Vol. 199 Friday, No. 10 18 December 2009

DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD E´ IREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIU´ IL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Friday, 18 December 2009.

Business of Seanad ………………………………735 Order of Business …………………………………735 Houses of the Commission (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad Bill amended by the Da´il]: Report and Final Stages ………………………………750 Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill 2009: Motion for Earlier Signature … … 751 Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 [Seanad Bill amended by the Da´il]: Report and Final Stages 751 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Committee Stage … … … 756 Business of Seanad ………………………………769 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed) … 769 Business of Seanad ………………………………775 Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages ……………………………775 Motion for Earlier Signature……………………………781 Adjournment Matters: National Monuments ………………………………782 Garda Stations ………………………………784 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé hAoine, 18 Nollaig 2009. Friday, 18 December 2009.

————

Chuaigh an i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir. Prayer.

————

Business of Seanad. An Cathaoirleach: I have notice from Senator that, on the motion for the Adjournment of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Finance to outline the plan of works of the Office of Public Works for restoring and conserving Knockroe passage tomb, Tullahought, County Kilkenny.

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

The need for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to give an update on the future of Fitzgibbon Street Garda station and a guarantee that it will remain a fully oper- ational and resourced station.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and they will be taken at the conclusion of business.

Order of Business. Senator : The Order of Business is No. 1, Houses of the Oireachtas Com- mission (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] — Report Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 2, earlier signature motion on the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill 2009, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 1; No. 3, Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil] — Report Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2; No. 4, Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 — Committee and Remaining Stages, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 3; and No. 5, earlier signature motion on the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 4. There will be a sos from 1.30 p.m. to 2.30 p.m.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I welcome the Bishop of Kerry dissociating himself from the remarks made by the parish priest. In view of the isolation felt by the victim of the sexual assault, I welcome that statement. I reiterate my call for the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to examine what happened in the courthouse and the recent report of the Rape Crisis Network on the isolation of victims in sexual assault cases. Lessons have still to be learned and work remains to be done in this area. 735 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

[Senator Frances Fitzgerald.]

This is the last sitting of the House in 2009 and what a year it has been. The faith, trust and confidence of the people in key institutions — the banks, the church and the political system — have been shattered. The year began with the banks being bailed out at a cost of billions of euros and it is closing with the cruellest budget which will take money from the most vulnerable. Approximately \8 a week will be taken from carers and the blind, while child benefit will be slashed. It has been a year of huge contrasts and in the year ahead people will look for reform of our institutions. They will want to be inspired this is happening because they have lost faith, partic- ularly those on the dole who face a bleak new year. The challenge for us, as politicians, is to foster reform of our institutions in the year head in order that people will have faith in politics again. That means reform in how we do our business, how we deal with expenses, the number of sitting days and accountability. The Government parties must treat the Houses of the Oireachtas with respect and introduce appropriate legislation in a quick and timely manner. We must have discussion on the issues of the day in a timely manner. The cutting of allowances will be a bitter pill to swallow when the people see \6 billion or more going to Anglo Irish Bank, which is a reflection on the Government’s policy. I thank the Cathaoirleach for his work this year. I also thank the Clerk, the Clerk Assistant and all the staff in the Seanad, the Captain of the Guard, the Superintendent and the ushers who facilitate us in doing our work. In particular, I thank Mr. Jimmy Walsh of who reports on the work of the House. I would also like to remember the families of the late Senators and . I wish all Senators a happy Christmas and new year.

Senator : This is one of the few days in the year on which we do not call for an urgent debate on a particular topic. I remind Members, in the context of the criticism we have heard in the past year which may weaken our resolve, of what we can achieve in the House. We are listened to and have the power to influence issues. Yesterday a number of Members related a coherent expression of concern about the failure to open a road until after Christmas and the Minister listened. The road will open on Monday. During the year a number of Members expressed concern about the funding of Protestant schools. The Minister for Edu- cation and Science said yesterday he would reconsider the issue and thinks he will find a solution. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism addressed my concerns and those of Senator Ross about the number of restaurants that did not open on a Sunday because staff had to be paid double time. The Minister said yesterday that matter would have to be reconsidered. This is a reminder that we have power and can influence issues and that we do not only pass legislation. We can do things that are not always recognised. An issue was also raised yesterday about the leaving certificate applied and I hope the Minister for Education and Science will be influenced to do something about it shortly. I was concerned about the comments of two union leaders in the past few weeks. One union leader said we should shut up, while another said yesterday it was the unions’ policy to try to take out the Government. That is not democracy. Arthur Scargill made the same comments 20 years ago and decided to get involved in politics. However, he destroyed the coal industry. In this season of goodwill, I express my appreciation to the Cathaoirleach, the staff of the House, the ushers, the Captain of the Guard and all those who supported us during the year and thank them for their support. This is the 100th day on which we have met this year. I am not sure if this figure has been achieved previously, but it is a reminder that we have responsibility. I thank those who have helped us in the past year. We should use the next few weeks to revitalise ourselves to come back with enthusiasm and, more than anything else, confidence. If there is anything lacking in the country in the past year, 736 Order of 18 December 2009. Business it is confidence in ourselves. I am reminded of the quote: “Whether you believe you can or whether you believe you can’t, you’re right”. There is a danger that we are beginning to believe we cannot. Let us get back to saying, “Yes we can,” like Barack Obama. Let us make sure the next 12 months can prove that we can.

Senator Alex White: I very much hope we can, but it is not clear that we can. The coming year will tell a story. We have come to the end of a long and difficult year for many, although it was not as difficult for those of us who are privileged to have jobs and an opportunity to express our views in this Chamber and have them reported. We should remind ourselves from time to time that we live in a cocoon in the context of the struggles faced by many coming up to Christmas and the new year. We must be realistic about what we do in the House because we are dealing with people’s lives. We have debated the budget in the past few weeks and the debate is over, apart from one measure to be taken this afternoon and the finance Bill in the new year. I concede that there was no choice but to take action. However, there were choices about what action could be taken and the wrong ones were made by the Government. GDP and GNP statistics were published earlier. There is minor hope in GDP increasing by 0.3%, but most accept GNP is the more reliable measure of our prosperity and, unfortunately, it has reduced by 1.4%. We are still in a serious and protracted recession. The Tánaiste and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment referred to the Government’s strident economic and industrial policy. I cannot measure whether it is strident because I have difficulty identifying what is it. Perhaps in the new year we could usefully take the opportunity to dedicate ourselves to scrutinising in much more detail the policy proposals made. The has brought forward policy proposals on jobs and economic recovery. I invite my colleagues to see if we can find a way of laying out those policies and having them scrutinised, examined and critiqued by colleagues on the opposite side of the House so that we can ensure job creation and the recovery of the economy are the central political preoccupations of the House in the new year. Senator Fitzgerald is right to raise the issue of reforming how we do business in the House. We are blue in the face from raising it. This House has a very rigid set of procedures for debate. We do not really have open and free debate. Yesterday, we had Second Stage of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill. Much depends on when one gets to speak. If one speaks after someone one disagrees with, agrees with or wants to nuance, one has an opportunity to react to that person. The debate lasts two or three hours and it is very difficult to get to the heart of the issues in many debates. Yesterday, the appeared not to know about any proposals on Seanad reform being brought forward. He indicated he would have to check it out. I thought the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was bringing a memo to Cabinet prior to Christmas. That is what he stated he would do. Will the Leader confirm whether this has occurred? I join my colleagues in wishing a very happy Christmas to the Cathaoirleach, the Leader, my fellow party leaders and colleagues in the Seanad, the Clerk, the assistant clerks, the Captain and all of the staff who make our lives so much easier and the operation of our business more efficient. They are pleasant to deal with day to day. I also wish everybody an inspirational or an inspired new year.

Senator Dan Boyle: On the final matter raised by Senator Alex White, the memo has not been brought to Cabinet yet. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment did not attend the most recent Cabinet meeting; he is otherwise engaged in Copenhagen. I will make him aware of the Senator’s concerns. 737 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

[Senator Dan Boyle.]

The year 2009 has been very significant. As pointed out by previous speakers, the House sat more days and longer in those days and dealt with more legislation than it had previously. It is very important that during a time when our very purpose has been questioned by significant people in the political system we can say we have made achievements and that the House is a valuable part of our constitutional make-up. It is necessary, especially as we come to 2010 and the uncertainties that lie ahead of us, that we have that strength of purpose and confidence to which other speakers referred. We are beginning to see chinks of light at the end of the economic tunnel we have been in. We do not know how long that tunnel is or when we will eventually reach that light but there are turning points and collective action in our political system will bring us to where we need to be. God knows we have had to make very difficult decisions and we are living with the political consequences of them, but as a Government representative I believe them to be the right decisions and we will see how effective they are in the long term. I join in the wishes expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. I thank the Cathaoirleach, most of all for his forbearance. My contributions seem to be a magnet for some Members.

Senator : I think you enjoy it.

Senator Dan Boyle: I thank the Clerk, the Clerk Assistant, all members of the Seanad Office, the Captain of the Guard and all Members for what has been a very interesting year which will set us up for a more fascinating 2010.

Senator : As Senator Quinn mentioned, yesterday we discussed the pro- posed delay in the opening of the new section of the M9 between Carlow and Kilcullen that will bypass Castledermot. I welcome the fact that the Minister for Transport has withdrawn his objections to it. He has decided not to interfere in the workings of the NRA and the road will open on Monday. I hope in the new session we will have a general debate on justice matters. This side of the House has sought such a debate throughout this term but we have failed to get the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to come to the House to discuss the questions I and several other Members have asked to be discussed, such as conditions in prisons and over- crowding and that fear of the law and the Garda Síochána seems to be gone. There are quite a number of other pressing justice matters. I join in wishing the Cathaoirleach, the staff, the Leader, the Fianna Fáil Whip and all Members of the House a very happy Christmas. I hope we come back renewed with plenty of spirit. Some of us do not need more spirit but we will do the best we can to keep the show on the road and keep the Government accountable, as is our job.

Senator John Ellis: Like other Members, I wish the very best to the Cathaoirleach, the staff of the House, the Clerk, the Clerk’s assistants, the ushers, the Captain and the Superintendent. Having got the niceties out of the way, one thing was made very clear yesterday. As Senator Quinn mentioned, it appears our economy may at last have bottomed out and started to improve. If that is the case, we will have to examine how our resources will be spent in continu- ing the upturn that we hope commenced yesterday. This House will have to keep an eye on such matters in the new year. We have raised a number of issues in recent months that have not been dealt with. I know that in the new year the Leader will ensure we have a full debate on the flooding problems in which everybody will have time to make a contribution. Sometimes the seven or eight minute 738 Order of 18 December 2009. Business slots are too short for people to make their contribution. This can be worked out between the Whips and party leaders. I particularly wish Senator Buttimer a happy Christmas. He has been very useful as an electrode for many of us. If we go off line he will throw in a barb that will bring us to real life. While he might not think it, we all appreciate it because it brings banter and good humour. I know the Cathaoirleach has problems with it at times but we have to accept it.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Do not encourage him.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I look forward to the Senator’s vote at the next election.

An Cathaoirleach: Do not give anyone a swelled head.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I call for a debate in the new year on issues arising from the Listowel rape case and I add my voice to those expressing criticism and disgust at the behaviour of those who lined up outside the courtroom to shake hands with the perpetrator of the rape. We must all condemn the parish priest concerned, Father Seán Sheehy, who provided a character refer- ence in most inappropriate terms for the perpetrator. As Senator Fitzgerald stated, the case raises serious issues about the conduct of persons in the courtroom and the Courts Service has to respond. There is disagreement on who is responsible for a convicted offender who is in custody. Questions need to be answered on this. Unfortunately, 2009 has been a year of horrendous revelations about the incidence of sex abuse in Ireland. In that context I welcome yesterday’s resignation of Bishop Donal Murray. It was important that he resigned given the findings of the Murphy report that his behaviour was inexcusable. The further conviction of Father Naughton this week on sex 11 o’clock abuse charges reminds us that the inaction of those in authority in the church enabled abusers to continue to abuse in many locations over many years. Further resignations are important to ensure accountability for the inaction of those in authority in the church. It appears the Catholic Church has learned very little in respect of siding with the powerful against the victims of sex abuse and rape. I again call for a debate on the wider issue of the position of the Catholic Church and other churches in Irish society, and the need to look at our education system and remove church control from our national schools in particular. I would like a debate in the new year on an aspect of the budget that is causing immense concern in disadvantaged communities, which is the closure of the community development projects, 30 of which have been deemed non-viable. In the season of goodwill, we need to think about the effect those closures are likely to have on the most disadvantaged communities. Coming from an institution that has been declared as non-viable by certain people, we might have some sympathy for those community groups.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I echo Senator Bacik’s comments on the rape issue. I sometimes wonder if it is just women who raise it. It is very important that men raise it as well. There has been much more male involvement in the Rape Crisis Network. Rape is a heinous crime and we must recognise that. Senator Quinn made some valuable comments on leadership. I do not know if this is possible, but I suggest that the Taoiseach come before the House in the new year for a state of the nation debate, because it is very important that we start the new year in a very positive vein. I compliment Members on both sides of the House during yesterday’s debate on forestry. We outlined a new strategy which could lead to 10,000 new jobs and which represents a positive, indigenous way forward. 739 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

[Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin.]

Senator White spoke about Seanad reform and it is crucial that we look at this in the new year. I strongly disagree with the leader of the Opposition in the Lower House in respect of the abolition of the Seanad. In my first week, I have seen amazing contributions from people. The standard of debate here is enormously high and I wonder if it would be appropriate to get the leader of the Opposition in here to outline his views in the new year. It is important that he justify his comments.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He will be in here soon as Taoiseach.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: This House can play a very valuable role in the leadership required to bring this country out of recession. That is why I am here, and I am sure it is why every Senator is here. Every Senator from both sides of the House can play that role.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I thank the Leader of the House for his input in listening to Senators yesterday who called for the opening of the M9. I am glad that people are listening. The Minister for Transport obviously listened to the strong voices on that issue yesterday. The opening of the motorway is now going ahead on Monday. There has been confusion about the situation, which is a pity, but maybe we can learn lessons from it. It is opening for the overall good, and I urge the Leader and everybody here that we keep road safety at the top of our priorities in the Christmas period. It is something that we always need to talk about, and I welcome the opening of the M9 on Monday. It will contribute to road safety for those travelling from the south east to Dublin and back. Christmas provides an opportunity for all of us to take stock, and 2009 has been a particularly difficult year. We need to take stock of leadership and review our personal, political and pro- fessional roles, and this time of year also provides an opportunity for the Government to review its role. The Minister for Finance recently said that we have turned the corner. I hope we have done so, but the evidence to date is that unfortunately, we have not turned the corner. I listened to what Senator Quinn said, and we do need to be hopeful and confident as we turn into 2010, because it is a very important year for us. I suggest that jobs and hope are the themes for January 2010. We should inject a bit of confidence in our debates and in the messages we are sending out to the wider community. There is a role for the Seanad and for the Leader in how he runs this House. He can make it more relevant and allow the views of Senators to be heard on the Executive policy the Government implements on behalf of the people. Leadership extends beyond this. The unions need to take stock of what they have been saying quite recently. It is more important than ever that we have strong leadership, because we have been devoid of that over the past few years. When we look at the church, the banking sector and the Government, we find that leadership has been missing. My hope for the new year is that we see that leadership. I take the opportunity, a Chathaoirligh, to wish you and your family well for Christmas, as well as the Clerk, staff and all Senators.

Senator : I take the opportunity, a Chathaoirligh, to wish you and your office a happy Christmas, as well as the secretariat, the staff of Leinster House and my colleagues. This is a time of hope and it regenerates us at a difficult time of the year when winter sets in and we think of things higher and greater than the cold and the dark nights. All this reminds us that there is a symbolism to Christmas. This year, the European Court of Justice has taken a decision on the public display of religion. Whether it is a minaret in Switzerland or whatever, I have no objection. I cannot understand how people could object to a symbol of a God of love. We will have to debate this in the new year to let the European 740 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

Court of Justice clearly see that the vast majority of the people in this country, as in Italy, would prefer to see the status quo where people are allowed to express themselves in whatever format they wish when expressing respect for a God of love. In light of the fact that the banking crisis which could have brought down the economy was dealt with this year, and that the public finances have been put in an order that will see us through to 2015, the wisdom of this House should be used next year to look at the future. We should set aside time to see how jobs could be created. This has already started in the House with proposals brought forward on energy and export security. Other ideas might come from the House to ensure the final stage of our recovery, namely, job creation, begins in 2010.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: In welcoming the comments of Senator Ellis, I ask the Leader to bring the Taoiseach before the House in the new year. As we adjourn today, I disagree funda- mentally with Senator Quinn. People have no confidence. They have no hope. The one thing they are sure about is that they want a change of Government. That is on the way. Fianna Fáil had a great slogan in the 1980s which claimed “there is a better way”. There is a better way and a fairer way. The Taoiseach should come before the House to explain his role in getting us to where we are today. This Christmas is very similar to the one we had 2,000 years ago. People have no money, no jobs, and homes are being repossessed. That is the legacy for 2009 that Fianna Fáil and the Green Party have left the people. They have left us impoverished and lacking hope. We have put forward different views on this side. I would love to have Deputy Kenny in here, because he would provide a breath of fresh air that we have not seen from the Cabinet in the last two years. Senator Ó Brolcháin might then come over here and join Senator Cannon, who had the vision to do that.

An Cathaoirleach: Questions to the Leader, please.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He is a very welcome addition to us. I ask the Leader to bring in the Taoiseach and to call him to account for the role he and his party played in getting the people into a situation where they have less money, fewer jobs and no hope.

Senator Ivor Callely: Senator Quinn provided the quote: “Whether you believe you can or whether you believe you can’t, you’re right”. I believe that came from the Oval Office. Doom and gloom is a bit like a rocking chair. It keeps one going but gets one nowhere. We have to fight for success and the future is one of opportunity. Senator Quinn is right to say we have to go about that opportunity with a confidence about us. I hope all Senators will approach 2010 in that way. When I raised the issue of homelessness previously, I indicated that I had received confir- mation that there was a sufficient number of beds and that there was, therefore, no need for the homeless to sleep on the streets. I am pleased the national media in recent days have confirmed that is the position. Another issue arises with regard to people having a home. There is a large vacuum and void for vulnerable single people. I ask the Leader to ensure the House will have a focused debate on the supports, systems and places available for vulnerable single people. I congratulate my colleague, Senator Mary White, on the work she has done on the issue of suicide. We should have a debate on the alarming increase in the incidence of suicide. Will the Leader arrange a specific debate on the modus operandi of banks? I have heard of many individuals who took the tragic step of committing suicide as a result of the modus operandi of banks. In the good times the banks divvied up money and everyone was happy to become involved in partnership. They have now changed their position and want everything they pro- 741 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

[Senator Ivor Callely.] vided returned in full. They are not prepared to consider the current circumstances. This matter must be examined properly. My colleague, Senator MacSharry, has proposals we should consider. I will read a letter from a bank.

An Cathaoirleach: No, the Senator’s time has concluded. My hands are tied.

Senator Ivor Callely: It is highly amusing.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator may read the letter on another day.

Senator Ivor Callely: It reads: “Please contact us——

An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to respect the Chair and resume his seat. He spoke for almost three minutes.

Senator : While it is a hopeful sign that GDP increased by 0.3% in the third quarter, the real measure of national wealth and our standard of living is GNP which has declined by 1.4%. There is no question that we are not yet out of the woods. When we discuss the state of the public finances and the economy which is expected to contract by 7.5% this year, we must consider that throughout the year directors of companies involved in the various property disasters, bankers and bishops have been forced to resign. These individuals are taking responsibility for their actions or failure to act and otherwise. When will Ministers accept responsibility for the mess that has been created in the economy? When will we have resignations? I raised an issue related to the National Asset Management Agency in yesterday’s debate on the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill. The Minister for Finance stated in November that protracted debate by the Opposition would delay the intro- duction of NAMA. His political jibe was an attempt to accuse the Opposition of causing a delay in the legislation. The establishment of the National Asset Management Agency was first mooted in April and there was no movement for some time afterwards. The legislation was passed in the House rapidly. Yesterday I asked the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, when the scheme would be notified to the European Commission. As the Minister for Finance acknowledged last November, the Commission must approve the scheme. I received a vague answer from the Minister of State that there was no formal notification and that it would not correspond with the business plan. What is the reason for the delay in notifying the scheme to the European Commission?

An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Regan to conclude. Senators are not respecting the rules of the House.

Senator Eugene Regan: On the Minister’s admission, the scheme cannot take effect until it is approved. The delay is down to the Minister and the Government. I ask the Leader to explain.

Senator Mary M. White: I concur with Senator Ó Brolcháin that Members on both sides are talented and come to the House with their own expertise and professionalism. This has been obvious to me in my time in the House. My expertise and experience have been gained in the business sector. I started a company during the horrendous recession of the 1980s and was able to observe the physical, emotional and social transformation in the unemployed persons to whom I gave employment. 742 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

The economy will only recover if we focus on export oriented businesses which have the potential to generate revenue from abroad. I have raised this matter a number of times. Unless we sell goods and services to people from abroad who want to buy our products and unless tourists visit the country, we will not have revenue. I ask for a full blooded discussion with the Tánaiste who should spell out how she intends to develop and support the enterprise economy. While Ireland’s export figures appear to be good, most of the success is attributable to the multinational sector which exports worldwide. Indigenous companies mainly export to the United Kingdom and must, therefore, try to cope with the collapse in the value of sterling. The Government must support indigenous companies run by Irishmen and women who produce food and other goods and services in the fields of information technology, finance and so forth. These companies must be on the Government’s radar and it must not do anything to impede their growth, as has frequently been the case. As Senator Hanafin stated, unless the economy is based on export driven businesses and tourism, we will not survive because it will be otherwise unsustainable. If anybody believes there is light at the end of the tunnel, he or she is dreaming. We must have evidence that the enterprise sector is being supported.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Well said.

Senator Paul Coghlan: On the sexual assault case in my county which has featured promin- ently in news reports, I commend the Bishop of Kerry, Bill Murphy, on his fine statement and action. In fairness to him, he is not only a shepherd of his flock but a good servant of his people. It is fashionable to bash priests and bishops, but the Bishop of Kerry has been an outstanding servant to the people of the area. It should be noted that the priest who provided a character reference is not the parish priest of Castlegregory who is, unfortunately, ill but a retired priest who is relieving the parish priest. I understand there is a difference of opinion between the Courts Service and the Irish Prison Service. The latter is responsible for people in custody who are brought before the courts. Whatever took place in the courthouse in County Kerry this week, it clearly did not occur while the court was in session, as no judge would tolerate such behaviour in his or her court. The Irish Prison Service has stated a protocol is not in place or that it is not responsible for the protocols or conduct of people in a courthouse. The matter must be clarified. On the issue of looking for heads and the fashion of bashing the church, we have come through a bad period and no one condones any of the wrongs done. It is at least equally important that we get the heads of some of the people in positions of major responsibility in our banks. They do not deserve to be there. I look forward to the debates that have been called for. I concur with, and wish to be associated with, the remarks directed to the Cathaoirleach, the staff and everyone who looks after us so well.

Senator Camillus Glynn: In many respects, 2009 can be considered an annus horribilis.I referred to the devastating floods and the report on child abuse. I support colleagues who condemned the rape of that lady in Kerry. It was an outrageous act. I thought I would never see the day when someone who has committed a crime of that nature is defended by a cleric. It is so wrong.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: Hear, hear.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I commend the bishop on the stance he took, which showed badly needed leadership. We have had a tough time in the economy in 2009 in many respects. I do not like a develop- ment I referred to on 9 December, namely, that some people are demonising the public service. 743 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Glynn’s Minister, the Government and the Bill we are dis- cussing today are doing that.

An Cathaoirleach: People will be heading home early if they keep this up.

Senator Camillus Glynn: Will the Cathaoirleach get building bricks for that gentleman? The best of people are in the public service——

Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

Senator Camillus Glynn: ——and what is being said by leaders in the private sector and some commentators in this House is not healthy for the economy.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Glynn should vote against the Bill.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Buttimer to refrain from interrupting.

Senator Camillus Glynn: Senator Buttimer can have this envelope if it keeps him quiet. Senators have requested debates on many occasions and I would have been among those. I wish to add a request for a debate on the Irish language. It has been some time since we had one. I am very unhappy at the manner in which the HSE treats the Midland Regional Hospital in Mullingar. It is outrageous and wrong. Yesterday I requested that the Minister for Health and Children and Professor Drumm come to Mullingar. Both have agreed to come early in the new year and it is time the Minister for Health and Children was made aware of what is not happening, that should be happening, in Mullingar. It is going to stop.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is Senator Glynn’s Government.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I extend my Christmas wishes to everyone in the House and to everyone who helps the House run so well. I agree with what Senator Mary White said. Before we get to a smart economy, we must have a cheap economy. We need relentless focus from the Government on making this happen. We have not seen this action to date and it will be desperately needed in the new year. I add my voice to colleagues registering horror and disgust at the events that took place in the courthouse in Kerry and the subsequent statements made about the matter. I thought this year could not get any worse with regard to events of this kind but I was proven wrong. Many colleagues referred to the role of the Seanad and the role of Parliament next year. We have two great opportunities next year. The passage of the Lisbon treaty confers new powers and capabilities on the Houses of the Oireachtas that they have not had up to this point. Powers have been extended to the Parliament as opposed to just the Government. We could well use time next year to understand what these powers are and how this House, in particular, can make use of them. The hiatus in social partnership provides an opportunity for Parliament and Government to step in and deal with many of the issues it should have dealt with in the first place. At the beginning of this year we heard many calls for a national Government. I repeat that it is not national Government we need, it is rational Government. By strengthening the role of Parlia- ment in some of the ways suggested, this House can make a major contribution to that.

Senator Jim Walsh: I echo the sentiments expressed by Senators Boyle, Ó Brolcháin and Donohoe with regard to the Seanad. The Seanad has upped its game significantly in respect of the serious challenges the country faces. In general, the standard of debate, the quality of the 744 Order of 18 December 2009. Business suggestions and the constructiveness is quite good although there are exceptions. Given what we will face in 2010 it is important that we try to raise it by another notch or two. I do not really wish to comment on the court case in Kerry because I do not know a lot about the ins and outs of it, not having heard the evidence. I read what was reported in the newspaper and I heard the brother of the accused on the radio, which put a different perspec- tive on it.

Senator Alex White: There is a conviction; that is the only perspective on it.

Senator Jim Walsh: I understand the case is under appeal. What has been underlined is a significant issue with regard to the rights of victims. I compliment the consistency of Senator Cummins in debates on justice legislation and statements on justice in this House. We could examine in the new year the need to rebalance the system so that the rights of victims are much more in focus than they are at present in the judicial system. That also means ensuring we avoid miscarriages of justice for those accused of certain crimes. I join those who wish compliments of the season to the Cathaoirleach, the staff, other people working in the House and Members. Christmas is indeed a wonderful family time. Families throughout the country will celebrate the birth of Jesus with their children. This is an opportune day to call for a full and comprehensive debate on the right to life in the new year. We should deal with a number of recent Supreme Court cases regarding embryos. We may have different views on this but this is the House to debate it.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I wish my colleagues, both political and administrative, a very happy and peaceful Christmas. This country has a national attention deficit disorder in that we tend to flit from one issue to another depending on what is the news of the day. Once an issue disappears from the front pages of the broadsheet newspapers and the nine o’clock news, we tend to move onto the next big thing. This day week, as we sit down to Christmas lunch or dinner, depending on what part of the country one comes from, we should pause to reflect on the many families who will not be in their homes this Christmas because their homes are still flooded and uninhabitable. People will be staying in hotels or staying with friends and will try their best to celebrate what will be a traumatic Christmas. Early in the new year we must focus on the issue of flooding, both in solving the problem and ensuring it will not happen again but also putting in place a comprehensive compensation scheme that is not yet available to the vast majority of people.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I refer in particular to home owners and business owners who been unable to secure flooding insurance because of past flooding incidents. That issue has not been addressed in the Government response. I spoke to a businessman last night, to whom I had spoken on numerous occasions over the previous weeks, who is extremely distraught at the fact that his business is on its last legs. He believes he and many others will go out of business in January and February. We must address this issue forcefully in the new year. I support Senator Mary White in the majority of what she said. She has experience of begin- ning a successful business. Members tend to exist in a cocoon in the House and it is important that we maintain close contact with business people in small businesses throughout the country to gauge how well business is doing. The Senator made a reference to tourism. The Government’s only response to the tourism crisis in the past year has been to charge \10 extra to visit Ireland. It is an appalling and backwards move. Despite the advice of its own tourism review group, which reported a few 745 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

[Senator Ciaran Cannon.] weeks ago before the budget, and the Commission on Taxation, which also reported before the budget, to remove the tax, the Government decided to leave it in place. I ask Senator Mary White to approach her Ministers over Christmas to reconsider this issue. When airlines charge \5or\10 per fare and one is sitting Charleroi, Beauvais or Amsterdam, a \10 tax is a major factor in deciding which European country to visit.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Fitzgerald, Quinn, Alex White, Boyle, Cummins, Bacik, Ó Brolcháin, Coghlan, Glynn and Donohoe gave the House the benefit of their opinions regard- ing the Kerry court case. I agree with them concerning the rights and protection of victims and will pass on their strong opinions and requests to the Minister. It is a difficult time for everyone concerned. The law must be upheld. Senators Quinn, Cummins and Coffey welcomed the Minister for Transport’s announcement that the road to Castledermot, the N9, will open on Monday. There is never a wrong time to do the right thing, which is the case in this situation. I wish happy travels to everyone using the N9. The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy Cullen, will be proud this Christmas over the allocations he has received.

Senator Paudie Coffey: We will look after them.

Senator Donie Cassidy: All colleagues from the Waterford area are fortunate to have a Minister at the Cabinet table.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It was a handbrake turn. There was a real spin on it.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Is Senator Buttimer moving to Waterford?

Senator Paul Coghlan: He goes home that way from time to time.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It has been a real turn around.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Regarding the views of the Minister, Deputy Cullen, on double time in restaurants, we all know that 80% of restaurants are losing money. It is a terrible time for people in business. Small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, are going through a nightmare. Many of those currently in business do not want to wake up on 1 January and find that they are still in the same predicament. As Senator Mary White stated, the House has a duty to realise that most of the businesses in question would not exist if not for the fact that they are family businesses and a way of life. We are concerned by the difficulties being experienced by family businesses. Hand on heart, I have discussed this matter on an hourly basis with many friends and family who have provided significant amounts of employment during my lifetime. Never before have they experienced these difficulties. The first debate in the House should be with the Tánaiste.

Senator Mary M. White: Hear, hear.

Senator Donie Cassidy: We should have an all-day debate on 20 January to determine what the Government will do in the Finance Bill to help SMEs. We have a duty to ensure that all SMEs and family businesses are supported to keep the sector’s 880,000 people in work. I fear the number will drop by the end of March if the Government does nothing in the Finance Bill. I am speaking on behalf of people who are hanging on by their fingernails.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: Hear, hear. 746 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

Senator Donie Cassidy: I call on the banks to introduce an initiative in the first week of January to allow SMEs to continue employing those 880,000 people.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Donie Cassidy: If the banks decided in the morning to increase the trading figures on their interest accounts by even 1%, the businesses in question would need to close. The banks, Government and everyone else has benefited from the endeavours of entre- preneurs and family businesses, which gave us parts one and two of the . Whether one is a politician, banker or Minister, one has a duty to ensure entrepreneurs are supported. They do not believe that they are appreciated or that someone is speaking on their behalf. However, Seanad Éireann comprises captains of industry in Senators Quinn, Mary White and, to a lesser extent, myself. In the past tens of years, we have employed hundreds or, in Senator Quinn’s case, thousands of people. We know what we are talking about, but none of us has seen anything like this previously. Our debate will be held on 20 January, but I would have no difficulty in inviting the Taoiseach to the House to discuss the challenge facing the Government next year. It would be a timely invitation and I will endeavour to request the Taoiseach’s attendance on behalf of Senator Ó Brolcháin, who called for the debate. Senators Alex White, Boyle, Ó Brolcháin, Coffey, Hanafin, Mary White and Walsh referred to the challenge facing tourism. I have addressed the questions of jobs and competitiveness, but I have also given a commitment to the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator Burke, who has been calling for a debate on tourism for the past number of weeks. Given the amount of legislation that passed through the House in the past three or four weeks, however, holding the debate was impossible. It will be held during the early weeks of our return. We have all made submissions regarding Seanad reform and are awaiting the Minister’s consideration. He made a commitment to try to table the Bill for our consideration before Christmas, but events overtook the Government. During 2009, the Lisbon referendum took up much time, but was passed with the help of all colleagues. The NAMA challenge faced by the Government has passed. We will debate the up-to-date NAMA situation at the end of February. The budget was the greatest challenge faced by a Government in many years, per- haps since the 1984-87 Government. Today’s business will finalise it. This year also saw untimely floods. As the old saying goes, when it rains, it pours. In terms of ordering the business of the House, as Senators Cannon and Ellis requested, I will not let the challenge facing the Government in this regard fall off the agenda. We must determine how to meet the challenge and whether there is a long-term plan to address the difficulties being experienced by the people of Cork and the Shannon catchment area. The challenge is considerable and expensive. We should ensure the matter is raised at EU level at the earliest possible opportunity. The stewardship of the late Seán Doherty, a former Deputy and Cathaoir- leach, encompassed three previous reports on this subject. I will allow time to debate the matter further during the early weeks of our return. I agree with Senator Quinn on the issue of confidence. Confidence is a creature of those who have been entrepreneurs and those who work on the challenge of creating something, as they have always done throughout their lives. If credit is available, there will be confidence in abundance. It is the duty of the banks and the Government to ensure credit flows to SMEs, as it will result in a huge amount of confidence. Confidence is being knocked out of everyone, whether it be through the media or the functions of the Opposition, although it is its duty to try to tease out the issues involved. However, all of this is chipping away at the fibre of those who create — the 4% who are paying 50% of tax revenue. They are the champions who will 747 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

[Senator Donie Cassidy.] get us out of this. If they are given the tools of their ware, they will get us out of the downturn in the economy. However, everyone has to play a part, whether it be the Government or the banks. Senator Cummins called for a debate on justice matters, including the prisons and supporting gardaí. I will have no difficulty in providing time for such a debate. Senators Bacik and Hanafin expressed their views on matters pertaining to the church and the huge contribution the Catholic Church has made in Ireland which the vast majority would like to see continue. I will provide time to allow this issue to be debated in the House. Senator Callely called on the Government and the relevant agencies to look after the vulner- able in society, in particular vulnerable single people, particularly during this Christmas period. It is a difficult and challenging time for all those who are down on their luck, particularly single people, who are at high risk at this time of year. The Senator also called for a debate on the banks, particularly on the challenges faced by those unfortunate people who consider commit- ting suicide at this time when the challenges are enormous. The Senator pointed to the prob- lems encountered with mortgages. Senator Regan referred to GDP, GNP and the challenges facing NAMA. We all know we are where we are today because of the global downturn. All fair-minded people would have to say that, until the United States economy begins to pick up——

A Senator: The Government had a good hand in it.

Senator Done Cassidy: ——many of the western economies will not pick up.

Senator Paul Coghlan: It was caused by the banks and their greed.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Bring back Bertie. Is that it?

An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I will give the House the benefit of my experience. I believe the western world was fortunate when Barack Obama became President of the United States of America. We are all expecting that he will bear fruit for all countries, but Ireland, in particular. I look forward to the day when he will be in County Offaly with the Taoiseach and the Cathaoirleach — three great Offaly men — which will happen during the lifetime of the Government.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Ring the bell again, Cathaoirleach. We have moved into fairyland.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I hope they will have their crock of gold.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: There is no sign of it at the moment.

Senator Donie Cassidy: It was a proud day for this House when the Cathaoirleach rep- resented it so ably and well in the White House on St. Patrick’s Day. Senator Glynn complimented members of the public service on all their hard work and endeavours. I certainly want to join him in that regard. There will be a debate on the Irish language. We normally have it in the week before Christmas, but with so much legislation to be taken this week, it just was not possible to arrange it. However, we will have it in the early weeks following our return. 748 Order of 18 December 2009. Business

I share the views of the Senator on the HSE and Mullingar hospital. It has a budget of \63 million for this year and employs 777 people, making it a huge employer in the town. It provides a wonderful service for the people of Longford and Westmeath. It is No. 1 in the country when it comes to performance and efficiency and No. 2 when it comes to hygiene. It is a shining example and a credit to the HSE. However, the HSE must live up to its obligations and we, as Oireachtas representatives, must ensure this takes place. I, therefore, fully support the Senator’s call for a debate on the HSE.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Government will not give the money for it.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: The Leader will have to talk to Deputy Healy-Rae about the matter. He seems to make the decisions on health matters.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Jackie is not around there.

An Cathaoirleach: We have gone over time. There should be no interruptions.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I understand many colleagues in the House would love to have a hospital of its calibre in their areas. We are fortunate. Senator Donohoe called for a debate on the benefits of passing the Lisbon treaty which confers new powers on both Houses. This call is timely and I will have no difficulty in allocating time for such a debate. Senator Walsh called for a debate on the right to life. Particularly at Christmas time and in the light of the birth of our Saviour, this call is timely. I have already agreed with Senator Cannon that we will have a debate on tourism. I wish the Cathaoirleach, his wife and family a happy and holy Christmas. I wish the same for the Leas-Chathaoirleach, Senator . I thank both of them for the way they have conducted the affairs of the House. Under their stewardship, we are certainly in safe hands. I thank the Clerk, Ms Deirdre Lane, and the Clerk Assistant, Ms Jody Blake, for their kindness and courtesy. I also thank their staff for looking after us on an hour-to-hour and day- to-day basis. I offer my best wishes to the Captain of the Guard, Mr. John Flaherty, and the kind and friendly ushers who look after us so ably and well under his stewardship. I also offer my best wishes to the Superintendent, Mr. Paul Conway, and everyone else who looks after the security of the House; to the media and those in the communications centre who record the events of the House; to the stenographers who look after us and, of course, the sound engineers who always capably switch on the red lights when we speak; to Mr. Jimmy Walsh who relates our affairs in The Irish Times; and to all our friends on “Oireachtas Report” at RTE who let the people know about the great work that takes place and the high standard of debate in the Oireachtas. I thank the leaders of the groups for their kindness, courtesy, understanding and assistance in taking the very many difficult decisions we had to take. I also thank them for accommodating the long sittings in the House. I thank the Government Whip, Senator Wilson, and the Deputy Government Whip, Senator Glynn, for their efforts. I thank Senator Cummins of , Senator Quinn on behalf of the Independents and the Labour Party for all their assistance. I personally thank the Deputy Leader who helped me so ably and well and is the backbone in all of the dealings in the House. He also takes the Order of Business from time to time.

Senator Paddy Burke: He is turning green. 749 Houses of the Oireachtas Commission 18 December 2009. (Amendment) Bill 2009

Senator Donie Cassidy: I congratulate him on achieving a figure of 84% in the renewal of the Government’s policy for the next two and a half years.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is taxing the people more.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I do not believe the Labour Party, Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael could have achieved it, but the Green Party did. It is a remarkable achievement, to say the least.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Keep it close.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It shows the poverty of its ambition.

An Cathaoirleach: Order, please.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I join Senator Fitzgerald in remembering the families of the late Senators Tony Kett and Peter Callanan, two great colleagues who were with us this time 12 months ago and for many Christmases before that. We remember them in our prayers, partic- ularly at this time.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I welcome two new colleagues, Senators Carroll and Ó Brolcháin. I wish all Members a happy and holy Christmas. I look forward to working with all of them in the new year.

An Cathaoirleach: As this is our last sitting day before Christmas, I take the opportunity to express my thanks to the staff of the Seanad Office, particularly Ms Deirdre Lane and Ms Jody Blake and, of course, Ms Aisling Hart who keeps me on the straight and narrow. I also offer thanks to the Superintendent, the Captain of the Guard and to all the ushers, reporters and broadcasting staff for the long hours of dedication they have given, and to all staff who have ensured the smooth running of the House in the last year. I would also like to remember two former colleagues, Senators Tony Kett and Peter Callanan, at this time. I wish all Members a very happy, holy and safe Christmas and a happy new year.

Senator Donie Cassidy: It was remiss of me not mention the staff in the Government Whip’s office and the staff in my office. I wish them a happy Christmas.

Order of Business agreed to.

Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill 2009 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 113, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question “That the Bill be received for final consideration”, the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For Senators’ convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage.

Question proposed: “That the Bill be received for final consideration.” 750 Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 18 December 2009. 2009: Report and Final Stages

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): The Bill was subject to a minor technical amendment in the course of its passage through the Dáil. The amendment was necessary to take account of the fact the Official Languages Act 2003 was passed in both Irish and English. The Act was mentioned in the Schedule as it contains a reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas which must now be changed to the Houses of the Oireachtas Service. Under the Bill as presented, however, only the English text of the Official Languages Act would have been altered. This would have brought about an unintended differ- ence between the English and Irish texts of the Act and the amendment rectified this by amending both the English and Irish texts. The amendment raises no substantive issues in relation to the Bill as previously passed by this House and I commend the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I examined the Bill and did not quite understand the need for this so the Minister of State explained it well. In the Constitution if there is a doubt about the meaning of words, the Irish language takes precedence. When I was still in my 20s, I ended up in the Supreme Court with a case against me to do with the word “discrimination”. I argued the law being used against me had used the word “discrimination” and the State argued that “discriminate” could only mean “discriminate against” and not “discriminate in favour of”. It turned out the word used in Irish was “idirdhealú”, to distinguish between rather than discriminate against, and as a result we won the case four to one. I mention that because I have always been interested that the first official language is Irish and its meaning determines the force of a word. I understand the need for the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Question, “That the Bill do now pass.”, put and agreed to.

Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill 2009: Motion for Earlier Signature. Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That, pursuant to subsection 2° of section 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution, Seanad Éireann concurs with the Government in a request to the President to sign the Houses of the Oireachtas Commission (Amendment) Bill 2009 on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to her.

Question put and agreed to.

Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 [Seanad Bill Amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: This is a Seanad Bill which has been amended by the Dáil. In accordance with Standing Order 113, it is deemed to have passed its First, Second and Third Stages in the Seanad and is placed on the Order Paper for Report Stage. On the question “That the Bill be received for final consideration”, the Minister may explain the purpose of the amendments made by the Dáil. This is looked upon as the report of the Dáil amendments to the Seanad. The only matters, therefore, which may be discussed are the amendments made by the Dáil. For Senators’ convenience, I have arranged for the printing and circulation of the amendments. Senators may speak only once on Report Stage. 751 Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 18 December 2009. 2009: Report and Final Stages

Question proposed: “That the Bill be received for final consideration.”

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Billy Kelleher): I am very pleased to be returning to this House with the Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, as amended by the Dáil. The Dáil amendments to this Bill are grouped into three thematic areas. Of the nine amend- ments made by the Dáil, six arise from the introduction of a new mechanism introduced to meet a recently identified business opportunity. This mechanism will allow collective invest- ment funds, that are constituted as bodies corporate, to migrate their head offices into and out of Ireland without first having to wind up in their current jurisdictions. The amendments rela- tive to this theme are Nos. 1, 2 and 6 to 9, inclusive. As Senators will have observed, this first group of amendments is lengthy and results in over 12 pages of text being inserted into the Bill that the Seanad passed last month. I did not take the decision to propose such a long addition to the Bill lightly. However, as my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Conor Lenihan, remarked during the Second Stage debate on this Bill on 19 November, company law must respond dynamically and flexibly to opportunities and challenges arising from changes in our operating environment. The mechanism introduced in this group of amendments is evidence of such responsiveness. It is this Government’s response to a business opportunity that was brought to our attention recently by representatives of the Irish collective investment funds industry. The industry asserted that there is currently a short-term window of opportunity for Ireland to attract invest- ment funds business from third countries if we amended our laws in the way provided for in these amendments. The funds entities in question are seeking to relocate to well regulated jurisdictions. This would respond to investor concerns arising from the recent financial turmoil. The mechanism described in these amendments is the result of further consultations which were immediately undertaken with the industry representatives, the Financial Regulator and the Companies Registration Office. The mechanism has appropriate safeguards in place to protect Ireland’s reputation as a well regulated fund management centre and the new mechanism is being restric- ted to funds whose activities will be or are regulated by the Financial Regulator. In addition to meeting the short term window of opportunity identified by the funds industry I should, however, add that this mechanism will also have long term application and will add to the overall funds regulatory regime available in the State. On the specific issues contained in each amendment within this group, amendment No. 7 is the substantive amendment and outlines in detail the mechanism which will apply to inward and outward migrating collective investment funds entities. It does this by amending section 3 and thereby inserting three new sections into the Companies Act 1990. The new 12 o’clock section 256F describes in detail the arrangements that will apply to inward migrat- ing funds, while the new section 256G outlines the situation for outward migrating funds. The third new section 256H outlines further requirements relating to statutory declar- ations touching on solvency that must be made by directors of both inward and outward migrat- ing funds. Amendment No. 8 cross-applies this migratory mechanism to the UCITS regulations. This is being done on the basis that UCITS fund companies are also regulated by the Financial Regulator. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential on the two amendments I have just described. Amendment No. 6 is an amendment to the punctuation in the existing text of the Bill to facilitate the insertion of the new sections. Amendment No. 9 has the effect of providing that the funds migrating mechanisms will come into operation when commence- 752 Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 18 December 2009. 2009: Report and Final Stages ment dates have been ordered by the Minister, while amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are adjustments to the Long Title of the Bill that are necessary to allow the migrating mechanism be cross- applied to UCITS constituted as companies.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I welcome the amendments. A number of my college friends work in financial institutions and fund management companies in London and they brought to my attention the window of opportunity for Ireland, especially in light of the taxation changes announced in the recent UK budget. Many leading financial institutions operating in the City of London are actively looking at three or four other possible locations for their activities. I know that Dublin is being actively considered. I assume these amendments are part of making Dublin a more attractive investment proposition for some of those institutions. For that reason I am glad the Government has introduced these amendments and I fully support them.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I add my words to those of Senator John Paul Phelan. There are dangers in Ireland responding too quickly to a need in case it damages our reputation. The steps taken by the Government are attractive but well balanced. It is important from the point of view of the international financial organisations that we do not damage in any way the good name we have established over the years. Other countries have risked their good name but I note the opportunities in the financial services area for large employers to come to Ireland. They will not come if there is a danger of our reputation being damaged. The balance achieved by the Minister of State is worthy of support.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I welcome the Minister of State back to the House to deal with this Bill which started its life in this House. I have consulted my colleague, Deputy Penrose, on the matters discussed yesterday. We do not have any issues with these provisions. I wish the Bill well and hope it is successful in dealing with the issues.

Senator Ivor Callely: I welcome my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Billy Kelleher, and his departmental officials to the House. Like other speakers, I congratulate the Minister of State for these amendments. The mechanism being proposed will allow collective investment funds and will put in place the appropriate mechanism to accommodate business opportunities. This is the type of work people want to see Members doing in this House — being proactive and ensuring the appropriate mechanisms are in place to encourage investment opportunities in Ireland.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: I thank Senators for their support of these amendments. In answer to Senators John Paul Phelan, Feargal Quinn, Brendan Ryan and Ivor Callely, international reputation is critical. There has been financial turmoil in the international markets for some time and some countries have suffered reputational damage. I say this everywhere I go and particularly in the Houses of the Oireachtas when speaking on this Bill. Ireland’s reputation in the context of funds management administration and the financial services centre in general did not suffer reputational damage because there is good governance, oversight and regulation and this is critical. This group of amendments will facilitate fund managers to consider Ireland because of its strong reputation and allow them to migrate funds into Ireland. If a fund wishes to migrate to Ireland, it can also decide to move out. There must be this quid pro quo and balance in place. We are confident that when investment funds are on the lookout for well- regulated locations, Ireland will be seen as a key location because it is competitive and well regulated. Ireland is also situated within Greenwich Mean Time, which is critical, and is English speaking. Ireland can be seen as a link between the EU and the USA and is recognised inter- nationally. We should be very proud of the Irish Financial Services Centre and its inter- national reputation. 753 Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 18 December 2009. 2009: Report and Final Stages

[Deputy Billy Kelleher.]

The Central Bank and the Financial Regulator, the Companies Registration Office and the Revenue Commissioners were involved in the discussions. We took advice from the key organ- isations. I assure Senators that these amendments will only enhance what is already a very positive industry in Ireland.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Group 2 deals with a true and fair view of profit and loss accounts, the subject matter of amendments Nos. 3 and 4.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: The second area where amendments were made in the Dáil is for convenience referred to as the US GAAP part of the Bill. Two related amendments to this proposal were made on Committee Stage in the Dáil. These are contained in amendments Nos. 3 and 4 and refer to sections 1(3) and 2(2),respectively. Section 1 provides for the use of US GAAP by relevant parent undertakings while section 2 provides for the Minister to make regulations to designate for the use of specified categories of parent undertakings other inter- nationally recognised standards. The latter situation would only arise where a justifiable case was made for this. The text of both amendments are identical and in neither case is the meaning of the provision as originally drafted changed. The revised text has the effect of expressing more clearly than the original text that a true and fair view may be obtained both of the profit and loss accounts of the individual and group accounts through the use of the US GAAP provision at section 1(3) and by the use of the international accounting standards specified at section 2(2). This will add to the clarity of the text originally proposed, even though I am not sure if this speech has added to the clarity of the debate. I have tried my best.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Group 3 deals with publishing information and purchase of own shares and is the subject matter of amendment No. 5.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: The final area where amendments were made by the Dáil related to the recognition for certain purposes of stock exchanges outside the State. Amendment No. 5 provides for the amendment of section 226A of the Companies Act 1990 which is being inserted by paragraph (g) of section 3 of this Bill. Section 226A outlines the information that is required to be published on the company website following the purchase by a company of its own shares on a recognised stock exchange outside the State. As companies may make many purchases of own shares on a single day at different prices, this amendment will ensure the information provided on the company website is focused and avoids an unnecessary administrative burden on companies. The requirement to publish the price of shares purchased is being expanded to include an alternative option, which is that companies will be required to publish the highest and the lowest prices paid only. The require- ment to publish the time of each purchase is being removed to avoid the necessity for a lengthy list of times. Only the date of the purchase will be required. This amendment is to simplify arrangements. Some companies may buy their own shares from time to time, for instance, if there is a cash surplus. The purpose of the amendment is to provide clarity with regard to the publication of the purchases of shares. The highest and lowest share price must be published along with the date of purchase. The previous proposal was that they would have to outline the time but several transactions of shares at various prices and various times could be made in the one day. The lowest price and the highest price of the share transaction must be published on the day of the purchase, as opposed to the time of the purchase. 754 Companies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 18 December 2009. 2009: Report and Final Stages

Senator Feargal Quinn: I indicated that I wanted to speak because I understand the challenge faced by the Minister of State in this respect. When this legislation was proposed I wondered how he would sort it out. As he has explained it so well, I do not need to touch on it. The highest price and the lower price of shares must be published on the date of purchase. If there were a number of purchases of a share on a day, the list of prices of that sharewould make it almost incomprehensible to read, but what is proposed, as the Minister of State has explained, is suitable and acceptable to the market.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment (Deputy Billy Kelleher): I wish the Leas-Chathaoirleach a happy Christmas. I thank the Senators for their co-operation on the passage of this Bill. This debate and the debate on earlier Stages here and in the Dáil were positive. I am delighted there is broad consensual support for the Bill. It sends out a message of Ireland’s standing in this respect, namely, that there were no divisions in the House in the process of ensuring that we have good regulation and oversight in the context of the funds industry, US GAAP and allowing companies to use those accounting principles as opposed to the Irish GAAP in the short term. That was critically important. I thank Senators and wish them all a happy Christmas. I also extend those wishes to the staff and my officials, who have been working on the text of this Bill day and night during the past few weeks.

Senator Ivor Callely: I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, and his officials who have been more than helpful to us during the debate on the passage of this and other Bills initiated in his Department during the year. I join my colleagues in wishing the Minister of State, his Department officials and everybody a very happy, holy and peaceful Christmas. I did not have an opportunity to do so earlier, but as other Senators did, I would like to convey such seasonal and festive good wishes to all of my colleagues and all the staff associated with the House.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I was going to say, “and so say all of us”. I thank the Minister of State for his assistance. As I did not speak on the Order of Business, I want to wish everybody a happy Christmas. I hope the measure that has been introduced will ensure that 2010 will be a better year than 2009.

Senator Ivor Callely: Hear, hear.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I had an opportunity to speak on the Order of Business and wished everybody a happy Christmas but I have not yet wished the Minister of State, Deputy Kelleher, a former Senator before he was demoted to the Lower House, a happy Christmas. I thank him and his team. This is an intricate Bill and progressing it must have taken a great deal of deep thinking. I congratulate him and his team on getting it through.

Senator Brendan Ryan: I wish to add my good wishes to those uttered by the previous Senators. I wish the Minister of State well with the Bill and I thank his Department officials for the work they put into it. When it was introduced here it was a short Bill, but following the addressing of issues that emerged during its passage through both House, it is now a much longer Bill. I wish the Minister of State every success with it. I wish the staff, colleagues and everybody the best for Christmas and the New Year. 755 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I wish the Minister of State and his staff, the Cathaoirleach, all Members, the Whips and the staff a happy Christmas.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Committee Stage. An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, back again to the House. He is probably the Minister who has most often visited this House.

SECTION 1. Amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, not moved. Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2. Amendments Nos. 7 to 12, inclusive, not moved.

Senator Liam Twomey: I move amendment No. 13:

In page 6, after line 47, to insert the following:

“(8) The Minister may, by order, decrease the scale of the reduction under this section, in whole or in part, in the event of demonstrable improvements in the efficiency of delivery of individual areas of the public service.”.

One of the issues that emerged during the debate on Second Stage was the relationship between the Government and the public sector unions. There has been a breakdown in the trust between the two sides during the partnership talks. There is still a need to proceed with the introduction of the proposed massive efficiencies that were under discussion between the trade unions and the Government because I do not know what other alternative the Government will have this time next year unless we manage to introduce changes in terms of the way people in the public sector work. This process had been practically agreed between the Secretaries General of the relevant Departments and the trade union leadership before the talks collapsed prematurely. There is a need to introduce a mechanism to give the public sector some confidence that this is not just about purely straightforward cuts for the next few years. We need to instill confidence that we are examining the continued modernisation and possible acceleration of the public sector which will bring benefits to our citizens. Given the current financial crisis, I cannot see how the Government will have any choice next year other than to introduce another round of cuts in the salaries of public and civil servants. When we consider the financial crisis and the fact that GDP is still retracting, we can see that, regardless of the good news we hear in the media today, it will not be enough to stop these massive changes next year.

Senator Ivor Callely: It is with interest that I note the Senator’s amendment and comments. His reference to cuts and more cuts perhaps demonstrates his vision. If that is how he would go about his business, it may be that that is the only avenue he believes is available to him. A quite simple point that could be made in return is that we should perhaps consider how we do our business and whether we can achieve savings through simple improvements and efficiencies. Last week my vehicle tax disc was due for renewal. In years gone by one would have gone to the motor taxation office and queued all day with a large crowd of people — I presume Members remember this. One would have received a number and sat and waited and then been sent from one counter to another and, eventually, two or three hours later, one would have come out with a new tax disc but perhaps also to a parking ticket. Last week, however, I 756 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 went on-line and the next day received my tax disc in the post. That is efficiency and an increase in productivity. That is what people now expect. Rather than cuts or great alterations, we need to see more slight improvements in the way we do business in our modern country. I hope the Minister and his colleagues will be able to achieve such reform throughout the public sector and I wish them well in doing so. I commend those members of the public service who have participated in change and achieved such success. They have not taken an Arthur Scargill-type stance of refusing to budge. Let us all be proactive. The feedback I am receiving from staff in the public sector and their representatives is that they do not want to get involved in a militant, argumentative stand-off. We all want to see progress and the country turn around. I wish those involved in the process every success in encouraging people to take steps similar to the example I described in respect of car tax.

Senator Alex White: Mr. Scargill would be surprised if he knew about the number of men- tions he has received in this Chamber since his short, perhaps innocent trip to Ireland a few weeks ago. A day never passes on which he is not mentioned or invoked in some way in order to illustrate points being made. A Leas-Chathaoirligh, am I too late to move the amendment listed with this one, amendment No. 8?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 were grouped to be discussed together, but we are discussing them individually, which is why this discussion is taking place. We have gone past the stage at which the Senator could have moved amendment No. 8, but he can speak to it, I presume.

Senator Alex White: On the principle underlying Senator Twomey’s amendment, amendment No. 13, which provides for the possibility of reversing the pay cuts in the event of what are described as demonstrable improvements in efficiency occur in areas of the public service, I can understand where the Senator is coming from, but I am not sure whether it can be achieved through the amendment he has tabled. However, this demonstrates the importance of revisiting, even briefly, the reason we are here and why the unilateral pay cut was imposed through this legislation by the Government after a period of apparent progress in the negotiations with the public service unions. The Minister of State, Deputy Mansergh, outlined what had occurred in his response to the Second Stage debate yesterday. There have been various other comments in this regard in the newspapers and the trade unions have set out to some extent how they interpret what happened. The important point, in the context of the complex issues associated with public service reform which was touched on by Senator Callely, is whether we would prefer, as a country, to introduce these undoubtedly necessary changes by way of discussion and agreement or believe they can be conjured up in some way simply because people wish them to happen. Time and again, Members and people elsewhere have made the not unreasonable point that if the trade unions can list things they were prepared to give with regard to public service reform, why can they not just implement them? As I tried to point out yesterday, we must live in the real world. Changes in work practices — for example, the time at which an employee arrives at work, the possibility of transfer to other agencies or different parts of the city or country, or his or her preparedness to retrain, all of which are reasonable and progressive for any employee — involve changes in the way a person works day by day and we cannot make somebody co- operate. Life is not like that. One cannot issue an edict saying workers shall co-operate with a new set of work practices. Of course, going back to Mr. Scargill’s time, one could do what the UK National Coal Board and other employers did, which was to say that if employees did not change their work practices 757 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Alex White.] by a particular date, they would be closed down. Such a jackboot approach can be taken in some areas of the private sector. However, in the public sector which we all agree is and should be a progressive employer that is not how things should be done. It is not even a way by which things can be achieved. One cannot obtain people’s co-operation and support in this way. Employees would not have confidence in their jobs and a sense of having a stake in the service they are providing so well — in every instance of which I am aware — for the public, if they were told things were to be changed by edict. At a basic level one must have co-operation and the best way to achieve it is through the workers’ elected representatives in the trade unions. There is no question about this. Senator Callely is right when he states people do not want to engage in industrial action. I went on strike when I was a trade union member and have met many people who have been involved in strikes and trade unions and I have never met anyone who wanted to go on strike. I did meet people who, once they were on strike, found it very hard to come off because of the agreement being proposed or similar concerns. The dynamic changes once a strike starts. However, nobody wants to go on strike. People talk about trade union leaders whipping up anger among their members, but that is not what is happening. The tragedy of what happened two weeks ago is that the leadership of the trade union movement, whom some here are so quick to slag off, are actually the people on whom we depend, with their leadership skills and qualities, in order to make progress on these issues. People can criticise them all they want if it makes them feel better, whether in the House or anywhere else, but, to paraphrase Fergus Finlay’s quote about the peace process, talks are not worth a penny candle unless the people who actually matter are at the table. Nothing has ever been achieved in negotiations with a group of people sitting on one side of the table and nobody sitting on the other side, or people sitting on the other side who do not have the confidence of their members and are not credible leaders. The rug was pulled from underneath the recent talks and this has resulted in major fall-out. It cannot now be predicted what will happen with regard to future talks and, by extension, reform in the public service. When I make this point, people assume I am saying the unions should have a veto and stop all progress. However, I am not saying that and do not agree that should be the case. My party leader made the point that if the Labour Party were in govern- ment, it would not be a trade union Government. Trade unions have specific roles and responsibilities and do not determine the law of the land. That is absolutely not the case. They do not do so, nor would I ever advocate that they should but there is a vital role for trade unions in our society, in the workplace and, nationally, in the context of the public service. I do not know how the Government will seek to persuade, or can reasonably expect, the trade unions to return to the negotiating table on these vital issues. I hope those talks resume, just in case anybody doubts my bona fides. However, it will take some effort on the part of the Government and, I regret to say, an awful lot more than simply the supporters of the Govern- ment in this House and elsewhere saying the unions have a moral responsibility to go back to the table to do their duty. That will not wash this time. Something more will have to be done and leadership will have to be shown in that regard. If I had the opportunity to speak on amendment No. 8, which I——

An Cathaoirleach: We are on amendment No. 13.

Senator Alex White: The issues in amendment No. 8 are similar. They reflect the point that it is unquestionably preferable that where agreement can be reached in regard to these issues, it should be sought, pursued and obtained, whether in the workplace or nationally. I have heard a viewpoint, although not necessarily in this Chamber, that it is better for the unions to be seen to be beaten. That is a point which lurks around the debate. People never quite say but that is 758 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 what they mean, that is, that if one can land a defeat on the trade union movement, that constitutes an achievement. Does it mean these faceless bond market people will pick up the Financial Times and read the trade unions are being smashed in Ireland? Is that it? What sort of view would seek to sustain that suggestion that not only should we take the unions down a peg or two but that we should visit a historic defeat on them? I am tempted to refer to Mr. Scargill but I will not. Senator Twomey’s amendment is important and raises the many issues that lie at the heart of what happened a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure this is the way to resolve it but it is important we have an opportunity to touch on this issue again by debating it.

Senator Liam Twomey: Senator Callely may have misunderstood some of what I said. If one has people working for one or if one works with people, one must negotiate with them, regard- less of what one may think of their points of view. A position must be reached. As it stands, Government policy in dealing with this issue is purely to make cuts. All negotiations between public sector unions and the Government are off. That has been stated mainly by the union side but it is quite clear from the Government side as well. There is no doubt cuts were necessary but there is a long-term problem here. This budget has not solved the problem and it will continue for the foreseeable future. Some form of negotiation must be entered into. We must continue the modernisation of the Civil Service and the public service in order to make them work. Perhaps Senator Callely is being political by making glib remarks. The Minister must accept that negotiations must resume with the public sector unions because the modernisation process must be accelerated. There must be a sense of trust on both sides. There was an acceptance, to some degree, by the union management, the Government and the Opposition that cuts were necessary but by moving ahead unilaterally, the Government has created a huge industrial relations problem.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I had not planned to speak on this amendment. The Minister said there is considerable difference between business and Government. We talk about having to negotiate. A good manager will negotiate, although there are times when a manager’s job is to manage. If that manager’s job is to manage and if the alternative is disaster, at some point the manager must say to the unions and employees that we do not have a choice, we have come to this conclusion and we must do whatever because it is a case of life or death or something close to that. We are close to that at this stage. Having negotiated and talked, one must say something is the only alternative and it is what we must do. That is what the Government has done on this occasion and I am inclined to support its stance on this occasion.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): The proposed amendments would, in the case of amendment No. 8 on behalf of the Labour Party, add an additional section disapplying the pay reductions where there was in a public service body an agreement to achieve the savings some other way. Senator Twomey’s amendment which is what we must decide on now would add a further subsection to section 2 to allow for reductions where there were demonstrable improvements to service delivery. I do not disagree with the general principle underlying either amendment in so far as it recognises the need for improved public services but it is not appropriate to this Bill and I do not propose to accept it. The purpose of this Bill is to achieve the necessary permanent savings in the public service pay bill and we must proceed on that basis. We have an immediate diffi- culty with the public finances for 2010 and this Bill is intended to address that by reducing the public service pay bill by approximately \1 billion. 759 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.]

I have commented already on the need for modernisation and transformation of the public service and the part that this can play in containing future pay costs and delivering high quality public services. There is a clear agenda on which we can work. I emphasise again that the Government wishes to continue dialogue with the public service unions to bring this about. The Minister for Finance has also made it clear that if there is a failure to engage with this agenda, which affects the public finances further, this could cause continued difficulties with budgetary planning to 2011 and beyond. I will deal with the specific points made by Senators. Senator Twomey referred to Senator O’Toole’s account yesterday of discussions with Secretaries General. He alleged the Govern- ment collapsed an agreement. That shows a fundamental misunderstanding. I have been a negotiator on behalf of the Government in a peace process context and as an unofficial party negotiator in regard to agreements with other political parties, that is, the Labour Party or the . Wherever one gets to with tentative agreed proposals, they must be referred upwards to the political decision makers who have the absolute right to decide whether that proposition, which has reached a certain stage, will fly. I do not believe it is acceptable to say that, effectively, Secretaries General are the Government and to ask what business the Cabinet has in disagreeing with them. That is not the way things work. We all agree with the need for reform and modernisation of the public service. That can be done by way of dialogue, and I very much hope it will be. However, as Senator Quinn noted, in the absence of either dialogue or satisfactory agreement, in the last analysis the Government must govern, particularly if, to use the Senator’s own words, the alternative is a disaster and there is no choice. While I agree absolutely with the Senator’s remarks, obviously one strives as far as possible. As a year remains before the next round of budgetary decisions must be made, there is plenty of time to engage on the issue of reform. While Senator Twomey referred to cuts, Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil are agreed on what the order of cuts should be and the Government simply is making the decisions. I accept the Senator does not accept the particular decisions made, but as far as I am aware, the overall amount is not in question between the two parties. I accept the Labour Party sought a bigger role to be played by taxation.

Senator Alex White: As did the Government last April.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Yes, but the subsequent flow of revenue showed that we had exhausted revenue. While one certainly can increase rates, that does not mean one necessarily will accrue more revenue as a result. I fully agree with most of Senator Alex White’s comments in that the issue of public service reform is complex and, in some ways, the Bill reflects the complexity of the public service. Moreover, it is far better to have discussions and negotiations between employers and employees. I have no idea when precisely or in what form dialogue will resume, but it, undoubtedly, must do so sooner or later, preferably sooner. Certainly, I fully accept what the Senator said about trade union leaders, as, notwithstanding one or two isolated remarks by particular trade unionists, I do not believe trade union leaders are whipping up sentiment. I fully agree with the Senator in that regard and have a belief, certainly until demonstrably shown to the contrary, in the fundamental responsibility and good sense of most trade union leaders. I believe that was the spirit in which they entered these discussions——

Senator Paddy Burke: And a constructive Opposition not putting them up to it.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions, please. 760 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

Deputy Martin Mansergh: ——and there are considerable leadership skills. I could not help smiling when the Senator quoted Fergus Finlay’s remarks about talks not being worth a penny candle. I believe the Fine Gael Taoiseach of the day was not a bit pleased with that particular remark, but that did not necessarily affect its validity. A certain British trade union leader has been invoked yesterday and today.

Senator Alex White: He is invoked on a daily basis in this House.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I must confess that in or around 1984, at a time when Fianna Fáil was in opposition, many on the fifth floor of Leinster House were sporting the motto, “We back the miners”. At the same time, I am not a great admirer of presidents for life in any sphere, be it political or trade union. However, the point I was making in reply to Senator Harris who I believe argued yesterday that the same approach needed to be adopted as that which was applied by Mrs. Thatcher and Rupert Murdoch was that I fundamentally disagreed with such an approach. I believe Mr. Murdoch’s principal publication was popularly known as “the Wapping Liar”. The entire purpose of social partnership is to avoid the destructive trade union conflict that had taken place in Britain during the mid-1980s. It is to strike a different path; the Industrial Relations Act 1990 which was introduced by the former Taoiseach, Deputy , when Minister for Labour, was consensual legislation rather than an imposition. If this can be achieved, it is by far the best way to do so. Speaking for myself and I hope the Government, I have no interest in beating or defeating trade unions. The Government wishes to work and co-operate with them. They have good ideas on the way ahead and I hope it will be possible to get together. However, I also accept Senator Alex White’s comments on certain realities and perhaps a cooling-off period is required. As with the pension levy, the Government was obliged to do what it had to do. I went into this subject at some length in the other House and will not do so here, but trade unionists should recall that public service numbers, pay and conditions improved vastly, particularly between the years 2000 and 2007. There were several steps forward and I acknowledge we now must take a couple of steps back because they were not sustainable. Far from wishing to dismantle anything, the Government seeks to keep as many as possible of the gains made. However, there are times when one must take a couple of steps back. I hope there may be more understanding of this in the months ahead, as well as a greater understanding of the wider context in which Ireland is operating, namely, as part of the eurozone and a member of a hard currency zone. This is not the first time there have been pay cuts. While there have been many pay cuts previously, they have been disguised by inflation and devaluation. Conse- quently, this position is not as new as it appears. However, I accept it may take people time to adjust to the reality of the manner in which we must go about things today.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 are ruled out of order as they would impose potential charges on Revenue.

Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paddy Burke: I have a question about the section. Section 1 refers to the Schedule which lists the companies which are exempt from the pay cut. The Minister of State should clarify the position on Anglo Irish Bank. Although Anglo Irish Bank is now a semi-State body, it is not among the 23 organisations listed in the Schedule as being exempt from the pay cut. I 761 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Paddy Burke.] presume its absence from the list means it is included and that as a semi-State body, it will be covered by the reduction in pay. I note the difference between the Secretary General of the Department of Finance and the Secretary General to the Government who face a 20% cut and every other Secretary General of a Department, each of whom faces a cut of 15%. They will still earn more than \200,000. Since high ranking officials earning more than \200,000 in Anglo Irish Bank are not included in the table of semi-State bodies, I presume they will be included in order that their pay will be reduced by 20% while the pay of low paid officials will be cut by the same amount as public servants’ pay in tables 1 and 2.

Senator Alex White: I have concerns as to whether what will be achieved by the section is what the Government intends. The Minister of Finance said in his Budget Statement that the salaries of the Taoiseach and Ministers, including Ministers of State, would be reduced by 15% and 20%, respectively, as recommended by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector in its report published on 11 December. However, the Bill will not implement the recommendation because it imposes 20% and 15% cuts on the pay these persons receive as officeholders but not on the pay they receive as Deputies. As a result, the Taoiseach will suffer at most a pay cut of 15.6% and his Ministers a cut of 11.6%. Is that correct? With regard to the pay cuts to be imposed on middle ranking public servants, the Minister in his Budget Statement said pay cuts would be imposed incrementally on a progressive basis and, “Accordingly, the pay of public servants will be reduced with effect from 1 January 2010 as follows: a reduction of 5% on the first \30,000 of salary, a reduction of 7.5% on the next \40,000 of salary and a reduction of 10% on the next \55,000 of salary”. The Bill does not implement this intention because the relevant provision, table 3, provides instead that those with a basic salary of up to \30,000 will suffer a reduction of 5% of basic salary, those with a basic salary in excess of \30,000 but not in excess of \70,000 will suffer a reduction of 7.5% and those with a basic salary in excess of \70,000 but not in excess of \125,000 will suffer a reduction of 10%. This is an entirely different formula, which will have the effect of imposing a flat percentage rate reduction rather than a cumulative pay cut on public servants earning more than \30,000. In other words, an employee on \75,000, instead of losing an initial tranche of 5% of \30,000, 7.5% on the next \40,000 and 10% on the final \5,000, which amounts to a reduction of \5,000 or 6.6%, will lose 10% of his or her basic salary, which is \7,500, a differ- ence of \1,500 or 20%. This will be brought about purely by a mistake in drafting. I do not criticise the drafters who are doing the best they can but the Bill has been put together quickly and I wonder whether there are other unintended consequences.

Senator Liam Twomey: I oppose the section because our amendments have been ruled out of order. Fine Gael accepts there must be some cuts to the public sector payroll but the issue for us is we do not want the lower paid in the public service to be affected by the reduction. We want them to be protected and that is why I oppose the section.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I welcome the Minister of State and I appreciate the time he is giving to this. This section is unfair to low paid public sector workers. This is the second Bill we have taken this week that has disproportionately laid the blame for what has happened at the door of public sector workers and social welfare recipients. As Senator Twomey said, Fine Gael proposed to take \1.2 billion off the public sector pay bill and to save \6 billion in the budget. We disagree fundamentally with the Government that the first \30,000 earned by a public sector worker would be subject to a 5% cut. Senator White is correct. I refer to an e-mail I received from a women during the week, which states: 762 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

I am emailing you as I am a public sector worker who’s wages are going to be cut again, it is a disgrace that this government is cutting our wages for the third time. The public sector workers did not cause the problems the country is now facing, it was the present government’s failed polices with the help of their banker friends and property speculators.

The image been portrayed by the media is very inaccurate as we the public sector are been shown as the reason for the economical downfall, as we are constantly seen as ‘over paid’ ‘underworked’ and generally in a highly negative light.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is making a Second Stage contribution.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I refer to this in the context of the 5% reduction on the first \30,000 of salary for public sector workers in table 3.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should refer to the section but he should not read an e-mail into the record.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I appreciate the Chair’s position but the section will penalise workers who earn \30,000 a year and whether the Minister likes it or not, that is not a huge salary when one considers many of them are young and paying huge mortgages and have significant negative equity. Interest rates will increase. I appreciate where the Government is coming from because this is the consequence of failed economic policies. Fine Gael put forward an alternative, which the Government did not take on board. How can the Minister of State justify hammering public sector workers earning \30,000? Workers in the Oireachtas are struggling. People are not sleeping at night and I am worried because the Government’s economic management has failed. The ESRI says half the Exchequer deficit is attributable to unemployment, which was caused by an over reliance on the construction industry. I appreciate the private sector has suffered a major hit. I met a friend earlier who has a business. His turnover is down 30% and his staff have taken a 6% pay cut. Allied to the cut in child benefit, it creates a gulf 1o’clock between the private and public sectors. What will happen in January if this section is implemented? There will be a reduction in wages, consumer spending will decrease after the sales and families will have to make choices on what to do with their money at the risk of endangering educational prospects or losing the family itself. On numerous occasions, Senator Hanafin has espoused family values. He is right and I support him on it. However, this section in particular will create discord and disharmony in families. If this section is passed I believe we have grounds to try for economic treason the Taoiseach, Deputy , the former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern, and the former Minister for Finance, Charlie McCreevy. This is the legacy of the Minister of State’s party’s mismanagement. This section is very important because it is about the take-home pay——

An Cathaoirleach: It is relevant to the public service.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is about the take-home pay of many people who I represent and I am also affected. As I stated yesterday I do not mind taking a pay cut because I can afford it. However, people working in hospitals and schools, the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána and other front-line services cannot afford to take this cut and they are at their wits end. I appeal to Senator Hanafin and his Fianna Fáil colleagues not to agree to this section, in part- icular the provision on the first \30,000 of income which is the fundamental matter. Do they think it is right that we should place a burden on those on \30,000 and less? Is that what they really want? Is the Government stating in this section that it is all right to pummel and pros- 763 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Jerry Buttimer.] ecute workers but high earners can get away with it? If so, the Members of the Government should pack their bags and call an election.

Senator Feargal Quinn: My question is very simple and echoes the point made by Senator Alex White. Senator White took an example from table 3 so I will take one from table 2. If the intention is that a public servant with a basic salary rate of more than \125,000 should pay 15% of basic salary, which amounts to \31,500, only one line of text is necessary to state it. However, if it is done the way I originally assumed, such a public servant only pays \15,700. I believe I have done my sums correctly. Is the intention that someone earning \210,000 would pay 15% of that or would pay 8% on the first \125,000, 12% on the next \40,000 and 15% on the rest? If so I do not understand why the three tables are necessary. Have Senator Alex White and I made a mistake or is this the intention?

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Many points have been made. Senator Twomey may have many good reasons, from his point of view, for opposing the section but I do not think the disallow- ance of an amendment which would be unconstitutional because the Seanad does not have the power to increase Government expenditure is one. He may have many other reasons for opposing it. Senator Burke, no doubt tongue in cheek, raised the issue of Anglo Irish Bank and prefaced every sentence with “I presume” and may I say, in the politest and most diplomatic manner possible, that in each instance he presumed wrong. We discussed the position of Anglo Irish Bank yesterday when points were made on whether it should be included in the pay reductions and on the consultants it uses. It is the intention of the Government to apply pay reductions in the public service pay bill for the purpose of saving approximately \1 billion. However, the pay reduction applies to public servants. Commercial State-sponsored bodies are not included. The pay of those bodies is funded through their own commercial efforts. With the exception of chief executives, the Minister for Finance does not control the pay of the staff of these bodies. They were not covered by the public service element of pay rounds in the past and the bodies have taken an independent approach to controlling their pay bills. The same is true of Anglo Irish Bank, which is run on an arm’s length commercial basis by the board, albeit having been funded by the Exchequer. More to the point, at present the board is overseeing a full cost review of the bank which will seek to reduce costs in all areas of the bank’s operation, including pay costs. As Senators are aware, the bank recently introduced the first phase of its redundancy programme, targeting up to 230 departures from throughout the bank. Accordingly, and this is the key point, staff at the bank do not have the security of tenure associated with public service employment. If one was to treat them like public servants or state that their status is that of public servants, they would expect the same degree of security of tenure and I do not see in all the circumstances that could be reasonably argued. In addition, Anglo Irish Bank recently submitted its restructuring plan to the European Commission. The plan considers all options for the future of the bank and a detailed evaluation of the plan is now under way. The process will involve extensive consultation and dialogue between the Irish authorities, the European Commission and the bank to agree a restructuring plan for Anglo Irish Bank which will achieve the best possible outcome for the State from the process. The outcome of the restructuring plan process will determine the future of the bank, including its required staffing levels, staff retention and redundancy objectives, and the bank’s pay levels will be determined by the board accordingly.

764 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

It is clear that any future strategy for Anglo Irish Bank will involve further redundancies at the bank and further cost reductions. In seeking to reduce its cost base, Anglo Irish Bank is acting in a fashion similar to other commercial State bodies which are planning their way out of present difficulties. To start treating the staff as public servants would cut across these vital processes for Anglo Irish Bank and for the State as a shareholder in the bank. For that reason, I will not accept that proposition. With respect to Senator Alex White, the amendment may be based on a misreading of table 1.

Senator Alex White: On a point of order, I was not dealing with an amendment. I was speaking on the section.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: My apologies, amendment No. 9 is water under the bridge. However, I still want to deal with the point. It is intended that the total remuneration of the office holders in table 1 would attract the reduction specified for them. For example, the salary of the Taoiseach or a Minister as a Deputy, his or her ministerial allowance and so forth combined will undergo a total reduction of 20%. It is because a ministerial salary is paid in parts that the table refers to remuneration rather than salary. As it stands, the Bill achieves the aim. My own salary as a Minister of State was amended in the Dáil and the deduction was raised from 8% to 10%. For administrative purposes, 8% will be deducted from my salary as a Deputy, but the missing 2% will be added on to the 10% deduction from my ministerial salary. I am not talking about 2% of my ministerial salary, but 2% of my salary as a Deputy. A 10% reduction of the total salary as Minister of State and Deputy combined will then be achieved.

Senator Alex White: Table 1 in section 2 states that the reduction is 10% “of remuneration”. That is intended to mean 10% of all remuneration.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Yes.

Senator Alex White: Then it should really state that. If we look at the rest of the Act, section 2(2) seems to suggest that a person is either covered under one or the other. Section 2(2) states:

(2) Where the remuneration of a public servant is fixed by a relevant provision, then, subject to subsections (3) and (4), the relevant provision shall be taken to have been amended so that the remuneration is—

(a) in the case of persons to whom Table 1 to this section relates, reduced in accordance with that Table, and

(b) in any other case, subject to subsection (7), reduced in accordance with Table 2 or Table 3 (as the case requires) to this section.

We are either in one case or the other. The drafting has allowed for things to fall between the cracks. If a pay cut is being dealt with under table 1, then it will not be dealt with under the other provisions. There is a problem in the way things are drafted, and we could have avoided all doubt by putting in the word “all” before “remuneration”. We need some way to make it clear that the percentage reduction will capture both the ministerial salary and the Deputy’s salary, which is clearly what is intended by the Government. Otherwise, the relevant reduction of the Taoiseach’s salary would apply only to that part of his earnings which is attributable to his earnings as Taoiseach and not in respect of his earnings as a Deputy. That is clearly an anomaly in the Bill. 765 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Alex White.]

The Minister of State claimed that what is intended is to take 10% of his salary as a Minister of State, 8% of his salary as a Deputy and to make up for that by taking an additional 2%.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Or more than 2%.

Senator Alex White: That does not appear in the Bill. The Minister of State now tells me that this is the intention of the Government, but why is it not in the Bill?

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I do not accept there is any ambiguity whatsoever. When people talk about the Taoiseach’s salary, they do not mean his salary for the office of Taoiseach, but his salary including that as a Deputy. In almost all contexts, the Taoiseach’s total salary is discussed. There is no ambiguity in the application either.

Senator Alex White: There is a manifest ambiguity. I will go back to section 2(2) to demon- strate that there is a clear ambiguity, if an ambiguity can be clear. The salary of the Taoiseach, the Ministers and the Ministers of State will be dealt with one way or the other, which is the clear intention of section 2(2). Part of section 2(2) states:

(a) in the case of persons to whom Table 1 to this section relates, reduced in accordance with that Table, and

(b) in any other case, subject to subsection (7), reduced in accordance with Table 2 or Table 3 (as the case requires) to this section.

Even if what I am saying is not absolutely correct, for the Minister of State to say that there is no ambiguity is nonsensical. How can he say that there is no ambiguity when I raise an issue that he cannot even deal with? He said that the extra 2% would be lobbed over onto the other side and taken off there as a way to deal with the problem. That strategy does not even appear in the Bill. If the Taoiseach and other officeholders suffer a pay cut under table 1, it seems that they do not suffer a second cut under table 3. The Minister of State must accept that. The Bill does not capture the salary of the Minister of State in both table 1 and table 3. It comes under one or the other. It is capable of being interpreted in a way that would mean the Taoiseach, Mini- sters and Ministers of State would only have one cut, and not two cuts.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: The term used in table 1 is “remuneration”. Remuneration is defined in the Bill as taxable income and the remuneration of officeholders is all taxable. I will provide a concrete example using my own salary as Minister of State. The cut in my salary as a Deputy of 8% will reduce it to \92,672. The allowance for being a Minister of State will be cut by 14.5% to \46,594. The total remuneration will be cut by 10%.

Senator Alex White: The Minister of State keeps saying things that do not answer the point I am making. If table 1 means what it states, the remuneration to which it applies is the emoluments that the Taoiseach and the other Ministers receive for their services as holders of the qualifying office specifically referred to in that table. It does not refer to any other emolu- ments. Table 1 states “Taoiseach” under the heading “Office” and “20 per cent of remuner- ation” under the heading “Reduction”. There is nothing in the Bill to suggest that the remuner- ation of the Taoiseach includes his remuneration as a Deputy. All the Minister of State has to do is change it in order to ensure that this outcome is achieved. Otherwise, it is not achieved in the Bill. 766 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

The Government might want to deal with this by way of a formula the Minister of State has just mentioned. I am not suggesting that he has just said this now for the first time, because I am not aware of that. I am referring to this business of the 8% cut and the 2% cut being lobbed on and put over to the other side. In other words, the Taoiseach’s salary will not be reduced by 20%, but by a higher amount. Therefore, table 1 is completely wrong. To every single figure in table 1 that deals with reduction, there must be another amount added. We are legislating to say that the figures in table 1 are wrong, because they should be higher and they will be higher.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I do not accept the argument and believe Senator White is mis- reading this. If he still disagrees with it, he is at liberty to vote against it.

Senator Alex White: How am I misreading it? The Minister of State should read it.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I disagree with the Senator. Remuneration means emoluments. It is defined on page 5, line 33.

Senator Alex White: I know that.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: The remuneration which is being cut by 20% is made up of a Deputy’s salary and the Taoiseach’s allowance. The latter will be cut by an additional amount. The bottom line, as far as members of the public are concerned, is whether the deductions, as set out in the table, will be applied and whether it is the law that they will be applied. I can give an absolute guarantee and assurance that this will be the case. There is no ambiguity.

Senator Alex White: Why is the Government introducing legislation?

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Does the Senator believe we would engage in such trickery?

Senator Alex White: The Minister of State should relax. Is he suggesting Senators may not raise such issues in the House?

Deputy Martin Mansergh: No.

Senator Alex White: I am speaking now and I am entitled to some respect. The Minister of State should not engage in a hissy fit because a Senator raises an issue. His reaction is out- rageous and he should be more careful as to how he reacts to Members. He asked me to read the text, which is precisely what I am doing. He has also told me that the words in Table 1 mean something other than what they state.

Senator Pearse Doherty: On that point, I agree with my colleague, Senator Alex White. The Minister of State has indicated that an additional cut will apply to the Taoiseach’s pay. Having read the legislation, I have not found this cut. It should be in the legislation in black and white. Will another voluntary cut be made to make up the difference? I fundamentally oppose the section. As the Minister of State is aware, Sinn Féin opposes cuts to public sector wages, except in the case of salaries above \100,000 per annum. The proposed cuts are not the correct course of action for a number of reasons. Public sector workers should not be targeted in isolation. Moreover, taking money out of people’s pockets will deflate the economy and these cuts are deflationary. I am sick and tired of the spin being peddled by Ministers and their spin doctors that average salaries in the public sector are \50,000 or \60,000. To clarify the matter, I asked one of my colleagues in the other House to table a parliamentary question on the level of pay of public 767 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Pearse Doherty.] sector workers in County Donegal. The reply which I received yesterday indicates that, accord- ing to the Department’s latest information, there are 31,806 public sector workers in the county, of whom 20,658 earn under \20,000 per annum. In other words, two thirds of all public sector workers in County Donegal earn under \20,000, while a further 4,500 of earn between \20,000 and \30,000. This means almost 27,000 of the 31,000 public sector workers in County Donegal earn less than \30,000 per annum. A large proportion of the 20,000 public sector workers in County Donegal who earn less than \20,000 are outside the tax net. Some of them have such low income because they avail of job sharing and other working arrangements. The percentage by which the pay of such persons is cut is not the main issue. For these workers, the big ticket item is not PRSI, income levies and all the rest but the net loss in pay arising from the pay cut. Most of them will take a 5% net deduction in their pay packet, in other words, the amount of money in their pockets will be cut by 5%. Let us take the example of a public sector employee who earns \160,000 per annum. A person on this salary will take a reduction in salary of 8%. However, as a result of taxes, levies and so forth, the net reduction in pay will be less than the net reduction in pay for a public servant earning less than \20,000. Judging by the Minister of State’s reaction, I need to explain the position again. More than 20,000 public servants in County Donegal earn less than \20,000 per annum. As most of them are outside the tax net, any reduction in salary will be to their net wages. The 5% reduction to apply to those in this income bracket will, therefore, reduce their net pay by 5%. On the other hand, a public sector worker on a salary of \160,000 will have his or her salary reduced by 8% . However, when one takes into account that he or she pays the higher rate of income tax, levies and so forth, one finds that the net reduction in his or her pay will be proportionately less than the net reduction in pay for a public servant earning less than \20,000. The Minister of State must agree that the proposal will result in a larger reduction in net pay for those earning less than \20,000 than for those earning up to \160,000. This legislation is scandalous and should not have been brought before the House. Sinn Féin disagrees with the other Opposition parties, both Fine Gael and the Labour Party, on the matter. With the exception of those earning more than \100,000, public sector workers should not have been targeted. Those earning the average industrial wage and others should not have been targeted in this manner. I reject the proposal and appeal to my colleagues from County Donegal, Senators Ó Domhnaill and Keaveney, to understand the Government spin about large numbers of high earners——

An Cathaoirleach: Senators should not refer to a Member who is not present in the House.

Senator Pearse Doherty: This measure is not aimed at chairpersons of State boards who earn up to \500,000 or other public sector workers on high salaries but people in our constituencies. To amplify my earlier point, based on the most accurate information the Department can furnish, two thirds of public sector workers in County Donegal earn less than \20,000 per annum. The measures proposed will reduce their net income by 5%. The proposal should not be supported in any shape or form. The required savings could be made by ensuring appro- priate measures are taken to reduce the salaries of those who have the highest incomes and can afford to pay. We had a lengthy discussion on the Taoiseach’s remuneration. A 20% reduction may look good and go down well with spin doctors, but the Taoiseach will continue to have a massive salary. While I accept he does an important job, he and his Ministers should not be remunerated 768 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 at the levels proposed. Taking into account the effects of taxation, levies and so on, the true reduction in their pay is not sufficient. It is outrageous that the lowest paid public sector workers are having their pay cut by 5%.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

Business of Seanad. Senator John Hanafin: If it is in order, the Opposition has proposed that the Order of Busi- ness be amended to allow the House to complete section 2 before the sos. I am willing to accommodate the proposal.

Senator Liam Twomey: It is proposed that we complete section 2 and then take a half hour break.

An Cathaoirleach: Is it agreed that the Order of Business be amended? Agreed.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 2.

Question again proposed: “That section 2 stand part of the Bill.” Senator Paddy Burke: Is there any reason why Anglo Irish Bank is not included in the Schedule to the Bill? It is not included in the Schedule and I understood that the Minister for Finance may be talking to the boards of the other 23 bodies. If that were the case Anglo Irish Bank would be treated differently. Is there any reason why it is not included in the Schedule? Anglo Irish Bank is a semi-State body.

Senator John Hanafin: It is clear that quite specific wording was used in this section to include everything rather than what is suggested. This includes salary and additional payments. Remuneration is the widest possible word to include all payments. This is absolutely correct. Gratuitously offensive remarks by the Opposition do not help. I refer to the words used by Members opposite, who referred to huge numbers of public servants earning less than \30,000. Their own words explain the need for the 5% reduction. It is because there are only hundreds who receive large pay, while thousands are earning \30,000 or less. In the UK, people on £8,000 pay tax. We have had a negative tax wedge for those on low pay for years. Those who can understand complex political concepts, such as the d’Hondt arrangement, fail to see the very obvious, that only hundreds of people are on very large salaries and that we cannot get \1.3 billion in savings from these. It is impossible.

Senator Pearse Doherty: I am sure the Minister of State is well aware of the number of people earning under \30,000 and under \100,000. It is important to correct the information presented in this House. It is not the case that hundreds are on large salaries; thousands are on large salaries. Some 15,000 public sector workers earn over \100,000 per annum. Some are earning up to \500,000 and it is scandalous that we decide not to reduce significantly those incomes at a time when we target a 5% reduction in incomes under \20,000. It is incorrect to say there is no way we can achieve \1.3 billion in savings. I have articulated this in the Seanad. We may disagree on the methods and Fianna Fáil may feel that we should attack low-income earners. That is Fianna Fáil policy but I completely and utterly disagree with it. The Minister and the Government have proposals costed by the Department of Finance that could be implemented tomorrow morning. These would make the same savings. It is disin- 769 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Pearse Doherty.] genuous and misleading to say there is no other way of making the savings. Other proposals have been made but the ideology of the Government parties means they do not want to tax the wealth. They do not want to introduce a wealth tax, nor do they want to standardise discretionary tax reliefs or introduce a third rate of tax. They want to cut the incomes of over 20,000 public sector workers in Donegal who work in our schools, hospitals and public services and attack their wages, which damages the local economy instead of taxing the wealthy. It is disingenuous to say there are no other proposals, as it is disingenuous to say there are only hundreds of high earners in the public sector when there are thousands. I am not only talking about salaries but also the massive bonuses paid to those such as Professor Brendan Drumm of the HSE, who received \70,000. This is like water off a duck’s back. Like everything in the budget, the Government is targeting the lowest incomes in society.

Senator John Hanafin: We have heard figures bandied about. I refer particularly to the figure used by the Shell to Sea campaign, which is Sinn Féin, that \540 billion of gas exists in the Corrib field. The figure for the number of fish taken from Irish stock waters was cited as 50 billion, 60 million or 70 billion. One can take any figure one likes, add ten and multiply by 100. To suggest we can get \1.3 billion savings by targeting the 15,000 public servants who earn more than \100,000 involves taking all of their salary, amounting to \1.5 billion. It is the economics of ruin and it is impossible when someone refuses to see the truth.

An Cathaoirleach: We are discussing section 2 and we do not want a discussion between two Members.

Senator Pearse Doherty: Section 2 deals with the cuts we will impose on public sector workers. I appeal to the Minister of State that it is not about making savings in the public sector. Sinn Féin has never argued for cuts of \1.3 billion. I urge the Minister of State to amend this section accordingly. Sinn Féin does not believe that \1.3 billion of savings should be made in the public sector. We disagree with Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Sinn Féin believes the \1.3 billion in savings should be made elsewhere. Some should be made in the public sector by reducing salaries but not by taking entire salaries from people. That would be crazy. Pay levels should be reduced to \100,000 and no one in the public sector should earn more than that figure. That would save in the region of \400 million. This is not voodoo economics; these figures have been costed by the Department of Finance. If Senator Hanafin has a problem with any of these figures he has a problem with the officials in the Department of Finance who presented the figures. The figures are accurate, the figures we received in response to parliamentary questions are accurate and the work done by the departmental officials is without question. This is about choices that have been laid before the Minister. Choices have been presented in the form of amendments to the section and we should not cloud the issue. The Government can reduce the incomes in my county of over 20,000 public sector employees or we can examine other approaches whereby we introduce other measures to close the gap. This is not about making \1.3 billion in savings in the public sector and if Senator Hanafin took me up wrong he should listen more carefully. I do not represent Fine Gael, which believes this should be done along with the Labour Party. Sinn Féin does not believe this should be done. Sinn Féin values workers in the public sector and understands that it cannot drive down wages. There is no capacity to make those savings in the public sector unless one drives down the wages of the lowest income earners in the public sector. That is wrong and is not something we tolerate. We must find savings elsewhere in the economy, which means taxing the wealthiest in society and adopting measures submitted 770 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 to the Government and costed by the Department of Finance. Whether one agrees we should take these measures, they show there are ways to make the savings in the Irish economy so that we do not have to undertake the measures about to be adopted by this legislation.

An Cathaoirleach: I do not want this debate to involve repetition from one side to the other. We have spent over one hour and 20 minutes on the section.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I wish to respond to three points. Senator Alex White is simply misreading the Bill. The Chief Parliamentary Counsel has been extraordinarily careful to use different terms in each of the tables in order to achieve the effect sought by the Government. Table No. 1 refers to officeholders such as Taoisigh, the Cathaoirleach, Secretaries General etc and remuneration refers to the way officeholders are paid through a combination of basic salary and allowances in most cases. The reduction applies to the total remuneration, including salary and allowances. Tables Nos. 2 and 3 refer to public servants rather than officeholders and the term salary is used. Concerning Anglo Irish Bank, I have made the reasons clear. Owing to its redundancy prog- ramme and so on, its staff will not be treated as public servants and, therefore, are not included in the Schedule. Regarding public sector workers generally, the mantra is that since they did not cause the problem, why should they be affected by the situation that has arisen? The reality is that public sector numbers, pay and allowances improved substantially, especially between 2000 and 2007. This was partly as a result of the benchmarking process. To be fair to Fine Gael, that party has been consistent in its criticism of the process. The size of the public sector pay bill is being reduced. I wish it were true that the public service unions at all levels, including right up to the top where the worst offenders in terms of higher remuneration were located, did not contribute to the problem in the public finances in any way, but that is not the case. This is not to say that public service pay is the main cause of the problem we are facing, but almost all of us overextended and overcommitted ourselves in an unsustainable way during the prolonged period of the Celtic tiger. Many people outside the public sector do not enjoy anything like the income of even the lowest paid full-time public sector employee, namely, small farmers, small businesses and the self-employed. I am aware of no full-time public employee who is paid the minimum wage. I do not have the statistics on minimum wage workers to hand, but public sector workers’ pay and conditions at every level are not at the bottom of the pile. Regarding the 5% cut in the lower level, we must recall the fact that we have had deflation of 5% or more. Before Senator Doherty entered the Chamber, I stated that we have had previous pay cuts, but they were disguised by inflation and devaluation. This time, people are being paid in a strong currency, the euro, that does not lose its value. Therefore, the reductions are more obvious. Many of the problems we are facing owe to psychology. For example, in the talks between the trade unions and the Government, one could say that the 12 days of unpaid leave that caused so much controversy would have disguised the reduction in pay for one year. If one excludes people earning less than \30,000, one will interfere with progressivity. There are not too many young single workers with heavy mortgages. Generally speaking, people buy houses when they are hoping to establish families. With the exception of the single worker, anyone earning less than \30,000 would not be paying taxes. As we know, 50% of the popu- lation does not pay taxes bar the levies. Owing to the recession, last year’s figure was 40%. The argument that someone on \20,000 will take a larger absolute cut than someone earning much more is unsustainable. I will refer to example 7 of the 2010 budget supporting docu- mentation. By definition, self-employed people do not count as they are not public servants. If 771 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.] one is a public servant, one is employed by the State. For a part-time worker earning \15,000, the total loss in income under the budget will be \332 or 1.17%. Incorporating the changes since the 2008 budget, there would actually be a small gain of nearly the same amount. Some- one earning \150,000 will lose approximately \5,272 or 6.42% and the total change in after tax income will be \21,149 or 21.58%. I do not know from where Senator Doherty gets the argu- ment that, somehow or other, persons higher up the scale will pay less. The majority of the e- mails going around the place are from middle income earners, not people earning starter salar- ies. Typically, middle income earners have overborrowed and are overcommitted. This explains the background to the situation.

Senator Pearse Doherty: I apologise, but I want to go back through my earlier point. Perhaps the way in which I articulated it was not clear enough or the Minister of State has deliberately not understood my comments. I will try to make it simple. Regarding the cuts in section 2 specifically, I want the Minister of State to clarify something for me. From the figures furnished to us by his Department, two thirds of public sector workers in County Donegal earn less than \20,000. One such worker will, as a result of section 2, take a 5% cut. Let us imagine the person, like 50% of the population, is outside the tax net. Let us imagine a public sector worker in County Donegal who earns \160,000. As a result of this section, he or she will take an 8% cut. Since the second person is in the tax net, however, the net decrease will not amount to 8%. A comparison between this and next month’s net pay would not show a reduction of 8%, as 41% of that percentage will go to the State in the form of taxes, never mind the other levies. Some of the reduction is a reduction in the amount to be paid to the State. We can acknowledge this. In a comparison between the two Donegal workers’ pay this and next month, the reduction in respect of the person on less than \20,000 will be 5%. There is no doubt about that because the person does not pay any tax to the State. The reduction for a person who is earning \160,000 will be less than 5%. I want the Minister of State to tell me whether I am wrong or right in this.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I simply ask the Senator to refer to the budget tables.

Senator Pearse Doherty: This is crucial. I have to cast a vote on this legislation.

An Cathaoirleach: The Minister of State asked the Senator to refer to the tables.

Senator Pearse Doherty: To be fair, the Minister of State has asked me to refer to a table that is dealing with self-employed people.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: No, it is not.

Senator Pearse Doherty: We are dealing with legislation——

An Cathaoirleach: We are dealing with legislation. I am just pointing out what the Minister of State said. He has outlined the position. We are on section 2. We can keep repeating our- selves and stay here until tomorrow, if some Members wish. I feel we have given section 2 a long time — we have been on it for an hour and a half now. The Minister of State’s reply to the Senator referred him to the Budget Statement. I can do no more.

Senator Pearse Doherty: I understand that. The Cathaoirleach is chairing proceedings in a very fair way. This is about fairness. The core of this legislation is what is in these tables. It is a simple question I have asked. I need to understand, with regard to the difference in pay 772 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 between this month and next month as a result of this section, whether the person earning under \20,000 who is outside the tax net takes a higher decrease than the person earning \160,000. It is a yes or no answer. I know the answer. The reality is that the person on \160,000 will take less of a percentage decrease than the person under \20,000.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: No.

Senator Pearse Doherty: The Minister of State is embarrassed to stand up and say that. This legislation is completely unjust and unfair. It is attacking the lowest income earners. It is not about their income. I understand they will take a larger decrease in terms of euro but in terms of percentage, when we compare one pay cheque against the next, the fact is the 2o’clock higher income earner is paying tax at the higher rate and will take less of a percentage decrease than those earning under \20,000. That is the reality. If the Minister of State wants to defend and pass the legislation, he should stand up and say “Yes. We have done it, and that is it.”

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Of course I am standing up to defend the legislation. What else does the Senator think I am here for? The net effect on income is perfectly clear, if the Senator cares to study the supporting documentation. The actions of the Government over the past two years have been highly progressive. They have not been regressive. The Senator made reference——

Senator Pearse Doherty: Will the higher income earner pay less or more in percentage terms?

An Cathaoirleach: There should be no interruptions.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I have told the Senator that the net——

Senator Pearse Doherty: That is not the question I asked.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I am giving the Senator the answer, which is that the total change in net income will be far higher at a higher level. I have nothing——

Senator Pearse Doherty: That is not the question I asked.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: That is the answer I am giving the Senator.

Senator Pearse Doherty: The Minister of State is ashamed to answer the question I have asked him.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator——

Senator Pearse Doherty: He should acknowledge that the higher income earner will take less of a percentage decrease than the person on \20,000 in Donegal.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator must respect the Chair.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Idonot——

Senator Pearse Doherty: The Minister of State should not answer a question I did not ask him.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator must respect the Chair. I am putting the question. The Mini- ster of State has replied on numerous occasions to all the questions asked. 773 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

Senator Pearse Doherty: To be fair, he has replied to questions I never asked. He and the Government are ashamed to acknowledge that the higher income earners will take less of a decrease than lower income earners.

An Cathaoirleach: I emphasise that the Chair has no input into or control over any replies given by a Minister. The Minister of State has given his replies. At this stage, I am putting the question.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 27; Níl, 20.

Tá

Boyle, Dan. Keaveney, Cecilia. Brady, Martin. Leyden, Terry. Butler, Larry. MacSharry, Marc. Callely, Ivor. McDonald, Lisa. Carroll, James. Ó Brolcháin, Niall. Carty, John. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cassidy, Donie. O’Brien, Francis. Corrigan, Maria. O’Malley, Fiona. Daly, Mark. Ormonde, Ann. de Búrca, Déirdre. Phelan, Kieran. Ellis, John. Quinn, Feargal. Feeney, Geraldine. Walsh, Jim. Glynn, Camillus. White, Mary M. Hanafin, John.

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Fitzgerald, Frances. Bradford, Paul. Hannigan, Dominic. Burke, Paddy. McFadden, Nicky. Buttimer, Jerry. Mullen, Rónán. Norris, David. Cannon, Ciaran. Phelan, John Paul. Coffey, Paudie. Regan, Eugene. Coghlan, Paul. Ross, Shane. Cummins, Maurice. Ryan, Brendan. Doherty, Pearse. Twomey, Liam. Donohoe, Paschal.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senators Pearse Doherty and Liam Twomey.

Question declared carried.

Sitting suspended at 2.10 p.m. until 2.45 p.m.

Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.

Section 3 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

Amendment No. 20 not moved. 774 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

Section 7 agreed to.

Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Section 10 agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.

Schedule agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.

Preamble agreed to.

Amendment No. 26 not moved.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Acting Chairman (Senator Cecilia Keaveney): When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

Senator Liam Twomey: Now.

Sitting suspended at 2.50 p.m. and resumed at 3 p.m.

Business of Seanad. Acting Chairman: As a further amendment has been tabled for Report Stage of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009, and it was submitted on time, I will have to suspend the sitting for 15 minutes to enable the Bills Office to deal with it. I ask the Leader to move the suspension of the House.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I propose that we adjourn the sitting for 15 minutes and resume at 3.15 p.m.

Acting Chairman: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 3 p.m. and resumed at 3.15 p.m.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Report and Final Stages. Acting Chairman: Before we commence I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment, who may reply to the dis- cussion on the amendment. Every amendment on Report Stage must be seconded.

Senator Pearse Doherty: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, to delete lines 43 to 46, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 17.

This amendment is opposing section 6 of the Bill. I can understand the rationale behind the text in question, which allows the Minister to exempt a particular class of public servants from the provisions of section 2. One would like to think the Minister would, in the new year, exempt large numbers of public servants from these cuts — I spoke about those earning under \20,000 775 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Senator Pearse Doherty.] and \30,000. However, it is clearly not the intention of the Government to do that. The problem I have with this section is that it leaves the power in the Minister’s hands to exempt a public servant or group of public servants — which could be the Taoiseach or Ministers or, alterna- tively, some of the lowest income earners — from the cuts. It is up to the Minister to decide what that group or class of public servants are. The other problem with section 6 is that it allows the Minister to modify the operation of section 2, which is the schedule of cuts, to make deductions to remuneration in such a manner as the Minister sees fit. One would hope this was intended to allow the Minister to modify section 2 to lessen the impact on public sector workers. The problem with section 6 — this is why I oppose the entire section — is that to support this, thereby allowing the final decision to rest in the Minister’s hands without recourse to the Seanad or Dáil, we must trust the Minister. However, this country does not trust the Government because of the decisions it has made. We have seen that time and again as the Government has chosen the wrong options on many issues. This Bill shows how wrong it is and why we should not trust the Minister on these matters. It is fundamentally a question of trust. Can we trust the Minister to modify section 2 to lessen the impact when we know it can also work in reverse? The Minister could also modify section 2 to deepen the impact. He could also exempt high-earning public servants if he felt it was just and equitable. What the Minister thinks is just and equitable may differ considerably from what I and the Opposition parties consider just and equitable. For this reason it is wrong to vest these powers in the Minister. While I understand it was probably put in the Bill to lessen the impact, it could also work in reverse, and we must trust the Minister to do the right thing. If we are to make any changes, whether to deepen or lessen the impact, it should come back before the Houses of the Oireachtas so it is properly discussed. Any exemptions or deep- ening of the impact should be debated in a democratic forum.

Senator Liam Twomey: I second the amendment. This is important because it means the Minister may change how this legislation affects all workers or a group of workers in the Civil Service or public service. I refer to the issue of the Taoiseach’s remuneration which we discussed earlier. I thank the official from the Department of Finance for giving me additional information on this. It occurred to me afterwards to ask whether this is watertight or whether a ministerial regu- lation or a statutory instrument is needed. Is there a requirement for a gentleman’s agreement to make this work? Some concerns were raised by Senator Alex White on Committee Stage. While they have been clarified, I need to know whether a ministerial regulation or a statutory instrument is required to make this work properly. The key is that the Minister has the power to alter the terms of this legislation affecting a large or a small group of workers without having to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is a significant issue and it should be opposed. No major changes should be made without the approval of the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Senator : Where exceptional circumstances are deemed to apply, the Minister can amend the regulations and, accordingly, make a decision to exclude a group of workers or amend the imposition of section 2. I again ask that the Minister of State take note of the submission I presented to his officials on Second Stage concerning a company, the employees of which appear to be in no man’s land in regard to the imposition of the possible pay cut. This company is operating commercially as a private company — 51% of it is owned by Teagasc while the remaining 49% of it is owned 776 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 by the co-operative movement. The employees in question, unlike all public sector employees, were not subject to benchmarking and the associated pay increases. They have entered into some type of public sector pension scheme recently. The case they have made would suggest they should not come under the terms of this pay deduction. I appreciate cases must be looked at on an individual basis. I note that under this section, one can make particular arrangements for cases. I ask the Minister of State to try to look sympathetically on the submission by this group of employees who are not public servants in the conventional sense and whose terms of employment and pay is quite different from normal public sector provisions.

Senator John Hanafin: When we speak in this House, it is important we speak accurately and take great care with the statistics we use. I took the opportunity of the break to contact the Department of Finance in regard to statistics used in the House pertinent to this section. According to the Department of Finance, the number of people who are earning more than \100,000 per year is not 15,000 but 9,000, some 6,000 fewer than was suggested. The figures given for Donegal were also inaccurate. It is very important to take great care to ensure accur- ate figures are used.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): Section 6 pro- vides a limited power to the Minister for Finance to exempt or vary the reduction in pay rates provided for in the Bill in respect of a public servant or group or class of public servants where exceptional circumstances exist relating to a condition or aspect of employment and a substan- tial inequity would arise as a consequence or because of an arbitration award the Government would normally be required to implement. A similar power was also included in respect of the pension levy but, to the best of my knowledge, that power has not been exercised to date. It is important some discretion is available to the Minister to address the types of situations mentioned should they arise. It would be the Minster’s intention to exercise this power very sparingly and only where it is just and equitable to do so. In some ways, it is surprising that Senator Doherty would want to delete the section because one would assume he would want there to be instances where pay reductions could be moder- ated where an inequity would otherwise arise. At the same time, to do him justice, he does not interpret the section, nor do I, as allowing the Minister to exempt, say, large categories of lower paid workers. That is not the intention of this. As was discussed at much greater length in the other House, in a public service which amounts to between 320,000 and 330,000 public servants, there is a large number of categories and subcategories where circumstances might be somewhat different. I suppose it is a safeguard clause in case a particular anomaly that has not been anticipated subsequently arises and it would give the Minister the power to deal with it. Section 7 requires the Minister to report regularly on the entire legislation. Obviously, any report would have to include exercise of the discretion. I am quite satisfied that it will not lead to any abuse of power or the exclusion of any highly paid officeholders or public servants. It is not intended, nor does it allow for that. The situation is absolutely watertight in that regard. Senator Bradford raised a particular place of employment. Earlier this year I had the pleasure of visiting and was given a detailed tour of Moorepark. It is a very fine establishment. Obviously, the Senator was referring to a subsidiary established by it. The key criteria is whether the employees are in receipt of a public service pension and, therefore, the pension levy and not benchmarking. Nevertheless the case presented to officials will be examined and he will receive a reply. 777 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

Senator Liam Twomey: The Minister of State did not answer the questions I asked about whether a ministerial regulation was needed.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Public service pay rates and allowances normally are set out in departmental circulars. This constitutes a normal second part of notifying pay rates and will be done as part of the implementation of this Bill.

Senator Pearse Doherty: I thank the Minister of State for his reply. As I noted at the outset, I acknowledge the reason this section has been included in the legislation. Unfortunately however, this comes down to the issue of trust as this provision confers on the Minister the power to alter the relevant provisions dealing with the cuts and allows him to exempt groups. As I noted previously, the problem is that opinion polls indicate the majority of the people no longer trust the Government and do not trust the Minister to make the correct decisions, as was evident last Wednesday. On this basis, I wish to press the amendment. I welcome Senator Hanafin’s intervention because it is important to provide accurate figures. Senator Hanafin should ask the Minister whether he is correct because I am reading from a reply to Question No. 104 of 16 December by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, which shows that in County Donegal, 20,658 public sector workers earn less than \20,000 and 6,437 public sector workers earn between \20,000 and \30,000. The best information available to the Department of Finance and the Minister was contained in the answer provided to the parliamentary question. It is important to have facts and for Members to base their information and opposition to this legislation on accurate facts. As for correcting me and stating I am misleading the House in respect of these facts, I am only misleading the House if I am incorrect on foot of the information the Minister for Finance provided to the Dáil on Wednesday, 16 December, in response to a parliamentary question in which he was asked for a complete breakdown of every pay grade of public sector worker. If I am to be corrected that there are fewer than 20,658 public sector workers in County Donegal who earn \20,000 or less, I stand corrected, but the Minister for Finance also must be corrected. As I stated in my contribution, I am sure the Department of Finance officials provided the Minister with the correct information, that he provided the Dáil with the correct information and that I am providing this Seanad with the correct information in this regard. Consequently, I do not believe the intervention by Senator Hanafin to be correct and I believe it was misleading this House.

Question put: “That the words proposed to be deleted stand.”

An Cathaoirleach: This will be a manual vote because there is a problem with the elec- tronic system.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 17.

Tá

Boyle, Dan. Keaveney, Cecilia. Brady, Martin. Leyden, Terry. Butler, Larry. McDonald, Lisa. Callely, Ivor. Ó Brolcháin, Niall. Carroll, James. Carty, John. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cassidy, Donie. O’Brien, Francis. Corrigan, Maria. O’Malley, Fiona. Daly, Mark. Ormonde, Ann. de Búrca, Déirdre. Phelan, Kieran. Ellis, John. Walsh, Jim. Feeney, Geraldine. White, Mary M. Glynn, Camillus. Hanafin, John. 778 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Fitzgerald, Frances. Bradford, Paul. McFadden, Nicky. Buttimer, Jerry. Norris, David. Cannon, Ciaran. Phelan, John Paul. Coffey, Paudie. Regan, Eugene. Coghlan, Paul. Ross, Shane. Cummins, Maurice. Ryan, Brendan. Doherty, Pearse. Twomey, Liam. Donohoe, Paschal.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senators Pearse Doherty and Liam Twomey.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Senator Paddy Burke: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 12, after line 30, to insert “No. 24 Anglo Irish Bank Ltd.”.

I raised this issue on Committee Stage along with the matter — about which the Minister of State was not happy either — of the consultancy fees being paid on behalf of the State bank and other banks supported by the State which may be taken over yet. I was not happy with the answer the Minister of State gave on why Anglo Irish Bank is omitted from the Schedule. It seems that provision could be made under section 1(g) if it were taken to its fullest extent. It refers to a body other than a body specified or referred to in the schedule. Anglo Irish Bank could well become part of the Civil Service. I tabled the amendment to ensure there would be no ambiguity. Are other semi-State bodies excluded from the Schedule? I could not think of any but I presume that at this stage Anglo Irish Bank is a fully fledged semi-State body, unless it is not fully established as a semi-State body under some of the Acts passed over the years. If it has been fully established as a semi-State I am sure it should be included. Perhaps its omission was a typing error. On that basis I hope the Minister of State will clarify the position and accept the amendment if it is a semi-State body. The Minister for Finance indicated he would speak with the semi-State bodies about competi- tiveness, which concerns wages and wage cuts. According to the Bill the list of semi-State bodies does not include Anglo Irish Bank and that discussion would not include it. The Minister of State told us Anglo Irish Bank is not part of the Civil Service and does not fall into the remit of Civil Service wage cuts or pensions. There is much ambiguity with regard to this in the Bill and I hope the Minister of State accepts the amendment.

Senator Liam Twomey: I second the amendment. Will the Minister of State clarify the status of Anglo Irish Bank? Is it merely that the State is the only shareholder of a bank? Would it be the same as if the Government bought Water, that it would simply own it as a company? Does Anglo Irish Bank have specific status in a way that the Government can manipulate it and affect how it is run?

Deputy Martin Mansergh: To answer the last question first, its status is that it is a nationalised bank. It is not a public service body under section 1(g)or1(h). It does not have a public service pension scheme. It does not need to be included for clarity’s sake. Its employees are clearly not public servants and there are all sorts of reasons — I do not wish to repeat what I stated 779 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.] on Committee Stage — including restructuring, security of employment and redundancy why it should not be treated or regarded as a public service body.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

Question proposed “That the Bill do now pass”.

Senator Paddy Burke: Section 10(2) of the Bill states:

This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister appoints by order or orders either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision. Different days may be so appointed for different purposes or provisions.

On the day of the budget the Minister for Finance clearly stated that he wanted the drinks companies to reduce the price of drink and the wholesalers took him at his word. Some of the wholesalers are also manufacturers and they employ a considerable amount of people. Among the largest wholesalers are Britvic, Gleeson’s and Comans. There are approximately 30 whole- salers in the country, including Stephen Walsh in Westport. Many of these wholesalers are under enormous pressure, going to banks to try to keep their overdrafts in place. In some cases their overdrafts have been reduced or halved. Britvic employs 800 people in Newcastle.

Senator Maurice Cummins: There is also Kiely’s in Waterford.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): Kiely’sisin Tipperary.

Senator Maurice Cummins: A different Kiely’s.

Senator Paddy Burke: There is a list of them and they are under enormous pressure, partic- ularly given the trade across the Border. They are keeping the show on the road. We are approaching Christmas and wholesalers have their stores and warehouses filled with drink bought at the original excise price. On the night of the budget, the Minister stated he wanted the price of drink reduced the following morning. The indications from the Revenue Commis- sioners were that more than likely the wholesalers would get a refund of the excise duty as happened in the 1980s when the drink was returned to the bonded warehouses and the price refunded. The small amount of money involved — between \5 million and \6 million — is an enormous amount of money to those wholesalers, who employ about 3,000 people, to keep their show on the road. If some of those wholesalers go out of business, it will affect the competitiveness of the entire industry. I urge the Minister of State to take the necessary steps to ensure they get the refund and keep their people employed. It will cost the biggest wholesaler \1 million, while it will cost \500,000 for the second biggest wholesaler. Britvic is a British owned plc that employs 800 people in this country. I am sure the management of that company in England is 4o’clock wondering what is going on here, where its warehouse is full of products at a particular excise duty and the Minister for Finance asks them to reduce the price at a cost of \500,000. I am trying to impress on the Minister of State the real urgency that exists to keep people employed in this sector, which is having a difficult time.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Notwithstanding the fact that this issue is not at the heart of this Bill, I am aware of the problem. Officials from one of the companies named by the Senator 780 Financial Emergency Measures in the 18 December 2009. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 discussed the matter in some detail with me. In the spirit of Christmas, I will treat what he said as a pre-finance Bill submission and it will be considered on its merits in that context.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 18.

Tá

Boyle, Dan. Hanafin, John. Brady, Martin. Keaveney, Cecilia. Butler, Larry. Leyden, Terry. Callely, Ivor. McDonald, Lisa. Carroll, James. Ó Brolcháin, Niall. Carty, John. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Cassidy, Donie. O’Brien, Francis. Corrigan, Maria. O’Malley, Fiona. Daly, Mark. Ormonde, Ann. de Búrca, Déirdre. Phelan, Kieran. Ellis, John. Walsh, Jim. Feeney, Geraldine. White, Mary M. Glynn, Camillus.

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Donohoe, Paschal. Bradford, Paul. Fitzgerald, Frances. Burke, Paddy. McFadden, Nicky. Norris, David. Buttimer, Jerry. Phelan, John Paul. Cannon, Ciaran. Regan, Eugene. Coffey, Paudie. Ross, Shane. Coghlan, Paul. Ryan, Brendan. Cummins, Maurice. Twomey, Liam. Doherty, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senators Maurice Cummins and Liam Twomey.

Question declared carried.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009: Motion for Earlier Signature. Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That pursuant to subsection 2° of section 2 of Article 25 of the Constitution, Seanad Éireann concurs with the Government in a request to the President to sign the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2009 on a date which is earlier than the fifth day after the date on which the Bill shall have been presented to her.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Donie Cassidy: At 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 January 2010.

Senator Pearse Doherty: The proposal to adjourn until 20 January 2010 is a disgrace.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator opposing the proposal? 781 National 18 December 2009. Monuments

Senator Pearse Doherty: I formally oppose the proposal.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I second that.

Senator Pearse Doherty: The Government has cut the pay of public sector workers who will return to work in the first week of January, whereas Deputies and Senators will not return to the House until the third week of the month, having taken their holidays one week before everyone else.

Question put: “That the House do now adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 January 2010.”

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 18.

Tá

Boyle, Dan. Glynn, Camillus. Brady, Martin. Hanafin, John. Butler, Larry. Leyden, Terry. Callely, Ivor. McDonald, Lisa. Ó Brolcháin, Niall. Carroll, James. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Carty, John. O’Brien, Francis. Cassidy, Donie. O’Malley, Fiona. Corrigan, Maria. Ormonde, Ann. Daly, Mark. Phelan, Kieran. de Búrca, Déirdre. Walsh, Jim. Ellis, John. White, Mary M. Feeney, Geraldine.

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Donohoe, Paschal. Bradford, Paul. Fitzgerald, Frances. Burke, Paddy. McFadden, Nicky. Norris, David. Buttimer, Jerry. Phelan, John Paul. Cannon, Ciaran. Regan, Eugene. Coffey, Paudie. Ross, Shane. Coghlan, Paul. Ryan, Brendan. Cummins, Maurice. Twomey, Liam. Doherty, Pearse.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Déirdre de Búrca and Camillus Glynn; Níl, Senators Ivana Bacik and Pearse Doherty.

Question declared carried.

Adjournment Matters.

————

National Monuments. Senator John Paul Phelan: It is appropriate that the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh, responds to this matter. We spoke about this in the Seanad ante- room earlier. It concerns Knockroe Passage Tomb, south County Kilkenny. It is in an area of Kilkenny immediately adjacent to south Tipperary. A stream at the end of the field in which the tomb is located is the border between Kilkenny and Tipperary. It is a contentious border

782 National 18 December 2009. Monuments at certain times of the year, as the Cathaoirleach can attest. I am pleased that Deputy Mansergh is here to respond. This Neolithic passage tomb is known locally as the Coshel and is along the lines of what we know from Newgrange, County Meath. It is not as heralded nationally or internationally as Newgrange but it is the same sort of passage tomb as Newgrange. A series of excavation works were carried out by Professor Muiris Ó Súilleabhán of UCD in the 1990s. Very little work has been carried out since his team’s excavation. A local commit- tee is involved in the protection and promotion of this national monument. The committee is concerned that very little work has taken place since the period of Professor Ó Súilleabhán’s excavations. There does not appear to be a clear timeframe for future works. The local commit- tee is worried because the site is open to the elements, human beings and other creatures. There is a possibility that damage may be done, naturally through erosion or through man- made contact with the site. Hopefully, the Minister of State will be in a position to outline to the House a programme of works for the not too distant future to ensure this significant national monument is protected, allowing more people to learn of its existence and to visit it. It is of national and international significance.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Martin Mansergh): I can think of no more appropriate subject to be taking on the Adjournment three days short of the winter solstice.

Senator John Paul Phelan: Exactly.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: The remains of the passage tomb at Knockroe lie in an agricultural landscape close to the Lingaun River and the boundary between counties Kilkenny and Tipperary. Its present appearance belies its importance. Known locally as the Coshel, it has long been regarded locally as a place of significance, its mysterious past and its relationship to a wider symbolic landscape accepted as an integral part of local culture. The monument is located on sloping ground in a landscape of low hills dominated by the mass of Sliabh na mBan to the west. Land use in the immediate environs of the monument is predominantly pasture grazed by cattle. To the south and west, the land slopes dramatically to the river, its banks shrouded in dense vegetation. A short distance away, the riverine landscape bears the scars of abandoned stone quarries, now softened by encroaching vegetation.

Senator John Paul Phelan: Slate quarries.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I will accept the correction. The monument consists of a denuded round cairn approximately 20 m in diameter that incorporates the remains of two passage tombs. The west tomb is relatively simple in plan, with a passage widening into a terminal chamber, the overall structure measuring approximately 4.5 m from entrance to backstone. The east tomb has a more complex, quasi-cruciform plan and measures approximately 3 m from entrance to backstone, with a further gap of approximately 1.5 m separating the entrance from the perimeter kerb. At its widest, the east tomb measures approximately 2.5 m across. As is normal in the case of Irish passage tombs, the tombs are defined by orthostats and the per- imeter is defined by a kerb of megalithic slabs. On the east side, the kerb runs across in front of the tomb as at Newgrange and Knowth, for example, but a flanking winged fac¸ade opens out from the tomb on the west side and merges into the kerb. Unusually for a passage tomb, Knockroe is situated on the side of the valley. It is located on a south-facing slope with impressive vistas to the south and west, interrupted by Carrigadun Hill overlooking Ahenny approximately 2 km downriver and Kilmacoliver Hill to the south 783 Garda 18 December 2009. Stations

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.] east, at the summit of which the Baunfree site is located. Beyond the Suir to the south, the Comeragh Mountains rise impressively and, to the west, Slievenamon is the lone landmark, its lower flanks hidden by the rising ground on the south-west side of the Lingaun. Slate extraction — I got it right there — thrived into the 20th century and had its origins as far back as medieval times. It has left quarries, spoil heaps and other relics of industry along the Lingaun, giving the local area its distinctive appearance and name, the Slate Quarries, although the once scarred valley is now a picturesque haven overtaken by vegetation and wildlife. It has considerable potential for industrial archaeology. An important aspect of the study of megalithic tombs is the source of the stones used in their construction. Preliminary geological studies in the landscape around the Coshel indicate that the stones used by the builders were all accessible within a kilometre or two of the Knockroe site. There is evidence that considerable care went into the selection of particular types of stone for passage tombs, which suggests that the location of the site may have been chosen with raw materials in mind. Another historical feature deserves special mention. Immediately below the Coshel, less than 100 m distant, the confluence of the Lingaun and one of its tributaries marks the boundary between counties Kilkenny and Tipperary, Leinster and Munster and the dioceses of Ossory and Cashel. The coincidence of a natural boundary defining administrative and ecclesiastical limits suggests that this territory may have been a liminal place from ancient times. It is a wonderful monument in a beautiful setting. I had the pleasure of visiting it on 22 May of this year. It was a beautiful sunny day, unusual for this year. I could appreciate at first hand its significance with the presence of two chambers in one cairn and their mid-winter alignment. The east tomb is aligned to the rising sun and the west tomb to the setting sun at the winter solstice. There is no evidence that the monument was ever covered completely by a mound like other megalithic tombs. The significance of the complex is threatened through the vulnerability of the site and the standing remains. While secluded, the site is easily accessible. In its present state, its archaeolog- ical features are open to damage, inadvertent or otherwise. These features are deteriorating through exposure to the elements. Certain standing stones display evidence of structural insta- bility. The site could also be vulnerable to changes in land use in the vicinity. With all of this in mind, I commissioned a conservation plan for Knockroe passage tomb earlier this year. The plan is in the final stages of preparation and is expected to be published early in 2010. The purpose is to maintain Knockroe as an open archaeological site that will remain an object of study and inspiration. I look forward to studying the measures put forward in the plan to support the aims to reduce the effects of weathering and to prevent inadvertent damage by visitors. The role of the conservation plan is to establish specific policies by identi- fying threats to the monument’s site and setting, establishing an approach to the conservation of the monument and identifying areas where co-ordination of action and policy is required. A public consultation meeting was held in Tullahought in September 2009 and was well attended by members of the local community. I hope to launch the plan in this locality in the new year.

Senator John Paul Phelan: I thank the Minister of State.

Garda Stations. Senator Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this matter and the Mini- ster of State for handling the debate on behalf of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law 784 Garda 18 December 2009. Stations

Reform. I have raised it due to the importance of the Fitzgibbon Street Garda station to the central Dublin area and the Dublin Central constituency. It is located near the city centre, a residential area and an area that sees considerable throughput and visitors. It is situated near Croke Park and Mountjoy Square. It is in the heart of Dublin’s north inner city. The station is not only important in terms of providing ongoing community policing, the policing required in making Croke Park successful or the policing needed to ensure that the city centre is protected. It is also important in that it provides a passive policing role. Since gardaí are located in a well resourced station, they have the ability to mount quick responses to the incidents that can sometimes occur in an inner city surrounded by diverse communities with different needs that can face many challenges in terms of crime and anti-social behaviour. I am raising this matter with the Minister of State, to whose response I look forward, because the station’s future status appears uncertain. The rumour is that it will be closed for a period to facilitate renovation works. In and of itself, this is no bad thing, as the station needs work. It must be a secure and safe place in which gardaí can work and people can use or visit. The main question, however, relates to what will happen if and while the work is being carried out. I am seeking a guarantee from the Department and an assurance from the Minister of State that, if the station is closed to facilitate any necessary renovation and development works, the closure will be temporary. It should be re-opened at its current level of full resources and supports. This is essential for the maintenance of good policing in the community and for good order and security in an important part of our capital city.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: I am glad to be able to give Senator Donohoe the absolute assur- ance he is seeking. I would like to thank him for raising this matter, which I am taking on behalf of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Fitzgibbon Street station has a long and proud record of service to the people of north inner-city Dublin. It is to be refurbished to allow it maintain that record into the future. There is absolutely no threat to the future of Fitzgibbon Street Station. The Minister has been happy in recent times to give that same assurance to my Dáil colleague, Deputy . On 30 October the personnel strength at Fitzgibbon Garda station was 120. Fitzgibbon Garda station forms part of the DMR north central Garda division. On the same date, the personnel strength of the DMR north central Garda division was 718. There are 23 community gardaí attached to Fitzgibbon Street Garda station and four juvenile liaison officers attached to the DMR north central Garda division. The Minister has been informed by the Garda authorities that, due to its condition, it is necessary to temporarily vacate Fitzgibbon Street Garda station to facilitate refurbishment of the premises. During this period, the Garda personnel allocated to Fitzgibbon Street will operate from Mountjoy Garda station. The Minister has been also assured by the Garda auth- orities that current policing levels will be maintained and that there will be no diminution of the service being provided to the local community. The Minister would emphasise that the measures referred to will be temporary and that they will be discontinued when the necessary refurbishment work at Fitzgibbon Street Station has been completed.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: The reply says it all. I appreciate it and will pass on the infor- mation to the local community.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Before concluding, having been in this House practically every week since we resumed in September and sometimes several times a week, I take this oppor- tunity to thank the Cathaoirleach and all Members for their courtesy and co-operation, and 785 The 18 December 2009. Adjournment

[Deputy Martin Mansergh.] all members of staff for their support. I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a successful new year.

An Cathaoirleach: Thank you. I wish the Minister of State the same.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I wish the Minister of State a happy Christmas. I believe I have engaged with him more often than I have with anybody else in the House. I wish him a good period of rest and a happy new year.

The Seanad adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 20 January 2010.

786