the hundreds of families, particularly across Mayo and Donegal, who are affected by pyrite know where they stand. They are looking keenly for the establishment of a redress scheme to be announced in the forthcoming budget, as was prom- ised by the Minister of State, Deputy English. I would appreciate if a debate could be arranged for this week.

Ba mhaith liom comhbhrón a dhéanamh le chlann Tom Molloy, ceoltóir iontach as Mul- ranny i gContae Mhaigh Eo a fuair bás an tseachtain seo caite. I pay tribute to Tom Molloy. He was part of a family group called the Molloy Brothers and they are traditional Irish musicians from Mulranny in County Mayo. Tom and his brothers are renowned for their music and have performed in many venues across Ireland, England and throughout the world. They played a piece of music called the “Leaving of Liverpool” for John Lennon when he visited County Mayo in 1969. It is timely that this weekend the town of Ballina in County Mayo is hosting the music sessions and arts festival called Other Voices. The festival is a prestigious event in the music calendar and I wish everyone in Ballina well for the weekend.

It was pioneers such as Tom who helped to place Irish traditional music at the centre of the folk revival. Tom and his brothers helped to showcase Irish music across the world. I extend my sincere condolences to his wife, Geraldine, his sons, Enda and Thomas, and his daughter, 217 Seanad Éireann Elizabeth. What the Molloy Brothers did for County Mayo and the music industry as a whole will never be forgotten. It was not only just that. They were so kind and always agreed to do charitable events. I know even from my time in England it was always a pleasure to meet the Molloy Brothers and Tom Molloy. They did what they did with joy in their hearts and showed kindness wherever they went.

I wish to highlight a programme called “Finné” that will be broadcast on TG4 tonight. The programme is on the death of another Mayo man, the Mayo hunger striker, Frank Stagg. His brother, George, recounts Frank’s last days and how his body was hijacked by the Irish Govern- ment. I am sure Senators will remember that he thought the body was being flown into Dublin Airport but the plane was diverted to Shannon Airport and Frank’s body was taken away from his family. The programme tells the personal story behind the event. I commend Pat Kenny on the way he interviewed George Stagg about the story for Newstalk yesterday morning. The story of what happened to Frank needs to be told and put in context.

I will quote what George said when Pat Kenny asked him whether it was worth it and whether he would do it again. George described how his brother, Frank, had been influenced by the Ballymurphy massacre in Belfast, internment and what had happened in the North. George said that just because Frank was from Mayo did not mean that he was any less affected by what happened in the North and he saw the need to fight back because of injustices, such as the injustice in Ballymurphy. I commend those in TG4 on their bravery-----

26/09/2018H00300Senator Máire Devine: Hear, hear.

26/09/2018H00400Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: -----in highlighting many of these issues and on broad- casting the programme. I urge people to watch the programme and judge for themselves. The programme will be broadcast at 9.30 p.m. on TG4.

26/09/2018H00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I call Senator Lynn Ruane. I congratulate her on her very successful book launch. It was a great night in Trinity College Dublin.

26/09/2018H00600Senator Lynn Ruane: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

I wish to raise the case of Sean Binder. He is 24 years old and hails from Togher, County Cork. He was a classmate of mine in Trinity College Dublin. For the past year he worked for an international non-governmental organisation, NGO, called the Emergency Response Centre International on the Greek island of Lesbos. He co-ordinated search and rescue activities to provide emergency assistance for incoming refugees who landed on the island.

Last August Sean was arrested by the Greek authorities and now stands accused of involvement in human trafficking, money laundering, espionage and membership of a criminal organisation. He potentially faces 20 years in prison. Sean denies all of the charges made against him. He is being held in a Greek prison where his family and friends are deeply concerned for his safety. He can be held for up to 18 months without being charged or sent to trial. His mother has launched a public campaign and called on the Irish State to exert pressure and influence to guarantee her son’s safety. I hope all Members will support her call. Sean is a young man who lived all his life in Ireland. He graduated from university in Dublin. Following the conclusion of his studies he decided to travel to Greece and dedicate his time and energy to literally pull- ing refugees from the Mediterranean Sea. We have a responsibility to ensure the safety and security of this young man. I ask the Leader to communicate to the Tánaiste the urgency with which this case needs to be treated and ask for an update on consular efforts or progress that 218 26 September 2018 has been made.

26/09/2018H00700Senator Maria Byrne: I raise the issue of the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland (Tempo- rary Absence of Pharmacist from Pharmacy) Rules 2018 that are with the Minister for Health. The last intake of students for the pharmaceutical assistant course was back in 1985. There are about 300 pharmaceutical assistants, of which 95% are women, and they are employed in pharmacies throughout the country. In the temporary absence of a pharmacist they are entitled to provide cover in the pharmacy for perhaps two and a half days at a time or at lunchtime when the pharmacist takes his or her lunch break. The current proposals made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland are before the Minister and allow the pharmaceutical assistants to provide cover for up to one hour per day. At present, if the pharmacist goes out sick, the pharmaceutical assistant can provide cover for the entire day. The legislation was last amended in 1994. If the current proposals are accepted, pharmaceutical assistants will not be able provide cover. It is possible, therefore, that a pharmacy will have to close because such assistants can only provide cover for up to one hour per day.

Many of the women in question have more than 30 years’ experience. As the last of that cohort of assistants are now in their late 50s, it is not like there are many of them waiting to come through the system to reach retirement age. Pharmaceutical assistants are not covered by the fitness to practise legislation. They are also not covered to continue their education, yet they choose to attend further education courses that are run for both pharmacists and pharmaceutical assistants. Many of the latter participate on these courses of their own volition.

The pharmaceutical assistants are not members of the Irish Pharmacy Union but the union supports them in their plight. The union has written to the Minister urging him to work in a more cohesive manner on the following: to recommend to the Pharmaceutical Society of Ire- land that it reconsider its stance and develop a core competency framework for pharmaceutical assistants similar to the one that applies to pharmacists; to bring the assistants under the fitness to work banner; and to make it compulsory for pharmaceutical assistants to attend the continuing education courses. Such actions would provide the necessary assurance to the PSI council and to the public of the competence, knowledge and skills of pharmaceutical assistants. Also, pharmaceutical assistants would be able to continue to act safely in the temporary absence of a pharmacist under the current conditions.

This matter is very important because we all visit pharmacies at least weekly and we never know whether we are dealing with the pharmacist or the pharmaceutical assistant. That many of these pharmaceutical assistants have in excess of 30 years’ experience must stand for something. The Leader might be able to bring that issue to the attention of the Minister because it affects every city and county.

26/09/2018J00200Senator Terry Leyden: I refer to the 2018 report of the European Parliament Constituency Committee. As the Leader is aware, there is a proposal to increase the number of seats for Ire- land from 11 to 13. However, if one looks at the map, the obvious place to increase the number of Members, with respect to the Clerk, would be the Midlands-North-West constituency. It has four seats currently but the Members elected from that constituency should take on responsibility for representing the people of Northern Ireland who will be disenfranchised when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. I believe it would be appropriate if that area was to be allocated an extra two seats.

26/09/2018J00300Senator Jerry Buttimer: I could not hear the Senator. To which area is he referring? 219 Seanad Éireann

26/09/2018J00400Senator Terry Leyden: The Midlands-North West constituency, comprising the area from Louth to Donegal, which adjoins the Border with Monaghan, Cavan and into Leitrim. It would be appropriate that the members elected from that constituency would represent the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland also of all denominations and none. The committee, with respect, should have taken that into account but it is obvious it did not because it did not increase the number from four to five. It increased the number for Dublin from three to four and the number for the South from four to five. It is a long way from Belfast to Cork. It is not a long way from Belfast to Dundalk. When the legislation is drawn up the Government should take that situation into consideration. The people of Northern Ireland are entitled to represen- tation in the European Union after the United Kingdom leaves, even though Northern Ireland voted to remain.

An interesting point about this is that the two Members taking their seats in the new Euro- pean Parliament after May 2019 will be subject to the withdrawal, legally, of the United King- dom from the European Union. Technically, therefore, the 11 seats will stand until the United Kingdom legally leaves the European Union, which may not actually be for five years; we do not know. However, the United Kingdom has decided to withdraw in March 2019 in advance of the European elections in May 2019. The four or five people who are elected from what I call the Border constituency of Connacht-Ulster - I know this recommendation will be accepted by the Government, as have all previous recommendations - should pledge to support the people of Northern Ireland and be available to them in order to put their views to the European Union. They should be available to meet them throughout the length and breadth of Northern Ireland. That is a commitment any candidate should make, and I put it up to the candidates now. If they are seeking nomination, their pledge should be that they will equally support our divided broth- erhood in Northern Ireland as one united Ireland represented by them in the European Union.

26/09/2018J00500Senator Gabrielle McFadden: I raise the plight of assistant psychologists. The people in question study for three years for their undergraduate degrees, and most of them pay approximately €10,000 to do their master’s degrees. They then become assistant psychologists but they do not get paid work. To get paid work, they have to study for clinical doctorates but in order to gain admission to the relevant course, they have to have experience. These young people are then forced to work for nothing. I know a young lady who works five days a week in a local business for the minimum wage and then works two days a week, free of charge, as an assistant psychologist. This lady is working seven days a week for the minimum wage. As most of those jobs are in Dublin, she is travelling from the country to Dublin for two days a week, putting petrol in her car and having to stay overnight, to work for the minimum wage. That is not good enough. She uses the few bob she earns from the local business to fund her working. I strongly believe there is not a trainee psychiatrist in this country who is asked to do that. It is not fair or equal that a psychologist would have to do it. As we all know, the waiting lists for people suffering with mental health issues are very long. That puts pressure on general practitioners who are struggling. There is also a waiting list for children with educational difficulties, therefore, there is a clear need for clinical psychologists.

I ask the Leader to consider inviting the Minister to the House for a discussion on this issue. It is not fair that young people who pay for their college education and study hard end up having to work free of charge. I welcome the children who are in the Public Gallery. Some of them might be assistant psychologists one day and I hope when that day comes, they will be paid for their efforts.

26/09/2018J00600Senator Máire Devine: I raise the issue of the Public Service Pay Commission. The Psy- 220 26 September 2018 chiatric Nurses Association of Ireland and the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation, INMO, are meeting today to discuss the findings of the Public Service Pay Commission and figure out how we can correct the problem of more than 2,000 vacancies throughout the nursing profes- sion. The Public Service Pay Commission has stated there is no issue with nursing recruitment, but that is inaccurate and misleading. The dogs in the street know it is an issue. The staff and the patients know it is an issue. To take psychiatry alone, mental health is spoken about a great deal. The latest audit of nursing vacancies indicates that the number of unfilled nursing posts in mental growth is growing, and there are 700 posts vacant in that speciality alone. That is nearly 200 vacancies since last year when the last audit was done. There are 88 vacancies in St. Ita’s Hospital and 76 vacancies in St. James’s Hospital. In Dublin north city, there are 56 vacancies, 62 in Galway, 46 in Louth-Meath and so on.

The Public Service Pay Commission has ignored the scale of the mounting recruitment and retention crisis facing the entire health services. Retirements projected in the next five years will put further pressure on an already broken system. The conclusion of the pay commission that there is no issue with nurse recruitment is completely at odds with the evidence and experience of nurses and patients across the services. The reality is that there are ongoing vacancies, in some places as high as 25%, which are impacting daily on the delivery of health services. In particular, the staff shortages in child and adolescent mental health services are well docu- mented, as is the excessive and expensive reliance on overtime and agency nurses throughout the services. Nurses argue that these staff shortages are unsustainable and can be best addressed by a pay rise across the grade. Will the Leader ask for a debate with the Minister about the Public Service Pay Commission and the reason it rejected across the board pay rises in services that are much needed for the health of the nation? It has ignored the mounting recruitment and retention issue.

26/09/2018J00700Senator Tim Lombard: I congratulate the communities throughout the country that were involved in the Tidy Towns competition. Those volunteers have done Trojan work in every village and town. A certain town in Mayo was one of the national winners but rural 12 o’clock towns such as Kinsale and Clonakilty retained their gold medals and Bandon got a bronze medal this year, which was very important. The work of those groups needs to be acknowledged. They are the true heroes of the community. They go out to ensure towns and villages look very well. The knock-on effect is that the communities get support by way of tourism or industry. We should acknowledge that they are true heroes.

I refer to an issue which arose at the education committee yesterday regarding the school transport service. Another colleague in the Chamber was at the meeting. It is one of the key issues at which we need to look. I raised it last week, am raising it this week and will probably raise it again next week or until there is some action.

The Minister in charge of the school transport service must come to the Chamber to go over the policy issues which are impinging significantly on people going to school. It is almost impossible for a person to get a bus, in particular in my part of the world, where he or she is just outside the area. There is no leniency and discretionary tickets are fading away because of population increases, in particular in the larger towns and villages close to schools. That means there is a knock-on effect on children in rural areas who cannot access a school bus service.

I have listened to the debates on this issue for the last 18 months and have continuously heard that it is a policy issue. As such, the Minister must come to the Chamber. We need a real debate on the vision. What does he propose to do for the education service to ensure students 221 Seanad Éireann can get school transport? The system is currently ineffective because it discriminates down to the square mile or even in terms of a matter of a hundred yards, as in some cases I have encoun- tered in recent weeks. In fairness to Bus Éireann and other providers, they are only following the letter of the law. There must be a total change in the 314 districts in place now and the way we ensure bus services get pupils to schools.

There is a degree of discrimination involved. If one is far away, one is excluded and told one is in the catchment of another school. That does not always work depending on the parish one lives in or the local demographics. If one has a parish which is aligned with a secondary school in the nearest town, pupils always go there. As such, a bus service should be provided. The whole system needs a real overview. We need to schedule time and to bring the Minister to the House. It is not about budget issues; it is about a change in policy and a complete review. What I really need is for the Leader to see if we can get the Minister to come to the House in order that we can have a complete review of the policy. The policy is broken and, unfortunately, the service is not working.

26/09/2018K00200Senator Kevin Humphreys: Following that, while I accept that there is a real issue in rural areas regarding the school transport service, what must be reviewed at the same time is school catchment areas. Sometimes catchment areas do not overlap correctly with the result that children are refused access to schools. It is a real and urgent matter with which we must deal. We will have to see the Minister work with the Department of Education and Skills to bring forward a solution. I welcome the fact that Senator Lombard has raised the issue today. It is one we need to address quickly. Certainly, he will have my full support on it.

As for the upcoming budget, I note that I am privileged to work with an all-party group on dementia. We have put forward budget proposals detailing approximately €50 million of investment in community supports for people with dementia. While it will be difficult for the Leader to have the Minister attend prior to the budget, I still wish to raise the matter. If the Leader has an opportunity to raise the matter with the Minister, I would appreciate it if he does so. I will give the example of two areas where a small amount of money could make a huge difference. Within our submission, we ask for €1.4 million for dementia advisers to work with families and GPs across the country. That alone would help people to stay within their communities and raise the level of awareness among GPs and families of the available supports. While there are supports, sometimes people find it difficult to access them due to a lack of knowledge. Dementia advisers would help in that regard. We have also asked for €3.1 million to provide centres of excellence to support GPs and families. These centres of excellence would be located in primary care centres and could cross over with supports for Down’s syndrome also.

If we could get the Minister to come to the House it would be, above all, to discuss home care packages. We have requested €6 million to provide home care packages for people with dementia. This is the second budget where there is a little wriggle room. This is a growing problem nationally. If we could start this year to provide an additional €6 million towards home care packages for people with dementia, it would have a real impact for people suffering from this, assist their families and allow people to continue to lead productive lives within their communities. I know time is tight and I will fully understand if the Leader cannot get the Minister to attend within the period. However, if the Leader could raise the matter, I would appreciate it.

26/09/2018K00300Senator Paul Daly: I raise an issue which was brought to my attention regarding low- charge and flat-rate telephone calls, in particular involving numbers with the prefix 076 and 1890. In particular, I highlight the use of those numbers by public bodies and public services. 222 26 September 2018 Unfortunately, many public bodies’ websites include only these numbers for customers to call. The fictitious belief is they are low-charge or flat-rate numbers, but they are only so when one calls from a landline, not from a mobile. We are in an era now where very few people, in particular in the younger generations, know what a landline is. All of our business is being done via mobile. While the phone numbers in question are referred to as low charge or flat rate, the flat rate is 4 cent per minute, approximately, on average across the different providers. How- ever, if one rings those numbers from a mobile, the average can go up to closer to 40 cent per minute, which is a tenfold increase.

Everyone is aware that when one rings one of these bodies, one will be put on hold and bounced around from option 1 to option 2 or 3. A phone call can easily take ten minutes, which is €4 for people who cannot afford it and who need the services. A few of the services brought to my attention or seen by me in my research only have these numbers on their websites. These include the National Driver Licence Service, PAYE inquiries to Revenue in Westmeath and the Data Protection Commission. Public services and bodies should be obliged to include a landline number because most mobile providers now provide packages where calls to landlines are low-cost anyway. People who need a service should not have to pay up to 40 cent per minute to try to get through to a human being on the other end of the line. This needs to be done and it is remiss of the bodies concerned not to have a landline along with those so-called “low-cost” numbers.

26/09/2018K00400Senator Frank Feighan: Brexit is looming very large and we are coming to the end game. Brexit is bad news for the island of Ireland, the UK and the EU. I was at the Labour Party conference in Liverpool for the last two days and was encouraged to see the party coming out with some sort of position. Yesterday, the party stated it would look at a referendum option where no final deal emerges from Parliament. That has to be welcomed by this House. It would absolutely block a no-deal Brexit. I do not know what happened in the past few years, but people are beginning to come out and stand up. I noticed yesterday that 95% of the people at the conference wanted to remain in the EU and felt that Brexit was wrong. I applaud the Labour Party for standing up. I see that Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, is due to meet the EU chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, in the next few days, which is also very welcome.

I pay tribute to a friend of mine who is also a very good friend of Ireland, namely, Mr. Ste- phen Pound, MP for Ealing North and the Labour Party’s shadow Minister for Northern Ireland. He was on Twitter and Facebook where he said this was a matter of life or death for the people of Northern Ireland. He knows and cares about it. There are enough people at Westminster from an Irish diaspora background who actually care about us and who are beginning to stand up. We must work together now to ensure Brexit does not happen. It is bad for the Good Fri- day Agreement and it is bad for the island of Ireland. It is catastrophic for the so-called United Kingdom and the EU.

26/09/2018L00200Senator Colm Burke: There is quite a large amount of vacant property. We must take action to bring these properties into use and, if necessary, use the taxation system in the upcoming budget and make it difficult for people to leave property vacant. I am a little concerned that while it complains night and day about the issue of housing, Sinn Féin proposed to one local authority in Cork that property tax be reduced by 15%. The latter would give rise to a reduction in income of €1.69 million. Property tax generates funding and it is a disincentive to leaving properties vacant. If property tax is reduced, that encourages people to leave properties vacant. I am somewhat surprised that, on the one hand, Sinn Féin wants more action taken in respect of housing but, on the other - by means of taxation reductions - it would encourage owners to 223 Seanad Éireann leave properties vacant for longer periods. The party needs to clarify this. It is unfortunate that when there has been a real increase in income in this country, it is talking about reducing property tax when in real terms it is beneficial to local councils and the services they provide. If €1.69 million is coming out of the income, that affects the provision of services. The party might keep that in mind on the next occasion when its members at local authority level start proposing decreases in property tax.

26/09/2018L00300Senator Máire Devine: Another vote of no confidence.

26/09/2018L00400Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: Every day, there are people outside Leinster House seeking help and they have been feeling very helpless lately. I do not blame them because it seems nothing is being done for them.

Earlier today, I joined the Lyme disease awareness rally with Lyme disease sufferers, some of whom I know, their families and friends from every county in Ireland. They simply want to be heard on this horrific disease and are holding this rally to raise awareness of its symptoms and also the treatment and prevention available. They want Lyme disease to be recognised by the HSE. I have raised this issue before and I struggle with having to raise it here again because like the public, I feel unheard by the Minister for Health, Deputy Harris. It is time to debate this isue and ask the Minister why it cannot be recognised by the HSE in order that people can get the help they need.

I will also be standing with farmers from Carlow who are here because we cannot deny that 2018 was a special kind of hell for the farmers, with almost biblical weather conditions from one season to the next, frost, snow, rain, floods and drought coupled with cattle prices falling. The livestock farmers are under immense income pressure and they are asking for help. They are seeking delivery of the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, proposal for the introduction of a target €200 suckler payment to save the struggling beef sector. Farmers have been left behind by the Government and they are feeling it more than ever this year.

26/09/2018L00500Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is the Senator for real?

26/09/2018L00600Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: Yes, absolutely. Fianna Fáil is calling for a roll- out of a hardship fund to assist farmers in buying feed and fodder and to help them cover mounting overheads. We would like to see a low-cost loan system in place for them. Like three quarters of the farmers in Ireland surveyed recently, we would like to see the €200 payment in the upcoming budget. We cannot let the farmers down again as we have done time and again. I am calling on the Taoiseach to look after the farmers in the budget. Since we have come back here there have been many protests on housing, children with disabilities and people crying for everything. We need to take to the streets because the Government is not delivering.

26/09/2018L00800Senator Jerry Buttimer: I thank the 14 Senators for their contributions on the Order of Business. I join Senator Conway-Walsh in expressing our comhbhrón le muintir Molloy as ucht bás Tom Molloy, to sympathise with the Molloy family on the passing of Tom Molloy whom Senator Conway-Walsh eloquently described as a wonderful musician and part of a fantastic family. Our sympathy goes to the family on their very sad loss.

Senator Mark Daly raised the issue of the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, growth forecast and the budget. The important point for the Senator to recognise is that talks are going on about the budget. This day fortnight it will be revealed. The Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, is finalising his budget package and is engaging with members of the Sena- 224 26 September 2018 tor’s party on it. There will be lots of speculation, lots of kite-flying and hyperbole around the budget. It is important to recognise that the ESRI figures acknowledge that the economy is growing and there is a need for a prudent approach to be taken but that there are risks and, as we know and Senators Feighan and Leyden have said, Brexit is the most substantial risk we face. We will have to face it. There is no such thing as a good Brexit. Brexit is bad. The status quo will not remain. There will be profound change, no matter what happens in the final outcome of Brexit because what we have now will not be the way. That will not stop Senator Mark Daly or others from criticising the Government but Brexit is not good and will have a profound impact. Senator Murnane O’Connor can nod her head all she wants. It is the fact whether Fianna Fáil or we or the Labour Party are in government.

26/09/2018L00900Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: I am saying nothing.

26/09/2018L01000Senator Jerry Buttimer: Brexit was not caused by the Government. It has been foisted on us and we are going to have to ensure we wear the green jersey.

26/09/2018L01100Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: Exactly. I support that 100%.

26/09/2018L01200Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Minister for Finance has been championing prudent policy in the budget. It is what he is known for. The economy is approaching full employment and it is important not to overheat it and that we learn from what happened in the past. I am sure the Senator will join me in wishing the Minister well with the budget.

Senator Mark Daly also raised the issue of organ donation. I know he has a particular interest in and that he is very close to the Irish Kidney Association and that he recalled the Seanad one summer on the matter. I am quite happy to have a debate on organ donation.

26/09/2018L01300Senator Mark Daly: A kidney is not for Christmas.

26/09/2018L01400Senator Jerry Buttimer: I chaired the Joint Committee on Health and Children which did very comprehensive work on organ donation. Senator Colm Burke was part of that committee. Senator Mark Daly’s contribution on organ donation this morning was very one-dimensional. He is going against people such as Professor Jim Egan and Philip Watt of the Cystic Fibrosis Society.

26/09/2018L01500Senator Mark Daly: I-----

26/09/2018L01600Senator Jerry Buttimer: I did not interrupt the Senator.

26/09/2018L01700Senator Mark Daly: I know, but these are facts.

26/09/2018L01800Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator spoke about Ireland and the world. He should consider the Spanish model and how it has transformed organ donation.

26/09/2018L01900Senator Mark Daly: They got rid of the concept of presumed consent.

26/09/2018L02000Senator Jerry Buttimer: All parties are in favour of what the Minister for Health is proposing. At the committee I chaired and of which Senator Colm Burke is now a member, Sena- tor Mark Daly’s party supported it also. Let us have a real debate about organ donation.

26/09/2018L02100Senator Mark Daly: Any time.

26/09/2018L02200Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is important to consider what happened as a consequence of 225 Seanad Éireann the wonderful documentary on Orla Tinsley. There were 5,000 requests for organ donations as a consequence. Organ donation saves lives, it gives people a second chance. If we can improve our status from 15th to 28th in the European Union and improve people’s lives and give them a second chance I am in favour of what the Minister proposes. We should engage in a debate on the matter. However, that debate should not be one-sided, which is what we are hearing from some. It is much more than what Senator Mark Daly is presenting this morning.

26/09/2018M00200Senator Mark Daly: It is an alternative view-----

26/09/2018M00300Senator Jerry Buttimer: I accept that.

26/09/2018M00400Senator Mark Daly: -----based on facts and research.

26/09/2018M00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I was generous to the Senator when he outlined the issue.

26/09/2018M00600Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senators Boyhan and Mark Daly raised the issue of housing. I would be happy to invite the Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government, Deputy Eoghan Murphy, and the Minister of State, Deputy English, to the House to address housing and homelessness. I commend the Minister. There is an obligation on Members, when they come into the House, to put forward policies. For once, I agree with Deputy Micheál Martin. The motion tabled in the Dáil yesterday was not going to solve the housing crisis. None of us has a monopoly on empathy or concern. All of us, every day, in our personal lives and political lives, meet and deal with people who are suffering as a result of a lack of housing, whether due to affordability or a lack of social housing, or whether they are elderly people who want to downsize and cannot do so. Members of the House have an obligation, when speaking about housing or any matter, to come here with an alternative policy rather than a cheap soundbite. Let us hear the policies.

26/09/2018M00700Senator Máire Devine: We have set out the policies but the Leader ignores them.

26/09/2018M00800Senator Jerry Buttimer: Let us hear what they would do.

26/09/2018M00900Senator Máire Devine: The discussion goes nowhere because the Leader is not prepared to read our policies.

26/09/2018M01000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Devine, please.

26/09/2018M01100Senator Jerry Buttimer: Let us not base policy on voodoo economics.

26/09/2018M01200Senator Máire Devine: We have costed our policy more than Fine Gael has.

26/09/2018M01300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I cannot allow a debate on the Order of Business.

26/09/2018M01400Senator Máire Devine: It is costed by the Department of Finance.

26/09/2018M01500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Devine, please.

(Interruptions).

26/09/2018M01900Senator Jerry Buttimer: I agree with Senators Boyhan and Conway-Walsh that the Min- ister of State, Deputy English, needs to come to the House to discuss the pyrite issue, which is a serious concern for many families and homeowners. The Minister of State established the pyrite remediation scheme and the Pyrite Resolution Board, which have dealt with more than 226 26 September 2018 1,000 redress requests. I know from reading the report published last year that it will be 2020 before the process slows down. Last year, 945 dwellings were remediated and contracts were being awarded or work was under way in the case of a further 129 properties. Remediation costs approximately €70,000 per house and several local authorities are working actively on the matter. I commend the Minister of State on the work he has done tackling this matter of great concern.

Senator Conway-Walsh referred to a programme about Frank Stagg broadcast on TG4. Peo- ple will watch the programme from whatever vantage point they want. I remember the events of the 1970s quite well.

I congratulate Senator Ruane on the publication of her book and reaching No. 1 on the book sales list. I apologise that I was not able to get to the launch. I hear the Senator will be a poll topper on the Trinity panel the next time.

26/09/2018M02000Senator Mark Daly: It is the kiss of death again.

26/09/2018M02200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: She got many kisses in Trinity College Dublin on the night of the launch. I witnessed it.

26/09/2018M02300Senator Jerry Buttimer: I commend the Senator on her wonderful bravery and eloquence on radio and television. The success of a good book can be judged from the reviews written by those charged with that responsibility. I read a number of reviews and they were extraordinary. It took great courage and much work on the Senator’s part to write the book and dedicate time to it. While I do not want to be patronising, I congratulate her and look forward to reading the book, which is on my reading list. I have to get it signed too.

The Senator raised the precarious case of Sean Binder. I have read the interview with Sean’s mother, Fanny. Both he and his mother deny the charges brought against him. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Coveney, and the Department are aware of the case and ready to help. There is a complication in that Mr. Binder was born in Germany. It is important that the Department is ready to help and that the matter has been raised in the House today. It is a source of concern that a young man who has engaged in humanitarian work has been wrongly accused, as I believe he has been, having read some of the information. I stand to be corrected. It is a matter of extreme importance that we get the matter resolved quickly in order that Sean can return home.

Senator Byrne raised the issue of pharmaceutical assistants who work under a licensed pharmacist. It is extraordinary that 248 people are being penalised by recommendations made by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland. Those recommendations are wrong. We should acknowledge that pharmaceutical assistants provide assistance to pharmacists. In many cases, they have vast experience, possibly much more than some of the pharmacists for whom they work. They assist and are a source of relief. They also have a very positive impact on the sector. As Senator Byrne rightly said, this will have a profound impact on the work of pharmacies and chemists in communities. I hope there will at least be a review of the decision and a stay put on it. I commend Senator Byrne on raising the matter. The Irish Pharmacy Union has been in contact with the Minister, seeking to have the restrictive rules changed. Very strict conditions already apply and I hope these rules will be reversed. I thank members of the Irish Pharmacy Union who have contacted me about the matter.

Senator Leyden raised the issue of the new boundaries for the European Parliament. An 227 Seanad Éireann independent commission was established, which has produced the report. It would be inappropriate to comment further other than to note that the commission has allocated extra seats to different areas.

Senator McFadden raised the issue of assistant psychologists in Ireland. I agree with her about the role they can play in the mental health system. The Minister of State at the Depart- ment of Health, Deputy Jim Daly, has examined the psychology aspect of the child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, where we have waiting lists. I hope we can allow for a particular and significant role to be played by assistant psychologists with regard to the matters raised.

Senator Devine raised the issue of public service pay. I note that a number of meetings will be held with different unions today regarding public sector pay. Under the Government, we have seen a restoration of pay to public servants, a reduction in the universal social charge and changes to the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation. The report published under the Public Service Pay and Pensions Act will result in further changes. It is important to recognise the need to be measured in our approach to public sector pay. The Senator spoke about the health system. As a public servant for my entire adult life, I understand and appreciate the value of the role played by nurses, doctors and other healthcare assistants and professionals. The important, evidence-based report by the Government allows for further changes and I hope we will see a continuation of those changes in the budget.

26/09/2018M02400Senator Máire Devine: Recruitment and retention was ignored and dismissed by the Pub- lic Service Pay Commission.

26/09/2018M02500Senator Jerry Buttimer: It was addressed by the commission. What was dismissed was that pay was a factor in people deciding whether to join or remain in the health service. We can argue that point. Public sector pay has been increased and we have seen new rates of pay. What we need now is work on how we can entice people to come back or to stay. The Public Service Pay Commission, of which I was not part, concluded that pay was not the issue. Anecdotally, one hears from members of the Irish Nurses and Midwives Organisation and healthcare workers that their workload is too heavy and their hours are too long. Let us have a conversation about how we can make life better for people working in the health service.

26/09/2018M02600Senator Máire Devine: The report from the Joint Committee on the Future of Mental Health Care states-----

26/09/2018M02700Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am just making a point. What the Senator is looking for may not be the answer. It may not be about money. If the Senator had a conversation with some people who went abroad and do not intend to return, she may find there is a variety of reasons they will not come home.

26/09/2018M02800Senator Máire Devine: They dread coming home.

26/09/2018M02900Senator Jerry Buttimer: There is an obligation and duty not to talk down the health system and make it sound as if it is absolutely awful. It is not. I want us to have a health system that functions on behalf of patients and in which staff are rewarded and have good working conditions.

26/09/2018N00200Senator Máire Devine: I want the Leader’s response to contain a measure of honesty and acknowledgement. 228 26 September 2018

26/09/2018N00300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: This is the time for the Leader to respond.

26/09/2018N00400Senator Máire Devine: Is it?

26/09/2018N00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Yes. I am not permitted to allow the Senator back in.

26/09/2018N00600Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Tim Lombard referred to the Tidy Towns competition. I congratulate all of the winners. Listowel was the national winner, while Carrigaline in my area won a gold award. Bishopstown had its points increased. I also congratulate those involved in Ballincollig.

26/09/2018N00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Killarney won in its category.

26/09/2018N00800Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am delighted to hear that. It is important to recognise the voluntarism of the many thousands across the country who enhance and improve the public realm and without whom, many towns would be a poorer place in which to live.

Senators Tim Lombard and Kevin Humphreys referred to the public school bus system. Senator Kevin Humphreys is correct that there is a need to look at the catchment areas. I commend Senator Tim Lombard for raising the issues in his area.

The issue of the budget for dementia services as raised by Senator Kevin Humphreys is of great importance. Some 55,000 people suffer from dementia and that number is forecast to increase. Since 2014, the Government has allocated €28 million to deal with the matter, of which €21 million will be utilised, with an additional €3 million for home care packages. However, the points outlined by the Senator about dementia support services, centres of excellence and home care packages are valid. Senator Máire Devine asked for honesty. We must ensure the HSE will examine the delivery of home care packages because it is my experience in advocat- ing on behalf of those seeking such packages that there is a blockage in the system which should be addressed as a priority.

26/09/2018N00900Senator Kevin Humphreys: It is a problem nationwide.

26/09/2018N01000Senator Jerry Buttimer: I agree with Senator Paul Daly on the issue of telephone call charges, whether flat-rate calls or otherwise. The issue should be raised as a matter of urgency, perhaps by way of a Commencement matter, and addressed as a priority because the Senator is correct that calls to a variety of service providers often entail inordinate delays. I was recently left on hold for 48 minutes and when I got through-----

26/09/2018N01100Senator Paul Daly: Was the Leader trying to contact the Taoiseach’s office?

26/09/2018N01200Senator Jerry Buttimer: No, I have no difficulty in that regard. When I got through, I asked to speak to a particular agent and was told that it was a matter for the supervisor. The supervisor came on the line and told me that it was not part of his or her brief. It was nearly an hour before I received any answer and even then I did not receive a complete answer. The point raised by the Senator should be taken up by all Members. I may be old fashioned, but we need a more human interface in customer service rather than selecting option 1, 2 or 3. There should be a willingness to embrace customers who call a helpline or go into an office in search of assistance. The point made by the Senator about the varying cost of calling numbers with certain prefixes should also be addressed.

26/09/2018N01300Senator Paul Daly: Organisations should be obliged to have a landline number. 229 Seanad Éireann

26/09/2018N01400Senator Jerry Buttimer: I agree fully. To be fair, the Senator is not raising the matter to score a political point but, rather, because it affects everybody, in particular senior citizens, many of whom experience difficulty in that regard.

I commend Senator Frank Feighan for his attendance at the conference of the British Labour Party in Liverpool. I congratulate Mr. Stephen Pound, MP, on his wonderful articulation of the impact of Brexit. I hope there will be an evolution of the approach to Brexit decisions in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the conference.

Senator Colm Burke raised the issue of vacant properties. He is correct that there is a need to prioritise their usage. I hope that will take place.

In her wonderful contribution Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor failed to acknowledge the great work being done by the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Pat Deering, in representing farmers. She should reflect on the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Michael Creed, has been very proactive and vibrant, putting in place different schemes and measures to support and assist farmers-----

26/09/2018N01500Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: I can only deal with the concerns raised with me by farmers. They have told me that the Government is not supporting them, which indicates that the Leader is being contradictory. The farmers of County Carlow have told me that the Government is not supporting them.

26/09/2018N01600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is aware that she is not permitted a second bite at the cherry.

26/09/2018N01700Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: I am just replying to the Leader who is contradict- ing himself.

26/09/2018N01800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That does not matter; it is his response, for which I am not responsible-----

26/09/2018N01900Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: It is not a true response.

26/09/2018N02000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: ------or the contributions of the Senator.

26/09/2018N02100Senator Jerry Buttimer: I am surprised that Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor did not blame the Minister for the rain, snow, storms and sunshine, but, thankfully, she did not. However, I accept her point about the plight of those suffering from Lyme disease. When I was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health, we did a piece of work on the disease. Sena- tor Colm Burke is a member of the current committee which held hearings on the issue last year. It is a source of huge concern. Lyme disease is a very debilitating illness which affects people profoundly. I hope the HSE can work with local pharmacists, GPs and advocacy groups to ensure we will have a proper plan in place for the disease because while there are differing opinions on the matter, we should unite to support those affected, whether the disease is caused by a tick or otherwise. I share the Senator’s concerns about the issue.

Order of Business agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 12.35 p.m. and resumed at 12.50 p.m.

230 26 September 2018

26/09/2018P00100Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Law Provisions Bill 2018: Second Stage

Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

26/09/2018P00300Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy Damien English): On behalf of the Minister of State, Deputy John Halligan, I am pleased to present the Copyright and Other Intellectual Property Law Provisions Bill 2018 to this House for consideration. The Bill completed its passage through the Lower House in July with broad support, following positive and constructive engagement with Deputies. Officials of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation will be happy in the next few weeks to engage with Senators who have questions about the Bill or require clarification on any of its provisions.

The Bill is aimed at overcoming barriers to innovation and modernising the existing copyright regime for the digital age. It is not to be confused with the ongoing negotiations in Brus- sels on a proposal for a copyright directive. If that proposal is agreed to, separate transposing legislation will be required in Ireland in due course.

The Bill is the result of detailed analysis and examination, both from a legal and a policy perspective, of the recommendations contained in the copyright review committee’s 2013 report entitled, Modernising Copyright. The regulatory impact assessment, which is available on the website of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, outlines why certain recommendations were not implemented. It was due mainly to legal conflicts with existing EU law, the significant costs involved, the resulting administrative burden that could arise from implementation, or the lack of sufficient evidence supporting certain recommendations.

Owing to the diversity of the Seanad, many in this House will be aware of copyright. As a result, I expect to see interest in the Bill. The overall aim of the Department of Business, En- terprise and Innovation on copyright matters in the Bill and in general is always to find the best balance between the rights of right holders in respect of their creative endeavours, the desire of consumers to access that creative content and those intermediaries who facilitate that access and ensure right holders are suitably remunerated for their rights.

Turning to the Bill, as it is quite detailed legislation, with a substantial number of sections, I do not propose to address each of them but will instead outline the main provisions. I can, of course, provide additional detail on any aspect, if required. The Minister of State, Deputy John Halligan, and his officials will be available in the coming weeks to clarify any piece of information or go into more detail, if need be.

The Bill amends several existing definitions contained in the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, as amended, and provides for the inclusion of five new definitions, which is important to consider when reading the Bill. The Bill introduces the following changes to copyright law in Ireland. Section 4 renames the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks as the Controller of Intellectual Property. Subsequent amendments in sections 40 to 42, inclusive, carry this change across the other intellectual property Acts, namely, the Copyright and Related Rights Act, the Patents Act 1992 and the Trade Marks Act 1996, and change the name of the Patents Office to the Intellectual Property Office of Ireland. These amendments better reflect the full breadth of the role of both the controller and the office across all intellectual property in Ireland, as well as the more standardised naming convention for such offices across the Eu- ropean Union. 231 Seanad Éireann The Bill improves access to the courts system for intellectual property infringement claims, particularly for lower value cases of intellectual property infringements. This is achieved in section 5 by extending the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court and the District Court to hear intellectual property claims, permitting right holders to bring lower value intellectual property infringement claims for relief in civil proceedings within the limits of these courts. The provision will improve possibilities for enforcement of intellectual property claims, especially those that would not be economical to prosecute before the High Court, which is the general approach at present. In sections 38 and 39 relevant amendments are also included to the Courts of Justice Act 1924 in respect of the jurisdiction of the District Court and to the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act 1961 in respect of the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to ensure the rules of the court allow such cases to enter the lower courts. Later sections of the Bill, namely, sections 46 to 79, inclusive, and 82 to 104, inclusive, make the necessary amendments to the Patents Act 1992 and the Trade Marks Act 1996, respectively, which amend references to “the Court” to show whether the matters relevant to each section should be referred to the High Court or the “appropriate court” in those Acts.

The introduction of a text and data mining copyright exception is provided for in sections 13 and 29. Text and data mining is the use of advanced automated data analytics techniques to examine text and other data for patterns, trends and other useful information. This usually requires copying of the work or database to be analysed to facilitate scientific research. The exception will be of particular importance to the research and scientific community and in the context of big data projects which rely on underlying data analytics to produce new results and uses for the results.

The Bill extends the existing copyright exceptions for education and research into Irish law as proposed by the copyright review committee. Several sections amend the Copyright and Related Rights Act, namely, sections 14, 28, 29, 43 and Schedule 1, expanding the existing provisions on exceptions to copyright and related rights for the purposes of education. The provisions contained in the Bill will expand many of the existing provisions of the Copyright and Related Rights Act to the full extent allowed by the information society directive, Directive 2001/29/EC. The exceptions contained in the directive allow for the use of copyrighted works without the express authorisation of the right holder and the need to compensate the author. The Bill also includes protection for right holders by making these exceptions subject to a licence override, where suitable licences are available. This will allow educational institutions to benefit from access to copyrighted material, while serving to protect right holders’ commercial objectives.

Section 27 contains a modest amendment to the Copyright and Related Rights Act that broadens the copyright deposit system, enabling copyright deposit institutions to accept published material in digital format, as well as or instead of physical copies. This allows copyright deposit institutions in Ireland to accept publications in electronic format on a voluntary basis, while creating an obligation on publishers to comply with any request for such material in an electronic format.

A disability exception, originally proposed by the copyright review committee, is contained in the Bill. The definition of disability is amended and updated to the meaning assigned under section 2 of the Disability Act 2005. The amendment is of importance as the Bill expands the existing exception to copyright for the benefit of persons with any disability in sections 24 to 26, inclusive. The provisions provide for the greater availability of suitably modified versions of copyrighted works for use by persons with a disability, as allowed under the EU information 232 26 September 2018 society directive. Currently, designated bodies that represent the interests of persons with a disability are only allowed to make a single modified copy to meet the individual needs of an individual person with a disability in response to a specific request, placing undue burdens on such bodies and organisations. The amendments allow designated bodies to create multiple copies to have available for the needs of disabled persons and facilitate transmission of these copies to other designated bodies, as well as directly to individuals with a disability. Designated bodies will be permitted to request a copy of a work which can then be copied and modified for the specific needs of a person with a disability. This will then allow that body to create additional copies of the modified work for use by persons with a disability. Given advances in technology, it may also be possible for persons with a disability to undertake necessary modifications using suitable software, etc. Taking these advances into consideration, the Bill features a new provision that allows an individual person with a physical or mental disability to make a personal copy of a work which is modified to meet their special needs, rather than having to obtain such a modified copy from a designated body, allowing such persons a level of independence and not placing an onus on them to rely on a third party. The Bill also sets out a new provision that introduces an anticipatory duty on publishers to make suitable copies of the work available to designated bodies on request. This will facilitate the bodies to make suitable modified copies available for persons with a disability.

The Bill amends the Patents Act 1992 to take account of two technical issues that have arisen from the Knowledge Development Box (Certification of Inventions) Act 2017. Section 40 of the Bill which provides for the opening up of the national route for Patent Cooperation Treaty, PCT, international applications was amended on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann. The amendments are extremely technical in nature and were necessary to ensure there were no unintended consequences as a result of the changes to the Patents Act 1992.

The purpose of section 127A is to open the national route for PCI applications by allowing patent applicants to choose to convert an international patent application into a national patent application. This ensures the applicant in not required to lose his or her international application; he or she can choose the national route of his or her own volition.

The second issue arises from an unintended consequence of an amendment to section 31 of the Patents Act in the recently enacted Knowledge Development Box (Certification of Inven- tions) Act 2017. Prior to the amendment, when a patent application was received 1 o’clock by the Controller of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks it was subject to a formalities check to ensure the application had been completed correctly and met the minimum standard set out in the Patents Act to qualify as a valid patent application. Should the application not meet the required standards, it could be refused. Following the implementation of the Knowledge Development Box (Certification of Inventions) Act, patent applications that do not meet the minimum standard cannot be refused after this formalities check but must instead be subject to substantive examination and investigation before being refused. It was never the intention to remove the power of the controller to refuse patent applications that did not meet the minimum standard. Therefore, it is necessary to correct this unintended consequence by removing the text inserted by the amendment to section 31(1) of the Patents Act 1992 and re- turning it to its original format through section 40 of this Bill.

There are a few technical amendments. While the Bill implements many of the recommendations in the Modernising Copyright report, it also makes other technical amendments to the copyright regime. Section 6 clarifies that the authorship of a soundtrack accompanying a film shall be treated as part of the film. Section 7 clarifies that perpetual copyright does not exist in 233 Seanad Éireann certain unpublished works. Section 9 provides a 25-year term of protection for previously unpublished works. This is subject to first obtaining the consent of the owner of the work. Section 10 makes it an infringement, in the context of photographs, to tamper with metadata associated with the photographic works. This will allow for better protection of photographs, particularly in online use. Sections 10 and 32 to 36, inclusive, strengthen the provisions on rights protection measures, including extending the protection of rights protection measures to being a matter for civil infringement proceedings taken by a rightsholder or licensee as well as a matter for criminal infringement proceedings. Section 23 clarifies the rights of a person acting on behalf of a broadcaster with regard to the copying of a work by the insertion of a new subsection that will allow copying for the purpose of a broadcast or cable programme to be extended to a person acting on behalf of and under the responsibility of the broadcaster. Section 37 clarifies the duration of copyright in works provided for in paragraph 9(1) of the First Schedule of the Copyright and Related Rights Act by the inclusion of additional text.

There are also provisions to correct an oversight at the time of the euro changeover. These result in a technical amendment to each of the three older intellectual property Acts already in force - the Copyright and Related Rights Act, the Patents Act 1992 and the Trade Marks Act 1996 - to convert their existing monetary amounts for fines and convictions from Irish punts to euro amounts and, where suitable, to amend those monetary amounts to the relevant classes of fines as stipulated in the Fines Act 2010. These provisions are found in sections 44, 80 and 105 and Schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the Bill.

In respect of the term of protection for copyright in designs, the Bill repeals sections 31A and 78B of the Copyright and Related Rights Act which relate to the existing 25-year term of copyright protection for designs and artistic works under the Industrial Designs Act 2001. New provisions bring these works under the standard copyright term of protection being made in sections 8 and 20. The current 25-year term of copyright protection for designs and artistic works conflicts with the standard copyright term of protection that applied to artistic works, which lasts for the life of the creator and a further 70 years. Following a ruling in a case before the Court of Justice of the EU, Ireland must amend its legislation regarding the term of protection for copyright in designs and artistic works to ensure these works receive the full copyright term of protection of 70 years after the death of the creator. In order to provide businesses with sufficient opportunity to comply with any amendment, the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation conducted a public consultation to obtain the views of stakeholders and subsequently has opted for a two-step transition period of 12 months from the date of entry into force of the Bill. This ensures that Irish legislation complies with our international obligations, while giving businesses sufficient opportunity to respond to the changes and to sell off existing stock that would not comply with the amended provisions.

There are also exceptions permitted by the EU information society directive. The Bill implements several such optional exceptions. They include extending the concept of fair dealing in copyright works for purposes of news reporting in sections 11 and 21; creating an exception to copyright for use of copyright works to allow for caricature, satire and parody in section 12; making increased provision for the use of works by libraries and archives, including allowing libraries, archives and educational institutions to make a copy of a work in its collection for preservation purposes, and for inclusion in catalogues for exhibitions in sections 15 to 19, inclusive, 31 and 32; and expanding the exception to allow bodies to produce a copy of a work for the advertisement of a public exhibition, as well as for the sale of an artistic work in section 22.

I would like to inform the House that during the Bill’s passage in Dáil Éireann a Govern- 234 26 September 2018 ment amendment was accepted which amended text at section 40. In addition, one Opposition amendment was proposed, which the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, was happy to accept, which resulted in the addition of a new section 106 that requires the Government to issue a report within 12 months of enactment on the feasibility of establishing a digital legal deposit scheme to allow for the copying and archiving of material on .ie domains on the Internet. I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House on behalf of the Minister of State who, again, apolo- gises that he cannot be here owing to an issue that came up. He certainly looks forward with interest to the contributions of Members on this and subsequent Stages of the Bill in this House. He and his team are available before Committee Stage and later Stages to go through any issues Senators might have in the weeks ahead.

26/09/2018Q00200Acting Chairman (Senator Kieran O’Donnell): I thank the Minister of State. We will follow with debate in the normal pattern.

26/09/2018Q00300Senator Aidan Davitt: The Minister of State has outlined the Copyright and Other Intel- lectual Property Law Provisions Bill 2018 quite comprehensively and we have had discussions on it previously. We have certainly discussed it with the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, at length on a previous occasion. On behalf of my own party, I can say we are happy to see the Bill implemented.

26/09/2018Q00400Senator Rónán Mullen: I also welcome the introduction of the Bill. During my past lec- turing in law I did some work in the area of intellectual property; therefore, I am aware of what a minefield it can be and of how dry and technical in nature it is, while nonetheless involving very important issues of the public good, as we heard when the Minister of State was speaking about the various sections. Perhaps even more of a minefield is the fact that we are in this age of Internet downloads, streaming, data mining, social media, and so on, all of which have really forced us to look again at how we should balance the rights of copyright holders with the reali- ties of modern communications and the use of copyrighted material. The Bill is exceptionally detailed and technical legislation. It strikes a good balance between protecting copyright holders and taking account of the modern world and the desire for, or desirability of, reasonable use of copyrighted material in reasonable circumstances, such as use in educational settings. The fact that these issues are being addressed by the Oireachtas sends a good message about Ireland as a knowledge economy in which innovation and information are valued and their importance understood and in which people can profit from their ideas as a result of them being protected to a reasonable degree within our laws.

In particular, I welcome the provisions of the Bill which allow intellectual property infringement actions to be brought before the District or Circuit Courts within these courts’ jurisdiction. I recently spoke in the House on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill and made the point that we are in danger of the courts system being brought into disrepute, not by cronyism or judicial bias, as the Minister, Deputy Ross, would have us believe, but by a combination of delays caused by judicial vacancies, particularly at appellate level, and by high costs which act as a barrier to access to the courts. There is also still a range of areas where actions are reserved to the jurisdiction of the High Court alone. It is good to see one of these being taken back for consideration by the lower courts. Allowing infringement actions of lower value to be brought at District and Circuit Court level is a positive step as it will allow rights holders who may be of limited resources to pursue an action to protect their rights where they might otherwise have been afraid to do so owing to the cost of a High Court action. An important principle that people talk about is access to justice. The cost of justice is inseparable from that question of access to justice. From that perspective in particular, I welcome this legislation, as well as 235 Seanad Éireann welcoming it generally.

26/09/2018R00200Senator James Reilly: I welcome the Minister to the House again. I also welcome the Bill because while it is highly technical, it is, as others have said, essential in terms of modernising our system for today’s world.

There are many aspects of the Bill which I welcome and Senator Mullen has mentioned two of them. One is the change in the courts system in order that one can go to a lower court for minor infringements and not have justice denied because of the prohibitive cost of going to the High Court. I also have a particular interest in the issue of text and data mining and the exceptions to those as they refer to education and research. which are critically important. I am aware of one instance recently where access to a host of new information, looked at with new eyes, has brought forward some advances in the understanding of the area of autism.

This is a very good Bill which has been through the Lower House, and any of the issues that were raised there have been ironed out. Unlike on some occasions when we get the Bill first and do that sort of work here, this Bill has come to us fairly well cleaned up and cleared. The issue around disability is also very important in that people have an independent right to modify their requirements without having to rely upon a third party, notwithstanding the fact that third parties can also put it into a format that is more accessible. Within this context we think of people with visual impairments. The modest amendment relating to the copyright deposit system is critically important in the modern era as more of us move to a paperless society. This makes sense.

I commend the Minister and the Bill to the House.

26/09/2018R00300Senator Fintan Warfield: I thank the Minister of State for coming into the House to take the Bill. I welcome the legislation, as others have done. It sets out to implement some of the recommendations in the Modernising Copyright report prepared by the Copyright Review Committee back in 2013 and it is also influenced by the Marrakesh treaty, both of which Sinn Féin support.

The importance of copyright to the creative economy cannot be underestimated. Copyright is the principal tool used by creative workers to generate sustainable income and wealth and protect their share of the value that they create. We have to remember always that the creative industries are the only industries where something is consistently created from absolutely nothing, hence the importance of copyright as the wealth of artists, musicians and others.

According to the International Confederation of Societies of Authors and Composers, €9.2 billion in copyright royalties was collected and distributed to artists in 2016 across five global regions from the music, audiovisual, literature, dramatic and visual sectors. The British Equity collection service distributed more than €10 million to UK performers for their work in British film and television.

Copyright prevents third parties from profiting from the labour of creative people without paying for the exploitation of that labour. Historically, it is the artist’s protection against the ex- traction of value. Writers, directors, designers, visual and plastic artists, songwriters, composers etc. all own the copyright on the work that they make. It is illegal to sell on or otherwise use or profit from a text, a performance or an image without the express permission of the creator of that text, performance or image and without providing mutually agreed equitable remuneration for that use. 236 26 September 2018 Will the Minister of State explain further why the copyright council, which was recommended within the report that I mentioned, has not been catered for in this Bill? The Minister of State, Deputy Jim Daly, in response to my colleague, Deputy Quinlivan, stated that it is Government policy to reduce quangos and that the establishment of a copyright council had not been fully quantified on that basis. That is a very poor reasoning and, when substantial reports like this one are worked on and one of the core recommendations is so easily dismissed, that sets a bad precedent.

The Australian Copyright Council, the Copyright Council of New Zealand, and the British Copyright Council all cover the duties and functions similar to what is outlined in the Moder- nising Copyright report. These are all private, not-for-profit bodies that are funded primarily, I presume, through membership fees. A private not-for-profit approach with a membership fee could also be taken in Ireland, as suggested in the consultation paper. Work and consultation could also be done through the Department to help launch such a body that would establish an advocacy, advisory and stakeholder-led copyright council. With the booming screen industry and with famous music and visual art industries, we have further expert-led opinion advising on policy to protect our artists’ intellectual property. I may table amendments on this area on Committee Stage, but I would like to hear the Minister of State’s response regarding the establishment of a copyright council.

In addition, and I have spoken on this on numerous occasions, I am very disappointed that the Bill has not facilitated a legal digital deposit. I am conscious that an amendment was passed at the behest of Fianna Fáil in the Dáil to bring about a feasibility study. We need to be conscious of our general acceptance that what goes online stays there forever. The reality, from those who have done their homework on this, is that 35% of what goes online is not available the following year, and much less is available ten years later. Libraries and national institutions have a responsibility to archive all physical publications in the State and it is of great importance that we do not lose what goes online because this is an issue of national memory. I refer to things such as recent referendum campaigns and all such matters. The National Library of Ireland has the ability to sweep the .ie domain. I believe 20 of 28 EU member states have digital legal deposits in place. We cannot lose this information for future generations.

The legislation only allows for restrained depositing by our deposit institutions which have to request to have publications archived rather than being allowed to sweep the domain regu- larly. We are looking at the possibility of mass non-compliance where digital publications are not archived at all. How would the National Library of Ireland approach every individual publication or publisher? It is not possible, and mass non-compliance will follow from this.

In addition, when the Minister, Deputy Humphreys, was in what is now the Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, they conducted a consultation in which 42 responses, or 90% of the people who were consulted on the issue, said we very much need to establish a digital deposit scheme. The Minister has since moved to the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation which has responsibility for this issue and the matter seems to be off the table or pushed down the line with no appetite to follow through on it. This is of great concern and I reserve my right to table amendments on the issue in future debates.

26/09/2018S00100Senator Frances Black: I welcome the Minister of State to the Chamber and this important Bill. As a member of Civil Engagement, I worked closely with Senator John Dolan who has pushed tirelessly to raise disability issues in the House. Having spoken to the Senator and some of the leading organisations dealing with disability issues, I want to flag some of their concerns 237 Seanad Éireann on Second Stage.

A key aspect of the Bill is that it allows for the transposition of an EU directive enabling us to ratify the Marrakesh treaty. As has been noted, this treaty, adopted in 2013 by the World In- tellectual Property Organisation, aims to improve the availability and cross-border exchange of books and other print material in accessible formats around the world for people who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled. This is a noble, important goal and something I am delighted to see Ireland supporting.

It is widely acknowledged that people who are blind and vision impaired continue to face many barriers in accessing books and other print material due to overly restrictive copyright provisions and related rights. These are unnecessary barriers to inclusion that we should rightly be dismantling, as the treaty and this Bill are trying to do. They seek to require contracting parties to provide modest exceptions or limitations on copyright holders in order to share works in accessible formats, and for cross-border exchange. As a legislator, I am delighted that such work can improve a child’s access to vital educational material that otherwise might not be available.

I will raise a couple of points highlighted by the National Council for the Blind of Ireland, NCBI, the national sight loss agency. The NCBI is a not-for-profit charitable organisation providing support and services nationwide to people experiencing sight loss. It views the legislation as a positive step that will help many people in Ireland. The NCBI’s library and media centre is the main accessible book production unit in Ireland. It produces books in audio and Braille and provides guidelines for larger print productions. At this point, the library holds more than 20,000 titles in accessible formats, and it works as a member of the Accessible Books Consortium, bookshare.org and the International Federation of Library Associations and Insti- tutions. The Marrakesh treaty will have a real, tangible impact on the media centre, improving production schedules, inter-library loans and significantly increasing the number of books produced in accessible formats. This is made easier by the fact that, as it stands, economic compensation will not be imposed upon authorised entities in Ireland for the distribution of accessible works. Such compensation schemes, which are optional for EU member states, make it harder and more expensive to produce and share accessible books. I am glad that the Govern- ment is proceeding in this manner.

The NCBI was also pleased to note the Government will not apply the second optional clause in the treaty, which allows countries to ban the creation of accessible copies if the copyright owner has previously made the work commercially available. This could mean an academic textbook cannot be converted into e-Braille if it has already been released by the publisher in this format. Again, this is about pushing for more inclusion and making vital resources like textbooks as available as possible.

However, the NCBI raised concerns about the definition of the term “authorised entity” used in the legislation. It asks that the definition be amended to mirror the definition used in Article 2 of the Marrakesh treaty. This has a wider scope and includes non-profit organisations that provide services “to beneficiary persons as one of its primary activities”. This would slightly extend the capacity of non-governmental organisations, NGOs, to help in this vital work. I ask the Minister of State to respond to this recommendation.

Similarly, would authorised entities need to seek a licence from the Minister? The NCBI believes its library and media centre, a fantastic resource, should be considered as an authorised 238 26 September 2018 entity for the purposes of this legislation because it has systems in place to maintain the integ- rity and security of works. I flag this issue at this stage of the debate. I would appreciate if the Minister of State commented on this point.

26/09/2018S00200Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister of State. I will not take my full time as I will speak to only one aspect of the Bill. It relates to the Minister of State’s opening comment that the Bill is the result of detailed analysis and examination of the recommendations contained in the copyright review committee’s report of 2013, Modernising Copyright. While the Bill is said to take account of certain of these recommendations, I have been briefed that the problem is that the Bill only takes account of those recommendations in favour of big content and does not implement the balancing recommendations made in that report in favour of users. The concern is that the Bill is unbalanced because it seems to ignore the copyright review committee’s main recommendations relating to users. This means that current common practices, like private copying and format shifting, are infringements of copyright, which should not be the case. Committee Stage is fairly soon and this matter has only been brought to my attention in the past 24 hours. I hope to introduce amendments on Committee Stage based on the copyright review committee recommendations to give effect to normal user expectations.

The report states:

if the exceptions are too narrow, this could stifle user innovation, to say nothing of freedom of expression... Accommodating basic and genuine user expectations alongside the legitimate interests of rights owners makes copyright law stable and sustainable, thereby contributing generally to cultural and economic development and innovation.

It subsequently states:

the main argument in favour of private copying exceptions relates to users’ reasonable assumptions and basic expectations. Users now commonly assume and expect that, if they buy content for personal (as opposed to commercial) use, they should be able to access it in various formats and across multiple devices. As a consequence, many users routinely make copies for private use, and do not believe that this is or should be against the law. Failure to acknowledge this would diminish respect for the system of copyright and undermine the credibility of copyright legislation.

That is a critical quote relating as it does to the real, day-to-day practice of many users and the impact that copyright law has. The point is that users routinely copy materials for private use without believing this in any way breaches copyright legislation. This should be in some way recognised in law, as the review committee recommended. Exceptions could include amending the definition of fair dealing, providing for reproductions on paper for private use, permitting format shifting and back-ups, and facilitating non-commercial, user generated content.

There are a number of ways the Bill could be strengthened. I am not opposing it in any way, but I am drawing the attention of the Minister of State, his colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Business and Innovation, Deputy Halligan, and his officials to the concerns many stakeholders have about the way in which the Bill purports to implement the recommendations of the copyright review committee. I know the Minister of State indicated the regulatory impact assessment outlining particular reasons certain recommendations were not implemented, but a crucial question, one which I hope will be explored in more detail on Committee Stage, is why the Bill appears to have a lack of balance in terms of the recommenda-

239 Seanad Éireann tions that are being implemented and those that are not. I do not necessarily expect a response from the Minister of State today as it is more a matter for Committee Stage. I am simply highlighting my intention to return to the issue on Committee Stage next week.

26/09/2018S00300Minister of State at the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government (Deputy Damien English): I thank all of the Senators who contributed to the debate. I have listened intensely, as have the officials from the Department. The various issues that have been raised will be considered further by the Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation as the Bill makes its way through this House. It is intended to have Committee Stage on 3 Octo- ber, which is next week, subject to the agreement of the House. There may be a chance before that to engage with officials about some of the issues and concerns that Senator Bacik raised. I will touch on them a little more. The Senator may have missed it, but I noted earlier that the officials will be pleased to engage with Senators on any issue they may wish to raise in the next week.

This is detailed and technical legislation. When implemented, it will organise and expand copyright and related rights in Ireland. I will now address some but not all of the concerns raised. I will revert to Senators with full answers, if necessary, in the next couple of days.

Senator Warfield raised an issue about capturing and preserving the web and having a full digital deposit system. The committee’s recommendation outlines the creation of such a system. It is intended to facilitate the recording, archiving and utilisation for research purposes of websites with Irish domain names, which are not currently archived. While the intention is to record material that may otherwise be removed from the web over time, it is a significant project that requires multi-institutional collaborations and significant resources and skill sets for capturing and preserving Ireland’s digital record. I was involved in some of this when I was in this Department a number of years ago. It is a very complicated and an important area, and the Senator is right to highlight it. It is in the report.

An amendment requesting the introduction of such a system was tabled on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann and resulted in a good discussion with Deputies at the time. The intention to capture the web for preservation purposes is a noble one. However, it is a significant project and not simply a matter of amending copyright legislation. That is a part of it but it would not be enough by itself. Aside from any technical amendment to the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000, other issues must be scrutinised when considering and developing any legislative changes. Government issues and public interest issues impact rights holders. The Department of Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is the Department with responsibility for policy in this area. The Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation and my Department have been actively working together on the matter for some time now and will continue to do so. I want to ensure a robust regulatory framework is developed and to facilitate the necessary corresponding legislative amendments in due course.

The amendment tabled on Report Stage which calls for a report to be published on the matter within 12 months of the enactment of the Bill was accepted and is viewed as a pragmatic way to advance the project while allowing time for the necessary work to take place. The House can be assured both Departments are actively engaged and a proposal on that report will be prepared as specified in the Bill. I am conscious that the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, is committed to this issue. Senator Warfield probably wanted a quicker answer to his question, but there is a process to go through. There is a commitment to do that. Perhaps the acceptance of the amendment providing for a report within 12 months gives us an end date to having this 240 26 September 2018 ready. The Senator might be happy enough with that or he might want to discuss the matter further in the week or two ahead, but the intention is there to achieve what he wants achieved. I think we all see the merits of the proposal; it is just a question of being able to do it properly.

What does the Bill do in respect of digital deposits? The copyright review committee recommends that the Bill broaden the copyright deposit system to enable existing copyright deposit institutions to accept published material in electronic format as well as, or instead of, physical copies. This will benefit copyright deposit institutions, allowing them to collect non- print works to produce a shared archive of digital works and to facilitate the development of Ireland’s national printed archive. It will also allow for print works no longer published in hard copy format to be deposited and ensure the continued archiving of important documents. This includes many Government reports and documents which are no longer published in hard copy or as a matter of course, so this proposal will probably help in that respect.

Another question Senator Warfield and others raised concerned the copyright council. It is true to say the copyright review committee recommended the establishment of a copyright council with a wide range of functions. The committee envisaged that the board of the council would be comprised of a diverse range of stakeholders with an active interest in different aspects and agendas relating to copyright matters. This ranged from individual authors, composers and photographers to organisations of a large scale with online platforms and included participation of representatives of user organisations; therefore, a long list of people will be required for this. With such a diverse range of stakeholders, it is likely there will be considerable difficulties trying to reach consensus on issues within the council and it will be very difficult to propose a unary view to the Minister in terms of policymaking.

The whole idea of having the council was to be able to bring forward recommendations to the Minister of the day. We are not really sure if that will happen if all these diverse members are on the council. Although the intention of the committee was that the copyright council would be self-financing, this new body will require significant resources in terms of the initial cost involved in the establishment of the council and the ongoing running costs such as staffing, premises, etc.

Senator Warfield mentioned solutions. The resources would need to come from within the resources of the Department which is already stretched to cover the broad remit of the statutory functions involved. It is also the case that since the publication of the report, some of the proposed functions of the council are no longer necessary, such as the introduction of an or- phan works licensing agency in Ireland. The Senator has raised the matter and we will tease it through, including the issues of the cost and the management of it.

It is fair to say that during the process, probably in the past five years, a long list of interested stakeholders has been assembled. Over 400 groups or individuals are now involved in a consultation process with us as a Department. If there are issues of concern or any changes, they will be immediately consulted through email and so on. This is in a way better than what was there before. It is probably not quite what Senator Warfield wants achieved for the council, but there is that opportunity to engage now. We have the list of people who are interested and we can move along more easily now.

Furthermore, the establishment of a copyright council has not been fully quantified, given the Government’s general policy orientation at the time to reduce the number of new public bodies. This goes back to what Senator Warfield said about quangos. There is an aim, and there 241 Seanad Éireann has been probably since 2011-12, to reduce the number of unnecessary quangos because they get very costly and they grow in their roles and their remits. We are trying to avoid this unless it is really necessary; therefore, it is probably the case that it has just not really been proved yet that the establishment of a copyright council is totally necessary.

There will be an opportunity to debate this more on Committee Stage if Senator Warfield so wishes. Having been involved in this issue originally a couple of years ago, I am not convinced it is needed. What is needed is that proper consultation which I think is happening quite well now through the Department and the committee structure we have set up here which I think works very well. There is a cross-party approach to much of the work we do and the committee is a great place to have this consultation. However, if the Senator wants to press the case a little more with the Minister of State, Deputy Halligan, he can do so on Committee Stage later in the week.

Senator Warfield also asked a question about the necessary amendments to transpose the EU directive on the Marrakesh treaty. The directive will be transposed by way of secondary legislation which will be completed by the specified transposition deadline on 11 October. How- ever, the Bill does make a number of changes to the provisions applicable to all persons with a disability. The Bill will allow designated bodies to make multiple accessible format copies of works, transfer those copies to other designated bodies that need them and accept modified copies from other designated bodies. This is a positive amendment which will provide persons with a disability with greater access to works which I think we all want to achieve if we can.

Senator Reilly mentioned the benefits of text and data mining. I think he is right. That is why we are trying to make it a little easier. He is right to say this will help research and projects in educational institutes. We are trying to encourage a lot more co-operation with the private business community, with the State research community. This means greater access to data with some great results through all the work being done, through Science Foundation Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and the tech centres and involving all of the various Departments. It is a matter of bringing the information and the science community together. This will benefit them, as the Senator is right to highlight. It can lead to great results. He also welcomed the deposit system and the paper society. I think I responded to those points.

A few other points were raised by, I think, Senators Reilly and Mullen about enforcing rights in a modern digital age. It is right to say access to the lower courts is a step in the right direction because we are all aware of the high costs of getting justice. That cost often prevents justice; therefore, we are trying to deal with and allow for it. The Senators correctly highlight that issue. I agree that enforcement is important and the intention is to reduce the costs of accessing justice. Changing the route to access should help reduce those costs, but that is something we can monitor as we go along.

To respond to the last question from Senator Bacik, I know that she did not want a full answer on it and there will be a chance over the week to engage, but the copyright review committee did recommend the introduction of a private copying exception into Irish law. The recommendation outlined that the private copying exception would be framed for private and domestic uses and would cover reproduction on paper for private use, format shifting and reproductions for backup copies.

Copyright law in the UK was amended in 2014 to introduce a private copying exception without a levy. This permitted people to make private copies of legally acquired content and al- 242 26 September 2018 lowed consumers to transfer their own CDs onto their MP3 players, for example, but not allow people to make copies and give them to others. The UK provision was successfully judicially reviewed based on insufficient evidence shown of the lack of “harm” caused to rights holders and thus quashed in 2015. Given that the exception proposed by the copyright review committee for implementation in Ireland was similar to the failed UK exception and our expectation that it would almost certainly be legally challenged and struck down, it was decided not to progress the committee’s recommendation in this area. Furthermore, my Department does not want to introduce a system of levies in Ireland that would impose additional costs on consumers. This is something we are trying to avoid. Again, though, there will be time in the next week or two for the Senator to look at the matter more with the Minister of State and his officials if she so wishes. I thank the Senator for raising the issue.

Question put and agreed to.

26/09/2018T00300Acting Chairman (Senator Gerard P. Craughwell): When is it proposed to take Com- mittee Stage?

26/09/2018T00400Senator James Reilly: Next Tuesday.

26/09/2018T00450Acting Chairman (Senator Gerard P. Craughwell): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 2 October 2018.

Sitting suspended at 1.40 p.m. and resumed at 2.05 p.m.

26/09/2018W00100Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2017: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 15

Question again proposed: “That section 15 stand part of the Bill.”

26/09/2018W00300Senator Michael McDowell: There are a number of aspects of section 15 which I dealt with on the previous occasion and I do not propose to repeat myself. Subsection (5) states: “The quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall, unless the Minister otherwise 2 o’clock directs, be 9 members, 5 of whom shall be lay members”. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s response to my question. If the Minister gives a direction that there would be less than nine members, is his legal advice to the effect he must always have a lay majority in a quorum or could he specify otherwise in certain circumstances? For example, could he direct that eight members shall be sufficient for a quorum and make no direction as to the lay membership of the quorum?

26/09/2018W00400Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Charles Flanagan): This is an area we dealt with at some length in July. Without going over ground that was pretty well covered, I stress the importance of the lay majority in terms of decision making. In the context of the composition of the committee, in order to ensure that the business is quorate the committee will at all times be required to have a lay majority.

26/09/2018W00500Senator Michael McDowell: I know that is what the Minister wants to do, but I am just wondering whether it is a requirement to do that. Is it his view of this section that one would be required to have a lay majority for a quorum or is it just a policy issue?

243 Seanad Éireann

26/09/2018W00600Deputy Charles Flanagan: It is a policy issue but in terms of the practical engagement at the meetings, it will be required of the chair to ensure there is a lay majority of members present in the context of decision making.

26/09/2018W00700Senator Michael McDowell: In those circumstances I will simply reiterate my objections to the requirement that the chairperson should be a lay member and that a deputy chairperson should be a lay member. It seems to me that it is not necessary that that should be the case, but we dealt with it fairly exhaustively on the previous occasion.

Question put.

The Committee divided by electronic means.

26/09/2018Y00200Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: For clarity in terms of the record, the Sinn Féin group may have voted incorrectly. However, it would not have made a difference for me, thankfully, looking at the numbers.

(Interruptions).

26/09/2018Y00250An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I did not hear the Senator because there was not order. What did the Senator say?

26/09/2018Y00275Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: I cannot believe you are asking me to say it again. I wanted to correct the record.

26/09/2018Y00287An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We cannot hear up here.

26/09/2018Y00293Senator Michael McDowell: The Senator said his diminutive group might have voted the wrong way, but it would not have made any difference.

26/09/2018Y00296Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: Succinctly put by my colleague.

26/09/2018Y00300Senator Gabrielle McFadden: Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

Question again put: “That section 15 stand part of the Bill.”

The Committee divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 15. Tá Níl Burke, Colm. Bacik, Ivana. Burke, Paddy. Boyhan, Victor. Buttimer, Jerry. Clifford-Lee, Lorraine. Byrne, Maria. Daly, Mark. Coffey, Paudie. Daly, Paul. Conway, Martin. Gallagher, Robbie. Feighan, Frank. Horkan, Gerry. Gavan, Paul. Humphreys, Kevin. Hopkins, Maura. Leyden, Terry. Lawlor, Anthony. McDowell, Michael. Lombard, Tim. Mullen, Rónán.

244 26 September 2018 Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. Murnane O’Connor, Jennifer. McFadden, Gabrielle. Nash, Gerald. Mulherin, Michelle. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Noone, Catherine. Wilson, Diarmuid. O’Donnell, Kieran. O’Mahony, John. O’Reilly, Joe. Ó Donnghaile, Niall. Reilly, James. Ruane, Lynn. Warfield, Fintan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Gabrielle McFadden and John O’Mahony; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Michael McDowell.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 16

26/09/2018Z00300Senator Michael McDowell: I move amendment No. 50:

In page 15, lines 6 to 8, to delete all words from and including “of” where it secondly occurs in line 6 down to and including “determines” in line 8.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided by electronic means.

26/09/2018BB00100Senator Kevin Humphreys: Due to the confusion caused by two Senators voting the wrong way on this occasion and in the previous vote when there was some confusion about how Sinn Féin was voting, I am calling a walk-through vote.

26/09/2018BB00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is not a teller.

26/09/2018BB00300Senator Ivana Bacik: Under Standing Order 62(3)(b), I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

Amendment again put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 25. Tá Níl Bacik, Ivana. Burke, Colm. Boyhan, Victor. Burke, Paddy. Clifford-Lee, Lorraine. Butler, Ray.

245 Seanad Éireann Daly, Paul. Buttimer, Jerry. Davitt, Aidan. Byrne, Maria. Gallagher, Robbie. Coffey, Paudie. Humphreys, Kevin. Conway-Walsh, Rose. Leyden, Terry. Conway, Martin. McDowell, Michael. Devine, Máire. Mullen, Rónán. Feighan, Frank. Murnane O’Connor, Jennifer. Gavan, Paul. Nash, Gerald. Hopkins, Maura. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Lawlor, Anthony. Lombard, Tim. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. McFadden, Gabrielle. Mulherin, Michelle. Noone, Catherine. O’Donnell, Kieran. O’Mahony, John. O’Reilly, Joe. Ó Donnghaile, Niall. Reilly, James. Ruane, Lynn. Warfield, Fintan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Michael McDowell; Níl, Senators Gabrielle McFad- den and John O’Mahony.

Amendment declared lost.

8CC00100An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendment No. 51 is in the name of Senator Norris. The amendment cannot be moved as the Senator did not give permission to anyone to 3 o’clock move it and he is not present. Amendment No. 51 not moved.

26/09/2018CC00300Senator Michael McDowell: I move amendment No. 52:

In page 15, lines 14 to 16, to delete all words from and including “, the” in line 14 down to and including “determines” in line 16.

Amendment put:

The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 23.

246 26 September 2018 Tá Níl Bacik, Ivana. Burke, Colm. Boyhan, Victor. Burke, Paddy. Clifford-Lee, Lorraine. Butler, Ray. Daly, Paul. Buttimer, Jerry. Davitt, Aidan. Byrne, Maria. Gallagher, Robbie. Coffey, Paudie. Horkan, Gerry. Conway-Walsh, Rose. Humphreys, Kevin. Conway, Martin. Leyden, Terry. Feighan, Frank. McDowell, Michael. Gavan, Paul. Mullen, Rónán. Hopkins, Maura. Murnane O’Connor, Jennifer. Lawlor, Anthony. Nash, Gerald. Lombard, Tim. Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán. Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. McFadden, Gabrielle. Mulherin, Michelle. Noone, Catherine. O’Donnell, Kieran. O’Mahony, John. O’Reilly, Joe. Ó Donnghaile, Niall. Reilly, James. Warfield, Fintan.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ivana Bacik and Michael McDowell; Níl, Senators Gabrielle McFad- den and John O’Mahony.

Amendment declared lost.

Government amendment No. 53:

In page 15, line 23, to delete “section 10(1)(a), (b), (c) or (g)” and substitute “any of paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 10(1)”.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Section 16, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 17

26/09/2018DD00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are moving to amendment No. 54 to section 17.

247 Seanad Éireann

26/09/2018DD00600Senator Ivana Bacik: Section 16 has not been agreed to.

26/09/2018DD00700An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I thought the Senator said it was agreed to. I was told that it was and declared that it was agreed to. Nobody objected.

26/09/2018DD00800Senator Ivana Bacik: I objected to it.

26/09/2018DD00900An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We had moved to section 17 when the Senator objected. I am sorry.

Amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Government amendment No. 54:

In page 15, lines 25 and 26, to delete “Chief Justice, President of the Court of Appeal or President of the High Court” and substitute “Chief Justice or the President of another court referred to in this Part”.

26/09/2018DD01100Deputy Charles Flanagan: Amendment No. 17 relates to a member of the commission ceasing to hold judicial office. Amendments Nos. 53 to 56, inclusive, are identical to the amendments tabled on Report Stage in the Dáil. The numbering is coincidental in the series of amendments that at the time the Ceann Comhaire ruled could not be moved for procedural reasons. Amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, as they appear before us, are consequential on the addition, as members of the commission, of the President of the Circuit Court and the President of the District Court and extend the standard provisions relating to cessation of judicial office and replacement of the two presidents. Section 17 will provide that when the Chief Justice, the President of the Court of Appeal, the President of the High Court, the President of the Circuit Court or the President of the District Court ceases to hold such office, their membership of the commission shall also cease. Amendment No. 54 ensures all five posts are covered by these requirements.

Amendment No. 55 adds two new subsections to section 17 and, in effect, replicates for the President of the Circuit Court and the President of the District Court the replacement arrangements in the case of cessation of office. In respect of each of the five courts, therefore, the most senior or ordinary judge will replace the president until such time as a successor in that judicial office is appointed.

Amendments Nos. 54 and 55, taken together, provide in a more consistent way, with the existing subsections (2) to (4), inclusive, for the arrangements needed under section 17. Undoubt- edly, as it is an improved drafting, subsections (5) to (8), inclusive, are no longer necessary and amendment No. 56 merely deletes them.

26/09/2018DD01300Senator Michael McDowell: It occurs to me that this would be a necessary provision and that the amendments the Minister is making are acceptable as tidying up amendments. No matter what view one takes of the commission, these provisions would have to be in place. It is hard to see how they could be opposed on their merits, even if one has strong reservations about the fact that some of the officeholders are deemed to be ineligible to be chairperson of any of the committees of the commission or the commission. Subject to whatever Senator Ivana Bacik will say, I do not see any basis on which to oppose the amendments.

26/09/2018DD01400Senator Ivana Bacik: Like Senator Michael McDowell, I do not believe there is any rea- 248 26 September 2018 son to oppose the amendments. There are, however, some inconsistencies later in the language used in different sections. I am looking at section 19, in particular. I will make the point when we come to that section. It is a technical point about a Bill, of which many of us have been highly critical for being internally inconsistent. We have had a long debate on the issue. I will raise certain issues related to drafting later, but I do not have an issue with amendments Nos. 54 to 56, inclusive, which generally are tidying up amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 55:

In page 15, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:

“(5) Where the person referred to in subsection (1) who ceases to hold judicial office is the President of the Circuit Court, the most senior ordinary judge of the Circuit Court shall be a member of the Commission until the successor to that President is appointed.

(6) Where the person referred to in subsection (1) who ceases to hold judicial office is the President of the District Court, the most senior judge of the District Court shall be a member of the Commission until the successor to that President is appointed.”.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 56:

In page 15, to delete lines 39 to 41, and in page 16, to delete lines 1 to 10.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 18

Government amendment No. 57:

In page 16, line 12, to delete “paragraph (h), (i), (j) or (k)” and substitute “paragraph (g), (h), (i), (j) or (k)”.

26/09/2018EE01000Acting Chairman (Senator Gerry Horkan): If amendment No. 57 is agreed to, amendment No. 58 cannot be moved. It has already been discussed with amendment No. 13.

26/09/2018EE01100Senator Michael McDowell: I have no objection to amendment No. 57.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 58 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 18, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

26/09/2018EE01600Senator Michael McDowell: I note that section 18(2) states: “Where a member of the Commission referred to in subsection (1) dies, resigns, is removed from office or otherwise ceases to hold office the casual vacancy so occasioned shall be filled in like manner as the manner in which the member who occasioned the vacancy was appointed, and the person appointed under this subsection shall hold office for that period of the term of office of the member who 249 Seanad Éireann occasioned the casual vacancy concerned that remains unexpired at the date of his or her appointment”. That sounds good until one considers, if somebody has four months to go in office, whether the Public Appointments Commission is seriously to run the advertising process and it is all to be done by resolutions of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Is that sensible? It seems that it should be qualified by some provision providing for reasonableness. The procedures put in place for the purpose of selecting candidates, particularly to fill the lay offices, seem to be very elaborate to engage someone for a negligible period. Should there be some let-out clause in order that we would not have to go through a process of placing advertisements by the Public Appointments Commission and debating and passing Dáil resolutions where there were just two, three or four months to go in somebody’s term of office?

26/09/2018EE01700Senator Ivana Bacik: As I mentioned, there is an issue with the internal inconsistency of the Bill as it came to us from the Dáil. Government amendment No. 57 which we have just passed was a way for the Government to seek to address that inconsistency. I go back to look at the problem with the Bill that is being resolved by amendment No. 57. It is a problem with the way section 10 which concerns the composition of the commission came to us. Until now, there was an issue with a crucial part of the Bill, section 10(1)(g). It refers to:

a member, being a person who is—

(i) a lay person, and

(ii) a member of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission, nominated by that Commission under section 12...

It had not been included within section 18, the section which concerns a member of the commission who ceases to hold office. While I see amendment No. 57 as a tidying up exercise, we sought to engage in our own tidying up exercise with amendment No. 58 which was discussed with amendments Nos. 13 to 23, inclusive, to section 10. The Acting Chairman said it could not be moved because amendment No. 57 had been passed. Now that it has been passed, the provision has been tidied up and there is now greater consistency between sections 10 and 18. Will the Minister say how precisely the procedure will be operated when a member of the commission resigns and a casual vacancy results? To be blunt, there is an issue with logistics and how the procedure will be run in practice. If there is a casual vacancy for a very short period towards the end of a member’s term of office, there will be a difficulty in how sections 10 and 18 correlate or may be read together, given that section 10 includes such a range of procedures for the appointment of members of the commission. How will it work in practice, specifically, as Senator Michael McDowell pointed out, when a member’s term of office is close to termination? There will clearly be a casual vacancy. Will it have to be filled at that point? Will the commission be capable of functioning while there is a casual vacancy? Section 18(2) states “the casual vacancy so occasioned shall be filled” and “the person appointed under this subsection shall hold office for that period of the term of office of the member who occasioned the casual vacancy concerned that remains unexpired at the date of his or her appointment”. It begs the question of whether the commission will then cease to be capable of functioning for the period in which the casual vacancy remains unfilled. How practical is this?

26/09/2018EE01800Senator Michael McDowell: On the last point raised by Senator Ivana Bacik, it could be argued that section 15(7) deals with the commission continuing to function, notwithstanding the fact that there is a vacancy in its membership, but it appears that section 18(2) is mandatory. I do not know what kind of person would go through the business of applying to the Public Ap- 250 26 September 2018 pointments Commission, being vetted and then being approved by the Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, serving for two or three weeks when the process was over. One would need to be a very determined person to do so.

26/09/2018EE01900Acting Chairman (Senator Gerry Horkan): I am sure they exist.

26/09/2018EE02000Deputy Charles Flanagan: Of course, it has been changed from four months to two weeks.

26/09/2018EE02100Senator Michael McDowell: I remember very well that in this House filling vacancies for very small periods is invaluable for certain purposes, but I do not think it would make much sense to do so in this case to make it mandatory.

26/09/2018EE02200Senator Ivana Bacik: Senator Michael McDowell may have answered my question. I see the point of section 15(7) which states: “The Commission may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership”. I wonder how compatible that is with section 18(2) and the mandatory nature of the clause, particularly where no period is provided for. The commission may act under section 15, where procedures for it are set out. It states: “The Commission may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership”, but for how long can a vacancy persist? For how long does section 15(7) operate to have a commission capable of continuing to function? Presumably, if somebody was to resign immediately after being appointed, there would be a real question mark over the functioning of the commission if the vacancy were to remain unfilled for a lengthy period and the commission was to continue to depend on or refer to section 15(7) to give it ongoing power. Should some timeframe be provided for in subsection (2) or is there some other timeframe provided for elsewhere in the many provisions of the Bill? It is interesting that the nature of the language used is clearly mandatory in section 18(2). Section 15(7) states: “The Commission may act notwithstanding one or more vacancies in its membership”. However, there is no provision governing for how long a vacancy is permitted to continue before the commission stops having the capacity to function properly.

26/09/2018FF00100Deputy Charles Flanagan: I am very keen to be consistent throughout the legislation and the object of the exercise is to ensure that at all times the body is chaired by a lay member and that there would be a majority of non-judicial or laypersons. I see the point that the Senators have raised and say to Senator Bacik that the issue of whether the resignation or departure of a member of the commission might render the entire commission redundant was covered in section 15 which states the commission may act, notwithstanding that there may a be a vacancy or more. Section 15(7) should deal with the point raised.

As far as the very short term before the expiration of the office of the commission is concerned, the manner of appointment is under section 12(2) which states, “The Public Appoint- ments Service shall recommend a layperson for appointment by the Minister as chairperson following a selection process”. If the timeframe is very short, maybe a few weeks as described by Senator McDowell, in order that the process would be able to meet the task before it, I could perhaps consider adding the words “insofar as practicable”, which might meet the very unlikely scenario of there being a very short period of time. It reminds me a little of the earlier debate when we considered the likelihood or otherwise of a member being involved in a road traffic accident or having a puncture on the way to a meeting. These are issues that are remote but, to address Senator McDowell’s point, if the commission is of the view that, in order to meet, it needs a replacement for a very short time and if, having regard to the mandate of the Oireachtas and the Public Appointments Service, that timeframe is not practical, I will consider between now and Report Stage whether we can insert the words “insofar as practicable” and that might 251 Seanad Éireann meet the Senator’s point.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 19

Government amendment No. 59:

In page 16, line 24, to delete “paragraph (h), (i), (j) or (k)” and substitute “paragraph (g), (h), (i), (j) or (k)”.

Amendment agreed to.

26/09/2018FF00600Acting Chairman (Senator Gerry Horkan): Amendment No. 60 cannot now be moved because amendment No. 59 has been agreed to.

Amendment No. 60 not moved.

Government amendment No. 61:

In page 17, line 4, to delete “paragraph (h), (i), (j) or (k)” and substitute “paragraph (g), (h), (i), (j) or (k)”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 62 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 19, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

26/09/2018FF01200Senator Ivana Bacik: I did say earlier that there was inconsistency in the drafting and language of section 19(1)(f) which refers to a member nominated by the Law Society of Ireland. I think the language should be change or amended to the “President of the Law Society of Ire- land” to ensure consistency with section 13(2) which deals with the appointment of a practising barrister and a practising solicitor as members and reads: “The President of the Law Society of Ireland shall nominate a practising solicitor to be a member of the Commission”. Section 13(1) reads: “The chairperson of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland shall nominate a practising barrister to be a member of the Commission”. It seems slightly anomalous that section 19(1)(f) refers to “a member nominated by the Law Society of Ireland” not by the president of the Law Society, whereas section 19(1)(g) refers to “a member nominated by the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland”. While it may not have any practical import, it is internally inconsistent within section 19 between subsections (1)(f) and (1)(g) and it seems inconsistent with the procedure for appointment of practising barristers and solicitors as set out in section 13(1) and 13(2), where the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland is referred to and that is mirrored in section 19(1)(g) but the President of the Law Society of Ireland is not referred to, which marks an inequity between the two professional bodies.

It is no more than a discrepancy. Had I spotted it sooner, I would have tabled an amendment. I will certainly do so on Report Stage but the Government may wish to address it because there may be a reason for it and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline that reason. To be absolutely correct, no member is nominated by the Law Society of Ireland. Section 13(2) refers to the President of the Law Society of Ireland and section 10, the composition section that we spent so long on, refers in subsection (1)(i) to “a practising solicitor nominated under section 13” so section 13 is the lead section on nomination of a practising barrister and solicitor. 252 26 September 2018 Should this be made consistent?

26/09/2018FF01300Senator Michael McDowell: I am not very conversant with the procedures of the Law Society of Ireland, but I agree with Senator Bacik that the reference should be to the president of the society. In respect of section 19(1)(f), is being struck off by the High Court the only way a person can cease to be a practising solicitor? Can a person not write to the secretary general of the Law Society or someone and ask to have their name removed? Is it absolutely essential that the High Court removes someone from the roll? I know that Benchers of the King’s Inns disbar people at their own request. Can the Law Society remove a person from the roll of practising solicitors at his or her request or must it go to the High Court for approval? Perhaps the Minister who is a member of the society can enlighten me on that point.

26/09/2018FF01400Deputy Charles Flanagan: It follows that, should any person offer their resignation or not renew their practising certificate annually, membership of the society will automatically lapse. If a person is no longer a member of the Law Society of Ireland, that person is no longer able to represent the society and their membership of this commission would automatically be at an end. Striking off is done in effect by means of an order of the High Court, but should a person voluntarily resign or not renew his or her annual practising certificate, that person could no longer hold himself or herself out to be a member of the Law Society and as such would be ineligible for membership of the commission.

I note the point made by Senator Bacik. We discussed this matter during various late-night debates early in the summer. At that point, we all agreed that any representative of either the Bar Council or the Law Society of Ireland would be appointed to or act on this commission as a direct consequence of his or her nomination. The president of the Law Society of Ireland will not make a nomination without the approval of the Law Society of Ireland. Similarly-----

26/09/2018GG00200Senator Michael McDowell: I am sorry to interrupt but the point I was making is a bad one. This is covered under section 11(5)(a) already. If one ceases to be a practising lawyer, then one is out.

26/09/2018GG00300Deputy Charles Flanagan: Yes and one’s membership of the commission would also lapse immediately .

The second point at issue is whether the president of the Law Society of Ireland or the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland can act on a unilateral basis, without having a resolution of the society or the council. I do not think that will happen. However, for absolute tidiness, I would be prepared on Report Stage to make reference on all occasions to a member of the Law Society being nominated by the president acting on behalf of that society.

26/09/2018GG00400Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Minister for his comments and for his willingness to accept that it might be useful, in the interests of tidiness, to amend section 19(1)(f) to include the president of the Law Society of Ireland. To take up another point, the Minister said that he does not think the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland or the president of the Law Society would nominate without reference to their respective councils or committees. Clearly, that is a matter for the internal rules of those professional bodies. Section 13 does not place any conditions on the nomination process. One would have to read into sections 13(1) and 13(2) that the internal rules and procedures of the Bar and the Law Society were being fol- lowed by the chairperson or the president in each case. I do not think one needs to set that out and would have thought that it goes without saying within section 13. Similarly, in section 19,

253 Seanad Éireann there is no need to say “in accordance with the internal rules of the professional body”. If one is referring in section 13 to two specific officers or elected representatives but one refers to just one of them in section 19 in the context of the Bar, that seems unequal or inequitable. It is tidier to also refer to the relevant head of the Law Society in section 19(1)(f).

As I said, it is simply a tidying-up exercise. I do not think it makes a difference in practice, but it would be better, given how many issues have arisen in respect of inconsistencies and dog’s-dinner-style problems with this Bill. I would like it to be tidy on coming out of the Se- anad, in a way that it was not when it came to us from the Dáil. That is a fair point. I am not casting aspersions on any Member of the Dáil but I am simply saying that the legislation did not come to us in a tidy and internally consistent fashion. I hope it will leave this House in that fashion. That is simply the spirit in which I am offering my point about the language in section 19(1)(f). It should be directly comparable to the language used elsewhere in the Bill, notably section 13 and internally in section 19(1)(g).

26/09/2018GG00500Deputy Charles Flanagan: I do not fundamentally disagree with Senator Bacik. She will be aware from other legislation and across a range of bodies to which the Bar Council and the Law Society of Ireland are asked to provide members, where members will sit on those bodies as representatives of those organisations. I have not heard it said that persons sitting on any State board representing either the Bar Council or the Law Society are there in their capacity as representatives of the chairperson of the Bar Council or the president of the Law Society. Rather, they are there as representatives of the bodies themselves and not the person who acts as chairperson or president. That said, I take the Senator’s point about consistency in language. If there is an issue in that regard, I am happy to look at it again but I cannot see how there can be any element of confusion or uncertainty about the fact that the person is sitting on the commission or a subcommittee thereof in any capacity other than as a representative of the relevant body rather than the body’s chairperson or president.

26/09/2018GG00600Senator Ivana Bacik: I do not want to labour the point, but I did not say there was any uncertainty in the method of appointment. I was careful to say it was just a matter of tidying up and a drafting issue. It is about consistency in language between and within sections. It is important to that extent but I did not suggest that it would cast any uncertainty over the appointment process. In fact, when I first read the different provisions, it struck me as somewhat odd that we were referring in section 13(1) to the chairperson of the General Council of the Bar of Ireland and in 13(2) to the president of the Law Society of Ireland. It would have been prefer- able to say “the Bar of Ireland shall nominate” or “the Law Society of Ireland shall nominate” because that is exactly the Minister’s point - these are the bodies that the individual representatives are purporting to represent. It would have made no difference in terms of procedure and might have sounded better to have said that it is the bodies that nominate. Clearly, an alternative method of amending or tidying up would be to amend sections 13(1) and 13(2) to say the Bar of Ireland and the Law Society of Ireland and to then just refer to the bodies in section 19 or anywhere else that it arises. That said, it seems easier to include the president of the Law Society in section 19(1)(g). Perhaps we covered this issue during that late night debate in July when we discussed section 13 but I am not sure why specific reference is made to the president and the chairperson. However, since such reference was made and since that is the section as we passed it, it would be consistent to use the same language in section 19.

26/09/2018GG00700Senator Michael McDowell: I was looking back on section 11(5)(a) and (b) and thinking that if one ceases to be a practising barrister or solicitor, one ceases to be a member of the commission automatically. In that context, paragraphs (f) and (g) may be surplus to requirements. 254 26 September 2018 How one does it - whether one is struck off by the High Court or whatever - is actually captured by section 11(5)(b). One ceases to be a practising solicitor at that stage and one is out. If we are tidying up the Bill, it might be better to just rely on section 11(5)(a) and (b) as achieving the ends that the Minister is attempting to achieve in (f) and (g) here, which are punitive disciplin- ary measures.

26/09/2018GG00800Deputy Charles Flanagan: All we are doing in section 19 is making perfectly clear the grounds for disqualification and setting out a range of persons who are ineligible to hold office. I do not believe it is inappropriate, notwithstanding what is contained in an earlier section, to state categorically that anybody who is struck off the roll of solicitors or who is disbarred by the benchers of the King’s Inns is ineligible as a result.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 20

Government amendment No. 63:

In page 17, lines 8 and 9, to delete “paragraph (h), (i), (j) or (k)” and substitute “paragraph (g), (h), (i), (j) or (k)”.

Amendment agreed to.

26/09/2018GG01200Acting Chairman (Senator Gerry Horkan): Amendment No. 64 cannot be moved because amendment No. 63 has already been agreed to.

Amendment No. 64 not moved.

Section 20, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 21

Question proposed: “That section 21 stand part of the Bill.”

26/09/2018HH00100Senator Michael McDowell: Section 21 states the director of the commission is to be accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts. I want some indication from the Minister as to whether this is purely in relation to the existing Comptroller and Auditor General report procedure or whether it goes wider than that.

Should the responsibility of the Accounting Officer and the Committee of Public Accounts deal with the systems, procedures and practices employed by the commission for the purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of its operations? That seems to be outside the scope of the Committee of Public Accounts if it is examining the effectiveness of the commission and its own evaluation of the effectiveness of its operation. It widens the ordinary scope of the Com- mittee of Public Accounts to give it a broad remit which could involve it in somewhat contro- versial debate and discussion which is undesirable.

The Bill provides that, in giving evidence under this section, the director shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Gov- ernment, or the objectives of such a policy. I do not understand how the Committee of Public Accounts could ask questions of the director about Government policy. Either the purpose of this section is to say the director is to be an Accounting Officer amenable, like all Accounting Officers, to the Committee of Public Accounts or it is giving the Committee of Public Accounts 255 Seanad Éireann a broader remit to examine policy issues or engage in discussions about the systems, procedures and practices employed by the commission for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of its own operations. That potentially engages the director of the commission in a small-scale political debate with members of the Committee of Public Accounts. I do not know why the director should go in to defend the commission before the Committee of Public Accounts in respect of such issues. That seems to be an unusual provision. In the past 24 hours, there have been indications of the Committee of Public Accounts operating at the outer limits of the range of its function. I believe it acted properly and I am not criticising the committee. This seems to be an unnecessary provision.

26/09/2018HH00200Senator Ivana Bacik: Senator McDowell is right that this seems to be an unusual provision, to say the least. To state the obvious, it recalls the debate we just had about section 13 when the Minister pointed out that the chairperson of the Bar Council and the president of the Law Society of Ireland would have to nominate persons to the commission in accordance with their own internal rules and procedures. It is unnecessary to state that in the statutory provisions.

Section 31 deals with the appointment of the director of the commission. We have not yet reached that but it is clear that the director will be someone appointed “following a selection process held by the Public Appointments Service” and for a period not exceeding five years. It hardly needs to be said that the director would not question or express an opinion on the merits or objectives of Government policy given the process for selection of the director and the nature of the role. It is unnecessary to make that statement, which raises the question as to why it has been inserted in the section.

26/09/2018HH00300Deputy Charles Flanagan: As parliamentarians, I am sure we are all in agreement about the role and function of our parliamentary committees and, in particular, the Committee of Pub- lic Accounts. It is unique in terms of its standing among other Dáil committees. Section 21 will only apply where the Committee of Public Accounts has invited the director of the commission to report and give evidence. It is appropriate that there should be that chain of accountability between Parliament and the operation of the commission. It is not new. In fact, this is identical to the engagement between the Legal Services Regulatory Authority and the Committee of Public Accounts. The committee is the appropriate place for the type of engagement envisaged and, having regard to the mandate in respect of the appropriation accounts and the reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, it is entirely appropriate that the director would not impinge upon any aspects particular to the policy of the Government, any particular Department or Min- ister or its objectives. It is identical to the relationship between the Legal Services Regulatory Authority and the Committee of Public Accounts. It is one that has not been raised by the Com- mittee of Public Accounts as being inappropriate or otherwise. It is important that an outline of the relationship between the new body and Parliament is specifically stated in the legislation.

Question put.

The Committee divided by electronic means.

26/09/2018KK00050An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The result is: Tá, 25; Níl, 11. The question is carried. We move on to section 22. The section is opposed.

26/09/2018KK00100Senator Ivana Bacik: Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

256 26 September 2018

26/09/2018KK00200An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I had moved on to section 22.

26/09/2018KK00300Senator Ivana Bacik: The Minister was not here and we had not moved on. I was indicat- ing.

26/09/2018KK00400An Leas-Chathaoirleach: There is no requirement for the Minister to be here for the dec- laration of a result.

26/09/2018KK00500Senator Ivana Bacik: I am being discriminated against because we are sitting so far away from the Chair. It is very hard to make oneself seen.

(Interruptions).

26/09/2018KK00600An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Order please. We cannot hear one another.

26/09/2018KK00700Senator Ivana Bacik: That is exactly my point. It is very hard to be seen or heard in this corner of the room.

26/09/2018KK00800An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I had declared the result.

26/09/2018KK00900Senator Ivana Bacik: I had indicated.

26/09/2018KK01000An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I did not see the Senator.

26/09/2018KK01100Senator Jerry Buttimer: To be fair to Senator Bacik, she had indicated.

26/09/2018KK01200Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Leader.

26/09/2018KK01300An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I want to be fair to everybody. If the House is happy, we will have a walk-through vote. The result was pretty clear.

Question again put: “That section 21 stand part of the Bill.”

The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 10. Tá Níl Burke, Colm. Bacik, Ivana. Burke, Paddy. Boyhan, Victor. Butler, Ray. Clifford-Lee, Lorraine. Buttimer, Jerry. Davitt, Aidan. Byrne, Maria. Gallagher, Robbie. Coffey, Paudie. Horkan, Gerry. Conway-Walsh, Rose. Humphreys, Kevin. Conway, Martin. McDowell, Michael. Devine, Máire. Nash, Gerald. Dolan, John. Wilson, Diarmuid. Feighan, Frank. Gavan, Paul. Hopkins, Maura. Lawlor, Anthony. Lombard, Tim.

257 Seanad Éireann Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. McFadden, Gabrielle. Mulherin, Michelle. Noone, Catherine. O’Donnell, Kieran. O’Mahony, John. O’Reilly, Joe. Ó Donnghaile, Niall. Reilly, James. Ruane, Lynn.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Gabrielle McFadden and John O’Mahony; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Michael McDowell.

Question declared carried.

SECTION 22

Question proposed: “That section 22 stand part of the Bill.”

26/09/2018LL00300Senator Michael McDowell: This section must be viewed in the context of the previous section. It will be noted that we have just voted to insert into the Bill, although personaly I was opposed to it, a provision to enable the director of the commission to testify before the Com- mittee of Public Accounts on the economy and efficiency of the commission in the use of its resources, as well as on the system procedures and practices employed by it for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of its operations. These are two topics of which the Committee of Public Accounts is supposed, under section 21(2)(b) and (c), to be seized and over which it will have jurisdiction to require the director to come and deal with them. We then find, however, that the chairperson of the commission will be asked to appear before any other committee of the Houses, other than the Committee of Public Accounts or the Committee on Members’ Interests of either House, or a subcommittee of a committee. The chairperson will be capable of being brought in, at the request of a committee, to account for the general administration of the commission. What is the difference? Section 21(2)(b) and (c) refer to the economy and efficiency of the commission in the use of its resources and the systems procedures and practices used by it for the purposes of evaluating the effectiveness of its operations. The chairperson can be dragged before another committee to be answerable and accountable for the general administration of the commission.

We come to what is excluded from what is covered by general administration referred to in section 21(3). It states the chairperson of the commission shall not be required to account before a committee for any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State. Let us stop there and ask ourselves what that provision covers? It refers to “any matter which is or has been or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal in the State”. Therefore, the chairperson 258 26 September 2018 cannot give evidence on anything about which there is a dispute which has been resolved in the courts, perhaps even in a manner that is condemnatory of the commission, and will not be held accountable for it. If he or she loses a case in court or is found to have acted unlawfully, he or she cannot be asked about that fact that has already been determined by the High Court. It goes on to state “or may at a future time be the subject of proceedings before a court or tribunal”. I am trying to work out with what category we are dealing with. This is so broad it refers to anything that could or may be argued about in court, or which may at a future time be argued about before a court or tribunal in the State. One way or another, something serious seems to be excluded.

We come to an issue to which we will return when we get to section 28. Section 22(3) reads: “where the giving of such an account would involve disclosure of proceedings, communications or matters contrary to section 28”. Section 28 applies to the following categories: a member of the commission, the procedures committee or any other committee of the commission. I am a little surprised. Can the procedures committee of the commission have people, other than members of the commission, on it? I am not clear on that aspect. Can other people be co-opted or does it just apply to a member of the commission? Can any other committee of the commission have non-commission members on it? That is not clear and it is a matter the Minister might clarify.

Section 28(1)(b) applies to “the Director, a member of staff of the Office, a consultant, advisor, or other person engaged under contract or other arrangement by the Commission”. These are the two categories on whom an obligation of confidentiality is put. It is notable, for instance, that a politician or former politician who receives a report from the commission does not seem to be covered by this. That is an issue that must be addressed.

Section 28 also states:

In addition to what is provided for in section 27, a person to whom this section applies shall not, except for the purposes of this Act, disclose—

(a) in relation to persons applying for, or recommended for appointment to, judicial office—

(i) proceedings of the Commission and of its committees,

(ii) communications to and from the Commission and its committees, and

(iii) communications to and from the Commission or its committees to the Min- ister,

(b) any matter concerning the removal of a member of the Commission (before such removal takes place) under section 20.

I do not know what the sanction is for breaching that. Section 27 states a person shall not disclose confidential information obtained by him or her while performing functions as a member of the commission, the procedures committee or any other committee of the commission - this again implies that one can be on the procedures committee without being a member of the commission - or as the director, a member of staff of the office or a consultant, adviser or other person who is or was engaged under contract or other arrangement by the commission, unless 259 Seanad Éireann he or she is duly authorised by the commission to so do. It is not quite clear what “confidential information” means if the commission is entitled to excuse a person from the duty. Subsection (2) states:

“confidential information” includes—

(a) information that is expressed by the Commission to be confidential either as regards particular information or as regards information of a particular class or descrip- tion, and

(b) proposals of a commercial nature or tenders submitted to the Commission by contractors, consultants or any other person.

This is very worrying because it means that if the chairman of the commission comes before the Committee of Public Accounts or any other Oireachtas committee, he or she can, if the commission so requires, say tenders and proposals of a commercial nature submitted to the commission by “contractors, consultants or any other person” will not be disclosed because they are confidential. What kind of accountability is this? If the commission is brought before the Committee of Public Accounts and allowed to excuse itself from accepting the lowest tender by simply stating that the information is confidential and that, therefore, it does not agree to it being imparted, the result is that financial accountability is very seriously compromised.

The broader statement that “confidential information” includes information that is expressed by the commission to be confidential effectively allows the commission to write its own rules. It can say it deems A, B or C to be confidential and, therefore, this material may not be disclosed to anybody. This gives it a right to write its own privacy and secrecy law.

Going back to section 22 which depends on these provisions, there is a prohibition on the commission chairperson disclosing proceedings or communications that are contrary to section 28. The section then sets out a very complex procedure whereby the Dáil committee is effectively bound, if the commission chairman refuses to give it information, to go to the High Court to get a hearing as to whether the chairman is justified in resisting the application of the committee for particular evidence to be given. Subsection (6) states that pending the determination of the High Court proceeding, “the chairperson shall not attend before the Committee to give account for the matter the subject of the application.” The High Court would then tell the Oireachtas committee that it must either withdraw the application or, if it does not apply, that “the chairperson shall attend before the Committee and give account for the matter.” This section provides for a whole procedure whereby the High Court will become the referee between the Oireachtas committee and the chairman of the commission.

Subsection (8) states that in the performance of his or her duties under this section, in other words, testifying as to the general administration of the commission, the chairperson shall not question or express an opinion on the merits of any policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government, or the objectives of such a policy. To give a concrete example, if the chairperson were to say the commission was radically underresourced and Government policy was that the commission had perfectly good resources, under this section, the commission chairman would not be entitled to query the judgment of the Government or a Minister of the Government as to whether the commission had adequate resources to carry out its functions. That is very strange, but it is what we are proposing to put into law. A person who is brought to an Oireach- tas committee to discuss the general administration of the commission and who is the chairman

260 26 September 2018 of that commission will be prohibited from dealing with any matter on which the commission is at variance with the policy of the Government or a Minister of the Government and from expressing any opinion or answering any question in that regard.

26/09/2018MM00200Deputy Charles Flanagan: It is a policy issue, as distinct from a resource issue.

26/09/2018MM00300Senator Michael McDowell: Yes, but what policy are we talking about? If the chairman appears before a committee to discuss the general administration of the commission, how could he or she be involved in a debate on Government policy before the committee? How could that arise unless it was a resources issue and the Government was determined only to give the commission half of what the commission believes necessary to carry out its function? It is hard to see what, other than a resources issue, could possibly be relevant to the general administration of the commission. However, the section provides that, on resources issues, the commission cannot query the policy laid down by the Government. If the Minister sends the commission a letter stating it is his or her policy that the commission’s resources for the next three years will be X and no further resources will be provided, the commission chairman cannot talk about that before a committee of the Oireachtas because it is the Minister’s stated policy. The chairman cannot query or question it or give any view as to whether it is justified or unjustified. This is remarkable stuff.

The whole mechanism for the adjudication by the High Court of whether the chairperson is obliged to answer a question and the suspension of the questioning pending a determination by the High Court is massively cumbersome. Curiously, it involves members of the Judiciary making decisions about what the chairperson of the commission should or should not say.

These points are largely procedural and issues that deal with the unthought out nature of these provisions. Much more important is the fundamental question - at this stage I must insist that the Minister give a clear indication by way of an answer - of what is “confidential” in this process? The Bill is very unclear about this. Is the fact that a particular person has applied to be considered as a judge “confidential”? Is the person in question entitled to state in public that he or she has applied and been refused by the commission on so many occasions? Is the commission entitled to confirm or deny it? What is much more important, and I require the Minister to make this very clear, is if the Cabinet is being asked by this group to consider a shortlist of one, two or three people for any particular position, is the Cabinet entitled to know what other members of the Judiciary or other persons applied for the job? The Minister has conceded on a number of occasions in the debate that it is the Government’s choice and responsibility and that no matter how one reads this legislation, one way or the other, backwards or forward, it will always be the case that the Government is free to make its own choice and not to be bound by the commission’s recommendations. If that is to be given life, surely it is relevant that the Government should know that the following 20 people expressed an interest, but the commission came up with recommendations for the following three people. For the Government to form any view as to whether the commission was doing a good or a bad job, or whether it was knocking people out, as it were, year in year out, who seemed to the Government to be people who were at least as good as some of the recommended people, if the Government is to be kept in the dark as to the identity of the people who applied for appointment, it is effectively being asked to accept or reject a recommendation not knowing whether it is a good or a bad one.

People may be critical of the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board but at least the members of the Cabinet are entitled to know who applied. They are entitled to ask the Minister for Justice and Equality who were the 20 people who applied for this job. He may be recommending Joe 261 Seanad Éireann or Josephine Bloggs for appointment, but the members of the Cabinet may not have heard of that person and they can ask him the names of the other people who applied for the job. If we are talking about existing members of the Judiciary who are being rejected by the lay majority of this commission for further promotion - this is a particularly important point to which we will return at a later stage of the debate - surely we must be in a position whereby the Government should know that the commission is making that type of decision. That is why I find it worrying that we have never had a clear statement, and it is not clearly provided for in this legislation. Is the Government entitled to ask of the commission the names of all those who asked for the job, either eligible lawyers, eligible legal academics or existing members of the Judiciary? Before the Cabinet makes an appointment, can its members ask the Minister to tell them who was in the running and, before they accept his recommendation, can they ask for some inkling as to the identity of people whom the Minister has rejected year after year and about whose applications he has kept them in the dark? That issue lies at the heart of this commission. Is it to be kept secret from the Government that a person has applied to the commission and has not featured in the list of the three recommended?

We could well have a situation where five people applied for one particular judicial appointment. I cannot see any reason the Government, if it is being asked to exercise a constitutional discretion in a particular way by the commission saying these are three it recommends, should be kept in the dark as to the identity of the other two people. They may be members of the Judiciary whose candidacy, for one reason or another, a majority of this commission, which is organised to be lay people, has knocked on the head and who have been excluded by the commission from the shortlist for Government. Who will ever know about this? Members of the Judiciary who participate in the process will know about it but, if one takes the view that this is confidential information and should never be disclosed to anyone, they may not impart it to anyone. The same applies to the barrister and the solicitor appointee. If they say that this commission is crazy because it keeps ignoring Ms Justice so-and-so who is accepted widely as one of the leading jurists in Ireland and they do not know precisely why she is being rejected and three other people are being proposed for the job rather than her and if that remains an absolute secret and it is in a black box that no one can penetrate and ask what is going on at that commission who is being considered and who is not, there is something fundamentally wrong and it is a huge mistake. When I was Minister with responsibility for justice, the Cabinet was perfectly entitled to ask of me the names and runners when I came to it with a recommendation, having spoken to the leaders of the coalition parties and the Attorney General beforehand.

There is another leg to this about which I am deeply concerned, that is, that the Attorney General who is the legal adviser to the Government is sitting on this commission. He or she will know the names of the unsuccessful people. I want a clear answer now, before we enact this legislation which is grossly inadequate, if the Attorney General is free to tell the Cabinet that the commission has rejected three Supreme Court judges who applied to be Chief Justice and has come up with two or three other people? Is the Attorney General free to tell his or her Cabinet colleagues that, yes or no? We cannot have any more evasion on this issue. I am not accusing the Minister of being deliberately evasive, but we must have absolute clarity. Is the Attorney General free to tell the Cabinet all the names and runners arising from a shortlisting by the commission? The answer to that question is either yes or no. If it is to be the case that the Attorney General is free to tell the Cabinet that he or she was a bit taken aback that the majority of lay people excluded the two sitting Supreme Court judges for recommendation to be Chief Justice or two Court of Appeal judges or High Court judges for recommendation to be President of the Court of Appeal or an ordinary member of the Court of Appeal and if it is the case that 262 26 September 2018 the Attorney General cannot tell them that information under the terms of this legislation, it is rotten legislation. On the other hand, if he is free to do it, let us have that said here and now in this House that this is the view of the Government and let us have an amendment to make it clear that the Cabinet is entitled to that kind of information.

If we look at the Constitution with respect to the ultimate choice as to who becomes a judge, even if it is from a shortlist of three recommended or if the Cabinet decides that it does not like the look of the shortlist at all and wants to go outside that group, surely the very first question the Cabinet will ask the Attorney General is whether Ms Justice Bloggs was rejected for this position. Surely, the members of the Cabinet are entitled to ask that question. If they all say she is the person they want to be on the Supreme Court because she is conservative, liberal, an eminent jurist or whatever particular criterion they want to apply to the appointment, are they entitled to know that she has been rejected on three or four occasions by the commission on an application? There is no evading that issue and the language of this Bill is deliberately opaque on that central issue. It is changing an existing situation which is that the Cabinet is entitled to that information to one where one is not clear and one is not told, but there is provision whereby some of this information is confidential and there is no sanction for a breach of confidentiality, which is another matter completely. I am always wary of a rule of confidentiality that can be observed with malice by some and broken with impunity by others and there is no remedy one way or the other.

I know that “general administration of the commission” probably does not cover the policies the commission is applying to its decisions. On the face of it, it probably does not cover decisions made successively that a particular judge is not worthy of promotion for some reason held in the hearts or heads of the lay majority, but it is absolutely essential that there be transparency on the issue. The Bill seems to leave it uncertain because, on my reading of the legislation, I am at a loss to know whether the Cabinet can be given that information. Does the Minister intend that the Cabinet will have access to that information and that the Attorney General who is the legal adviser to the Government will be able to inform it of these matters? When I was appointed Minister for Justice and Equality, the Cabinet procedures were specifically altered to require me to consult the Attorney General before I brought any name to the Cabinet. That is included in the Cabinet handbook. It is not a secret. If the Attorney General is to be party to the entire selection procedure and unhappy with it in any case, will he or she entitled to tell the Cabinet that the shortlist is for the birds; that there are five far better people; that, as legal adviser to the Government under the Constitution, he or she should bring to its attention that they are not the best three people available for appointment, and that it should look elsewhere? Will that be permissible?

There is no getting around this issue by saying it may or may not be permissible because if the Minister and his Cabinet colleagues - the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Shane Ross, in particular - intend that the Attorney General should be prohibited, by the terms of this legislation, from imparting the information that others far more meritorious were overlooked in the process of informing members of the Government and if the Minister for Justice and Equality of the day who, under Cabinet procedures, proposes one individual from either the shortlist or the generality of eligible persons to be made a judge, he or she will be acting unlawfully. It is fundamentally wrong and an attack on the constitutional role of the Government. The Government, not the commission in its entirety or its carefully cosseted lay majority, is responsible to the people for whom it appoints. There must be, on the part of the Government, an entitlement to know who is interested in being a judge who the commission is sifting out of

263 Seanad Éireann this arrangement and to come to a conclusion, if it is the Cabinet’s collective decision, that the commission is consistently getting it wrong, that it is putting up people who do not merit appointment ahead of others whom the Government should know wish to be considered by it for such appointment. Until we sort out the issue, all of this business of providing that the chairperson can be brought before an Oireachtas committee to be asked about the general administration of the commission but shall not at any stage be allowed to deal with its transactional aspects in carrying out its functions is an irrelevance.

Will the Minister answer some of these questions? My view of the section and remaining sections is coloured significantly by whether the Cabinet will be entitled to be informed by the Attorney General about the unsuccessful people who were not favoured by the commission but who the Attorney General might feel are far more worthy of appointment than some of the three appointees recommended by the commission where it is expressly provided that the majority be of lay people and where the Attorney General is effectively in a minority as law officer of the State because it is provided for in the statute that the majority be of people who are not lawyers.

26/09/2018OO00200Senator Ivana Bacik: Senator Michael McDowell has raised some very significant issues. The first issue at stake involves section 22 and the accountability of the chairperson of the commision to Oireachtas committees. It struck me even before listening to Senator Michael McDowell that the section appeared to be overkill, in respect of the number of committees to which the chairperson might well be accountable. Why, for example, is the justice committee not simply specified? When I was a member of that committee, we held hearings on the judicial appointments process, at which we heard from experts and so forth. The matter was within our remit.

Section 22(8) sets out that the chairperson of the commission shall not question or express an opinion on the merits or objectives of policy. The Minister did respond to questions on a similar clause in section 21(3) related to the accountability of the director of the commission to the Committee of Public Accounts, but I did not follow why it was necessary to specify that the chairperson or director would not question or express an opinion on policy in these sections.

Turning to Senator Michael McDowell’s other point on confidentiality and the information that may or may not be disclosed, it is of interest and value to hear from somebody who was involved in the process previously as Minister of Justice and Equality. The Senator’s amendment, No. 70, and Government amendment No. 71 deal precisely with the issues of confidentiality and disclosure, but these are issues that are also relevant when one considers the accountability or potential accountability of the chairperson of the commission to Oireachtas committees, any number of which may require him or her to attend before them. I am interested in knowing why the Committee on Members’ Interests of the Dáil and the Seanad are included. Having been a member of the Committee on Members’ Interests of the Seanad, I know the work it does, most of which is entirely confidential. I could not tell Members legally what goes on because I am no longer a member of it, nor am I capable of saying what is happening on it currently. Even when I was a member of it, we had to maintain utter confidentiality about its dealings. Confidentiality is relevant when we consider the accountability of the chairperson to these committees under section 22, some provisions of which require greater clarification and on which I would be grateful to hear from the Minister.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

264 26 September 2018

26/09/2018OO00400Message from Joint Committee

26/09/2018OO00500An Leas-Chathaoirleach: At its meeting today the Joint Committee on Justice and Equal- ity completed its consideration of the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann approve a proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council establishing the Internal Security Fund.

Inclusion in Sport: Motion

26/09/2018PP00200Senator Martin Conway: I move:

That Seanad Éireann:

recognises:

- the immense contribution sport makes to Ireland and to the health and well-being of our citizens;

- the many proud sporting moments our Irish men and women have given us over many decades;

- the considerable success which both our Special Olympic and Paralympic athletes have enjoyed in recent years with their remarkable achievements at home and on the international stage;

- the affinity Irish people have for sport and the role it plays in bringing communities together, fostering friendships and keeping people fit and healthy;

- the important role the Government has played over the years in funding sports at every level through direct funding through agencies such as the Irish Sports Council and various sports capital grant schemes;

- that for those with disabilities there are increased barriers to accessing sport; and

- the increased cost in ensuring sporting venues and facilities are accessible and the difficulty in accessing specialised equipment can create additional challenges;

notes that:

- the Government has doubled its investment in sport - from the current annual figure of €111 million to €220 million – as part of the new National Sports Policy 2018-2027;

- under the National Sports Policy the introduction of a national network of sports inclusion disability officers in all 26 local sport partnerships will be explored;

- the upcoming creation of a new large scale sports infrastructure fund and the plans to ensure the Sports Capital Programme becomes an annual fund; and

- there is an estimated €1.5 billion cost to our annual health budget due to physical inactivity;

265 Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to:

- encourage main stream sporting organisations to be more inclusive of people with various disabilities in their clubs and activities;

- ensure that funding to the national governing bodies of sporting organisations is subject to verifiable targets of inclusion of people with disabilities;

- ensure that future use of the sports capital grants or other similar funds does not only benefit one club or sport but has a more integrated sport focus which takes into account the wider needs of the community with a particular emphasis on disability;

- ensure that State-run leisure centres and sports facilities are fully accessible and their staff have all received disability inclusion training;

- ensure that schools have ease of access to specialised equipment to enable students with disabilities to participate alongside their classmates; and

- to increase efforts to address inequalities in sports participation, particularly at a local level and amongst adolescents with disabilities.

I thank the Fine Gael Senators for facilitating this extremely timely Private Members’ motion. It is timely in the sense that Ireland has ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and work in that context is ongoing. It is important, therefore, to debate this motion. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Griffin, to the House. The Minister of State is from County Kerry which is at the heart of sport in Ireland. On taking over the sport portfolio a year and a half ago, the Minister of State hit the ground running and he is playing a great game. There have been many significant developments in sport and I pay tribute to the Minister of State in that regard, knowing how passionate he is about sport and fitness. He is passionate about what is good for Ireland.

Ireland is a nation which adores sports of all kinds. We have seen how Irish people have reacted when our athletes do well internationally. We have seen how the GAA season, of which my colleague, Senator O’Mahony, is extremely aware, involves huge passion, enthusiasm, belief and determination on the part of volunteers and amateur players as well as their families, coaches and supporters. This year saw perhaps the most successful hurling championship ever. Over eight weekends, my wife and I attended eight different GAA championship matches involving Clare; five hurling and three football. There is a significant degree of participation in sport in Ireland. I refer again to the GAA whose Cúl camps were attended by a huge number of children over the summer. They play hurling and football and become active, which is very heartening.

Sport has the potential to grow even more in Ireland. We have seen the success of our hockey team, the O’Donovan brothers and others in what are not necessarily mainstream sports. That brings me to the question of equality of access, opportunity and participation. Unfortu- nately, sport lacks absolute equality of participation for people with disabilities. Over the years, especially during the past ten or 15 years, we have witnessed the phenomenal success of the Special Olympics. None of us will forget the scenes in Croke Park when the Special Olympics came to Ireland. It meant a great deal to many people who watched Nelson Mandela being walked to the stage by Bono. Our ability to host those games proved that Ireland had reached a certain point in an international context. A great deal of passion was channelled and we saw 266 26 September 2018 how strongly people felt and the connections they made. In recent years, we have also had enormous success for our paralympic athletes such as Jason Smyth and others who have represented our country with pride and distinction. They have done the State enormous service and acted as incredible role models.

Whereas they are the elite, tonight’s motion is for the ordinary kids who are not elite athletes and who do not fall into the category of the Special Olympics. They are people like me who have a physical disability as a result of which they will have found themselves excluded from sport over the years. I remember as a young fellow in County Clare attending an integrated school. Football was particularly big in that area and the schools promoted it. Teams were picked during PE periods and I would inevitably be picked last. Obviously, one does not put someone on a team who cannot necessarily see the ball. What captain is going to do that? In essence, sport was not really something for many who were not elite athletes or who did not have high fitness levels, albeit there were always exceptions. Recently, however, there have been moves to include people with disabilities in sport. There are organisations like the CARA Centre in Tralee, on the board of which I sit, which promote inclusion and work hard to ensure people working in leisure centres or who are involved in clubs have the training to be inclusive of people with disabilities in sport. We have seen in recent times how the sports capital grant scheme has discriminated as best it can in favour of facilities which make a genuine effort to become accessible. Significant sums of money have been provided through the grant scheme and we have seen a lot of premises make their facilities accessible in recent years. It is not just a question of physical accessibility, albeit that is critical, but also of ensuring staff are comfort- able in engaging and assisting people with various disabilities.

I would like to see a situation arise in which the national governing bodies of the various sports live up to their equality responsibilities and ensure their sports are accessible to people with different disabilities. We have seen power wheelchair soccer, wheelchair basketball and other developments in the right direction. The FAI, in particular, is making genuine efforts to ensure soccer is accessible to people with disabilities. The GAA has a bit to do in this area, although it has recently appointed an integration officer at Croke Park who is working very hard to make Gaelic games accessible to people with disabilities, particularly at club level. I look forward to seeing developments in that area in the future.

The Government is committed to equality for people with disabilities in a whole range of areas, but it is easy to overlook sport. I know that would not be done intentionally. The Govern- ment wants to see everybody in Ireland being healthy, not only able-bodied people but people with disabilities. What I am trying to achieve by tabling this motion is the introduction of verifiable targets for national governing bodies that get State funding and support, as they should, by which people with disabilities would be seen to be involved and included and they would be able to articulate and share these targets. If the State is funding national governing bodies, there must be a buy-back to support what is only right, namely, proper access and equality.

Similarly, I want it to be mandatory for leisure centres to provide disability inclusive training. There should be a charter of some form or other to which people would not only sign up but also embrace and engage and become ambassadors and champions for equality of access, participation and opportunity. Most leisure centres in the public sector are supported by the State, whether through local authorities, sports capital grants or swimming pool grants. It is not too much to expect to see incremental steps being taken in the right direction to create equality and a mandatory requirement that all staff have basic disability inclusion training.

267 Seanad Éireann I commend the work done by the CARA centre in Tralee in promoting disability inclusion training and in getting young people involved in sport. I referred to those involved in the organisation whom the Minister of State knows well because the centres is in his constituency. I believe some of them are in the Visitors Gallery. I attended one of the camp abilities weeks that are held in Killarney and Tralee every Easter. Visually impaired people participate and try out all sorts of different sports. This type of activity was not available 20 years ago. The De- partment for Transport, Tourism and Sport can become a partner in promoting and supporting initiatives such as this. I pay tribute to Vision Sports Ireland and the various other disability sport organisations that are trying to promote equality, access and participation.

I would like this motion to be viewed as positive. It sees the glass as being half full and notes that we have a lot done but there is a whole pile more to be done. I hope we will have a country in which every young person will want to be involved in sport, young people will not be afraid of being involved in sport because they happen to have a disability and those who have a disability will be out and about and active on an equal level with their peers and where they will feel included and not excluded. I want to see an Ireland where sport is available to everybody, irrespective of ability or disability, and where everybody has an opportunity to have a fulfilled and active sporting life, in as far as his or her ability allows it. That is the type of Ireland that will reap rewards in many other ways, particularly in dealing with levels of obesity and fitness, which are a major challenge for many people, including many people with disabilities.

I look forward to hearing what other Members have to say. This is the first time, certainly in my seven years in Seanad Éireann, that a motion on disability in sport has been tabled during Private Members’ time. It will be interesting to hear the various contributions from colleagues across the floor.

26/09/2018QQ00200Senator John O’Mahony: I formally second the motion. I thank the Minister of State for attending. I will add briefly to Senator Conway’s comments. I am delighted to ask for unanimous support for this motion calling on the Government to implement policies that give access to participation in sport for everyone, regardless of age, size, ability or disability. I note action 12 in the recently published sports policy outlines that in addressing the disability gradients in participation, sports inclusion disability officers will be introduced to the local sports partnerships around the country. I very much support that measure.

While progress has been made in recent years, there is still a way to go. It would be appropriate at this time, with Ireland having signed up to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to take measures to speed up access for all with respect to leisure and sports facilities around the country. I note that Senators Dolan and Boyhan have tabled an amendment which I very much welcome and support.

Sport plays a major role in the lives of many people, including people with disabilities. It can be the vehicle that helps integrate people with disabilities into society. I checked the Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, figures which show that 22% of people with a disability are members of a sports club, whereas the corresponding figure among the total population is 34%. There is still a way to go in that regard. The ESRI also found that 23.6% of the population with a disability play sports at least once a week compared with 43% of the total population. More progress is needed.

Sportsmen and sportswomen with physical, sensory and learning disabilities have done Ire- land proud at home and abroad for many years, particularly in recent years. Many of them 268 26 September 2018 hold European and world records from the Paralympic Games and the Special Olympics. Their dedication and training, in many respects, is equal to or higher than that of elite athletes because they have to overcome more obstacles. Their achievements are probably even more noteworthy but they do not always get due recognition for their achievements in the media or in grant allocations. That needs to change.

Senator Conway mentioned access for people with disabilities who have a strong interest in following sports as spectators. While major improvements have been made in stadiums in recent times, people with disabilities who want to watch and participate in sports need to have better access to prime viewing areas, rather than perhaps corner areas of stadiums.

I have been lucky in my lifetime to have been involved in working with elite athletes. I know how success and dedication in that area can change lives. As a teacher, I have also trained people with perhaps low academic achievement or capabilities who got their self-confidence from their achievements in sport. That can also be achieved with people with disabilities. We want to push forward with a sense of inclusion. In that regard, we should be pushing an open door and, in many respects, we are. It is most appropriate at this time that progress be made in this area. We could adopt a similar approach to this issue as we did to other policies where, for example, we had action plans for jobs and certain other areas. It was great that Ireland signed the United Nations charter, but we need to move on now, rather than allowing a lull. The motion, which concerns equality in sport and access to sport, comes at an ideal time. I urge Mem- bers to give unanimous support to it.

26/09/2018RR00200Senator Jennifer Murnane O’Connor: My colleagues and I in Fianna Fáil are happy to support the motion. All people, regardless of gender, race or ability should have the opportunity to enjoy quality participation in physical activity in sport because it is good for us, in particular our health. Participation in physical activity boosts feelings of physical, psychological and social competence. It is hugely enjoyable and can increase a person’s resistance to stress. Ex- ercise and other physical activities produce endorphins, which are chemicals in the brain that act as a natural painkiller and also improve the ability to sleep, which in turn reduces stress. The repercussions of stress, such as elevated cortisol levels and inflammation, can wear us out from a cellular level up to our major biological system. Through exercise and sport people can learn values and habits such as participation, reliability, competitiveness, fair play and sports- manship.

Sport plays a key role in facilitating social participation, friendship and inclusion. I am proud that Carlow has some fantastic sporting organisations that encourage inclusion and participation, including the very active local sports partnership, the Institute of Technology Carlow, primary and secondary schools, the swimming pool, sports clubs, fitness groups, yoga houses and organisations and special facilities such as the Holy Angels centre and the Delta Centre. I am sure the Minister of State is very much aware of these centres, which play a significant role in the lives of children in Carlow, of which we are so proud.

The positive impacts of physical activity on persons with learning, physical and sensory disability have been demonstrated. We had major success recently in the Special Olympics and we will send athletes to the 2019 Special Olympics World Summer Games in Abu Dhabi in March. Those games will be the world’s largest humanitarian and sporting event of 2019 and will see 7,000 athletes compete in 24 sports. Many of those athletes will be Irish and I wish them well, especially those from County Carlow.

269 Seanad Éireann We will celebrate our local Special Olympics groups with a reception on 8 October because they deserve it and we want to applaud them. It is great that we in Carlow appreciate the work of those involved in the Special Olympics. We will have a big night out for them and I am proud to be involved in organising it. I am also proud to be here tonight to support this motion.

Like all athletes, from tiny tots to veteran competitors, each one should be applauded for his or her success and each opportunity made available. Research has shown that wheelchair users who engage in physical activity have a lower rate of absence from work and fewer hospital admissions than their inactive colleagues. Wheelchair athletes have fewer pressure sores and kidney complications than sedentary wheelchair users. Exercising in an upright position reduces calcium loss after a spinal cord injury and exercise that improves muscle strength brings confidence in negotiating steps and other barriers. It has been demonstrated that both motor skills and the speed at which manual work is performed improved in people with intellectual impairment who exercise more. It is all about being inclusive and the importance of everybody having equal access to exercise.

The positive effects of physical activity on persons with learning, physical and sensory disability include improvements in general health, physical fitness, bone metabolism and exercise function and dependence. There is also increased mobility and a reduction in chronic disease and secondary complications. Physical activity also has a mitigating effect on challenging be- haviour among adults. Individuals with disabilities are significantly less likely to participate in sport and exercise than those without disabilities, yet people with disabilities have similar motivations to those without disabilities for taking part in sport and physical activity. The main motivations among both groups are improving health, fitness, spending time with friends and family and controlling weight. That point comes from an Irish Sports Monitor, ISM, study from 2013, of which I know the Minister of State is aware.

Sport Ireland has committed to adopting an inclusive approach across the entire organisation and in its interaction with organisations and individuals to actively promote such an approach throughout the sport and physical activity sector. I welcome that approach because it involves all of us working together to make sure we can all take part if we choose. That is what it is all about, namely, all of us taking part.

An important commitment is to ensure that all sports facilities directly managed or State funded are fully accessible in terms of physical and programme access and to fully engage with the disability sector in developing policies and programmes. As previous speakers said, it is all about working together and ensuring access for all, including those who use a wheelchair or have a disability. We must all work together through the various Departments. I know that will be part of the Minister of State’s programme.

It is important that we encourage and promote the participation to the fullest extent possible of persons with disabilities in mainstream sporting activities at all levels, ensuring that people with disabilities have an opportunity to organise, develop and participate. That is a major concern for me. Access is so important for people with disabilities. We must be inclusive and ensure that a disability is not an obstacle to accessing sporting, recreation or tourism venues and that children with disabilities have equal access to play and recreation as other children. It is important to ensure recreation and sporting activities are inclusive.

I am honoured to speak to today’s motion and to support it. Disabled children and adults play a major part in communities and give us such love. From dealing with children and adults 270 26 September 2018 in my constituency, I am aware of how much they give to the community and their families. I am delighted this important issue was raised today. We in Fianna Fáil will give the motion our full support. I commend all those involved.

26/09/2018RR00300Senator Anthony Lawlor: I too welcome the Minister of State. Having participated in a sporting activity a couple of days ago for Thursday’s national fitness day, I can attest that he can still demonstrate sporting prowess. He never lost it. That is typical of most Kerry people. Unfortunately, they lost an under-21 championship to Kildare this year but we will not go any further than that.

26/09/2018RR00400Deputy Brendan Griffin: Ten seconds was all it took.

26/09/2018RR00500Senator Anthony Lawlor: It is not too often that Kildare wins an all-Ireland championship. The last time we were in an all-Ireland final my ministerial colleague made sure the at- tempt was derailed very quickly.

A couple of key points in the motion struck me. Participation is one important point. While I welcome the focus on disability, the motion also covers other sectors that should be participating in sport as much as possible. I refer to people in various socio-economic groups that find it difficult to access sport, and also women and girls. In fairness to the Government, it has made significant progress in this area.

Swimming is one of the most accessible sports for people with disabilities. We should encourage more swimming but we need more swimming pools. I accept a new local authority swimming pool programme was announced a year and a half ago but, unfortunately, only two applicants were successful. Each constituency should have a swimming pool that is accessible to people across all socio-economic groups and those with disabilities because it is an easy way for people with special needs to participate in sport.

I was very lucky in 2003 when the equestrian events of the Special Olympics World Games were held in my village of Kill. It was a tremendous occasion for the entire community and people got involved in assisting the event. Sadly, under a planning application before Kildare County Council, it is proposed to demolish the facility in question. I will oppose that given the significant State investment in it. The facility should be available to all people with disabilities. The special connection between animals and people with disabilities is well recognised and should be encouraged wherever possible.

I have spoken before about ladies sport and know that many clubs and sporting organisations are putting particular emphasis on getting ladies involved. I watched a series of county finals in Kildare last weekend and the level of participation by ladies was tremendous. It was marvellous to see so many participating and so many watching too. It is important that we do as much as we can to encourage women and ladies to get involved in sport. I know this debate is on people with disabilities and we must celebrate all their achievements. I have seen people with disabilities playing in so-called normal games of rugby and soccer. One of the best sportsmen I ever saw was a young man who played rugby with UCC last season. He had only one finger and a thumb on his right hand but it was unbelievable what he could do on the pitch. It is a minor disability but he actually participated in the game. It was tremendous to see that and to see the welcome he was given on the field.

I am very supportive of the motion. While much has been done already, we need to do more. When I was in Naas last week I saw one of the new outdoor gyms. There is a walk all the way 271 Seanad Éireann around a lake in Naas and at several points along the way there is a piece of gym equipment. That makes it accessible to people who cannot afford to pay high gym fees. It is very simple really. I took a photograph of an 80 year old doing one of the exercises. We must not forget that sport is for all and not just for those elite athletes who give us plenty of pleasure. Sport is for people with disabilities, those from difficult socio-economic backgrounds, ladies and girls and those of a certain age. I very much welcome this debate and am delighted that the Minister of State has brought forward a new sports policy. I know that he is getting cross-party support for it because it makes absolute sense from the perspective of both mental and physical health for everyone to participate in sport.

26/09/2018SS00200Senator Máire Devine: We all know that sport is hugely beneficial to communities across the State. Sinn Féin recognises the importance of sport in our society. The country has a strong tradition of sporting excellence in Gaelic games, provincial and international rugby, athletics, boxing and, hopefully, soccer. Sport benefits our mental and physical health and inspires confidence in young people. It also supports community and inclusion by bringing all of us together at enjoyable and sometimes competitive events. I wish to take a moment to commend the local authorities throughout the country and disability groups who came together today for the Make Way campaign, highlighting obstacles that block people’s way, impede access and create dangerous hazards.

The sports capital programme has long been a lifeline for clubs and groups to improve sports amenities. In 2018, the largest number of clubs on record applied for funding. The sports capital grant was not available in 2017 and the programme had been run on an ad hoc basis for several years prior to that. The allocation of this year’s funding laid bare the true extent of the Government’s two-tier approach to service provision. Private schools and clubs in wealthy areas were given substantial allocations while many clubs and schools in disadvantaged areas lost out. This rightly caused a furore at the time. Private schools and private clubs that charge large annual fees were given substantial sums - in some cases, up to €150,000 - while smaller clubs with no facilities were given tiny sums which would only cover the cost of a lawnmower to mow the grass on a rented pitch.

Sinn Féin has proposed a suite of changes to the sports capital programme. We will ensure additional funding is provided for the grant programme and that such funding is ring-fenced for disadvantaged areas. We also propose that additional weighting be given to disadvantaged groups in the application process. Further to this, we propose the closure of the sports capital programme to private schools and clubs that charge large membership fees. We encourage such entities to reinvest their profits in their own amenities. The scheme is clearly unequal because the more one has, the more one gets. This is widening the gap in terms of facilities and reducing opportunities for the majority of young people. In my own area in Dublin 8 I carried out a simple audit over the summer months on how people with disabilities access leisure spaces. I spoke to three people in wheelchairs of various ages who could not access leisure facilities because of the so-called kissing gates in their local park. They wanted to join in a game of handball but they could not access the space. We need a nationwide audit of how people with disabilities access sports spaces. There is not one full pitch between the canals in Dublin 8, even though the area is home to more than 55,000 people. People are playing camogie and other games on small, rented pitches. The Dublin south central area also has an above average percentage of people with disabilities.

To return to the sports capital programme, the application process is arduous. Private schools and clubs are better equipped to submit successful applications than smaller disadvan- 272 26 September 2018 taged clubs. I have assisted several small clubs with their applications. The process can be overwhelming and off-putting to communities struggling to do their best to provide for youth. The Government’s strategy refers to a review of the application process and I hope that happens soon.

This motion calls for equality in participation and is admirable. It emphasises the need to ensure people with disabilities have greater access to sports facilities. There are serious concerns about the lack of detail in the national sports policy. There are no specifics in terms of planning or funding, which is a cause for concern. The Government pledges to “look at” the possibility of appointing sports inclusion disability officers, but I wonder what that actually means. Sinn Féin supports any measure that will improve services and facilities for disabled people and ensure increased access. This is happening in the context of health, transport and work. After too many years of delay, the Government finally ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities this year. However, it did not ratify the optional protocol to that convention, leaving the entire thing fairly toothless.

The sports strategy refers to the role of sport in inclusion. We need a clear plan for disability in sports, but this is not a feature of the sports strategy. The plan also mentions weighting in terms of establishing social and other needs. If this is done in the same manner as the sports capital programme, it will be pointless because it is clearly not working. The plan also speaks of “looking at” and “encouraging” which are further examples of weak language. The plan is not substantial or robust enough. We need a focus on disability and social exclusion, with specific funding identified to pursue goals and deliver change.

The Government’s plan aims to target funding specifically to sports in which Ireland has medal chances. While I understand that, it means that many other sports will lose funding. We need to think about our priorities. Are we in the business of buying medals? I know that other countries are doing that, but would it not be better to focus on health and inclusion? It is all about the journey and not just about the goal of gold.

There is a small section in the strategy on all-Ireland sports but there is no tangible plan or commitment. It makes sense to pursue this matter on a 32 county basis, given the size of the country. We need commitments in that regard.

We will be supporting this motion and supporting Senator Dolan’s amendment. I commend Senator Conway for his efforts in terms of the growing awareness among society that people with disabilities face barriers on a daily basis.

26/09/2018TT00300Senator John Dolan: I move amendment No. 1:

To insert the following after the seventh paragraph under “recognises:”

“- that Ireland ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD), earlier this year;

- that this motion responds to Article 30 – Participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport - of the UN CRPD, specifically in relation to enabling persons with disabilities to participate on an equal basis with others in recreational, leisure and sporting activities and calls on States Parties to take appropriate measures;”

26/09/2018TT00400Senator Máire Devine: I second the amendment.

273 Seanad Éireann

26/09/2018TT00500Senator John Dolan: I welcome the Minister of State. My amendment, in effect, puts the belt and braces on the statements made by Senators Conway and O’Mahony when they con- nected the intent of the motion to Article 30 of the UN convention. As it puts it on a stronger basis, I hope that is enough said about it.

In terms of the context of this motion, we have just ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It also comes a couple of weeks before the budget. I will not labour that point.

Issues of access have been well articulated by Members in respect of sports facilities, participation in sport and so on. I have to say, however, in the spirit of the UN convention, that access also involves being able to get to the place. It is public transport, equipment, mobility and income. It is the issues that Senator Lawlor and other Members mentioned in respect of people from different socio-economic backgrounds, and disabled people are among those who have the least income.

I want to talk about the politics of sport. What have Jack Lynch, Jimmy Deenihan and Dick Spring got in common, apart from the fact that they were Members of these Houses? They were sportsmen. No one should tell me that having a sporting background is not advantageous in politics. I do not say that in a sneaky way but participating in sport, or being involved in cultural activities, can be advantageous. I am making the connection between being active in sport and being able to be part of the civil and public life of a country.

I travel a good deal across Europe in particular and I am convinced that the GAA was one of the most critical factors in ensuring we got our Independence. It was not just about sport, and the objective of the GAA refers to the national identity. It brought with it esprit de corps, fitness, a sense of working for others and a sense of oneself. That is what is needed for people with disabilities. It is vitally important.

In eastern Europe, particularly the post-Soviet bloc countries, they could not organise a game of cards. They have a horrendous background in terms of the authoritarian regimes they had but they have no sense of being able to organise events locally in parishes and communities. That is what organisations like the GAA and Conradh na Gaeilge did. Disabled people being involved in sport is also part of what that provides.

In the 1940s and 1950s, Sir Ludwig Guttman, a German born neurologist who managed to get out of Germany at the start of the war, worked in spinal injuries hospitals in the United Kingdom, including Stoke Mandeville Hospital and others which dealt with a huge number of young soldiers’ spinal injuries. He revolutionised the rehabilitation of those young men by dragging them out of their beds and getting them into sport. He set up the Stoke Mandeville Games, and they became international games. They mutated into the first Paralympic Games in 1960. “Paralympics” means parallel Olympics. There would be a parallel Olympics with the 1960 Olympic Games, and Rome was the city.

Ireland sent a team to those first games in Rome in 1960. I will mention one member of that team who is still with us, thank God, Oliver Murphy, from Drogheda; he will be known to some Members. He is well into his 80s now. The members of that team got to the games through the support of what was then the Rehabilitation Institute. These were edgy young men and women who wanted to drive, get married, have jobs and participate. They came back from those games in the summer of 1960. In November that year 13 of them set up the Irish Wheelchair Associa-

274 26 September 2018 tion in the pillar room in the Rotunda Hospital. That came out of their sporting experience, getting the edge and that extra “oomph”. They had the confidence to set up their own organisation. The Irish Wheelchair Association has a proud history in terms of sport in Ireland.

I should mention my former colleague, the late Martin Naughton. The second anniversary of his death will be in two weeks’ time. When he was a young lad he was in the hospital in Baldoyle which had a swimming pool. Martin never got into water. He always managed to get other people into deep water but he never got into it himself. He trained their swimming teams, and he trained some of the young people for the Montreal games in 1976. He was a Spiddal man and very proud of the fact that he never got wet himself yet he trained the swimming teams. We only have to look at where he went after that, and how formative it was for him and for others. There is an important political aspect to sport.

Senator Lawlor mentioned women. From memory, I believe the first two gold medals we brought back from the games in Rome in 1960 were won by a woman, Joan Horan, one for swimming and one for archery.

A number of speakers mentioned Sports Ireland. Senator O’Mahony has looked at the sta- tistics and 27% of adults with disabilities participate in sports compared with 49% of the rest of the population. I refer to motivation, the importance of fitness and spending time with family and friends. Individuals with a disability are significantly more likely to be sedentary and less likely to be highly active than people without a disability; therefore, sport is very important.

Deaf Sports Ireland, Vision Sports Ireland, the Irish Wheelchair Association, Special Olym- pics Ireland, Paralympics Ireland, Cara, Football for All, archery clubs, Riding for the Disabled, Para Equestrian Ireland, Judo Assist, Cerebral Palsy Sport Ireland and the transplant games all play a huge part also.

I mention the recent appointment of Padraic Moran to the board of Sport Ireland by the Minister, Deputy Ross. Mr. Moran is a paralympian and former world champion in the sport of boccia.

This motion is about sport. It is about political public participation and also what will happen in other areas of public services. I commend Senator Conway and his colleagues for tabling this very positive motion.

26/09/2018TT00600Senator Maura Hopkins: Like other speakers, I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Griffin. I, too, strongly support the motion which calls for the greater involvement of people with disabilities in sport. I compliment and thank my colleagues, Senators Martin Conway and John O’Mahony, for bringing forward the motion.

We all know the benefits of being involved in sport and engaging in exercise in promoting good physical and mental health and well-being for everybody, the community and the wider society. As previous speakers indicated, sport is very much part of the fabric which knits together communities. All of us see this in action within our communities. Some of the greatest days for us, as a country, have revolved around our greatest sporting achievements, both on the national and the international stage. It is, therefore, essential that we allow all of our people to be involved in sport, be that from a participant or a spectator point of view.

The successes of Irish teams at both the Special Olympics and Paralympics show clearly that disability need not be a barrier to achieving sporting success. It is important that we prop- 275 Seanad Éireann erly and fully acknowledge the successes of the Irish Paralympics team, who have achieved incredible success in bringing home nine medals from the world games, which undoubtedly bodes very well for Tokyo 2020. I know too that our Special Olympics team is putting in an incredible amount of work in advance of the 2019 games in Abu Dhabi. I have met many of our local athletes and participants in the Special Olympics team in my own area, who are such fantastic ambassadors for the county and for our country. We had a wonderful evening at the Roscommon races recently which really celebrated their successes. Everybody is so proud of their achievements, as they are themselves. As an occupational therapist, I have worked extensively with people with disabilities. I am very much aware of the positive impact being involved in sport can have on an individual.

I hope the Minister of State will take the motion on board. Many speakers referred to Sport Ireland and the comprehensive policy regarding the participation of people with disabilities in sport. We know that the policy should be used as a framework in terms of increasing participation. I note one recent positive development in the context of increasing participation. Coun- cillor Vicki Casserly was involved with the FAI and South Dublin County Council in providing Ireland’s first frame football pitch, which is ensuring that people with disabilities can become involved in football. It is a great initiative. I saw images of the opening and it was wonderful to see people involved in sport and to see the smiles on the faces. While sport is sometimes about winning, much of the time it is about taking part and about participation. It was wonderful to see those initiatives being successful and being supported, and we need to see a lot more of that. It is good we are having this debate and, hopefully, we can move towards ensuring we have greater participation for all.

26/09/2018UU00200Senator Robbie Gallagher: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit agus cuirim fáilte roimh an reachtaíocht seo. I welcome the Minister of State to discuss this worthwhile motion and congratulate Senator Conway and his colleagues on putting it forward. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the work of Senator Dolan in this area on an ongoing basis. As Senator Hopkins mentioned, local authorities throughout the country are doing their bit in the context of creating awareness of the physical barriers that might be in place for those with disabilities of whatever kind.

Everyone will agree that every euro we spend on sport is money well spent. The return we get from this as a society is immeasurable, particularly the physical benefits of exercise and participation in sport at any level. One thing that is noticeable as one drives along the roads of our country is the increased participation in sport by all. One only has to look to see people out walking and jogging and to see there is increased awareness of physical exercise in whatever guise, which is to be welcomed.

It is important that there are no barriers to prevent people with disabilities participating in sport. We have a great love affair with sport. It is the one diversion we have that allows us to escape the nine-to-five grind of Monday to Friday or, in some cases, Monday to Sunday. The key is to ensure no barriers are put in place for those who want to participate, and I have no doubt the Minister of State will not be found wanting in that regard.

When we talk about barriers, I will digress and refer to my county of Monaghan. The Min- ister of State will be aware there has been a major landslide in the southern part of the county, where the Magheracloone GAA club pitch is basically split in two. The community centre attached to that facility is also in serious trouble, not to mention that some people have had to vacate their family homes. I have no doubt that the GAA club will be coming knocking on the 276 26 September 2018 Minister of State’s door to seek assistance and I am confident he will greet those involved with open arms. The club has a serious problem in the context of funding. I would welcome the Minister of State’s comments in that regard.

I am delighted to support the motion. As I said, every euro we spend on sport across the board is a euro well spent and we get a return for it in multiple ways. Again, I compliment the proposer and commend him for putting forward the motion.

26/09/2018UU00300Senator Jerry Buttimer: I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for coming to the House. I commend Senator Conway on putting forward the motion and on the import of what he is trying to achieve.

It is fair to say all of us who are involved in sport recognise its universal importance. I come to the motion as somebody who is immersed in sport. One of my earliest memories of disability in sport is from 1979, when my father was involved with Special Olympics Munster, as Senator Dolan will know. I was in the University of Limerick, or Thomond College as it was then, and watched the participation of people with disabilities in sports. I saw the joy and the commend- able bravery in participating - in some cases, it took a gargantuan effort. What it brought home was the importance of empowerment. In this case, sport empowered people with disabilities. Senator Hopkins made reference to Councillor Vicki Casserly and the work she is doing and has done regarding Team James. The participation of those with disabilities in sports is a living example of what we should all try to do.

Equally, there is the important role of sports partnership and the education and training boards, ETBs, in encouraging sport and putting in place platforms in tandem with the overarch- ing policy of Sport Ireland. We need to continually update and be vigilant in respect 6 o’clock of that policy in order to ensure targets are achieved. To be fair to the Minister of State and his predecessors, that is being done via the funding model they put in place. Obviously, we can always ensure more money is allocated and that funding is put in place in order that facilities are enhanced. I sometimes listen to comments which suggest the Govern- ment is putting no money into sport and that local authorities are not funding sport. However, the motion notes that the Government has doubled its investment in sport to €220 million.

While that is important and without meaning to patronise, it is people like Senator Martin Conway who, through a life of advocacy, show the importance of what the motion is about. In my city of Cork there is the Rebel Wheelers club which, through its various sporting activities, allows greater participation and people’s abilities, rather than their disabilities, to shine through. Article 30 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities calls on us to increase and enhance participation in sport. All of this is about empowerment and policy, with financial resources, to give people the ability to take part, which is important.

We, rightly, applaud high profile events and the sports people who participate in them, be they the Special Olympics or the Paralympics, but there is more to it than just that. For example, there is Jamie Wall from Cork, a young man who was at the height of his hurling career and is now in a wheelchair training a Fitzgibbon Cup-winning team in Limerick. There are the Olympians whom we see on television. There is also the young boy or girl in a wheelchair or the older athlete participating in a marathon who sets off before the rest of the field. To me, funding for sport is critical, but what is more important is our ability to improve the lives of people with disabilities through removing the barriers and obstacles to which Senator John Dolan referred. 277 Seanad Éireann I read an interesting article in The Irish Times during the summer holidays. I cannot remember the writer’s name, but she wrote about going to matches. Her friends had applied for tickets to attend championship matches. I believe she was from County Clare, although I might be mistaken, but the article resonated with me because she wrote about being separated from her friends at sports events or someone having to attend with her. She wrote about her siblings having to sit with her at concerts.

I attended the Liam Miller tribute game yesterday at Páirc Uí Chaoimh. I commend all involved and pay particular tribute to the Minister for his manoeuvrings and leadership. I also pay tribute to Mr. Michael O’Flynn. While in the stand yesterday, I was struck by the number of people in wheelchairs who had been separated. The same happens in other sports stadia. When facilities are being developed in the future, perhaps the disabled section - maybe should there not be one at all - might be located in the middle of the stand.

26/09/2018VV00200Senator John Dolan: Is Páirc Uí Chaoimh not being redeveloped?

26/09/2018VV00300Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is done. The Government intervened and allocated €30 million for one of the best stadia in the country.

26/09/2018VV00600Acting Chairman (Senator Gerry Horkan): The Leader to continue, without interrup- tion, please.

26/09/2018VV00700Senator Jerry Buttimer: I will digress for one second. Yesterday was an extraordinary day in Cork, not because a game of soccer was played in Páirc Uí Chaoimh but because sport united the country, a city and the people.

26/09/2018VV00800Senator Robbie Gallagher: That takes some doing.

26/09/2018VV00900Senator Jerry Buttimer: They were united.

26/09/2018VV01000Senator Máire Devine: But not all 32 counties.

26/09/2018VV01200Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Please, Senator.

26/09/2018VV01300Senator Jerry Buttimer: Sport brought people le chéile. Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are moving le chéile.

26/09/2018VV01400Senator Máire Devine: No. I thought the Leader was-----

26/09/2018VV01500Senator Robbie Gallagher: Cinnte.

26/09/2018VV01600Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Please, Senators.

26/09/2018VV01700Senator Máire Devine: I am devastated.

26/09/2018VV01800Senator Jerry Buttimer: It brought people together.

26/09/2018VV01900Senator Máire Devine: I did not-----

26/09/2018VV02000Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Will the Senator, please, not interrupt the Leader, as he is about to conclude his contribution.

(Interruptions).

278 26 September 2018

26/09/2018VV02200Senator Máire Devine: I am very upset.

26/09/2018VV02300Senator Jerry Buttimer: We rightly celebrate the successes of our Special Olympians and Paralympians, but we must also provide for the young boy or girl and school student with a disability who wants to participate. We must always promote the high profile events and have a strong policy of inclusion, but if we are to address inequality in sport, we must consider having a longer conversation on inclusion and removing barriers. It is not just about participating but also attending.

I commend Senator Martin Conway for tabling the motion and thank the Minister of State for attending. This has been a worthwhile debate.

26/09/2018VV02400Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Before I call Senator Maria Byrne, I welcome to the Visitors Gallery two students of English from Taiwan, Christie and Kerri, who are accompanied by Deputy Margaret Murphy O’Mahony from the Lower House. I hope they will have an enjoyable stay in Ireland.

26/09/2018VV02500Senator Maria Byrne: I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for giving of his time. I commend Senator Martin Conway for drafting the motion.

Sport plays a major role in everyone’s life. Whether we are on or off the field, a supporter or a volunteer, participation in sport is good for our physical health and mental well-being.

Much has been said. I have volunteered for a number of years with the Special Olympics organisation. There is satisfaction in seeing Special Olympians participating. It is more about participating than winning medals, but it is a great thrill that they receive their medals and rib- bons on the day. I would like to see greater support provided. They play with their own clubs or regions or whatever the case may be, but I would like to see greater emphasis being placed on and more money being diverted towards helping Special Olympians to participate. The same applies to Paralympians who have had great successes on and off the field. The satisfaction their families gain from their participation in sport is another factor.

Studies have shown that people who participate in sport or physical activity live longer. In my area of Mungret, County Limerick, we installed a disabilities playground. It caters for children with and without physical disabilities. They can use the same swings and slides. Often, the machines are built in such a way that two or three can be on the same swing or slide at the same time. It is fantastic, but there are not enough such playgrounds throughout the country. There is one in Thurles. Local authorities should be encouraged to build disability-friendly playgrounds, as it is important that people be encouraged to become involved in sport and other physical activities.

Recently, VHI started to organise park runs for people with and without physical disabilities, which are fantastic. Last week more than 250 children aged between four and 14 years participated in a park run organised at Shelbourne Park. Their families ran alongside them. It was not competitive, as encouraging the children and their families to participate is what it was all about. There are park runs all over the country. Three are organised in Limerick at the Uni- versity of Limerick, Mungret Park and Shelbourne Park. The runs organised at the University of Limerick and Mungret Park are for those in older age categories. There is a competitive element in that a person receives his or her time for running the course. The organisers time a person from the time that he or she starts to the time that he or she completes. We would like to see more of this being spread around the country and more encouragement in terms of participation. 279 Seanad Éireann Many speakers referred to the local authorities. Certainly, the work the sports partnerships have been doing with people who have disabilities, with younger people and with older people is wonderful. They run so many classes. They go out of their way to accommodate people and encourage them to get involved. Overall, I commend the Minister of State’s Department because the sports capital grants have gone a huge way towards helping clubs to expand their services. I would like to see them continuing. I know the Minister of State has announced another lot that will be coming up soon. Perhaps we should have a special category for groups for people with disabilities. It would be great if such groups could have their own application process.

26/09/2018WW00200Senator Máire Devine: That is a good idea.

26/09/2018WW00300Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Bren- dan Griffin): Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach. I am delighted to be here. I thank all of the Senators who have contributed. I particularly acknowledge the submission of this motion by Senator Conway. He has been a great champion for disability issues and sporting issues. This motion combines both areas and I commend the Senator on raising it.

I am firmly of the view that everyone, no matter their background or circumstances, should have the opportunity to participate in sport and physical activity at a level of their choosing. There are many benefits to be gained from participating in sport and physical activity and these benefits apply equally to everyone. I can inform the House that the Government is working to increase the levels of participation in sport by people with disabilities and to address the barriers that prevent or discourage people from participating in sport. The year 2018 has been excellent for Irish sport so far and I am delighted to acknowledge the wonderful successes by many of our very talented disabled sportsmen and women. Most recently, we have seen excellent, inspirational performances in the World Para Swimming European Championships held at the National Aquatic Centre, with the gold medal won by Ellen Keane being a particular highlight. The opening ceremony and the beginning of events in August was a great day on which to be there. It was a great occasion not just for para swimming but for the country in general. The World Para Athletics European Championships also produced fine performances including six gold medals from Jason Smyth, Greta Streimikyte, Orla Barry, Noelle Lenihan and Niamh McCarthy. So far this year 24 medals - 15 gold, four silver and five bronze - have been won across the para sports of cycling, swimming, athletics, and table tennis. This is a wonderful achievement and bodes well for the 2020 Paralympic Games in Tokyo, to which Senator Hop- kins referred.

Senators will be aware that the new national sports policy for the period up to 2027 was published in July. The policy contains 57 actions and is backed up with an envisaged doubling of annual State investment in sport to €220 million in 2027. The Government recognises the scale of the challenge we face in achieving a more physically active population and we are committed to increasing our financial investment to achieve our shared ambition. I am very determined to try to make that start as soon as possible. I want to get started on that in the current budgetary discussions. The policy specifically acknowledges that the benefits of active participation in sport are not enjoyed equally by all sectors in our society. Participation levels in sport are significantly smaller among lower socio-economic groups, people with a disability, older people and, to a lesser extent, women. Compared with the overall participation level of 43% for all adults, research shows that the participation level for those with any disability is 23.6%. It is accepted that addressing these gradients has to be central to the achievement of the overall target of the new policy, which is to increase participation from 43% to 50% by 2027. There are 280 26 September 2018 no simple answers. The reasons for non-participation vary within and between groups and can change over the life course. There is a need to better understand why individuals who believe in the benefits of sport and exercise feel unable to participate. Behavioural science might help us understand what lies at the heart of these decisions not to participate. For people with disabilities we know that access issues not just around equipment or physical infrastructure but also around softer issues such as attitudes and skill sets of individuals providing services or delivering programmes are often cited as reasons for non-participation. Senator Dolan also referred to the issue of access and transport, which is another issue. That is certainly a factor.

The National Sports Policy 2018-2027 contains four specific actions aimed at addressing the disability participation gradients. Under action 9 we will redouble efforts to address inequalities in sports participation as part of the local sports plan development process. Resources will be directed to promote the broadest possible participation, ensuring accessibility and quality experiences for all groups. Funding will be prioritised on programmes which focus on those groups with lower levels of participation, especially those in lower socio-economic groups, persons with a disability and older people. Under action 10, in prioritising initiatives and programmes to engage groups with lower participation levels, we will use behavioural insights and other research to better understand issues around non-participation.

Under action 11, dormant accounts funding, which is specifically aimed at people with disabilities, will be used in the roll-out of initiatives such as the community sports hubs on a nationwide basis. Under action 12, we intend to address the disability gradients in participation through the introduction of a national network of sports inclusion disability officers aligned to the local sports partnerships network. These sports inclusion disability officers would be expected to work closely with relevant national governing bodies of sport, the disability sector, leisure centre providers, the CARA Centre and other stakeholders in providing opportunities for people with disabilities to take part in sport.. I am delighted that the CARA Centre is represented in the Visitors Gallery today by Ms Niamh Daffy and Mr. Pat Flanagan. I compliment them on the great work they do through the CARA Centre and I welcome them to the House. I look forward to working closely with them further in future. The Minister, Deputy Ross, and I highlighted this important action at the launch of the new national sports policy in July.

I agree that it is important that we set ambitious goals and targets around the inclusion of people with disabilities. As outlined in the national sports policy, we will shortly be establishing a sports leadership group to agree an action plan and to prioritise the actions to be taken to give effect to the policy. The setting of goals for the inclusion of people with disabilities in sport will become a priority for the sports leadership group, and I expect that we will see ambitious targets set in that regard. I assure Members that the disability sector will be strongly represented on that body.

As the statutory body for the development of sport, Sport Ireland, the Government’s sports agency, works closely with the national governing bodies and other sporting organisations. In 2017, Sport Ireland provided more than €3.5 million to these bodies and organisations specifically to provide and promote opportunities for people with disabilities to take part in sport and physical activity. A similar amount is being allocated again in 2018. As well as Paralympics Ireland and Special Olympics, Sport Ireland recognises and funds a number of disability specific bodies, including Irish Wheelchair Association Sport, Deaf Sports Ireland and Vision Sports Ireland. In addition, Sport Ireland supports national and international disability focused events. Events supported this year include the World Para Swimming European Championships at the National Aquatic Centre, the Special Olympics Ireland Games, the International Wheelchair 281 Seanad Éireann and Amputee Sport Youth World Games, the Blind Tennis World Championships and the Wa- tersports Inclusion Games.

I acknowledge Senator Byrne’s voluntarism and contribution to the Special Olympics. She was telling me what a great weekend she had at the games recently. I commend her on her great commitment to those games. I was also in the House before discussing with her the boom in the swimming pool in the University of Limerick. I know that is an issue on which she has worked hard.

Sport Ireland also funds and partners local sports partnerships, primarily through the work of the sports inclusion disability programme. This programme offers opportunities for people to get involved in sport and physical activity in their local area. At present, funding is provided for 19 social inclusion disability officers in 21 local authority areas. As I mentioned, we intend to introduce a dedicated programme for disability sport through the deployment of a sport inclusion disability officer in all 26 local sports partnerships countrywide. I know that is something in which Senator O’Mahony is interested. I am very keen to make further progress on it. Senator Lawlor referred to the last time his county was in the All-Ireland final. I congratulate him on the 20th anniversary of its famous win. It was just a few days ago. I am sure Senator O’Mahony remembers 1998.

26/09/2018XX00100Senator John O’Mahony: It did not last 20 years.

26/09/2018XX00200Deputy Brendan Griffin: It was not long going.

In recent years dormant accounts funding has been instrumental in the provision of increased sports participation opportunities for those with a disability. Looking to the future, there will be a continued emphasis on dormant accounts funded programmes, including in particular the roll-out of initiatives such as the community sports hubs on a nationwide basis. Last year, Sport Ireland published its new policy on participation in sport by people with disabilities. It provides a clear policy context for the promotion of sport for people with disabilities and a basis for an enhanced and more concerted approach by Sport Ireland and the organisations it works with. Following publication of the policy, Sport Ireland has begun to capture data on the level of participation by people with disabilities across various sports. This data collection was introduced as a new element in the 2018 funding application process. This data will be valu- able in determining the levels of participation in various sports and in developing policies in that regard. Sport Ireland will continue to work closely with national governing bodies of sport, local sports partnerships, CARA and Paralympics Ireland to ensure there are opportunities for all to participate in sport.

With regard to capital funding for sports and community facilities, the sports capital programme as operated by my Department provides funding to voluntary sports and community organisations for the provision of sports and recreational facilities. More than 11,500 projects have benefitted from sports capital funding since 1998, bringing the total allocations in that time to close to €1 billion. The programme has transformed the sporting landscape of Ireland with improvements in the quality and quantity of sports facilities in virtually every village, town and city. The facilities funded range from the smallest clubs to national centres of sporting excellence. Grants are available to sports clubs, voluntary and community groups, national governing bodies of sport and local authorities. Schools may also apply provided they do so jointly with a sports club or organisation.

282 26 September 2018 Under the most recent round of the sports capital programme, a record 2,320 applications were submitted and €62 million was allocated to 1,837 individual projects. For the first time ever, every valid local application received a grant offer. The overall funding available was distributed by county, on a per capita basis, and more than 50 different sports benefited from funding. As many Senators will be aware, a new round of the programme opened for applications on 7 September and closes at 5 p.m. on 19 October. There is €40 million available and I urge Senators to make people of the programme.

I must address some of the points Senator Devine made about the sports capital programme. I strongly disagree with the sentiments expressed. If anything, the sports capital programme, as administered in 2017, was the fairest in the 20 years since the programme’s inception. As I mentioned, every valid application received funding. The funding allocated to applicants was directly proportionate to the points they scored in an independent scoring system and the amount they sought. If an organisation complained that it got a lawnmower, the likelihood is that it only applied for a lawnmower. We did not provide grants of €150,000 to organisations that only asked for a lawnmower. They could have asked for more. This was the first time every valid applicant received a proportion of what was sought based on the points the application scored. If we did it any differently, there would be complaints about that also. The programme was implemented in the fairest way possible.

Senator Devine spoke about private clubs and schools.

26/09/2018XX00300Senator Máire Devine: I spoke about private clubs and schools with hefty membership fees.

26/09/2018XX00400Deputy Brendan Griffin: The programme stipulates that if a private school is applying for a sports capital allocation, the facility in question must made available to the wider community. There is a wider benefit from having it made available to people other than those attending the private school. The facility may well be in a private school located in an area where there is socio-economic deprivation. It will be available to the wider community for a minimum number of hours per week. That requirement is tied in by law and it can be very positive for the wider community.

We have made significant efforts in recent years to streamline the process. In the 2017 programme, for example, the rate of invalidation declined to approximately 20% from 48% in 2012 and more than 30% in the 2014 and 2015 programmes. We have made the process much simpler.

In addition, for the first time ever, we had an appeals process in respect of the 2017 programme. I have also ensured groups which submitted invalid applications in 2017 will have a chance to resubmit applications under the 2018 programme without having to go through the whole process again. They need only submit documentation that will validate their application. This is a progressive measure which will be fair to the applicants concerned. We also have introduced for 2018 a new provision under which applicants who submit applications with a minor fault, which until now would have resulted in immediate invalidation, will be given a second chance to rectify their submission. That is a very positive change.

Senators will be aware from dealing with the sports capital programme that one of the big- gest gripes we hear from people is that applications are sometimes invalidated for minor infrac- tions of the rules. I was keen to address that issue. The new approach I have provided for will

283 Seanad Éireann be very important in the 2018 programme as it will give many applicants a chance to have their application assessed purely on its merits.

We already weight applications more favourably based on the socio-economic background of the applicant. This is done based on the Pobal deprivation index, which includes a number of socio-economic factors. This is very important as it is based on the location of the applicant and socio-economic grounds. The level of own funding required is also on a sliding scale. This means an organisation in a very disadvantaged area will be required to have a much lower amount of own funding to score maximum points in the category than for an organisation in an area that is not disadvantaged. Some 50% of all successful allocations in the 2017 programme went to disadvantaged areas. It is often forgotten and overlooked that the sports capital programme is highly progressive and brings opportunities to areas that would not have opportunities to develop sports facilities.

In addition to the sports capital programme, the Department operates the local authority swimming pool programme, to which Senator Lawlor referred. Under this scheme, grant aid to a maximum of €3.8 million is provided towards the capital cost of new swimming pools or the refurbishment of existing pools. To date, 51 pools have been completed under the programme, with four projects remaining. All of these projects are required to comply with the statutory requirements for disabled access.

While Project Ireland 2040 commits to further rounds of the sports capital programme in the years ahead, I was delighted that it also commits to establishing a new large-scale sport infrastructure fund for larger projects where the proposed Government contribution exceeds the amount available under the sports capital programme. The new fund is designed to provide a more structured approach for such funding and €100 million is being provided. An announcement in respect of when applications can be submitted will be made shortly. While the full terms and conditions of the new scheme are being finalised, the scheme will prioritise the needs of disadvantaged areas and groups, including people with disabilities. In response to Senator Buttimer’s proposal, we will examine whether we can include, as part of the criteria for the large-scale scheme, his suggestion that, rather than having segregated areas, space be made available for people with disabilities in mainstream areas of sports facilities. This is a good proposal and any architect or designer could implement such a system. We will examine the matter.

I am joined by Mr. Peter Hogan from the Department who has done a great amount of work on the sports policy. I commend him and his colleagues on the work they did.

I acknowledge the importance of maximising accessibility to sports facilities. The overall policy aim is that facilities, especially those which have been developed using public funds, are fully accessible and available to the broadest range of users. The manner in which this aim can be achieved is subject to continuous review. Collaborative approaches between local authorities, national governing bodies of sport, local sports partnerships and others will be facilitated and encouraged to promote greater use of facilities for schools, the unemployed, older adults, people with disabilities and other relevant target groups.

The new sports policy also emphasises that swimming has particular appeal for individuals with a long-term illness or disability who are otherwise more likely not to take part in any sport or physical activity. It is, therefore, important that there be satisfactory access to hoists and accessible changing and showering facilities. In developing an action plan to implement the new 284 26 September 2018 sports policy, consideration will be given as to how best to ensure this access. As regards the provision of disability inclusion training, action No. 28 of the new national sports policy commits to the introduction of an annual volunteer training budget, to be jointly administered by the national governing bodies and the local sports partnerships, to ensure volunteer training can occur across sports. This training will focus on issues such as child welfare, disability awareness, first aid, sports administration and governance and fundraising. The national governing bodies, NGBs, and local sports partnerships, LSPs, will be expected to work closely with clubs and Sport Ireland coaching in planning and delivering this training.

Disability inclusion training is provided for all staff and trainers involved in the various facilities at the National Sports Campus. The National Sports Campus runs inclusive summer camps every year and disability inclusion training is provided, particularly in advance of these camps in conjunction with Cara. In addition, the facilities at the National Sports Cam- pus, including the National Aquatic Centre, are fully accessible, as evidenced by the National Aquatic Centre very successfully hosting the World Para Swimming European Championships this summer, catering for hundreds of para-swimmers.

The provision of facilities in schools, including sports-related ones, is a matter for my colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills. However, the objective of a non-discriminatory approach in the provision of sports participation opportunities for those with and without a disability, whether in a school setting or otherwise, is entirely legitimate and the rectification of any deficiencies or shortcomings will be pursued.

On the preparation of a national sports facilities audit by mid-2020, which will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date database of sports facilities, it is envisaged that the audit will include publicly accessible facilities at schools and other educational facilities. Such audits will guide decisions regarding the sport capital projects to be prioritised for public funding.

Senator Gallagher referred to what occurred in Monaghan on Monday. I was in contact with the Minister for Business, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Humphreys, about the matter on the day in question. I saw it on the news and was shocked by it. We have made the details of the relevant person in the sports capital unit available as someone with whom to liaise. We will investigate if or how we could assist. We need to establish the full facts first, whether there may be insurance cover or other assistance is available. We are open to liaising and seeing how we can help with the situation. As a clubman myself, for that to happen to one’s dressing rooms and pitches is a really terrible thing for the club. My heart goes out to them because many volunteers have worked hard for a long time to build up a fine facility and it is a terrible pity that it happened. Hopefully, there will be a happy ending to the story but we need to establish the full facts and assess how serious is the situation. I hope I have addressed all of the issues raised by the Senators.

Senator Buttimer has left the Chamber but yesterday was indeed a fantastic day for sport in Ireland and for Cork. It was brilliant to see a football team in red winning a match in Páirc Uí Chaoimh. That is a typical comment from a Kerryman. Unfortunately, as Senator Buttimer is not here to defend the honour of Cork, I will not go any further.

I assure the House that the Minister, Deputy Ross, and I are fully committed to addressing inequalities in sports participation, particularly at a local level. These are challenges that need to be addressed, but I believe we are making good progress. The actions that are planned under the national sports policy will go a long way towards improving the situation and ensuring there 285 Seanad Éireann will be opportunities for everyone who wants to participate in sport.

I thank the Senators for this motion. I particularly thank Senator Conway for bringing it forward. My door is always open to work with Senators on the development of sports in general and for people with disabilities.

26/09/2018YY00200Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I thank the Minister of State. As always, he is very welcome to the Seanad.

26/09/2018YY00300Senator Martin Conway: In the context of housekeeping, I am very happy to agree to accept, on behalf of the Government, the amendments proposed by Senator Dolan. In fairness to Senator Dolan, he looks at a motion and tries to identify a way of improving it. Amendments from Senator Dolan are unusual in the sense that they are positive amendments whereas most amendments that happen in this House are usually negative. In that regard, it is always a pleasure to accept amendments from Senator Dolan, which are always aimed at enhancing motions.

The debate has been extremely useful. We have all learned something from it and it is great to get different perspectives from different Senators, different parties and different parts of the country, to hear what is happening at local level to ensure equality of access and participation. There are many stories all over the country of groups that are doing what we are striving to achieve here. They do it daily by ensuring facilities and participation in various games are available to people with disabilities. Senator Dolan was right that getting to facilities is as important as participating in them.

The Minister of State made clear commitments that participation, access to participation, equality of opportunity, inclusion training and awareness training for people working in sports facilities will now be a priority. Much good work has been done, particularly by the Minister of State’s officials and by elements in Sport Ireland, which I acknowledge. That work has laid the foundation. We have a motion from Seanad Éireann tonight in respect of which Members are in unanimous agreement. It will place access to sport for people with disabilities firmly on the political agenda. It is not a political football but it is absolutely a political issue because politics drives change in this country. Politics makes things happen for people. Politics changes society, reflects society and implements the changes that are needed to make society better. This is a political issue. It has now received the unanimous endorsement of Seanad Éireann, which is fantastic from the Minister of State’s perspective because, as he heads into the final elements of budget negotiations, he has our motion as part of his armoury and weaponry in negotiating with the officials from the Departments of Public Expenditure and Reform and Finance, and the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, and others. We are doing our bit to assist the Minister of State because there are many competing interests in our slowly developing economy. I am of the view that, as we move forward and resources become available, one could not spend taxpayers’ money in a better way than on sport for all.

The motion recognises what has been achieved through sport in the country. As was said by others, the GAA has proven what can be achieved through sport. I believe there will be equality and the feeling of equality in the hearts of people with various disabilities, from threatening and difficult disabilities to small disabilities that happen to make people uncomfortable. Being able to participate in and play sports with one’s peers in an equal way will empower people and give them confidence. It will give people with disabilities the belief they can follow their dreams in the academic world, the world of work, of employment, and of politics, praise the lord. If a person succeeds in sport, it will equip him or her to succeed in many other areas of life. In ad- 286 26 September 2018 dition, it is the right thing to do because everyone deserves an opportunity to be healthy, fit, eat well, be active, and to participate.

Ireland is a society which has evolved and developed as a community. We know our neigh- bours in this country, by and large. We know our parish and clubs. That is what knits us together and makes us unique and different. The only element in sport that is left to achieve is equality of access and participation and the whole issue of inclusion of people with disabilities. Going forward from tonight, we have started a new chapter of the political discussion of these issues. I look forward, in a number of years, to coming back to these Houses when we have achieved a huge amount and will be a beacon of hope and light for many other countries and groups. I thank all the Senators who contributed to this debate. I thank the Minister for his time and, more importantly, commitment to this issue.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

26/09/2018ZZ00400Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): When is it proposed to sit again?

26/09/2018ZZ00500Senator Martin Conway: Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.40 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 27 September 2018.

287