Vol. 201 Thursday, No. 3 25 February 2010

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Thursday, 25 February 2010.

Membership of the Government ……………………………137 Business of the Seanad ………………………………137 Order of Business …………………………………138 Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2010: Motion…………………156 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (resumed)………………157 Adjournment Matters: Water and Sewerage Schemes …………………………177 Harbourmaster Appointment …………………………179 Special Educational Needs ……………………………181 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Déardaoin, 25 Feabhra 2010. Thursday, 25 February 2010.

————

Chuaigh an i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir. Prayer.

————

Membership of the Government. An Cathaoirleach: I wish to inform the House that I have received correspondence dated 18 February 2010 from the Secretary General to the Government regarding the membership of the Government. The notification will be included in the Official Journal of the House.

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

The need for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to appoint a full time harbourmaster in the port of Castletownbere as a matter of urgency to fill the existing vacancy.

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

The need for the Minister for Education and Science to provide an update on the redevel- opment of St. Laurence O’Toole’s special school, North Strand, Dublin 1, and a guarantee from him that it will be speedily processed for Department funding.

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

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to give an update on progressing sewerage schemes in Newtowncunningham, and Moville, and the precise reasons for current delays on these vital schemes.

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

The need for the Minister for Communications Energy and Natural Resources to make a statement regarding interference with television reception in the villages of Mullagh, Cootehill and Shercock in County Cavan as a result of the erection of telecommunication masts facilitating the Tetra system for emergency services.

I regard the matters raised by Senators O’Donovan, Donohoe and Keaveney as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. I regret I have had to rule out of order the matter raised by Senator Wilson as the Minister has no official responsibility in this matter. 137 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Order of Business. Senator : The Order of Business is No. 1, motion re Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2010 — back from committee, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; and No. 2, Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2010 — Committee Stage, to resume at the conclusion of No. 1 and to adjourn at 1.30 p.m. if not previously concluded.

Senator : As a matter of urgency, the House must debate the banking crisis with the Minister for Finance. To some degree, the Government’s economic policy is unravelling before our eyes, while at the same time taxpayers are committing themselves for unbelievable amounts of money. We have paid €11 billion in direct aid to the banks. We will buy approximately €50 billion worth of junk bonds from the European Central Bank. We have a bank guarantee of €400 billion and we are still at it. The Government is committed to spend- ing billions more and buying stakes in our major banks which, it is clear, are still operating to their own rules, which I would expect them to do to some degree. However, we are investing billions of our children’s future into banks without yet knowing whether it will work. We need to have a serious debate on this issue. We cannot do what the Minister for Finance is doing and state that everything is hunky dory because Europe supports us. Europe does not support us. All Europe supports is that we do not cost it money; it does not give a hoot whether we bankrupt ourselves. We also need a serious debate about what is happening in the public sector. Public sector workers are refusing to answer phones or to take any part in the re-organisation of health or other services. Even if it is only inconveniencing people, we know such inconvenience can be a huge issue for ordinary people seeking social welfare payments or medical cards. In the health services, it has the potential to cost people their lives unless we get it sorted out fairly quickly. Will the Leader call on the Taoiseach to come to the House to discuss this issue before it escalates to a point where it has a detrimental effect on citizens? Yesterday, comments were made on the quality of patient care in the health services. Prior to the most recent general election, the Dáil debated the Medical Practitioners Act which had a section on assuring the competency of doctors. Three years later, that competence assurance programme has not started. Such a programme for doctors, nurses and other professionals in the health service is how we will curb the Michael Nearys of the future. The Minister must do more than legislate; she must ensure these programmes work and get them working immediately.

Senator Joe O’Toole: I was disappointed that the Leader did not find time yesterday or today for a debate on banking.

Senator : Hear, hear.

Senator Joe O’Toole: He gave us a very solemn promise on Tuesday——

Senator Donie Cassidy: It was voted down. It was not accepted.

Senator Joe O’Toole: From the response we got from the Leader we understood there would be a debate within the next couple of days.

Senator Donie Cassidy: No.

Senator Joe O’Toole: I still think it is crucial. The Leader himself has been clear on the importance of this debate. I agree with him in regard to the issues we have to consider, includ- 138 Order of 25 February 2010. Business ing the third banking force, our relationship with Europe, the timetable for NAMA and the Government’s best projections for the economy for the rest of this year. I would like to debate the figures in the budget, which appear to be on course at this stage. We need these debates in order that people can express confidence in or criticise what is happening. Given that next week will be three months since the Budget Statement, it would be useful to hold a debate on the budget’s very positive forecasts for Government debt at all levels. Are they still positive? The projections for unemployment were also positive. We need a debate on this matter and banking is a crucial part of it. I support the calls made by Senator Twomey for a debate and I would like one to be arranged for today. I am not proposing an amendment to the Order of Business but the Leader needs to deliver on this immediately.

Senator : I wish to raise the issue of student maintenance grants. A number of us met representatives of the Union of Students in Ireland this morning in Buswells Hotel to discuss the impact on students of delays in grant payments. I found out just this week from the Department of Education and Science that in my own county of Meath, 140 students have not yet received their first payment which was due in October. They have had to pay for rent, clothing and food from their own pockets throughout the winter because the Government has dragged its heels. We can rectify the situation by introducing the student support Bill 2008. It has been in existence for two years. I ask the Leader to use his good offices to find out what is happening to that Bill. I welcome the publication by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Govern- ment, Deputy Gormley, of the heads of a Bill enabling the election of a mayor for Dublin. However, it is clear from his proposals that further scrutiny and improvements are needed before the proposed legislation is passed into law. We could do worse than learn lessons from what has been done in other jurisdictions, such as the mayoralties of New York and London. I saw the benefits a directly elected mayor can bring when London established such an office in 2000. Two years ago, I campaigned with my colleagues from the in Dublin South-East on behalf of a former mayor, Ken Livingstone. Although the object of our affection was not successful on that occasion, I have no doubt that when it comes to Dublin’s mayor, we will be successful. In scrutinising the Bill in this House, I want to examine the powers conferred on the mayor and the issue of the discretionary budget, which is necessary. It it is clear from listening to the Minister, Deputy Gormley, that he will not meet his original timetable of holding an election in June. Although he expressed certainty that the election would be held before the end of this year, I doubt he will be able to do so because it is clear from his Government colleagues and senior officials around the capital that many people do not want this legislation and would prefer to see it kicked to touch The Minister needs to push on with his proposals while ensuring real powers are devolved to the mayor. The legislation has the potential to provide excellent news on service delivery for 1 million Dubliners, but improvements are needed before we put it through the Houses.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I wish briefly to address the Adjournment matter I tabled for the Cathaoirleach’s consideration.

An Cathaoirleach: It is out of order.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I accept and appreciate the decision of the Chair. The new TETRA system, which I warmly welcome, will allow digital communications with Garda stations throughout the country. The system began to be rolled out in counties Cavan and Monaghan just before Christmas. Unfortunately, it is causing interference to television recep- 139 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

[Senator Diarmuid Wilson.] tion in the towns of Mullagh, Cootehill, Shercock, Bailieborough, Clones, Castleblayney, Ballybay and Monaghan. This is a particular problem for elderly people who depend on terres- trial television for entertainment. Many of them follow the soaps.

An Cathaoirleach: I have ruled on that. Is the Senator making a request of the Leader?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Will the Leader to facilitate a debate in this House with the Ministers for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and Justice, Equality and Law Reform on the difficulties the TETRA system is causing to vulnerable people in the aforemen- tioned towns and, no doubt, in other areas as it is rolled out? I welcome the introduction of the new system and do not deny its necessity. It is possible to rectify the problem by purchasing a piece of equipment that can be placed on one’s aerial but it costs €300. In these times of hardship, that is a lot of money for elderly people.

An Cathaoirleach: We cannot have a debate.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Will the Leader arrange a debate on this matter? I respect the Cathaoirleach’s decision in regard to the Adjournment matter.

Senator : Over the past 12 months I have regularly called for a debate on law and order, to no avail. We have had no debate on law and order. We are only two months into 2010 and eight people are dead because of gangland murders. There were 20 deaths in 2009 but we have already reached 35% of that figure this year. Despite rushing legislation through this House to make gang membership a criminal offence, no arrests have yet been made under this provision and nobody has been convicted for a gangland murder in the past three years. As we all know, the drug trade fuels gangland crime and it is thriving at present. Security in our ports and airports falls far below the required levels. Two container scanners are expected to cover every port in the country. This is an absolute disgrace. Last year alone, 2,174 mobile telephones were seized in our prisons. Criminals continue to run their operations from jail. If the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform cannot secure our prisons, how can he secure our streets? We need him to come to the House to account for his very poor stewardship. He can snigger and mock in the other House, yet he cannot be accountable to us for the appalling condition of law and order in this State. He needs to come to the House at the earliest possibly opportunity. We have been waiting 12 months for a debate on law and order. Crime is rife on our streets but we cannot have a debate in this House. It is an absolute disgrace.

Senator Donie Cassidy: He has been here for every Bill.

Senator Maurice Cummins: He has not come here to discuss crime.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The facts are the facts.

Senator Maurice Cummins: He has not been here to discuss the issue.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions.

Senator : He has been busy elsewhere.

Senator : Climbing trees.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: Writing letters. 140 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senator : I suggest the repeated requests for a debate on the banking crisis are fuelled by concerns about the lack of credit from the banks to small and medium-sized enterprises. Perhaps the Leader would consider widening the debate on banking to include proposals on job creation and resolving this severe imposition on small and medium-sized enterprises. Everybody knows they are hanging on by their fingernails in the hope that NAMA will free up credit. In facilitating this debate, will the Leader examine the role of Mr. Trichet, the European Central Bank and Germany, which seems to be the driving force protecting the euro? In light of what is happening in Greece, there is a growing view among economists that we at least need a debate around the question of having a devaluation of the euro. If that were to happen, I suggest in the context of a request to the Leader, this would be of enormous benefit to this country as a trading nation. We have suffered grievously in recent years because of the strength of the euro vis-à-vis our two main trading blocs, the sterling area and the dollar area. Perhaps we need to get clarity and to find out exactly why the European Commission is delaying a decision on NAMA so that we can get the concept rolling and, I hope, so that we can then release credit where it is needed most not only to protect jobs but to create new ones.

Senator : I endorse what Senator Hannigan said about the student support Bill. Many of us have already been lobbied this morning about that in Buswell’s Hotel. The Leader of the House might be able to tell us where the Bill is and what is happening to it. I think it is sitting somewhere in Merrion Street and has been for two years. The least the students should get is some indication of when it will be published and come before these Houses. Yesterday I attended a meeting of the Joint Committee on Transport. There was a missing ingredient at that meeting, namely, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, who for some reason is one of the lead players in the controversy surrounding Ryanair’s effort to get into hangar six. Will the Leader of the House ask the Tánaiste to come to the House to explain the Government’s position on this? I notice she is quoted this morning as saying it would not be in the interests of Aer Lingus shareholders for her to combine with Michael O’Leary to ask Aer Lingus to move out of that hangar. As far as I know she is not in the business of acting for the other Aer Lingus share- holders. The reason the Tánaiste has that key shareholding is because she is meant to act in the interests of the nation and the taxpayer. I do not know whether she is muddled or muzzled but it is about time she decided whose interests she is acting for — Aer Rianta, the taxpayer or the other shareholders. She does not seem to know. I suggest she comes to the House and sorts this out because there is a growing suspicion that whatever the rights and wrongs of this ongoing spat there are at least three parties whose prime motivation is to thwart Michael O’Leary and Ryanair rather than the interests that they are meant to represent. It would be a great pity if a major decision was taken on the basis of personal animosity or a personal difficulty, which all of those three parties have got with that company. I have one question which Mr. O’Leary himself asked yesterday. If this was Bill Gates or Michael Dell, would they get the same treatment as Michael O’Leary? I suggest they would not.

Senator David Norris: One would hope so.

Senator : Could the Leader of the House give some consideration to the pro- posals, suggestions and speculation that a major reconfiguration of Departments is about to take place? This House could have a good input and advise and make recommendations to the Government. There is much experience in this House as far as the configuration of Depart- ments is concerned. For instance, I hope that the Department of Community, Rural and Gael- 141 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

[Senator Terry Leyden.] tacht affairs will be retained but one could add culture to that because it is an additional part of rural life.

An Cathaoirleach: We can have a debate if Senator Leyden is seeking one but I do not want speakers putting forward their views on the Order of Business. We can hear them if the Leader agrees to have the debate.

Senator Terry Leyden: As a former Minister for trade and marketing, I think that those areas of responsibility should be introduced as a Cabinet portfolio because it is so important. Members of this House would make a great addition to the Cabinet.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Is Senator Leyden applying for the job?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Hear, hear.

Senator Terry Leyden: As a Senator, one would have no constituency considerations.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Canvassing will disqualify.

Senator Terry Leyden: One could travel the world on behalf of this country for trade and industry. That would be worthwhile. I ask whoever is trying to spike the progress of NAMA to desist and withdraw their objec- tions to the European Council and the Commission. There is an ulterior motive behind it. I know who it is and what they have done. They should withdraw it.

Senators: Name and shame.

Senator Terry Leyden: Wait for chapter two next week.

Senator Liam Twomey: On a point of order a Chathaoirligh. Senator Leyden should correct the record. It would be highly unlikely that one individual could block the progress of NAMA. It is clear that the European Union has concerns about it.

Senator Terry Leyden: I did not name anyone.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Cannon.

Senator Terry Leyden: Next week I will have a further edition.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions please or Senator Leyden will go out the door.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Leyden was the same yesterday. He did not name the people. He is afraid.

Senator Terry Leyden: Senator Buttimer changed the record of the House last week.

An Cathaoirleach: Please Senator. I will not put up with that.

Senator Terry Leyden: I appreciate that.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruption. If Senator Leyden interrupts once more then out he goes.

Senator Terry Leyden: Thanks. I will make it easy, I will go.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I would like—— 142 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden, I will not allow Members to go around the House and talk to other Members when someone is speaking. That is not in order.

Senator Paul Coghlan: He is like a bold child.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: Is it possible to extend and continue the debate we had last night on special educational needs? The debate was far too short. Several Members on this side did not get an opportunity to contribute. We need the Minister to return to the House so we can continue to question him on policy. I was quite appalled at what I thought was very juvenile behaviour on the part of the Minister; something I have not seen from any other Minister in the Chamber. On numerous occasions he interrupted——

An Cathaoirleach: We are not going back on a debate that was held last night but the Senator is entitled to ask the Leader for another debate.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I ask that we continue the debate because sufficient time was not given to this issue——

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: ——which occupies the minds of many parents and children. It was cut short, and I ask that it be extended.

An Cathaoirleach: Two hours was allocated as usual for that Private Members’ debate.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: Not alone did the Minister interrupt our education spokesperson——

An Cathaoirleach: Please.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: ——but he also engaged in a despicable piece of spinning.

An Cathaoirleach: No, to be honest, I was present for much of the debate.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: He said the primary reason special educational needs services were being cut back was because he had a concern that having an SNA might somehow impinge on a child’s sense of independence.

Senator Liam Twomey: SNAs give them independence.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I never heard such nonsense in my entire life.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: If that is the sort of spinning going on——

An Cathaoirleach: Point made.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: ——in regard to this serious issue, we need to have this debate continue.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: Beidh coicís na Gaeilge ag tosnú an tseachtain seo chugainn agus b’fhéidir go mbeidh an Cheannaire in ann roinnt ama a chur ar fáil chun é seo a phlé agus cuireadh a thabhairt don Aire, an Teachta Éamon Ó Cuív, teacht isteach chun stádas na Gaeilge a phlé linn. 143 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

[Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú.]

Next week will be a benchmark for the Irish language. It will be the commencement of the Irish language fortnight. As we know from previous years this is a very comprehensive pro- motional effort for the Irish language. Perhaps the Leader could invite in the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív, to update us precisely on the draft 20 year strategy which has now been published. In recent weeks the Joint Committee on Arts, Sport, Tourism and Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs had a comprehensive debate. Seven Irish language organisations were invited to the meeting to debate the strategy. The meeting was transmitted live on TG4 for two and a half hours. That was a first for the Oireachtas. Tomorrow the committee will travel to Connemara and will meet representative groups from all the Gaeltacht areas, starting at 9 a.m. and finishing at 6 p.m. tomorrow evening. It would be timely and opportune next week, given the fact that it will be Irish language fortnight, to invite the Minister to participate in a debate with us on the status of the Irish language. One thing of which we are all well aware is that there is huge goodwill for the Irish language at the present time. It is no longer a political football. We now find young and old want to see comprehensive proposals and policies to build on that goodwill. If one looks outside this country, whether at Moscow, New York or London, there will be Irish language cel- ebrations and activities throughout the fortnight. There will be Irish language celebrations and activities throughout the fortnight. I hope it will be possible for the Leader to allocate time next week because most of the people organising this are young, full of energy and inspirational and they will look to the Oireachtas for support and endorsement. We should not let that opportunity pass.

Senator David Norris: I join colleagues in asking for a debate on the financial system but it should cover the economy generally and not be confined to the banks. I walked through the Hibernian Way and Creation Arcade on may to Leinster House earlier. Approximately 50% of the shops are closed and the remainder have sales with reductions ranging from 50% to 70%. That hits one when one physically sees it. I commend the President and Dr. Martin McAleese on their initiative to seek ideas for jobs. This is positive and creative. I am astonished to hear Members say Mr. Michael O’Leary should be supported in his efforts to evict Aer Lingus. He is a very colourful, flamboyant, brilliant and successful businessman but he is a robber baron and it would be astonishing in terms of financial morality if we were to stand over a situation where contracts, leases and so on could be just torn up 11 o’clock willy-nilly because jobs which may or may not be there are dangled in a cruel fashion in front of a hungry workfoce. This is the kind of thing we witnessed at Shannon Airport where we were prepared to give into financial gangsterism and sacrifice all our principles of morality and decency. I will oppose this, although I admire the business enterprise of Mr. O’Leary. The House should congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs on managing to get into Gaza. He is a courageous man. I have been their in similar circumstances and it was not pleasant. Apart from the appalling conditions in which people are living that I had to witness, I was in an UNRWA van with both sides shooting across us. There was thin metal between me and death. The Minister should meet Hamas representatives. The peace process in was successful because we overcame our revulsion at bombers and gunmen and we dealt directly with people. This is not the same. A legitimate government has been driven into a corner. It behaved badly but, by goodness, it is nothing compared to the crimes being per- petrated against the people of Gaza. 144 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I support the calls for a series of debates on job creation. I welcome the speculation in today’s newspaper about a Cabinet reshuffle with an emphasis on the creation of jobs.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator might be in.

Senator Liam Twomey: Would the Senator like a job?

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ó Brolcháin, without interruption.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: I do not know what Opposition Members are guffawing about.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Will the Senator accept a position?

Senator Rónán Mullen: Senator Ross could be appointed.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: The Government has put together an excellent document about the smart economy. Many different types of jobs are being created. The green economy, in particular, is providing tens of thousands of jobs every year and it will continue to do so.

Senator Maurice Cummins: What will the Senator’s party do for the 500,000 unemployed?

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: The west has a great opportunity to substitute €6 billion in renew- able energy projects for €6 billion in fossil fuels, which equates to a €12 billion increase in the economy. There are great opportunities if we take them. I reject the notion that Michael O’Leary is the only man in the country who can provide jobs. Many different people could provide jobs and we need to focus on a holistic attitude to job creation. Sustainable jobs must be created, not jobs that will disappear to another country on somebody’s whim. We need jobs we can keep for good in order that we have a sound base for the economy. It would be appropriate if, in due course, the Taoiseach could come to the House to debate the Government’s jobs strategy. That should be the focus for all of us and the party politicking that is going on is disingenuous. We need to take this matter seriously as a Government and as a House.

Senator Maurice Cummins: With 500,000 people unemployed.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I seek a debate and action as a matter of urgency regarding the practice of upward only rent reviews, which has crept in. This practice is threatening jobs in Wilton shopping centre in my city of Cork and, as Senator Mooney said, many sole traders are struggling and there are major issues regarding their survival. This practice is bad and legis- lation needs to be amended or enacted to bring about change whereby people who are doing business can operate and trade in an environment which is competitive and which will allow them to survive and create jobs. I propose an amendment to the Order of Business and call for the Minister for Education and Science to come to the House to discuss two issues — the student support Bill and special needs education. Last night I was appalled by his response to Senator Healy Eames prior to the debate on special education needs commencing properly——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer——

Senator Jerry Buttimer: ——and in his contribution.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer—— 145 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senator Jerry Buttimer: He did a disservice to the parents, children and teachers engaged in special needs education. This morning——

An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator kindly respect the Chair? I asked him to cease from raising this earlier.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I respect the Chair.

An Cathaoirleach: I ruled on this earlier. I do not want to go back over last night’s debate. The Senator can seek a debate on this from the Leader.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I respect the Chair completely.

An Cathaoirleach: I hope so.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What have I said that is wrong? The Minister engaged in a naked political attack based on——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Cannon raised that.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: ——the motion before the House last night.

An Cathaoirleach: That was last night and the issue was given the required time.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I seek a debate on behalf of——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is entitled to seek a debate but that is all.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I seek a debate on behalf of the parents, teachers and children involved. Last night the Minister in his press statement used more provocative remarks about the Party. That is guttersnipe politics. Will the Leader defend what he said last night? Will he defend the Minister’s press statement?

An Cathaoirleach: That can be raised in the debate.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: If that is the politics of the Government parties, they deserve to face the people.

Senator : I am disappointed by the comments about the Minister for Education and Science. I was present throughout the two-hour debate last night when we had——

An Cathaoirleach: We are not going back over the debate. The Senator should put a question to the Leader.

Senator Ann Ormonde: I would like to reassure parents that the Minister stated last night no child would be deprived of a special needs assistant.

Senator : That is the truth.

Senators: They are being deprived.

An Cathaoirleach: We had the debate last night and many Senators contributed.

Senator Ann Ormonde: Perhaps before we have the debate on the powers of the new lord mayor of Dublin, we should have a discussion on the effects of this change on the four local authorities in Dublin and those in counties Meath, Wicklow and Kildare. We should discuss 146 Order of 25 February 2010. Business the proposed new structure and the role of the councils and the county manager. Before the Bill is introduced, the House should be informed about what is likely to be coming down the road regarding the lord mayor’s powers, whether they will be worthwhile or whether the office will just be another layer of bureaucracy. That is my worry about the concept of the lord mayorship. It is one thing to refer to the role of the lord mayor in London and New York but Ireland is a different country and I wonder whether many committees will be abolished as a result of the creation of the lord mayor’s office. This is related to local democracy at the end of the day and I want to be sure the views of every person will be reflected by the local authorities.

Senator : Will the Leader arrange a debate on the timing of debates? It was deeply ironic that yesterday on the same day we debated the welcome initiative relating to children’s rights, we also debated the outrageous cuts to the number of SNAs for children with special needs. It is wrong that on the one hand the Government is speaking forcefully about the rights of children while, on the other, it is cutting services to vulnerable children.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I also seek a debate on the preservation of our history. This has been an historic week in the context of political upheaval and resignations. I refer to a matter raised by Senator Quinn weeks ago regarding the National Archives. It has been proposed that the National Archives of Ireland and the Irish Manuscripts Com- mission should be merged into the National Library of Ireland, which has given rise to an enormous concern among archivists and historians. This was mooted in October 2008 and Senator Quinn raised the proposal in this House on 20 January. The proposal has generated considerable publicity and a good deal of controversy and I seek a debate on it and for the Government to inform Members whether it intends to stand over it. It would be against all current thinking on the need to preserve national archives independently and would, as some commentators have remarked, enable us to mark the 90th anniversary of the Four Courts bombardment in a highly disturbing fashion, in that it again would result in the downgrading of the preservation of our records. Finally, on foot of the excellent “Prime Time” documentary broadcast last week, I seek a debate on maternity services and on the need for an inquiry into the barbaric practice of symphysiotomy. It appears as though this practice was carried out in Irish maternity hospitals until the mid-1980s, long after it had been utterly discredited in maternity hospitals elsewhere. An independent inquiry is needed in this regard and the Minister for Health and Children has not given an adequate response as to the reason she will not permit one. I wish to express my support of both the survivors of symphysiotomy and of AIMS Ireland, an organisation which seeks improvements in maternity services in Ireland, in its call for a comprehensive debate on the issue of consent in maternity care, the treatment of women in maternity hospitals and on the reason an independent inquiry is not being held into the barbaric practice of symphysiotomy.

Senator : I spoke briefly yesterday on the Border economy and I wish to return to the subject with a little more hope in my heart following the announcement that Warner Chilcott intend to establish 200 jobs in a new pharmaceutical facility at Mullagharlin, just outside Dundalk. It is a town with a proud manufacturing tradition that has reinvented itself a number of times from being a railway town to a shoe manufacturing and brewery town. I hope this pharmaceutical announcement marks the beginning of Dundalk taking its place in the new smart economy. It is a tremendous testimony to the work of the local authorities, from which I have just departed, that in tandem with the IDA they have created a key site for high quality inward investment in Ireland in recent times at Finnabair Industrial Park. That park, which 147 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

[Senator Mark Dearey.] comprises approximately 150 acres of serviced sites with adequate gas, electricity, transpor- tation and communication links, makes possible announcements such as the one yesterday. It is an indication of how local authorities, in tandem with the IDA, and with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, which I also commend in this regard, can work together to make smaller local regional centres attractive. It bodes well for a place that has suffered dreadfully. Initially, this was through the scourge of the Troubles, which have since passed although it still occasionally raises its awful head. More recently, it has suffered from the asymmetry that exists between the economies on either side of the Border and which must be addressed. I welcome this announcement and commend all who have played a part in it.

Senator Paul Coghlan: The need for a debate on banking and on the economy is still top of Members’ agenda. While they have been pressing the Leader hard on this issue recently, he simply has been stringing them along.

Senator Donie Cassidy: That is not true.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Every day in this Chamber, he is, “with words clothed and reason’s garb’’, endeavouring “to make the worse appear the better reason”.

Senator Donie Cassidy: That is not true.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Everyone knows we are at a standstill. NAMA has not yet been sanctioned by the European Commission nor have the plans and proposals of our major banks for the next five years. As Senator Mooney stated previously while citing President Trichet, it should get on with it. This is a matter of great urgency for this country and unless the Leader can get an answer from the Government or can get a representative from the Government, I suggest he should invite the Governor of the Central Bank to appear before the House in order that Members can have this debate. On another matter, I am disturbed by the proposals of another honourable man, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, regarding a ban on stag hunting to which Fine Gael is completely opposed for good reasons. It is a legitimate and worthwhile country pursuit and sport that is highly beneficial for tourism. I cannot discern where cruelty is involved. However, I was startled to learn that he also is contemplating deer culling. I hope the Minister only proposes to cull Sika deer because I would not like to see the native Kerry red deer being disturbed in any way because——

Senator Joe O’Toole: Hear, hear.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: That is a red herring not a red deer. The Senator does not believe that.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Not too long ago, Members were at great pains to ensure the protection——

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: This is nonsense.

An Cathaoirleach: This is not appropriate for the Order of Business. Does you have a ques- tion for the Leader?

Senator Paul Coghlan: ——of the Kerry red deer.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: This is out of order. 148 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senator Paul Coghlan: I wish to ask the Leader about this matter.

An Cathaoirleach: It should be relevant to the Order of Business.

Senator Niall Ó Brolcháin: This is a red herring.

Senator Paul Coghlan: It is not.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: No, it is a red deer.

Senator Liam Twomey: It is a green shoot.

Senator Paul Coghlan: It pertains to what the Minister has said.

An Cathaoirleach: Members, please.

Senator Paul Coghlan: While one may joke about this matter, it is serious.

An Cathaoirleach: This is not a joke.

Senator Paul Coghlan: It is not too long since this native species was threatened with extinc- tion. Before any of them are touched or before any move is made, there should be consultation with the Kerry Deer Society and I seek proper counts and figures.

Senator Joe O’Toole: Hear, hear.

Senator : Yesterday, the restraint unions in general have shown was quite prop- erly raised on the Order of Business. It is only right that restraint should be shown. The unions have been asked to undertake a task of bearing the responsibility of ensuring that the economy does not crumble. In fairness, notwithstanding a few exceptions, this has been upheld and it would be worthwhile for this House to have a debate on the role of unions, particularly because it is likely that there will be growth in the economy in 2012, 2011 and perhaps in the last two quarters of 2010. With this in mind, it is incumbent on Members to tell unions that the sacrifices that have been made at this time will be remembered and will not be forgotten and that this has not been the first time the public service has come up to the mark and has done what was right for the economy. As for the economy, I note there has been another call for a debate on banking. Unfortu- nately, the Opposition appears to have two sets of proposals, the first proposing there should be credit in the market and the second criticising the fact the Government is taking shares instead of cash. The €240 million that has been left in Bank of Ireland will provide €2.4 billion worth of lending and I would much prefer for the State to take shares and leave the money in the banks in order that the economy can grow.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Government promised dividends.

Senator Maurice Cummins: It misled people again.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions please.

Senator John Hanafin: The European Union has insisted that shares be taken rather than cash. With this in mind, the subject is worthy of debate.

149 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senator Joe O’Reilly: At the outset, I formally second the proposal by Senator Buttimer to have a renewed debate on education and in so doing, to repudiate any attempt to muzzle my good colleague and Fine Gael spokesperson on education, Senator Healy Eames.

Senator Donie Cassidy: That would be hard to do.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should direct questions to the Leader.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I also wish formally to second the request for a debate by Senator Wilson on the TETRA system. While I welcome the system as such, the interference with television reception is not acceptable. Steps must be taken to deal with this matter and house- holders should not be left out of pocket. Senator Wilson did a good job of mentioning a list of towns in counties Cavan and Monaghan and effectively has left me speechless.

Senator Camillus Glynn: He recorded them all.

An Cathaoirleach: There is no election now.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I wish to move on.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should ask questions of the Leader.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I wish to move on briefly to another important item, on which I appeal to the Leader to facilitate a debate as soon as possible. I refer to the complete lack of a relationship between what is charged to consumers in retail outlets and what farmers receive at their farm gates. On average, retailers charge — this has been checked out — five times the amount that farmers receive at their farm gates. A farmer receives 20% of the retail price for cheese, 36% in the case of milk——

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator seek a debate on this issue?

Senator Joe O’Reilly: ——34% in the case of potatoes and farm incomes are at an all- time low.

An Cathaoirleach: This Senator can make these points during the debate, if the Leader agrees.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: I ask the Leader for a debate on the reason this difference exists. Why is it that a farmer will only get 27% of the price of pigmeat compared with 51% 15 years ago? We need a debate on why farmers earn an average annual income of €13,000, why their prices at the farm gate are so low, why retailers are charging certain prices and why the consumer is paying over the top. This is a serious issue.

Senator John Carty: A couple of weeks ago, I called for a debate on the Common Agricul- tural Policy post-2013. I again request that the Leader ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisher- ies and Food to attend the House to discuss this important matter. There have been preliminary talks in Europe, so it is time we had a debate in this House. A number of Senators on the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have met Mr. George Lyon, a Scottish MEP, and some Irish MEPs to discuss this issue. Will the Leader treat bringing the Minister to the House as being urgent?

Senator Rónán Mullen: Tacaím leis an méid adúirt an Seanadóir Labhrás Ó Murchú.Tá sé an-tábhachtach go mbeadh díospóireacht againn sa Teach maidir le coicís na Gaeilge. Tá go leor le plé againn agus tá gá le cinnireacht uainn ar aon nós. Ba mhaith liom go háirithe go 150 Order of 25 February 2010. Business ndéanfaimid plé ar Raidió na Gaeltachta agus an gearradh siar ar chraoladh an aifrinn seachtai- niúil. Ní bhfuaireamar aon scéal ar ais go fóill maidir le sin. Ní maith liom na ráflaí a chloisim ach oiread maidir le go mb’fhéidir go mbeidh malgamú idir an Roinn Gnóthaí Pobail, Tuaithe agus Gaeltachta agus an Roinn Ealaíon, Spóirt agus Turasóireachta. Níor mhaith liom é sin. I would not like to see the loss of the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, which rumours suggest will occur. The Union of Students in Ireland, USI, and its president, Peter Mannion, are to be com- mended on keeping the issue of education, especially the needs of students who are being hard hit, on the agenda. The politician-friendly booklet made available by the USI this morning makes a number of significant points, not least of which is the fact that our current system for processing grant applications is anachronistic. For example, it is remarkable that students must fill out a 26-page form that sometimes requires 20 pieces of supporting documentation and this cannot be done on-line. It is remarkable. The Minister has decided that new applicants for the back to education allowance will be ineligible for the grant. This raises issues of legitimate expectation. Are new applicants people who are already within the system or are they people who are applying to attend college for the first time? When one considers the sacrifices made by mature students in returning to education, those who are in the halfway place between working life and studying life, it is important that they not be compromised given the importance of getting people into education in a bid to deal with our problems. I wish to raise the issue of head shops. We have a troubling new reality among us. Not only are manipulative and predatory people running these shops, they are also supposedly running delivery services for their mind-altering substances in the most dishonest way.

An Cathaoirleach: Time, Senator.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I will finish now. They are dishonest in that they do not declare that the substances are not for human consumption.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Coffey.

Senator Rónán Mullen: We need legislation. Let us hope it will be before the House soon.

Senator Paudie Coffey: This time last year, the Government appointed a national strategy group to commission a report on higher education under the chairmanship of the economist, Dr. Colin Hunt. In November, the Minister for Education and Science informed the Dáil that the report would be published by early 2010. In an Adjournment debate yesterday, I was informed by the Minister of State, Deputy Haughey, that the report will not be published before the summer. It is a critical report and clarity and certainty are required where the role of our higher education institutions in developing the economy and creating and supporting jobs is concerned. It is a 20-year strategy. I urge the Leader to ask the Minister to publish the report, which is important for everyone, without further delay. Will the Leader arrange for a debate on the Government report, Developing the Green Economy in Ireland, which was published in November and signed by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister for Communi- cations, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Ryan? The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, must not have read the document because he criticised the Fine Gael Party for its proposals regarding the establishment of a single water authority. In the report, it is clear the Government is supportive of our idea. Progressing the 151 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

[Senator Paudie Coffey.] report’s contents would benefit every Senator and the economy and we on this side of the House would be willing to debate them.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: I support the call made by colleagues for a debate on the proposed reorganisation of Departments. I welcome the apparent suggestion of a Department with responsibility for public service reform and another Department that will focus specifically on the need to train and educate the unemployed. However, I wish to make two points. First, these proposals are being driven by the McCarthy report which has not been properly debated in the House. It will have significant implications for major decisions that will be made in respect of our country. Second, I want to emphasise the point that, despite my welcome, new Departments are not the answer to the difficulties we are facing. Rather, we need a new attitude, a new awareness of the challenges we face and a new willingness to develop fresh ideas to tackle them. I refer to the debate in the House on Ryanair and hangar 6, a matter touched on by Senators Ross and Norris. I reject the growing distaste articulated by some for a business that is willing to get out there, hustle, argue and sell itself to drive its business. This is the spirit our businesses need at home and abroad.

Senator Shane Ross: Hear, hear.

Senator Paschal Donohoe: They need a willingness and determination to project themselves and to fight their corner at home and in overseas markets. I would go so far as to suggest that it would be good to see the same attitude from the Government.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Well done.

Senator : I refer to the judgment of the Special Criminal Court as regards the Omagh bombing. One can read today about how the issue of falsified Garda notes has dogged both trials of Colm Murphy in connection with the Omagh bombing. There was no evidence before the courts on which a jury, properly charged, could convict the accused. This is an extraordinary indictment of the Garda Síochána and the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Com- mission must investigate the matter. I say this reluctantly because I understand what it is the Garda is up against in trying to deal with these types of atrocities, but the falsification of notes is an extraordinary turn of events and has destroyed the prospect of a conviction in the case. In the public interest, the commission can initiate an inquiry without having received a com- plaint. If a complaint is necessary, making one would be warranted. This situation is most unfortunate and unsatisfactory. Another investigation into Garda activities must be carried out this week.

Senator Donie Cassidy: I acknowledge the presence in the Gallery of our councillor, Mr. Shane P. O’Reilly, and congratulate him on his family’s recent success. Senators Twomey, O’Toole, Hannigan, Mooney, Coghlan and Hanafin called for an urgent debate on banking. The Finance Bill will be before the House on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, 24-26 March. As we all know, Committee Stage in the Dáil is being deliberated. A timeframe has been allocated. Senator Mooney suggested that a devaluation of the euro could be considered. Whatever the possibility of that occurring, I understand the euro’s strongest point is that it keeps interest rates down. Given the fact that we are a small nation, I hate to think what interest rates we would be charged were we not in the euro. They would be mind-boggling. 152 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senators Mooney, Norris, Ó Brolcháin, Hanafin and Donohoe called for a special debate on jobs. It will be held next Wednesday. Many colleagues are anxious that we discuss the subject, so I will consult party leaders at our meeting on Tuesday. I will continue it the following week if necessary. All of next Wednesday afternoon will be devoted to a special debate on everything to do with the creation of jobs. Senator Liam Twomey called for a debate on the public sector. That may be tied in with the jobs debate if leaders agree. I would have no difficulty with that. Senator Twomey also referred to health services and a new medical council Bill. I will do everything I can to facilitate his request. Senators Dominic Hannigan, Shane Ross and Jerry Buttimer spoke about the student support Bill. This has not been published but I will make inquiries as to when that might happen. Senator Diarmuid Wilson made a strong point in support of his native Cavan and neighbour- ing County Monaghan. As a Senator who lives on the Ulster border I fully agree, as does Senator Joe O’Reilly, with Senator Wilson’s serious concerns at the huge interference suffered by the people of Mullagh, Cootehill and Ballybay, which was well represented in the House for many years. Bailieborough and Ballina are also seriously affected. When the ESB placed pylons across the country I remember that our car radios were affected when we drove under them. Now that Cavan and Monaghan have come into the 21st century we have digital services and the area has been opened up. Others are now discovering this “hidden Ireland” which we have known for some time. We now have the same opportunities as other places. Those of us who attended the recent meeting of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly saw the effect of the huge investment in tourism in Cavan, particularly the magnificent four and five star hotels which have been built there. It is fantastic to see this happening and we fully support the people of Cavan, through Senator Wilson’s representations here. I know that all colleagues will join the Government Whip in his request. Senator Maurice Cummins called for the Minister to come to the House to speak about law and order and gangland crime. On Tuesday next, the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Bill 2009 will be debated in the House and the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, who always attends when his Bills are being debated, will be present. I know Senator Cummins is a champion in this area. I ask colleagues to bring these matters to light when speaking in the debate on Second Stage. If Senators of various parties and groups wish to have additional time for Second Stage of this Bill I will discuss that with the leaders on Tuesday. Whatever time is required will be provided so Senators can make their strong views known to the Minister during the debate on Second Stage.

Senator Maurice Cummins: We will be speaking to the Bill then.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senator Buttimer raised the issue of upwards only rent reviews, which is of grave concern to many business owners who are concerned about the survival of their businesses. I will make inquiries in this regard. As the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is responsible for this area it could also be highlighted on Tuesday next. Senators John Hanafin and Ann Ormonde called for a debate on the new mayor of Dublin. Under the proposed legislation the mayor will have a range of substantial powers to establish and deliver a vision for Dublin. This is to be welcomed. It is part of the programme for Govern- ment that the mayor will have powers to draw up strategic plans for land use, planning, waste management, water services and their implementation at local level. The Dublin local auth- orities will be obliged to comply with these plans. It is timely that we should have a debate. The views of colleagues in both Houses and in local authorities as to how the Minister and his 153 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

[Senator Donie Cassidy.] Department can be assisted in implementing this innovative proposal will be very welcome, as Senator Ormonde said. Senators Shane Ross and David Norris referred to yesterday’s lively proceedings of the Joint Committee on Transport. I saw excerpts from the meeting on “Oireachtas Report” last night. I was disappointed that colleagues who excelled at the meeting were not featured in the trans- mission. Of course, everyone waited with bated breath for Senator Ross’s contribution but we were denied it. Innovation and the creation of jobs is a serious challenge. Ireland has been proud of the success of Aer Lingus, carrier of the national flag and the shamrock throughout the world. In bad times, many of us were delighted to see Irish planes arriving at Kennedy Airport bearing the shamrock logo. Aer Lingus has excelled in that area. All airlines are going though a difficult time at present and every job is a godsend. We should do anything we can do to help Mr. Michael O’Leary. The Government and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment are doing everything humanly possible in this regard. Other hangars have been proposed. The lease has been signed, as Senator Norris has said, and the contract is in place.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What is the Minister doing?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Contracts must be honoured by every Government.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Who owns Aer Lingus?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Irrespective of what party is in Government, contracts must be honoured.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Can the Leader tell us what the Minister is doing? Can he outline that to the House?

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Terry Leyden and Paschal Donohoe spoke about the con- figuration of possible new Departments. This is something we can consider and discuss in the House. Senator Paul Coghlan raised the matter of NAMA. I understand it will be cleared in Brussels in a few weeks. I know Senator Coghlan has first-hand information on this matter. From where he is sitting this morning he does not have to look far to be fully briefed on it.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Will it be sanctioned?

Senator Donie Cassidy: I will endeavour to update the House on the Order of Business next Tuesday.

Senator Paul Coghlan: The Leader speaks in riddles, as ever.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Ciarán Cannon, Jerry Buttimer, Ann Ormonde and Joe O’Reilly called for another debate on special educational needs. I congratulate everyone con- cerned on last evening’s wonderful debate on this matter. The Minister of State was present in the House. I will consult with the leaders with a view to providing any time needed for a debate on this matter. Much legislation is waiting to be debated. Every session next week will be devoted to legislation, with the exception of the special debate on jobs. Senators Labhrás Ó Murchú and Rónán Mullen called for a debate on the Irish language. I have already given a commitment to arrange this debate and I am endeavouring to have it take place. I will speak to colleagues later today to arrange a time for it in the next two weeks. Senator David Norris congratulated the Minister for Foreign Affairs on his efforts in relation to Gaza. I join with Senator Norris in this regard and wish the Minister well in his efforts. 154 Order of 25 February 2010. Business

Senator Paul Coghlan expressed concern for the Kerry red deer. The Bill will be debated in the House later today when this can be discussed when the Minister is present.

Senator Paul Coghlan: That is the dogs Bill.

Senator Donie Cassidy: All of this can be discussed when the Minister is present.

Senator Paul Coghlan: There is a slight difference between dogs and deer.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The same Minister is responsible for both matters.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Senator Cassidy is inadvertently misinforming the record.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senator Ivana Bacik referred to the “Prime Time” programme. I support the efforts of the “Prime Time” team. We congratulated them in the House yesterday. The matter of the National Archives can be brought to the attention of the Minister for Finance when the Finance Bill is debated in the House. On the Order of Business yesterday, I agreed that a debate on maternity services would take place. I fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator Bacik.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Leader.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senator Dearey mentioned the 200 new jobs in Dundalk. I congratu- late the Ministers for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Justice, Equality and Law Reform in this regard. Having a Minister at the Cabinet table makes a major difference to a town. I know what was done for Athlone by my own colleague. We have seen what happened from time to time throughout the country. I congratulate Deputy Dermot Ahern. Like Senator Dearey, I support the local authority, the IDA and Enterprise Ireland. A European head office is a boon for an Irish town such as Dundalk. We congratulate everyone concerned in making this happen. I join Senator Dearey in that. We are in the same constituency. Senator O’Reilly referred to the groceries order, the prices being paid to farmers and the prices the consumer must pay. I very much agree with him in this regard. It is about time the groceries order was revisited, perhaps by the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Senator might influence his colleague, Senator Coghlan, who is on that committee, in order that this could happen at the earliest possible opportunity. Senator Carty called for a debate on the Common Agricultural Policy. This would be a very timely debate and at the appropriate time in the very near future I intend to allow an all day debate on the challenges facing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and everyone involved in agriculture, on the Common Agricultural Policy, what it has done for our country and for our farmers and on where we are going in the next ten to 15 years in this area. I thank Senator Carty for bringing it to the House’s attention. Senator Mullen has serious concerns about head shops, as have all colleagues in the House. I understand the legislation is at a very advanced stage and will be in the House in the next few weeks. Senator Coffey asked if the report on higher education would be published soon. I will make inquiries into that. He also called for a debate on developing the green economy, which would be very worthwhile. A forum like the Seanad could really tease out this issue. There is potential for a large number of jobs in this area in future. Senator Ó Brolcháin brought this issue to our attention in recent weeks and I have no difficulty allowing a long period of time for us to discuss this issue with the Minister. 155 Horse and Greyhound Racing 25 February 2010. Fund Regulations 2010: Motion

[Senator Donie Cassidy.]

Senator Regan referred to the judgment in the Special Criminal Court yesterday in regard to the Omagh bombing. The Minister will be in the House next Tuesday and we should do anything we can as legislators, as Senator Regan correctly pointed out.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Buttimer proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That statements on the student support scheme and special educational needs be taken today”. Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Yes.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 22; Níl, 28.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Bradford, Paul. McCarthy, Michael. Burke, Paddy. McFadden, Nicky. Buttimer, Jerry. Mullen, Rónán. Norris, David. Cannon, Ciaran. O’Reilly, Joe. Coffey, Paudie. O’Toole, Joe. Coghlan, Paul. Regan, Eugene. Cummins, Maurice. Ross, Shane. Donohoe, Paschal. Ryan, Brendan. Fitzgerald, Frances. Twomey, Liam. Hannigan, Dominic.

Níl

Brady, Martin. MacSharry, Marc. Callely, Ivor. McDonald, Lisa. Carroll, James. Mooney, Paschal. Carty, John. Ó Brolcháin, Niall. Cassidy, Donie. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. O’Brien, Francis. Corrigan, Maria. O’Donovan, Denis. Daly, Mark. O’Malley, Fiona. Dearey, Mark. O’Sullivan, Ned. Ellis, John. Ormonde, Ann. Feeney, Geraldine. Phelan, Kieran. Glynn, Camillus. Walsh, Jim. Hannigan, Dominic. White, Mary M. Keaveney, Cecilia. Wilson, Diarmuid. Leyden, Terry.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Jerry Buttimer and Maurice Cummins; Níl, Senators Camillus Glynn and Diarmuid Wilson.

Amendment declared lost.

Question, “That the Order of Business be agreed to,” put and declared carried.

Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2010: Motion. Senator Donie Cassidy: I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

156 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund Regulations 2010,

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before Seanad Éireann on 15 December 2009.

Question put and agreed to.

Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 8.

Debate resumed on amendment No. 3.

In page 7, subsection (3), line 34, to delete “3 months” and substitute “12 months”. —(Senator Paudie Coffey) An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: Was section 7 dealt with?

An Cathaoirleach: The debate resumes on amendment No. 3 to section 8. Senator Coffee is in possession.

Senator Paudie Coffey: For the benefit of the House and the Minister who was not in attend- ance for the debate on Committee Stage on the last day, this amendment was tabled in an effort to acknowledge the needs of people already involved in operating breeding establishments. The Minister has already acknowledged that a three month lead-in time is required. I presume it is to give those people an opportunity to get their houses in order to meet the requirements of the new regulations that may come into force once the Bill is enacted. Planning or other requirements might apply and Fine Gael believes a more reasonable time- frame of 12 months would be more appropriate. If the housing conditions in establishments are not adequate, sufficient time should be given to the people and the stakeholders involved to apply for planning permission and to get their relevant structures and establishments in order. I said during the debate on the last day that if this is to be good legislation, it is important there is a good buy-in to it and that all stakeholders have a good understanding of it and trust in it. This is a reasonable amendment to offer those people an opportunity to bring their breeding establishments and the structures in which they house their animals up to an adequate standard. I hope the Minister will consider extending the period from three to 12 months if at all possible.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I agree with the amendment because three months is very restrictive, especially given the need in some instances to put in place finance for the upgrade of premises or to obtain planning permission. As the Minister knows, that process can often take many months. There is no real difficulty in accepting the amendment to extend the period to 12 months but if the Minister is unable to accept it, I would like to know the reasons.

Senator Joe O’Reilly: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I support my colleague, Senator Coffey, in his proposition of this amendment. Three months is an unreasonably short time for any of our walks of life or businesses. To make considerable changes or even become familiar with the terms of the legislation, a three-month period is unrealistic. The amendment should be viewed in those terms. If the Minister accepts the amendment it would be a sign that he is involved in a consultative two-way process with breeders and this is not confrontation but rather a joint attempt to do 157 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Joe O’Reilly.] what is right. The Houses of the Oireachtas are part of that joint attempt rather than forming part of a diktat from on high. It is unreasonable to ask people to adapt, in so far as they need to, within a three-month period. It would be too much of a shock and unrealistic. No other sector would be asked to do it. When we move people in offices, we give them money. Under this legislation we will ask breeders to reorganise in a similar fashion. In the interests of com- mon sense, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Senator Ann Ormonde: Having listened to the debate, there is reason in the amendment which would extend the three-month period to 12 months. If the Minister has problems with the 12 months, he might agree to a compromise so we might come up the middle to identify all the problems which could exist in the transitional stage and allow people to familiarise themselves with the new inspectors, the local authorities and procedures and structures. The amendment is not unreasonable so if the Minister cannot give the 12 months, he might look to compromise along the way.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I support this reasonable amendment. To follow from Senator Ormonde’s comments, we have proposed a period of 12 months but if the Minister wants to come back on Report Stage with a nine-month period instead, we will go along with it. Three months is not sufficient for people to comply with all the new legislation which will be put before them and for the local authorities to implement the proposals in the legislation. No matter what happens, three months is insufficient for dog breeders to get their houses in order if necessary. I know from the greyhound sector in particular that the majority are in order but some establishments may need a longer period than three months in which to act. I hope the Minister will compromise on the issue as it does not concern the principle of the Bill. It is dealing with the reality. The amendment has been proposed in good faith and I hope the Minister will respond favourably to it.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: The thrust of this amendment is worthy at least of extra con- sideration. In the main we are talking about reputable breeding establishments which are anxious to see implemented much of the action the Minister wishes to take. It is not a case of persons not wishing to see the legislation enacted. Three months is a particularly short period and a 12-month period has been suggested. I would like to think the Minister might be able to give some more consideration to this. The various views put forward here seem reasonable but perhaps the Minister has other reasons to explain to us. For the industry, it is important for us to be seen as supportive and responsive to its needs.

Senator : This is a very reasonable amendment which the Minister should take on board. When the Bill is enacted, this section will have consequences for people in the industry. They will have to make their minds up in some cases as to whether they will stay in the breeding business, which will entail financial decisions and going to bank managers. It is not difficult to get an audience with a bank manager nowadays but it is difficult to get a decision as to whether extra facilities will be extended or existing facilities will be withdrawn. It is a reasonable amendment put forward by Senator Coffey extending the period from three months to 12. In the economic circumstances we face and in view of new legislation which will require people to make decisions on the future of their businesses in some cases, it seems a reasonable amendment. I hope the Minister will not divide the House on the matter. The people on the Government side are supportive of this amendment and see it as reasonable. The House should not be divided as I have no doubt that Senator Coffey will press the amendment. 158 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Camillus Glynn: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. I preface my remarks by saying that many people in the dog breeding industry in this country and involved in the Irish Greyhound Board or other groupings are in the main very reputable. More than anybody else, they want to ensure the cowboys and cowgirls operating the infamous puppy farms are put out of business. If that happened yesterday, it would not have been too soon. In this section of the Bill, the three months allows for registration. To give this the optimum effect, one would have to ensure the local authority — the registration authority for these establishments — would effect a positive and active public awareness campaign. I await the Minister’s reply on why the three-month provision was included. He might look 12 o’clock at it again. I can say with a great degree of certainty that all of us in the House are trying to do the right thing. If the Minister can confirm that three months is sufficient, that is fair enough but if not, I am sure the Minister will reconsider it on Report Stage or even in the Lower House. Having had time to consider the matter and heard the debates pertinent to the section in both Houses, he might look at the provision again. I await his comments.

Senator : I am glad the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, is present to deal with the legislation. I hope his presence and responses will help to alleviate some of the concerns which may be felt, rightly or wrongly, by some of our constituents about the broader aspects of the Bill which we will debate later today. The amendment has been proposed by my colleague and friend, Senator Coffey. On first reading, an application within three months may appear appropriate or reasonable. However, reading what is required in the application, there certainly could be difficulties. For example, the application must contain such other information as may be prescribed, but we do not know yet what that information may be or whether financial projections and so on are required. It could be difficult to have a proper application within a three month period. It would be fair enough if the Bill stipulated that one had to write to a local authority within three months and state one’s intention to apply. However, we do not know what the information required may be, so three months may be a little unreasonable. The Minister knows that we all want to see this Bill enacted, and we support his efforts to regulate puppy farms and shut down puppy farms that are being run in an improper fashion. To send the right signal that we can all work together on this Bill, I ask the Minister to look favourably on Senator Coffey’s amendment or come up with some compromise. That is a reasonable request and I look forward to the Minister being equally reasonable in response.

Senator Mark Dearey: I am coming to this relatively fresh, which may not be a disadvantage. I can see the welfare issues involved and the danger that a 12 month period will be interpreted as a charter for the underbelly of the industry that we all abhor. Twelve months for some of these individuals is more than enough time to adapt. I have seen this is in other sectors along the Border over the years, so I would be wary of creating a timeframe that is too lenient, given the very serious animal welfare issues that this Bill is attempting to address.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Senator Bradford touched on a very important point about the appli- cation. Section 8(6)(b) refers to whether a local authority “is of the opinion that the premises in respect of which the application concerned was made is not suitable for the operation of a dog breeding establishment.” We do not know what the Minister means by “is not suitable”, because we have not seen any technical specifications, standards and so on. The council officials who will be responsible for enforcing the Bill at this stage do not know what they would be required to enforce, because we have no detail on those standards. I take on board what 159 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paudie Coffey.] Senator Dearey said, but if we do not get in as much buy-in as possible from people in the breeding industry, we will drive it underground, which is the last thing any of us want. We want to expose the people who have been treating puppies badly. We want to eliminate puppy farms that are irresponsible, so we want a Bill that will work. This is a reasonable amendment to provide an all-encompassing role for the people involved in the industry. It gives the breeders reasonable time and gives the officials who will enforce inspections reason- able time to get to grips with the standards that will be expected. As of today, we do not know those standards, which is why we are tabling this amendment.

Deputy John Gormley: This Bill seeks to ensure that we are dealing not just with the question of animal welfare, but that the dog breeding establishments will benefit. We already have a problem as we have a reputation for being the dog breeding capital of Europe, with all the animal welfare issues associated with that. This means that we are not held in high esteem, and one only has to read some of the articles that have appeared in the British press. This Bill will be of major benefit to dog breeders. People are misreading the Bill. We want to ensure a smooth transition and this proposed amendment would extend the period for owners to register their dog breeding establishments from three months to 12 months. We have consulted widely on this issue, and it could be argued that the five years that have elapsed since the report of the working group is ample lead-in time. We have been talking about this over and over again, yet we are here on Commit- tee Stage and I am being told that people are not aware of this. They have been made aware of it and they have been given ample time. I am trying to ensure that we have a smooth transition to full registration, while keeping the period allowed for registration meaningful. Therefore, I propose to retain the three month period for registration provided for in the Bill. The three month period starts from the date of the enactment of the Bill. In view of the number of representations that my Department has received on this Bill, I can safely say that there are very few dog breeders here who are not aware of the Bill and its proposed requirements. People have been made aware of this. Senators have raised certain issues related to the Hunting Association of Ireland and the Irish Greyhound Board. Representatives from these bodies assured us that their breeding establishments maintain the very highest voluntary standards, and on that basis I cannot see that their establishments will need significant alterations to meet the requirements of the pro- posed legislation. Those regulations will be made. We must enact the Bill first and then we will bring in the regulations. While the Bill provides for a three month grace period, I envisage that the submission for an application for registration within that period will see a dialogue begin between the local authority and the establishment to ensure that any requirements are met. We are not coming in here with a heavy hand and this is not draconian. We will bring in registration and then examine how each breeder can make his or her establishment a better place in respect of welfare. It is in the best interests of the dog breeders to comply with this. They know that their reputation is at stake. If they want to sell their puppies abroad, they must ensure that the highest standards apply. The message that we are getting from our consultations is that for the most part, they comply with those standards. There are those few people who are bringing us all into disrepute, as Senator Dearey pointed out, and that is very regrettable. Once an establishment acts in good faith to implement improvements, it is my intention that the relevant local authority will work with the breeding establishment. This is about co-oper- ation and is not about heavy handedness. I have concluded that the three month period is 160 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed) definitely sufficient. As we are talking now, those establishments have an opportunity to come in and talk to my officials. In fact, they have been speaking to my officials in recent years. This Bill has been in gestation for a long time. I am not bringing it in all of a sudden. We have been talking about it for years. It is not as if people did not know about it. The local authority officials will not demand that this place or that place be closed down. They will act where people are clearly in defiance of the rules, but anybody who is co-operates will get every assistance from the local authorities.

Senator : Everybody in the House seems to be on the same wavelength about this. There should be a reasonable lead-in time for registration. When regulations are intro- duced or changed, it is not just the simple fact of complying with the rules and so on. I would like to get some clarification on something the Minister said. If people are having difficulties in complying with registration and so on, they should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If an inspector calls and I am not registered, what happens? The Minister said there would be dialogue if I claim I have not got round to registering. Does that mean dialogue with the Department, which would then grant another two months to sort things out? This must be clarified. If new regulations are introduced in any business, those involved will know about it but that is not the point, the point is that people must be given a reasonable time to get their house in order.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Minister claims not be using a heavy hand in this legislation but he is not prepared to accept the wishes on both sides of the House that there be a greater lead-in time. If that is not being heavy handed, I do not know what is. The Minister is going against the wishes of the vast majority in this House. He talks about consultation. There were many aspects in the report that was commissioned, including a min- ority report from the Irish Greyhound Breeders Association that is not referred to in the Bill. Consultation is one thing, but the Minister is listening while not heeding what people are saying because he does not want to hear. He has his own view, is digging his heels in and is not prepared to compromise on such a minor issue as a three month lead in period. He mentioned the British press claims Ireland is a bad place for dog breeding. There have been occasions and incidents that we deplore. I was first to raise the disgrace of puppy farms six years ago. Everyone wants to rid ourselves of the rogues and blackguards involved in this type of breeding of dogs. We do not, however, want to penalise those who are looking after their dogs properly. That is what the Minister is doing; he is tarring everyone with the one brush. He is going about this the wrong way, he is getting people’s backs up unnecessarily. Accepting a lead-in time of longer than three months is the minimum we expect, it is not a lot to ask. I find it reprehensible that the Minister talks about good faith but is not prepared to accept a reasonable amendment that the vast majority of people in the House support. I hope those on the Government side who know what the situation is like will support the amendment. It is nothing to do with the principle of the Bill, it is a reasonable amendment that has been put down to allow for a practical arrangement. We will need a greater lead in time. Senator Coffey has outlined the local authorities do not even know what regulations will be put in place. The Minister is talking about people coming into the Department. It is rubbish and, with all due respect to the Minister, he should be man enough to accept the proposal being put before him and that has the support of almost everyone in this House and the vast majority of people in the country. We cannot pander to minorities who have no interest in overall animal welfare.

161 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Minister suggested that Senators have misunderstood this section of the Bill. We do not misunderstand it, we understand it better than most of the Minister’s officials who drafted the Bill. I have outlined the reasons for the amendment, so there is a more a workable and legitimate Bill that will achieve the Minister’s objectives. If we bring this in as it stands we will drive rogue traders underground. The Minister did not address my query about the standards required, although he mentioned that regulations will be introduced after the legislation. Why can we not have an idea of what those regulations will be along with the legislation? Why could they not be an appendix to the Bill so everyone would be aware of what is going to happen and would not need to extend the timeframes for lead-ins? It is unfair to say the working group was in place for five years. Every breeder and small farmer who is involved in this area would not have been aware of that. This amendment is reasonable and secures inclusiveness. We are prepared to withdraw it, however, if the Minister would agree to some extension, even to six months. It seems the Minister is not for turning, which is a disappointment.

Senator : I appreciate the Minister’s openness in his address and his indication that true consultation and representation brought us to this point. I hope we will be able to continue in that frame. I grew up with a dog in the house and have lived with a dog in my house ever since, including my beautiful west highland terrier that I enjoy personally. I have a great love for the simplistic pleasures of having a dog and the benefits that accrue to a family from having a dog. I certainly abhor puppy farming. I took an interest in the Dog Breeding Establishment Bill as it was passing through the House and listened with interest to the Minister’s address to my parliamentary party, where there were a number of representations made to him. The Minister is aware of our concerns and I support Senator Coffey in his remarks, and I am glad to hear he is prepared to withdraw amendments if the Minister co-operates. A former member of the Minister’s party sat in this House on Committee Stage and to the embarrassment of the Government sat with her hands on her backside when it came time to vote on the Defamation Bill and other Bills. We do not want to get into that sort of situation and I support Senator Coffey’s idea that it would be best if we could work through the Commit- tee Stage of this Bill in consultation and co-operation. The Minister also indicated there had been representations and that he was aware of the issues. I am concerned that these amendments are the only amendments. I understood there would be Government amendments. Is the Minister going to take on board the various genuine rep- resentations? Will he refer to the impact this Bill will have on rural pastimes, the Ward hunt and other issues such as the RISE campaign? The Minister should clarify how consultation and co-operation will work.

Senator Paul Bradford: Senator Coffey used an important phrase, namely, “workable legis- lation”. In general, workable legislation is good legislation and vice versa. I ask the Minister to reflect on the possibility of either accepting our amendment or drafting a similar amendment for Report Stage. In the context of the need to make an application within three months, we are operating in the dark to some extent. Such applications must contain “such other information as may be prescribed”. We are not aware and cannot yet be advised as to what might constitute such other information.

162 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Most people want there to be goodwill in respect of this legislation. If we are to drive the rogue traders out of business rather than underground, it is important that the legislation should work. In that context, the three-month period is somewhat short. The Minister may be in a position to present a convincing argument with regard to why a period of 12 months is too long. Various political parties experienced turmoil in the past two to three weeks. I am of the view that we should be able to progress legislation such as that before the House without becoming overly excited in a party-political sense. If the Minister and his colleagues in government can assist in resolving the problems in Northern Ireland, surely it is not beyond us to come to a decision on whether three months or 12 months should be the appropriate period. I am sure there is an alternative somewhere between the two with which everyone would be comfortable. I ask the Minister to reflect on the position and to return to the matter on Report Stage.

Deputy John Gormley: I will try to cut this short but I do wish to respond to some of the points that were made. I thank Deputy Bradford——

Senator Paul Bradford: It is Senator Bradford.

Senator Paddy Burke: He is a Deputy in waiting.

Deputy John Gormley: I was thinking of the future. I thank Senator Bradford for his measured contribution which stands in stark contrast with that of Senator Cummins. The lat- ter’s contribution was somewhat emotive and headline-grabbing in nature. It is important that we should have a balanced debate on this matter. In the context of what Senator Callely stated, this matter has nothing to do with the Ward Union Hunt or any of the other issues——

Senator : This is the thin end of the wedge.

Acting Chairman (Senator Kieran Phelan): The Minister, without interruption.

Senator John Paul Phelan: The Chair is being somewhat overzealous.

Deputy John Gormley: It is unfortunate that people have sought to confuse these issues. This is a straightforward item of legislation which has been planned for over five years. I assure Senators that there are no hidden agendas or anything of that sort. Senator Callely also referred to amendments being put forward by members of his party. I was happy to attend the meeting of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party to which he refers. I was expecting to receive written proposals from members of the latter but I did not, in fact, receive them.

Senator Paudie Coffey: Are there divisions between the parties in government? Is there are problem about which the Minister wants to inform us?

Acting Chairman: The Minister, without interruption.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: On a point of order, the Minister indicated that the legislation has been planned for five years. Is it not the case that he wrote a letter in which he stated that he intends to exempt the Hunt Association of Ireland, HAI, from the provisions of the legislation?

Acting Chairman: That is not a point of order. 163 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy John Gormley: It is not a point of order and I did not write any such letter. I explained that on the first occasion on which I contributed to the debate on this Bill in the Seanad.

Senator John Paul Phelan: The Minister of State at the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs, Deputy Roche, who was Deputy Gormley’s predecessor as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, wrote such a letter.

Acting Chairman: Senator John Paul Phelan should allow the Minister to speak.

Deputy John Gormley: Senator Bradford indicated that he wanted to engage in a dialogue on this matter. If we are going to become involved in bickering, etc., we will not make much progress. I have taken note of the comments made by Senators on all sides and I will consider what has been said. If Senator Coffey withdraws his amendment, I will return to the matter on Report Stage.

Senator Labhrás Ó Murchú: The Minister was particularly conciliatory in his interpretation of the proposed legislation. Conciliation is the hallmark of the Minister. We were expecting to have a conciliatory debate on this Bill today. I take on board the points made by Senator Dearey in respect of the legislation. On reflection, I was not recommending a 12-month extension. The important thing is to remove disreputable individuals from the breeding industry. However, I remain of the opinion that a period of three months is too short. If the period were extended to six months, this would be of assistance. Conciliation should influence the tone of the debate on this Bill, particularly in view of the fact that there are other issues which remain to be discussed. It would be far better if we made progress in that way. The Minister is prepared to reconsider the position before Report Stage, which is what we were hoping would happen. I thank him for his positive response.

Senator Paddy Burke: The Minister is a reasonable man, as is Senator Coffey. The Minister indicated that this measure will be self-financing. If that is the case, there will be an obligation on local authorities to have sufficient numbers of staff in place. This will require a reorganis- ation of staffing resources and a glut of cheques will be sent in by those who wish to register. It will take time to deal with these various matters. In that context, the Minister is taking the right approach and I am delighted he has given a commitment to reconsider the position.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I thank the Minister. As an aside, I must indicate that I made a suggestion to the Minister and his response is extremely reasonable. I am concerned with one matter which has some form of correlation to this section of the Bill. I refer to the theft of small thoroughbred dogs. These animals are being stolen and then sold on at car boot sales. I want a stop to be put to such behaviour.

Acting Chairman: The Senator should speak to the amendment.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I ask the Minister to ensure the practice to which I refer be eliminated.

Acting Chairman: The Senator should confine his remarks to the amendment.

Senator Camillus Glynn: The dogs concerned should be confiscated and placed in the care of the ISPCA in order that appropriate homes might be found for them or that their owners might have the opportunity to retrieve them. 164 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Acting Chairman: The Senator may make those comments when we come to deal with the section.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I accept that.

Senator Ann Ormonde: I thank the Minister for listening to the comments made by Senators on both sides of the debate. It was Senator Bradford, I believe, who finally convinced the Minister to reconsider the position. I have said from the outset that 12 months might be too long but that a six-month period would not be beyond the realms of possibility. I appreciate that the Minister listened to what we had to say and has taken our points on board.

Senator Ivor Callely: I thank the Minister for his response in respect of the issues I raised. I am not my party’s spokesperson on this topic. As already indicated, all that I am is a simple dog lover who is concerned about animal welfare. I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated the merits of the work done to bring this legislation before the House. I appreciate what he said in that regard and I am of the view that everyone would support improved regulation, especially as this would be in the best interests of animal welfare. I have a difficulty in respect of one issue. I spend a great deal of time in west Cork and I enjoy participating in traditional rural pastimes. On occasion, I have also enjoyed the Ward Union Hunt. There appears to be a degree of ambiguity in respect of this matter. The Minister indicated that he was expecting some amendments to be forthcoming in the aftermath of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party meeting he attended. He also indicated that the Bill will not impact on the Ward Union Hunt, rural pastimes and other issues of that nature.

Acting Chairman: That matter is not specific to the debate on this amendment.

Senator Ivor Callely: I appreciate the Minister’s open approach. I also appreciate that he is prepared to enter into dialogue and engage in consultation. If it emerges that the legislation might have an impact on the various issues I and others have brought to his attention, I ask that Government amendments be tabled for Report Stage. I will leave it to the Minister’s good offices, in the knowledge that he knows there are certain concerns on certain issues, to ensure those amendments come forward to the satisfaction of all those who would like to sign into this.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I acknowledge the Minister’s response, which is quite positive con- sidering what he stated earlier. In light of that fact, we are happy to withdraw the amendment in the hope that the sentiment of it at least will be addressed on Report Stage in a Government amendment. We will wait and see but we reserve the right to resubmit the amendment on Report Stage. The Minister said the working group took five years and that everybody knew about the legislation. I would have hoped that the Government parties would have had their houses in order and tabled their amendments so we could debate them properly on Committee Stage. It is a shame to have Government amendments introduced on Report Stage when we cannot interact on them. I hope communication lines between the Government parties on this important Bill can improve.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 8, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection: 165 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Dominic Hannigan.]

“(6) Without prejudice to the executive function of determining any additional con- ditions specific to a particular registration, the determination of conditions of a general character to apply to any registration in the functional area of the local authority is a reserved function.”.

The amendment proposes to give a role to elected members of local authorities to ensure they can have an input into the regulations that will govern the scheme. It is a straightforward amendment and I ask the Minister to take it on board.

Deputy John Gormley: I thank the Senator for his amendment. As I indicated previously, however, I will ensure the draft regulations are subject to consultation with all the interested parties before I sign them into law. It is important these regulations are consistently applied throughout the State. Giving the power to local authorities to have their own local conditions or guidelines would not assist in ensuring uniform and effective implementation of the legis- lation. A requirement for local guidelines would also place an unnecessary burden on local authorities to develop local guidelines and standards. Such broad latitude where each local authority could implement its own guidelines would only create confusion which would result in a lack of clarity on the standards to be implemented by breeding establishments throughout various local authority functional areas. A number of questions arise in this context. What would happen if a dog breeding establish- ment straddled two local authority areas? Could it choose the less onerous of the two sets of guidelines? We come across this repeatedly and we are trying to address it in the White Paper. Would we want operators to engage in location shopping whereby they would set up a dog breeding establishment in a local authority area with less onerous standards? These are practi- cal difficulties that I see in the amendment proposed by the Senator. In its report, the working group stressed the importance of having regulations that are very clear and enforceable. Providing for local guidelines would undermine the national approach envisaged by the working group and which is provided for in the Bill. The very fact we are introducing this legislation will help dog breeding establishments. There is no question that reputational damage has occurred and it is only by having a national standard that we can progress. I understand the thinking behind the Senator’s amendment but there would be practi- cal difficulties in its implementation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Acting Chairman: Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related, are alternatives to each other and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 8, subsection (7), line 23, to delete “may” and substitute “shall”.

Section 8(7) states that a local authority may refuse to register a premises or dog breeding establishment under the section. The reason we think it should be compulsory is because the section later refers to such refusal being necessary to ensure the safeguarding of animal welfare. If it is necessary to ensure the safeguarding of animal welfare, it should be compulsory and not arbitrary. We do not think the word “may” is strong enough. The word “shall” is required.

Deputy John Gormley: I fully understand the intent behind the amendment and emotionally I have much sympathy for it. The idea of the amendment would be to instruct a local authority 166 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed) to withhold registration from those who may have certain convictions, especially for cruelty to animals. It would seem to create a blanket provision because it would not matter how old the convictions were or under what circumstances they were received. That seems to be the intent. As someone who abhors animal cruelty and who believes in animal welfare, I have a great deal of sympathy for the amendment. However, we are seeking to impose a new regulatory regime with the sole purpose of providing for the welfare of dogs in breeding establishments. If one was to stand back from the situation, one might consider it unfair to apply restrictions that might have a retrospective effect. If a person had been convicted of an act of cruelty, he or she would have received the appropriate sanction from the court at that time. It is not for the Bill to punish a person further by denying him or her a right to a livelihood. I intend to allow local authorities use their discretion in such instances. In contrast to the subject matter of the previous amendment, in this instance I will allow local authorities to use their discretion to consider whether a person has learned a lesson.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: Not the members though.

Deputy John Gormley: Not the members but the officers. It will be a local authority itself.

Senator Paddy Burke: Inspectors.

Deputy John Gormley: After the Bill is enacted I am sure it will be appropriate in instances for members to raise issues such as this in a council chamber to state a person has been convicted of treating animals with a certain amount of cruelty and to express a view that the person will continue to act in this way. However, discretion is the order of the day. Putting it in cast-iron terms that under no circumstances can such a person continue with a business is an unnecessary restriction. It is envisaged under the Bill that a local authority will work in co-operation with dog breed- ing establishments on an improvement model basis to ensure proper standards are maintained in dog breeding establishments. In keeping with this co-operative relationship it is considered more prudent to allow the local authorities discretion on whether to refuse registration on the grounds outlined in section 8(7). I do not propose to tie the hands of local authorities and therefore I cannot accept the amendments.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I welcome the Minister to the House and I hear what he has to say on this matter. On one level it seems appropriate to make it a discretionary power. I certainly hear what he has to say on the rule against retrospection. The idea that a person should not be prosecuted for an action which was not an offence on the date it was committed has a clear constitutional background and we are very conscious of that when considering issues relating to retrospection. However, if one reads through the relevant section, one will see it is about local authorities considering whether a refusal to register a premises would be necessary to ensure the safeguarding of animal welfare. It also deals directly with issues of cruelty to animals. Is it possible that where there is any contravention of the Bill it would be upgraded to mandatory refusal? I understand the legislation will have to be implemented in context, whereby a local authority will work with people to get them to come into line. However, once this legislation is in place they will have had that opportunity. Stricter requirements should be imposed on local authorities where it is established that they have breached the new legislation. Will the Minister would consider tweaking this to allow the discretionary aspect where one is considering past wrongs or offences under existing legislation while tightening the obligation on local authorities in the event of contraventions of the Bill. This is the type of area where a nod may end up being as good as a wink in that unevenness could apply among local authorities 167 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Rónán Mullen.] in the way they apply the standards. I do not think we should discount the possibility of creating a requirement on authorities in certain circumstances.

Senator Paddy Burke: I listened with great interest to the Minister’s contribution. Before he publishes the guidelines, will he hold further meetings with the stakeholders involved? I wel- come to the Visitors Gallery the chief executive of the Irish Coursing Club, Mr. D. J. Histon, who takes this business very seriously. I am sure he would like to have an input into the guidelines. If the Minister was to liaise with the people concerned before the guidelines are published, he might address some of the issues raised by Senators.

Senator Ann Ormonde: I agree with Senator Burke on keeping the doors open to stake- holders. Agreements can only be reached through consultation. What the Minister is pursuing is not unreasonable but he cannot avoid sitting down with the stakeholders at the end of the day. He will surely meet a reasonable group of people.

Deputy John Gormley: I have no doubt that the people involved in the dog breeding industry are reasonable for the most part and I have no reason to believe standards are not being upheld. I have no difficulty with engaging in consultations. I have indicated to my officials that they should meet interested parties and they have done so on several occasions. That is as it should be. In regard to Senator Mullen’s contribution, if tweaking is necessary I would be happy to consider any amendment he might propose on Report Stage. I referred earlier to his point on consistency across local authorities. As I am only too aware, this difficulty arises in a number of areas. One has only to look at the annual service indicators to recognise the lack of consistency between local authorities. I certainly do not want to see this occurring in the context of this Bill. The only way to achieve the Senator’s aim, however, is by making sure local authorities enforce the guidelines properly. On reflection, I feel it is better to preserve the section without amendment because of the difficulties that could arise otherwise.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I will not press my amendment, although I may introduce it again on Report Stage.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I listened to the Minister with interest and I will not press my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I move Amendment No. 7:

In page 9, subsection (12), line 17, after “establishment” to insert the following:

“and shall comply with any conditions attaching to such registration”.

This amendment seeks to amend section 12 to provide that the operator of a dog breeding establishment registered under the section shall display the registration certificate issued to him or her in a prominent position and shall comply with any conditions attaching to it. At present, it is not an offence to fail to comply with the conditions of registration and we believe that is a major omission. 168 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy John Gormley: I do not know whether this amendment fits perfectly under subsec- tion (12), which deals solely with the display of the registration certificate. This subsection stands alone as an important provision which seeks to ensure transparency for the consumer. It is important that any customer of a dog breeding establishment be informed that the estab- lishment is registered because this is an assurance that the standards of the establishment are sufficient and that the dogs are well cared for. Subsection (17) provides that it is an offence not to display the registration certificate. The proposed amendment is perhaps too general. The Bill provides ample opportunity for the local authority to act if the establishment is found not to be in compliance. The working group, to which I keep referring because that was how we consulted stakeholders, recom- mended that an improvement notice be served on an establishment that fails to 1o’clock meet the standards required. We do not plan to commence a prosecution immedi- ately because we want to give establishments the opportunity to improve. In line with best practice in all regulatory systems, there is an appropriate scale of actions which can be taken to gain compliance. We are not seeking to impose huge penalties because we want to encourage people to comply. This is an objective which I think is shared on all sides of the House. If agreement is not reached between the local authority and the establishment, the local authority is empowered under section 18 to issue an improvement notice. Given that the improvement notice sets out the measures to be taken within a specified timeframe, the pro- posed amendment is unnecessary. The notice can be appealed to the District Court within seven days of its serving and the local authority can progress to a closure notice under section 19 if it is ignored. However, this would only occur at the end of a very long and arduous consultative process. It is only when a person contravenes the closure notice that he or she will be guilty of offence, at which stage the fines are hefty and set out in legislation. It is important that the provisions of the Bill are clear and enforceable. I am of the opinion that the amendment will dilute the clarity of the enforcement provisions under sections 18 and 19.

Senator Liam Twomey: The Minister cited the dog breeding working group but I have held meetings with dog breeders in County Wexford and it was amazing to hear how many concerns they expressed about this legislation. They informed me that very few of their recommendations were taken on board by the working group. They are concerned about becoming victims of crime because their dogs are potentially valuable resources. They fear that by posting signs all over the place they will make a list available to anybody who wants to snatch their dogs in the middle of the night. The Minister is making it too easy for thieves, bar giving them the keys to the establishments. Other provisions of the Bill appeared to go against the spirit of the working group. For example, one section describes a bitch as beginning to breed at four months of age. Nobody breeds dogs at four months of age, however. The Bill also refers to a uniform breeding cycle for dogs but there is no such thing across all breeds.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator should speak to the amendment.

Senator Liam Twomey: Owners are concerned that they may be exposed to risks. As a medical practitioner, I have to post a certificate on the wall of my surgery so that members of the public can clearly see I am registered with the Irish Medical Council. I have to update it every year and make it freely available to anybody who comes into the surgery. However, it is only available inside my premises. There is nothing wrong with a person wishing to purchase a dog going to a dog breeder’s kennels to make sure it is of good standing and that the regis- 169 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Liam Twomey.] tration is displayed prominently somewhere within the premises. They are the type of principles the Minister should try to follow.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I accept many of the points made by the Minister. I would like to take further guidance on his response. Pending that guidance I will withdraw the amendment while reserving the right to table it on Report Stage.

Deputy John Gormley: That is fine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

SECTION 11.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 12, subsection (8), between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“or any other matter that significantly affects the welfare of the dogs.”.

In section 11(8) we are dealing with the possible contraventions that could lead to a removal of registration. Would it be sensible to add the amendment as a new subsection that it would include “any other matter that significantly affects the welfare of the dogs”? It is clearly meant to be a catch-all measure and given the overall objectives of the legislation perhaps that is something that should be considered.

Deputy John Gormley: I am sympathetic because in the way he has worded the amendment Senator Mullen has referred to “any other matter that significantly affects the welfare of the dogs.” I also have to ensure that we have legal clarity. Section 11 provides for the removal of a dog breeding establishment from the register in certain circumstances which are outlined in the legislation. They include by order of the District Court if the operator has committed certain offences under specific Acts. The section is very specific as to the circumstances in which an establishment may be removed from the register. The proposed amendment, which is stated in fairly broad terms, would lead to an erosion of that clarity and might introduce an element of uncertainty to the basis for removal. To return to the point Senator Mullen made earlier, this is very much open to interpretation. He wants us to include “any other matter that significantly affects the welfare of the dogs”. We might have a certain interpretation of what affects the welfare of a dog while others would have a different interpretation. In terms of the law, that leaves far too much uncertainty. There- fore, to be on the safe side and to ensure that we have clear, robust legislation, it would be better if this were not included.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I listened to the Minister’s explanation. I agree that we require clarity in the law. It is essential. However, given that there are responsible bodies in charge of applying the standards, I wonder whether it would be a problem in practice were such an amendment to be included.

Deputy John Gormley: It raises an interesting issue because, as Senator Mullen might be aware, there are those who would argue that those who carry out the inspections should be 170 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed) veterinary experts and that perhaps they would have a different point of view than those laypersons who have an interest in animal welfare. They would have different perspectives. Therefore, if one had a provision of this type one might not go down the strictly veterinary route and one might have quite a subjective interpretation. The less subjective a Bill is and the less it is open to interpretation the better. I am very sympathetic to what Senator Mullen is saying, but as Minister I also have to be mindful of the robustness of legislation and therefore I am sticking to the wording as is.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 11 agreed to.

SECTION 12.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 10:

In page 12, between lines 29 and 30, to insert the following subsection:

“(2) The Minister shall make provision for payment of any fee or charge under this Act to be made by electronic means.”.

It is a simple amendment to ensure easy accessibility to the system for registration purposes. The Minister has already engaged in that in other areas of his brief, namely, motor tax and second properties. I see no reason in the Internet age for not facilitating the registration process and that we would have electronic means of paying the registration fee. I take the opportunity to extend that change to the payment of dog licence fees. A significant amount of every dog licence fee that is paid through post offices is taken in fees by An Post, whereas if there was direct registration by electronic means the full amount of the licence fee could be used for what it is meant for, namely, to maintain proper standards in dog care and to provide council pounds. That would be a positive step to take. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s response.

Deputy John Gormley: I thank Senator Coffey for his proposal and his amendment. It is interesting that he mentioned the means by which the second homes levy is now paid. I recall that a certain amount of doubt was cast in this House about whether it would be successful.

Senator Paudie Coffey: We were talking about the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

Deputy John Gormley: Senator Coffey would agree that it has been enormously successful.

Senator Paudie Coffey: We were talking about the €10 million sitting in the Private Residen- tial Tenancies Board. I have my facts right.

Deputy John Gormley: No. I have a clear recollection of that debate.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I have too.

Deputy John Gormley: I do not wish to be prescriptive about this. We are not talking about mass payment. There is a limited number of dog breeding establishments. At this stage local authorities are quite experienced in processing payments for rent, rates or levies of any descrip- tion. They generally operate a range of payment mechanisms to facilitate easy payment. It is not necessary for the Minister to prescribe how they should operate their systems. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but it is not necessary. Therefore, I intend to leave the section as is. 171 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paudie Coffey: I am happy to withdraw the amendment in the light of what the Minister has said. However, I would ask him to consider the payment of dog licences and the introduction of an electronic means of registration. The latter would help to increase the number of dog registrations. I take the opportunity to bring that to the Minister’s attention. Much of the money going to An Post could be reinvested where it should be, namely, the care of dogs by local authorities. I draw the Minister’s attention to another matter relating to the section although we have not tabled an amendment on it. Section 12(1)(a) to (e) refers to dog breeding establishments of varying sizes. Would the Minister consider including the words “for the purposes of breed- ing”? In effect, that is what this Bill is about, namely, the regulation of breeding establishments. It should not be seen to be a catch-all measure. Other legislative Acts deal with animal welfare and greyhounds, for example. The purpose of this Bill is to regulate breeding establishments. We need to be more clear and specific in our language in that regard. I urge the Minister to consider tabling such an amendment on Report Stage.

Senator Liam Twomey: The Minister did not respond to my questions on the previous amendment but the issue crops up here again. There is reference in section 12(5) to a “bitch” being a bitch of more than four months old capable of being used for breeding purposes. One can have young pups on a farm that could be for sale at some point. They may not be sold or they might be awaiting export and so on. That could push people over the breeding quota and they could end up paying much more. Four months is wrong and something must be done about that. The Minister cannot be that restrictive regarding dog breeders.

Deputy John Gormley: What does the Senator propose?

Senator Liam Twomey: The time varies for different dogs but the Minister should consider at least nine months for the average dog. Most people will not keep a pup beyond nine months. It will be sold or used for some other purpose. Four months is too young. Some dogs breed much later than that. For instance, a pelvic test is done on Labradors at 13 months to see if they are suitable for breeding. Other dogs have different breeding cycles. The Minister wants this provision to be restrictive but that could cause problems for genuine breeders and this figure must be changed.

Deputy John Gormley: If the Senator wishes to table an amendment in this regard on Report Stage, I will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Senator Paudie Coffey: I move amendment No. 10a:

In page 14, subsection (8), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

“(a) the operator of the establishment is registered through the Irish Coursing Club,”.

I will withdraw the amendment because the wording is incorrect and I will resubmit it on Report Stage. The amendment should read, “the operator of the establishment is registered through the Irish Greyhound Board”. A registration and fees system is in place for the grey- hound industry. The Minister will know from his working group that the industry is governed by the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 which clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Irish Coursing Club, ICC, and the Irish Greyhound Board, IGB, in the promotional development 172 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed) of the sport and in the regulation and enforcement of standards in the sport. A sophisticated system tracks all matters relating to breeding and ownership of greyhounds. Duplication is a possibility as a result of this section. A system is in place under the aegis of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism which involves reputable agencies such as the ICC and the IGB. The ICC operates a register of all matings, litters born, adult greyhound naming and transfer of ownership. All the stud dogs and brood bitches are DNA profiled and all the greyhounds are tattooed and earmarked for identification purposes. All the pups are inspected and tattoo marked by control stewards jointly appointed by the ICC and the IGB. Greyhound breeders are subject to registration fees which ultimately support the maintenance and integrity of the industry. I am sure the Minister will agree we do not hear many complaints about the maltreatment of greyhounds because this is a well regulated industry. While the Minister is not doing this intentionally, the amendment is an effort to avoid dupli- cation. The greyhound industry is well regulated and breeders are paying fees for regulation and registration. Imposing further fees, regulation and bureaucracy could threaten the viability of the industry. Greyhounds are covered by the 1958 Act which comes under the remit of the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism. It would not be a problem if the Minister wanted to strengthen that legislation by cross-referencing it in this legislation and endorsing the work of inspectors. Reference is regularly made to the economic climate, over regulation, bureaucracy and overheads. This provision will result in an unnecessary overhead through additional inspec- tions in an industry that is well regulated.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I have also had representations from Bord na gCon and I agree with Senator Coffey’s comments. Bord na gCon is a responsible body and one does not hear many complaints about the industry. When I see greyhounds, I am always struck by how thin they are. The fashion industry comes to mind whenever I look at a greyhound. The key issue raised by Senator Coffey is cross-referencing. It would be useful to cross-reference the 1958 Act in the legislation. People who have complained about aspects of the Bill are concerned that it will somehow introduce onerous requirements on the undeserving in that people who are operating to a high standard could be drawn into a bureaucratic nightmare as a result of the Bill’s requirements. I will touch on this later when we deal with my amendment regarding guidelines. Will the Mini- ster clarify his expectation about how the Bill will work in practice? Is it likely to lead to inspections of reputable groups, bodies, organisations, companies or individuals? How will the legislation be enforced? It would be useful to hear what the Minister thinks about that looking forward.

Senator Paddy Burke: Senator Burke raised a number of important questions. I would like the Minister to address the issue regarding the 1958 Act, in particular, which governs the IGB. Surely the board will continue to impose its own fees and regulations. Will registration fees be duplicated or will the regulations and standards proposed by the Minister supersede the 1958 Act? The IGB and the ICC are doing a wonderful job regulating their own affairs. It would be to the detriment of the greyhound industry if fees and regulations were imposed under both the 1958 Act and this legislation. How will the legislation operate on the ground? Will fees be doubled? Will two sets of people visit farms and so on?

Senator Dominic Hannigan: Why was the 1958 Act not referenced? Will its provisions be superseded by the new provisions or will the new provisions be additional to those that exist?

Senator Ann Ormonde: I endorse the points made about the 1958 Act. The IGB would like the Minister to consider these issues. 173 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy John Gormley: The Senator stated the amendment is not drafted as he intended. A number of issues were raised about previous legislation. I suggest that he amends his own amendment and we can discuss it in greater detail on Report Stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That section 13 stand part of the Bill”.

Senator Paddy Burke: Senator Coffey will amend his amendment but will the Minister address the questions raised rather than have us repeat them again on Report Stage? He should respond to the questions raised regarding the 1958 Act, double registration and so forth.

Senator Paudie Coffey: On the section, I wish to hear the Minister’s views regarding the 1958 Act and the current regulations, regimes and registration systems that are in place. How does he envisage the provisions of this legislation fitting in or working in collaboration with the existing system? Essentially, these provisions constitute an overlaying of the existing regulations and concerns have been expressed in this regard. Moreover, I refer to the section’s definition of a “bitch” being “a bitch of more than 4 months old that is capable of being used for breeding purposes”. I concur with the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Senator Twomey, and ask the Minister and his officials to reconsider this point before Report Stage. While I intend to submit an amendment on Report Stage on this subject, in the interests of collaboration the Minister and his officials also should consider an amendment. I will offer a wording for the new definition, namely, “a bitch that has produced a live litter and is capable of being used for breeding purposes”. Obviously a bitch cannot be considered capable unless she has produced a live litter, which is the evidence and proof. The four-month age limit does not seem reasonable, is illogical and demonstrates no understanding of the breeding cycle of a bitch. The Minister should consider this point because it is a fundamental aspect of the Bill that will have implications on its introduction.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Minister wish to come in on the section?

Deputy John Gormley: I thought this section had been agreed to and now Members are going back over it.

An Cathaoirleach: No, Members are entitled to make contributions on the section.

Senator Maurice Cummins: No, it is not agreed to.

Senator Paddy Burke: Members had not agreed to the section.

An Cathaoirleach: No, not the section. The amendment had been withdrawn.

Deputy John Gormley: I had thought this section had been agreed to.

Senator Maurice Cummins: No, it has not been agreed to.

Senator Paddy Burke: No, this section has not been agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: We are on section 13. The amendment was withdrawn.

Deputy John Gormley: Very well. If the amendment has been withdrawn, the proposal I made to the Senator was that I would revert to him at that stage. I must consult my officials as he has raised a series of issues about the 1958 Act and so on. I propose to give Members my assessment when Senator Coffey tables his amendment on Report Stage. Is that all right? 174 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

Senator Paddy Burke: On the section, it would be helpful to Senator Coffey were he to know the position in respect of the 1958 Act.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Does he have hope of success?

Senator Paddy Burke: The Minister should comment in respect of——

Deputy John Gormley: I cannot. The Senator is asking me to consider stuff that has not come in.

Senator Maurice Cummins: It is the Minister’s Bill.

Senator Paddy Burke: This forms part of the Bill.

Senator Camillus Glynn: The amendment was in the name of Senator Coffey.

Senator Paudie Coffey: For the benefit of the House and to bring some clarity, the amend- ment I tabled stated clearly that the exemption would apply to “the operator of the establish- ment [who] is registered through the Irish Coursing Club” but it should have referred to the Irish Greyhound Board. It is the same sentiment and I am sure the Minister would have had a response prepared for such an amendment in any event.

An Cathaoirleach: We are on the question, “That section 13 stand part of the Bill”.

Senator Liam Twomey: There are just two simple questions in this regard. All Members need to know are the Minister’s views on the legislation pertaining to the Irish Greyhound Board and the Minister’s view on accepting the amendment relating to the breeding cycle of a dog. While the Minister need not affirm it will form part of the Bill, does he accept there are points to be made on this issue?

An Cathaoirleach: We simply are dealing with section 13 as it stands and as it is written in the Bill.

Senator Paddy Burke: On section 13, the Minister will put in place regulations for the local authorities, which will have powers to inspect and a fee will be forthcoming. At the same time, however, under the 1958 Act the Irish Greyhound Board is empowered to have its own regu- lations and to levy fees.

Deputy John Gormley: Yes.

Senator Paddy Burke: Under section 13, which will give the Minister the power to put in place regulations, will two sets of regulations henceforth apply to greyhound breeders, that is, one from the Irish Greyhound Board and the other under the relevant local authority? Simi- larly, will there be two sets of inspections? What does the Minister envisage will happen in respect of the 1958 Act under which the Irish Greyhound Board, which is doing a great job, is regulating at present? What will the local authority do following the enactment of this legis- lation and the imposition of new regulations on them?

Deputy John Gormley: I can only speak in general terms. This issue arises because, as Members may know, the Hunting Association of Ireland sought exemptions from inspections and the licence fee requirements. In that instance, I proposed that while people could not be exempted from inspections, as the Hunting Association of Ireland operates on a not-for-profit basis, it was exempted from the fees. Therefore, I could look at issues in a similar light but have not done so. Members have just raised this issue in respect of the Irish Coursing Club. I will try to be as fair as possible but my approach will be similar. I note the Fine Gael Senators 175 Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009: 25 February 2010. Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy John Gormley.] are in conclave at present but I am trying to give them some idea of my thinking in this regard. I cannot really see where we could——

Senator Paddy Burke: We need to know the Minister’s thinking.

Deputy John Gormley: I beg the Senator’s pardon.

An Cathaoirleach: The Minister, without interruption.

Senator Paddy Burke: We are trying to find out the Minister’s thinking on the matter——

An Cathaoirleach: The Minister to reply, please.

Senator Paddy Burke: ——without being emotive.

Deputy John Gormley: I did not quite get what the Senator said there.

Senator Paudie Coffey: The Senator stated that Fine Gael Members and the industry need to know the Minister’s thinking.

An Cathaoirleach: The Minister was explaining it.

Deputy John Gormley: The Fine Gael Members were speaking while I was trying to let them know my thinking, which is the reason I tried to get their attention. I am going to try a similar approach but my point is that I do not believe one can make exemptions from inspections. Inspections are——

Senator Maurice Cummins: Members did not say that.

An Cathaoirleach: Members, please. Allow the Minister to speak.

Senator Liam Twomey: Can the Minister deal with registration?

Deputy John Gormley: I am trying to tell Members that from the perspective of inspections, one cannot make such exemptions because everyone will be subject to them. That is my posi- tion in this regard.

Senator Liam Twomey: On the registration issue?

Senator Paudie Coffey: While I accept what the Minister has said, I will outline the question on which I seek clarity. There already is an inspection regime in place under the 1958 Act, which this Bill should address in some way. It should be either endorsed, superseded or amended. Members and the industry need clarity in this regard because otherwise there will be duplication in respect of registration fees and inspection regimes. This Bill certainly will introduce over-regulation and bureaucracy in this area and will bring the viability of the valu- able Irish greyhound industry under serious threat at the fundamental levels of breeding, rear- ing and training at dog establishments. This is a highly important section of the Bill to which adequate time must be given to achieve full clarity and certainty.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I refer to section 13(9), in which a bitch is defined as being “a bitch of more than 4 months old that is capable of being used for breeding purposes”. Who in their right mind would have bitches breeding after four months? Who is advising the Minister in this regard? I do not wish to be emotive and I do not believe I was emotive earlier. I certainly am not a headline grabber in this House. However, I like to deal with practicalities and the Minister likewise should deal in a practical manner in this regard. Who advised the Minister 176 Water and 25 February 2010. Sewerage Schemes that people are breeding bitches at four months old? This is absolutely crazy. How could anyone support a section of a Bill that refers to bitches for breeding purposes at more than four months? It is ludicrous and no one could support this.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: To be fair, some time ago in response to a request from Members for an extension from three months to a year, the Minister stated the industry has had five years to consider this matter and to get its house in order. However, only two or three months from the legislation’s enactment, when Members ask a straightforward question on whether this Bill will necessitate additional inspections, the Minister will not tell them. The Minister must provide Members with a clear statement regarding the proposed inspections and I ask him do so do.

Senator Ann Ormonde: The Fine Gael Members should allow the Minister to give consider- ation to all the points that have been raised today and should allow him time to revert on Report Stage and then debate the amendment that will be tabled. Members should let matters rest there to allow him to revert and to raise the points.

Senator John Paul Phelan: No.

Senator Ann Ormonde: The Minister confirmed that he would take on the points raised by them.

Senator Liam Twomey: The Senator should not treat Members with such contempt.

Senator Paddy Burke: The Minister stated that people cannot be exempted from registration. No one on this side of the House suggested that.

Deputy John Gormley: Inspections.

Senator Paddy Burke: I am sorry. There must be inspections, but our problem relates to whether there will be two inspections for some parts of the industry. The greyhound industry is regulated under the 1958 Act. However, the Minister is saying there will be further inspec- tions under this Bill. Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Camillus Glynn: At 2.30 p.m. next Tuesday.

Adjournment Matters.

————

Water and Sewerage Schemes. Senator Cecilia Keaveney: I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting my issue. I appreciate the presence of the Minister of State, Deputy Killeen. He might believe that the marine, which he is in charge of, is unrelated to the environment, but he would not be right, as my Adjournment matter is on two sewerage schemes, one in Newtowncunningham and another in my home town of Moville. I will start with the latter, given the issue has been ongoing for more than 30 years. I remarked that it was not unrelated to the Minister of State’s remit because raw sewage is being pumped into the Foyle in Moville. The surrounding area does not have a basic sewerage infrastructure and issues with the water supply, which needs to be upgraded, must be addressed. 177 Water and 25 February 2010. Sewerage Schemes

[Senator Cecilia Keaveney.]

The Newtowncunningham scheme is in the same situation. Land is available for purchase to progress the scheme, but the community is concerned that if there is a delay, the land might not be available in future. It has been identified as a proper site. Those involved in selling the land and those in the community who are trying to progress the scheme are anxious to know the exact position and the timescale on the scheme’s delivery. In my area, there has been a controversy about getting a site. The council decided on a site, had an environmental impact statement, EIS, conducted, went to An Bord Pleanála and put it out for public consultation. The scheme was supposed to be delivered in the 1990s. My main issue is the question of how to bring industries into areas that have lost many jobs. Jobs in the manufacturing sector have been lost all along the Border, including in . We have a heavy reliance on fishing and farming in terms of employment, but even those are in decline. If we do not have basic infrastructure, how can we encourage people? Basic infrastructure includes water and sewerage. The lack of infrastructure has stymied development in my area for some time. I cannot understand what or who is causing the delay. Even when times were more flaithiúlacht economically, for want of a better term, the schemes did not progress despite being priorities. In recent days, there have been many political conspiracy theories, but I almost wonder whether there is a conspiracy not to deliver on sewerage schemes in the Inishowen area. We have the badly needed Moville scheme, but extensions are required in Buncrana and facilities are needed in Ballyliffin and Newtowncunningham. No matter how long they seem to sit as priorities within the council and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, they do not come to fruition. When a project went before An Bord Pleanála, people were told the EIS submitted with it was unnecessary. A couple of months after the EIS was sent back to the council, An Bord Pleanála decided that it actually was necessary. Resub- mitting it took one year. I do not understand the process or why it has been blocked. This might be a serious alle- gation, but someone is ensuring that this basic infrastructure is not progressing. Who is blocking it? Is it the Department or the council? Perhaps a more pertinent question is what is blocking it. Can we get to the crux of the issue? Is it down to co-funding or can people step forward and say what the problem is? If we cannot get basic infrastructure, I cannot fight our corner for inward investment as we need to fight it. Added value products in the marine sector could be created in Greencastle and Moville, but not without proper waste water treatment centres. I appreciate this matter is not the Minister of State’s direct responsibility, but it has a knock-on effect for his remit. I hope we will not only receive answers, but direct timelines for the schemes’ delivery. Uncertainty and ongoing delays are stymying economic investment in my constituency.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Tony Killeen): As the Senator may be aware, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government recently advised both Houses that he will soon publish a new water services investment programme. This programme, which will cover the period 2010 to 2012, will set out the water services contracts that are likely to proceed to construction in the next three years and the schemes for which planning will continue during this period. The Moville and Greencastle sewerage scheme has been in planning for some considerable time, as stated by Senator Keaveney. I remember her raising the issue when I was a Minister of State in that Department. Funding has been provided by the Department of the Envir- onment, Heritage and Local Government for this planning work. I understand that has completed a preliminary report for the scheme, but an EIS must also to be prepared, as the Senator stated. The EIS was submitted by the council to An Bord Pleanála, where such statements are assessed, and no decision has yet been made by the board. When 178 Harbourmaster 25 February 2010. Appointment the certification process is completed, I expect the council will immediately submit the prelimi- nary report and relevant documentation to the Department for consideration. There were no proposals to provide a new sewerage scheme to serve Newtowncunningham in the Department’s water services investment programme for 2007 to 2009, on the basis that it was not of sufficiently high priority within the schemes required in the county. The priority to be accorded to schemes in County Donegal is a matter in the first instance for Donegal County Council. Local authorities were asked to submit assessments of needs for water and sewerage services in their areas to the Department by 23 October 2009. The Department is now finalising the consideration of these assessments, which will form a key input to the development of the 2010 to 2012 water services investment programme. In conducting their assessments, local authorities were asked to prioritise schemes and contracts for progression over the coming years based on key environmental and economic criteria. With the changed economic climate and the completion of the first cycle of river basin management plans by local authorities in the near future, there is a greater need than ever to focus strategic environmental and economic objectives. The 2010 to 2012 programme will do this by prioritising projects that target public health and environmental compliance issues, support economic and employment growth and offer best value for money. As I have already indicated, the Minister expects to publish the 2010 to 2012 programme shortly and his Department will work closely with Donegal County Council to advance priority schemes identified in the programme.

Senator Cecilia Keaveney: I hope the Minister of State can get the information for me with- out my needing to use a freedom of information request. From the Department’s records, I would like the exact details of the timeline for the Moville sewerage scheme. The Minister of State remarked: “I understand that Donegal County Council has completed a preliminary report for the scheme, but an EIS must also be prepared”. If I recall correctly, the EIS was submitted to An Bord Pleanála at least three years ago. It might have been four years ago. The council was told by the board that the EIS was not necessary, but it was resubmitted one year later. What are the precise reasons for the current delays? I am shocked that small schemes like Newtowncunningham and Ballyliffen are not even on the radar. Can the Minister of State give me precise details of the interactions between the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Donegal County Council and the period of time involved? This has been going on for a phenomenally long time and I cannot get to the bottom of why it has not become a reality.

Deputy Tony Killeen: I will pass the Senator’s concerns to the Minister.

Harbourmaster Appointment. Senator Denis O’Donovan: I welcome the Minister of State to the House to accept this motion on the Adjournment. He is familiar with the circumstances of the situation in Castletownbere. Substantial business is being lost to the town and to the peninsula because we do not have a full-time harbourmaster. An investment of almost €40 million has been made in Castletownbere Harbour, which is of significant importance for the future, and I accept that the fishing industry is the prime motivator of business in Castletownbere. Nevertheless, vessels have recently been directed away from Castletownbere because they could not be properly berthed. A full-time harbourmaster with the goodwill of the district in his focus would ensure no business was lost to the harbour. The owner of a local oil company which supplies boats in the harbour says his business has declined by more than 50% in the last 12 or 15 months owing to uncertainty. On four occasions ships of the Naval Service could not come into the harbour 179 Harbourmaster 25 February 2010. Appointment

[Senator Denis O’Donovan.] because berths were not available. EiraNova, a Spanish-Irish ship processing company is now landing many of its vessels in Dingle. This sends out a very bad signal in difficult times. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food indicated that he is anxious that a new harbourmaster be appointed. I urge that this be done sooner rather than later. I will be in Castletownbere next Monday to meet 15 companies, big and small, which do business in the harbour. They are seriously concerned. One company will lose three or four jobs if the current state of play continues indefinitely. There has been a lapse of two years during which the former harbourmaster was ill and a temporary person was appointed. This creates considerable uncertainty at a time when the fishing industry faces significant difficulties. It would be a pity if related industries on the peninsula and in the greater west Cork area were allowed to suffer.

Deputy Tony Killeen: I thank Senator O’Donovan for giving me the opportunity to outline the up-to-date position on this matter and to acknowledge that he has been raising issues relating to Castletownbere, including this one, for a long time. The Department has responsi- bility for the management and development of six fishery harbour centres located at Killybegs, Dunmore East, Howth, An Daingean, Ros an Mhíl and Castletownbere. These centres are located strategically around the coast of Ireland and provide an essential service for our fishing fleet and its fishermen. The six fishery harbour centres accommodate various fishing related industries which generate local employment. They provide facilities for the repair and mainten- ance of the shipping fleet and for the support of passenger and car ferries to the islands and play an important role in the Irish tourism and marine leisure industry. Castletownbere is Ireland’s second largest fishery harbour centre. In recognition of the important role played by the fishery harbour centres and in this case by Castletownbere, the Department has invested €33 million to date in a major capital infrastructure project to upgrade facilities at the Dinish Island wharf which is located within the Castletownbere fishery harbour centre. Dinish Island is owned and managed by the Department. Such investments help to underpin and develop the important role that the fishery harbour centres, including Castletownbere, play in the fishing industry and local economies. The specific importance of Castletownbere can be seen in the fact that the income generated in 2008 at Castletownbere fishery harbour centre was €0.136 million and fish landings are in the region of 20,000 tonnes at Castletownbere per year. This activity sees some of the largest boats in the Irish fishing fleet operating out of Castletownbere along with vessels from other EU states. There has also been an increasing volume of commercial and cruise liner traffic at the harbours. The role of harbourmaster in any of our fishery harbour centres is varied and demanding and is central to the continued efficient and effective management and development of the harbours. The principal tasks which harbourmasters are expected to undertake include the enforcement of harbour by-laws, rules and regulations, the maintenance of control over all shipping, fish landings and passengers entering or leaving the port by sea, ensuring compliance with the wide range of health and safety requirements in respect of the harbour, ensuring the proper functioning of all harbour facilities, and supervising the staffing complement on each harbour. In recognition of the role undertaken by harbourmasters, specific qualification and experi- ence requirements are in place within the recruitment process. The most recent appointment of a harbourmaster in Castletownbere was made in October 2005 following an open compe- tition run by the Public Appointments Service. In November 2009 the harbourmaster in Castletownbere retired from his post. To address the situation whereby the harbourmaster post was effectively vacant for a prolonged period prior to this, the Department appointed an officer to take on the duties of harbourmaster in an acting capacity with effect from November 2007. While the position remains that an officer is taking on the role of harbourmaster in an acting capacity, the Department is anxious that the post be filled on a permanent basis now that 180 Special 25 February 2010. Educational Needs the previous harbourmaster has officially retired. As I have previously noted, the position of harbourmaster is a specialised post and a targeted recruitment process would have to be put in place to recruit a full-time harbourmaster for Castletownbere. However, owing to the need to further control public expenditure and the numbers of public sector employees, the Government decided in March 2009 to introduce a moratorium on recruitment and promotion in the public service. This moratorium forms a central plank in this Government’s programme to control public expenditure. It is recognised, however, that in specific and limited cases there will be circumstances in which the specialised nature of certain posts will mean that work cannot be reorganised within a Department to address the effect of a post falling vacant. It is my view that the post of harbourmaster in our fishery harbour centres is one such post. Within the terms of the moratorium on public sector promotion and recruitment it is open to Departments to request an exception to the terms of the moratorium. Any such exceptions are understood to arise in very limited circumstances only and require the prior sanction of my colleague, the Minister for Finance. Given the specialised nature of the post and the important role which the fishery harbour centres play, my officials are pursuing this option with the Department of Finance with a view to proceeding with a recruitment process to fill existing harbourmaster vacancies in the Department.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I thank the Minister for State. I understand from what he says that the moratorium is tying his hands. I hope he can use his influence with the Minister for Finance to establish the exception he suggests in his reply and that the post will be advertised and filled before the longest day of the year.

Deputy Tony Killeen: I assure Senator O’Donovan that I will pursue that matter.

Special Educational Needs. Senator Paschal Donohoe: I visited St. Laurence O’Toole’s special school in Dublin on Monday morning last. In the course of our work as politicians, we spend some time visiting schools and trying to understand their needs. I have never visited a school which does such important and hard work in such difficult circumstances. This school looks after young men and women who, for different reasons, are not part of our mainstream school system. They are boys and girls who have real difficulties with their behaviour, lifestyles and family circum- stances. If these pupils did not have a school to look after them, they would face a tough life with very slim chances. The school does vital work for pupils who do not have anyone to give them the care they need. It is an amazing school doing badly needed work. I raise this issue because despite the great work being done and the dedication of the teachers in tough circumstances, which I saw on Monday morning, the school has been housed in pre- fabs for a number of years. The school has moved through the stages of the Department’s schools building programme. It sought planning permission for a site and school design. Plan- ning permission was granted in 2008. The cost of the project has been approved by the Depart- ment and the project is moving through the system. However, progress has now stopped. The board of management and the teachers need an update from the Department of Edu- cation and Science on where the project stands and a commitment that it will move ahead. I emphasise that they are doing the most difficult work in looking after children who need support and care which they might not be able to get elsewhere. They are working in prefabs and in conditions which are not suitable. They had a glimpse of what the future might look like but it has been removed and they do not know where the project stands. I would like an update from the Minister. I will certainly make a commitment to do all I can to help them, because they need it, and I hope the Government and the Minister will do the same. 181 The 25 February 2010. Adjournment

Deputy Tony Killeen: I am taking this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science, Deputy Batt O’Keeffe. It provides an opportunity to outline to the Seanad the Government’s strategy for capital investment in education projects and also to outline the current position in regard to St. Laurence O’Toole’s special school, Dublin. The allocation of funding for school buildings in 2010 is just under €579 million. This rep- resents a significant investment in the schools building and modernisation programme. This level of funding at a time of great pressure on public finances is a sign of the Government’s commitment to investing in school infrastructure and it will permit the continuation of the Department’s programme of sustained investment in primary and post primary schools. Modernising facilities in our existing building stock as well as the need to respond to emerg- ing needs in areas of rapid population growth is a significant challenge. The Government has shown a consistent determination to improve the condition of our school buildings and to ensure the appropriate facilities are in place to enable the implementation of a broad and balanced curriculum. All applications for capital funding are assessed in the planning and building unit of the Department. The assessment process determines the extent and type of need presenting based on the demographics of an area, proposed housing developments, condition of buildings, site capacity etc., leading to an appropriate accommodation solution. As part of this process, a project is assigned a band rating under published prioritisation criteria for large scale building projects. These criteria were devised following consultation with the education partners. The original criteria were revised and refined in 2004. Projects are selected for inclusion in the school building and modernisation programme on the basis of priority of need. This is reflected in the band rating assigned to a project. In other words, a proposed building project moves through the system commensurate with the band rating assigned to it. The building project for St. Laurence O’Toole’s special school, which is a youth encounter project, has been assigned a band 1.2 rating. The brief for the project is to provide a new school on a site currently owned by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority. Funding for the design and construction phases of the project are being provided entirely by the Department of Education and Science. The project will entail demolition of the existing buildings on the site and the construction of a part two-storey, part three-storey school with the main entrance to the school being from Seville Place. The project is currently at an advanced stage of architectural planning. Planning permission has been secured for the project. Stage 2(a) of architectural planning, which is the developed sketch scheme stage, was approved by the Department in September 2009. The progression of all large scale building projects, including this project, from initial design stage through to construction is dependent on the prioritisation of competing demands on the funding available under the Department’s capital budget. Unfortunately, it was not possible for the Minister to include this project in the recent announcement of 52 major projects to proceed towards tender and construction this year. The proposed building project for St. Laurence O’Toole’s special school will be considered in the context of the Department’s multi-annual school building and modernisation programme. However, in light of current competing demands on the capital budget of the Department, it is not possible to give an indicative timeframe for the delivery of the project at this time. I thank Senator Donohoe for giving me an opportunity to outline to the Seanad the current position in regard to the school building project for St. Laurence O’Toole’s special school.

The Seanad adjourned at 1.55 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 March 2010.

182