Seanad Éireann

Vol. 213 Tuesday, No. 4 7 February 2012

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Dé Máirt, 7 Feabhra 2012.

Business of Seanad ………………………………251 Order of Business …………………………………252 Directive on Insider Dealing: Motion …………………………266 Teaching Council Act: Motion ……………………………267 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: Statements, Questions and Answers ………………267 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: Report Stage ……………………284 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding Bill 2012: Second Stage (resumed)……………293 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: Report Stage (resumed) and Final Stages……………306 Adjournment Matters Private Residential Tenancies Board ………………………313 Redundancy Payments ……………………………316 TaxCode…………………………………318 General Practitioner Services …………………………320 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé Máirt, 7 Feabhra 2012. Tuesday, 7 February 2012.

————

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m.

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

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

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to outline the amending legislation he proposes to put in place to deal with the issue of properties that are not registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board.

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

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to make a statement on the recent survey carried out by ISME on the impact of the recent changes by her Department affecting small and medium sized enterprises.

I have notice from Senator John Kelly of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Finance to clarify the way in which the Revenue Commis- sioners will carry the collection of taxes owed without threatening the viability of businesses.

I have notice from Senator Diarmuid Wilson of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to provide adequate GP services in Mullagh, County Cavan.

I have notice from Senator Kathryn Reilly of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to discuss the general practitioner services in Mullagh in County Cavan and the lack of HSE GP provision in the area.

I have notice from Senator Thomas Byrne of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Finance to give an update on the plans for the provision of a public playground at the Battle of the Boyne site in Oldbridge, County Meath.

I have notice from Senator Fidelma Healy Eames of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to clarify the background that lead to the decision to lay off 20 people from Rehab Recycle in Galway, in view of the fact that the 251 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

[An Cathaoirleach.] majority of redundancies are people with special needs; and to outline the future of Govern- ment subsidised work placements available to these people.

I have notice from Senator Mark Daly of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to make a statement on any evaluation carried out by the Government prior to introducing the new redundancy arrangements, in particular the reduction of the employer rebate of statutory redundancy payments.

I have notice from Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to immediately reverse the cutbacks to community employment schemes.

I have notice from Senator David Cullinane of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation to outline the need for balanced regional development and for the Government and enterprise agencies to ensure the recently published FORFAS jobs plan delivers for the southeast.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment. I have selected the matters raised by Senators Burke, Mooney, Kelly and Wilson and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. As the matters put down by Senators Wilson and Reilly are similar I suggest they share time. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise.

Order of Business. Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is Nos. 1 to 5 on the Order Paper. No 1, motion regarding the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation, to be taken without debate. No. 2, motion regarding the Teaching Council Act 2001 (Amendment of Nominating Bodies) Order 2012, to be taken without debate. No. 3, Statements, and questions and answers, on the EU “Fiscal Compact” Treaty, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 2 and the time to be given to this debate shall not exceed one hour, with the contribution of group spokespersons not to exceed five minutes and the contribution from the Sinn Féin Senator not to exceed two minutes. All Senators to confine their remarks to one minute when asking questions of the Minister. No. 4, Education (Amendment) Bill 2012 — Report and Final Stages to be taken at the conclusion of No. 3 and to conclude no later than 5.45 p.m. No. 5, the Electoral (Amendment) (Political Funding) Bill 2011 to be taken at the conclusion of No. 4 and to conclude no later than 6.45 p.m. with the contribution of Senators not to exceed six minutes and the Minister to be called on to reply no later than 6.35 p.m.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I am a little concerned that only three of the Senators nominated by the Taoiseach are present.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: How many have Fianna Fáil got?

Senator Thomas Byrne: Senator Jillian van Turnhout is not too far away from it.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Senator Coghlan has decided to take the Taoiseacha’s soup and jump to the Fine Gael Party grouping. I am sure the Leader and the Chief Whip had nothing to do with the further diminution of democracy in this Chamber following on from this. Can 252 Order of 7 February 2012. Business the Leader confirm that no transfer fee was involved and will the leader’s allowance be returned to the State? We wish Senator Eamonn Coghlan well in his position of defending the indefen- sible with this new Government. I want to move on to something that is of greater importance. I thank the Leader that the Minister of State responsible for European Affairs, Deputy Lucinda Creighton, will be in attendance. I draw the attention of all colleagues to a report entitled Ministers’ Attendance in Brussels, completed by the University of Gothenburg in March 2011 on the attendance by Ministers at meetings of the European Union. Time after time I have listened to Ministers and Members opposite complain how the Government is working hard to repair alleged reputational damage to the State because Ministers in the last Government did not engage with or attend meetings. These are erroneous and spurious comments.

An Cathaoirleach: Has the Senator a question for the Leader?

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I would like to see whether the Senator is as vocal as she says she is tomorrow evening when we discuss rural schools. Is the Leader aware of the report? Will the Leader, on behalf of the Government, retract the remarks made by nearly every member of the Cabinet and his party that the previous Government did not engage at European meetings? That is patently untrue. An independent report carried out by the University of Gothenburg shows that Ireland is ranked fifth out of 27 states. I ask the Leader, on behalf of the Government and its Senators, does he accept the report? Will he, on behalf of the Government retract ridiculous remarks made here and in the other chamber that Ministers from the previous Government did not engage at meetings which is patently untrue?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am sure the Minister of State will give a similar response to the comment made by the Tánaiste when he attended the excellent debate we had on foreign affairs and trade last Thursday. He pointed out the important work that he and others, in Government, have been doing to restore Ireland’s international reputation since last February. None of us should describe a Senator’s decision to change grouping as a diminution of democracy. Some of us have in the past moved to a new group. We in the Labour Party welcome new Members to our group and we do not charge transfer feed. I commend Bord Bia on its wonderful initiative to hold a big convention today, a showcase for Irish food producers. Retailers, distributors and wholesalers from all over the world have come to look at Irish food, conduct business and develop trade links. I have seen important trade links being fostered in China and welcome reports today that one of the leading figures in the Chinese Government will visit Ireland and head a trade mission here. We are sending people to China on a trade mission in the next month. There is great potential for Ireland to act as a gateway for Chinese businesses that want to come here.

Senator David Norris: Will he be asked about Tibet?

Senator Ivana Bacik: Absolutely.

Senator David Norris: Good.

Senator Ivana Bacik: We have to be conscious of human rights issues.

Senator David Norris: Excellent. 253 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: I have been to China on human rights training programmes. It is important to keep Senator Norris’s point in mind. We should also bear in mind the positive aspects of further links with China. We are already seeing large numbers of Chinese students being welcomed in our universities and colleges. It is important for us to foster such links. The establishment of strong links between China and western democracies is important for Chinese human rights activists.

Senator David Norris: Yes.

Senator Ivana Bacik: A wide range of foreign affairs and trade issues were covered during last week’s excellent debate with the Tánaiste. In light of what is happening today with Bord Bia and the development of links with China, it might be worth having a full debate on Ireland’s trade links with other countries. We had such a debate with the previous Minister of State in this role, Deputy Jan O’Sullivan. It might be worthwhile to have a debate with the new Minister of State, Deputy Costello, who has taken up that mantle now. I ask the Leader to arrange such a debate in the coming weeks.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I would like to begin by wishing the very best to my colleague, Senator Eamonn Coghlan, with his endeavours in his new career with Fine Gael. I look forward to continuing to work with him and all my colleagues in this House. It is a great shame that the Internet service providers of Ireland have chosen today — Safer Internet Day — to criticise the decision of their UK counterparts to require their customers to opt in before accessing adult material. The Internet service providers of Ireland are more than willing to block access to sites that infringe copyright, but they consider it to be nothing less than censorship to try to prevent a child from accessing potentially harmful material. They took a similar view when they were asked to block child abuse material. This is already being done in many European countries, including Norway, Sweden and Italy. The US National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children has estimated that 20% of all pornography on the Internet depicts the abuse and exploitation of children. However, Irish Internet providers are more concerned with preventing people from downloading songs and other things from the entertainment industry than with blocking terrible images of children being abused. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to the House to outline what Ireland is doing to join its EU counterparts in blocking child abuse material on the Internet.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I would like to welcome a statement that was made in one of today’s newspapers by the Minister for Health, under the headline “Reilly wants VHI to drive down costs”. That point has been made repeatedly from these benches in recent weeks. We have called for the Milliman report to be published in unredacted form. That would help us to make precisely the point the Minister for Health is making. The Minister has said he does not accept “for half a minute” that the costing of various procedures should increase by 9% every year. He has added that he intends to appoint four new directors. I ask the Leader to invite the Minister to debate the issues covered in the Milliman report in this House before he appoints the new directors. We are interested in issues like the VHI’s lack of cost-conscious- ness, which are covered on every page of the Milliman report. Most blatantly, the report men- tions that people are being kept in hospital for more than ten days even though best practice suggests they should stay for just three days. I would welcome a debate on the issues raised by the Minister in the report in today’s The Irish Times, on the Milliman report and on the forthcoming appointment by the Minister of four new directors of the VHI, with a mandate to drive down costs. 254 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I would like to mention how shocked I am about two things that have happened in recent days. First, I would like the Minister, Deputy Varadkar——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator can raise one issue today. She can raise the second issue tomorrow.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Okay. They are both very important.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: We can give the Senator time tomorrow as well.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I would like to join Senator Bacik in welcoming the visit of the Vice President of China to Ireland between 18 and 20 February next. His arrival will be a big moment. He is tipped to be the next President of China. We need to explore our trade links with that country. The main reason I am speaking is to ask the Leader to call on the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, to make an urgent statement on Galway Airport. Bank of Ireland’s decision to raid €1.1 million from the airport’s account last week has put the airport in jeopardy and is likely to precipitate its liquidation. This morning, I visited 14 workers who staged a sit-in last night and are still there today because their statutory redundancy is up in the air. The reason is the airport must retain the moneys left in the account for corporate governance reasons. This is a very serious issue. Is this the way Bank of Ireland will do business in future? The action taken by the bank was unannounced. All loans were up to date and the directors of the airport were not informed in advance of the bank’s action. I will write to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and the Committee of Public Accounts requesting that they invite representatives of Bank of Ireland before them to answer serious questions. The bank is causing major reputational damage to the country. We know the damage the banks have caused. Last week, Ireland was ranked in the top ten countries in which to do business. Investors are asking why they should invest in a country where a bank treats its customers in this manner.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Will the Leader ask the Minister for Transport to make an urgent statement on this matter? A meeting took place this morning on the issue of statutory redundancy. The State gave money to Galway Airport to assist it in closing its affairs and making redundancy payments, yet the account in which this money was held was raided by Bank of Ireland, an institution in which the State has a stake. Let us rise up on this issue. We must not be taken for a ride by Bank of Ireland.

Senator Terry Leyden: I support the view expressed by Senator Barrett on the Minister for Health, the VHI and other charges. The Minister could be described as a poacher turned gamekeeper. No other president of the Irish Medical Organisation has negotiated, on behalf of doctors, a deal such as the golden medical card deal he negotiated in a previous capacity as IMO president. He practically blackmailed a previous Government when it announced in the budget that it would allocate medical cards to everyone aged over 79 years. He strategically demanded that general practitioners receive an outrageous amount — €600 or thereabouts — for each patient and now that he is Minister, he is paying the price. I wish Senator Eamonn Coghlan well following his departure from the group of Indepen- dent Senators.

An Cathaoirleach: Does Senator Leyden have a question for the Leader? 255 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

Senator Terry Leyden: I am showing courtesy to a colleague who is moving from the Indepen- dent group to the real Enda party.

An Cathaoirleach: As Senator Leyden knows, the matter is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Senator Terry Leyden: I can wish the Senator well in his political career. I expect he will run for the European Parliament in 2014.

An Cathaoirleach: The matter is not relevant to the Order of Business. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Senator Terry Leyden: Yes. I ask the Leader to consider arranging a short debate on the non- principal private residence scheme which was introduced in 2009 in response to our financial difficulties. Uptake of the scheme has been high and many councils are receiving substantial funding from it. Given that some people did not realise they were liable to pay the charge levied under the scheme, I ask that some form of reminder be issued to members of the public.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time has elapsed.

Senator Terry Leyden: I request the introduction of an amnesty, not for the charge but for the surcharges imposed on those who do not register, which are extremely high. I know a person who genuinely did not realise there was a liability because the person’s second home was leased. I ask the Minister to review the position, especially the €200 per month surcharge for which people are liable if they do not pay the charge. This is causing hardship for a number of people.

Senator Mary Moran: I welcome the announcement made yesterday by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, and Minister for Edu- cation and Skills, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, that all second level schools will have access to high speed broadband by 2014 and it will be available in 200 schools from September 2012. As an educator, I have long campaigned for efficient, high speed connectivity to be available in all school classrooms. When I left my classroom last May, not only did I not have high speed Internet access but I did not have any Internet access. The promises made by the previous Government on foot of great ideas contained in various reports on investing in broadband in schools in the period from 2008 to 2013 never materialised.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The same schools will not have special needs assistants and guidance counsellors.

An Cathaoirleach: Please allow Senator Moran to continue without interruption.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: One must have a teacher to go with the broadband.

Senator Mary Moran: The previous Government’s promises did not materialise. I call on the Leader to ensure that in addition to providing all schools with high speed broadband access, all classrooms are equipped with a digital board. Sometimes we have broadband but if we do not have the digital boards and the equipment to go with it, we are really not fulfilling anything. Will they be introduced also? Will the Minister come back to the House to debate the possibility of introducing further technology into classrooms by considering laptops for every student, which is an issue I raised earlier in the year? In the long run, it would be more economical plus there would be health benefits in terms of students’ backs. 256 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

Senator Katherine Zappone: I wish to ask about the heads of the Bill on personal insolvency released recently by the Minister for Justice and Equality. I heartily welcome the publication of the heads of the Bill as there is great promise in them and they contain many of the elements that a modern system should contain. They also form part of the Government’s response to implementing the recommendations of the Keane report. As many of us are aware, the proposals for reform involve the introduction of a new judicial and non-judicial bankruptcy and debt settlements system. However, I was particularly heart- ened to see head 132 which refers to guidelines on reasonable expenditure and essential income for debtors, of which non-judicial debt settlements must take account. This gives us scope for utilising a minimum income standard for courts dealing with households in debt. I draw the Seanad’s attention to research published yesterday by the Vincentian Partnership for Social Justice on defining what such a standard should be for various household types in Ireland. I also note the debate in the Dáil last week on Deputy Stephen Donnelly’s Family Home Protection (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the objective of which was to give judges some discretion when hearing cases where a mortgage lender seeks to repossess a family home. They have no discretion at the moment. Supposedly, that is a constitutional issue but the Minister has indicated he will look at it. Will the Leader consider inviting the Minister to the Seanad to discuss these and other relevant issues prior to the publication of the Bill itself which is scheduled for the end of April? The Minister, in his wisdom, is seeking submissions from the public, so perhaps he might also come to this House to hear our views.

Senator Martin Conway: I also call for a debate on the VHI. We have seen steady increases in charges in recent years and a number of further increases are predicted. The VHI is a State company and I note what the Minister said in regard to it. However, it is not beyond being brought before this House as a special guest to explain the rationale behind the increases which we are told will continue in the future. As a State agency, it has a responsibility to explain it. It is all about information. Once people have the information, they will accept it however difficult or unpalatable it may be. On the issue of Galway Airport——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Conway, you have raised an issue already. It is the rule of the House——

Senator Martin Conway: It is a very brief one on the issue of Galway Airport. Senator Fidelma Healy Eames would probably be better off writing to the Garda Commissioner to ask him to investigate Bank of Ireland for fraud because what it has engaged in is actually white collar fraud.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Conway, you are completely out of order.

Senator Martin Conway: There are plenty more like me then.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Mr. Alan Crosbie, chairman of Thomas Crosbie Holdings, said something very interesting at a conference on media diversity in Dublin yesterday.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullen, you know the position in the House in regard to private citizens. We do not speak about people in the private capacity——

Senator Rónán Mullen: I think we may have to revisit this. 257 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

An Cathaoirleach: They have no right to defend themselves.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Okay. Try this one, a Chathaoirligh, as Churchill once said——

An Cathaoirleach: They have no right to defend themselves in the House.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I was not about to criticise Mr. Crosbie. I was——

An Cathaoirleach: I did not say you were. It is not about criticism. Do you have a question for the Leader?

Senator Rónán Mullen: Yes. I am very surprised at this approach, a Chathaoirligh, because I wanted to draw attention to what this gentleman said about the Internet. He said that as well as being a tool of freedom and democracy, the Internet has the capacity to destroy civil society and cause unimaginable suffering. In that context, I support and draw the Leader’s attention to the excellent intervention from Senator van Turnhout today on the issue of pornography and the media. There are two ways in which children are damaged by pornography in the media. One is when children are depicted in such pornography, and it is frightening to think that 20% of Internet pornography relates to the abuse of children, as Senator van Turnhout has pointed out. The second way children are exploited is when they access inappropriate adult material. It seems quite scandalous and a real shame, to use Senator van 3o’clock Turnhout’s word, that the Internet service providers of Ireland criticised the decision of UK counterparts to require customers to opt in before accessing such adult material. Senator van Turnhout has rightly pointed to the hypocrisy where they are quite willing to see access blocked when it comes to the infringement of copyright but they do not seem to have a sense of the wider public interest and the protection of the most vulnerable children in society. I am disappointed that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, could not go so far as to even comment on whether there are similar plans to persuade Irish Internet service providers to adopt this British model. We had legislation last week concerning the introduction of gender quotas, with which I disagreed, but I recognise that people were trying to achieve some kind of social good by shaping the environment. Why do we lack courage when it comes to trying to shape the media and the Internet environment so as to protect children from accessing unacceptable material? This is an area in which we must act and be heard clearly in these Houses. I hope the Government will take a more courageous view on the issue in due course.

Senator Colm Burke: I raise an issue which has received a fair bit of coverage over the past few days, which relates to an audit report from Cork County VEC. It has been shown that teachers have been paid for 1,070 hours that were not worked and over €60,000 has been paid. A person was hired to drive children to a Youthreach project despite having been convicted of rape in the UK, as there was no background check undertaken before he was employed. We are in the middle of reforming and amalgamating the VECs and we have not had a debate in this House on the future role and structure of VECs. Will the Leader arrange for the Minister for Education and Skills to come to the House to discuss the future role of VECs and how we can further improve their work? In fairness to the VECs in Cork county and city, they have done and continue to do excellent work, although the audit report highlights deficiencies in the structure of governance. We should consider the matter and it would be appropriate to have a debate in the House. 258 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

Senator David Cullinane: I ask the Leader if we will now see governance by press release. We had a number of debates in this House concerning the Water Services (Amendment) Bill and only last week the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government was here to discuss amendments to the Bill and the septic tank charge. Members of my party and Fianna Fáil, along with some Independents, tabled numerous amendments dealing with the €50 registration charge, calling on it to be abolished. The Minister rejected all those amendments out of hand, only to make an announcement outside the Oireachtas, which is not the way to do business.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator David Cullinane: He should go further and reverse the charge completely. He should publish the relevant standards and define what grant aid is available. He should also remove the criminal sanctions in the Bill. We need a similar U-turn on the household charge. We will see people crippled with that charge and people who cannot afford to pay will end up in court. We have heard that the Minister for Justice and Equality will amend the fines legislation to allow the Government, in the case of people who cannot afford the charge, to take the money from social welfare or salary payments. Will the Leader confirm if that is what the Government proposes? It will criminalise the people who simply cannot afford to pay the kind of charges being introduced by this Govern- ment. Will the Leader ask why the Minister did not use the opportunity he had in this House last week to make his announcement and why he made it outside the Houses of the Oireachtas?

Senator Jim D’Arcy: On Safer Internet Day, I also welcome the announcement by the Mini- sters, Deputies Rabbitte and Quinn, that all second level schools are to receive high-speed broadband. This is a great example of co-operation between Ministers and joined-up thinking by Departments. The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources will pay for the installation and the Department for Education and Skills will pay for the operation of the scheme. The introduction of high speed broadband will have a major impact on how teachers use ICT. It will enable video conferencing and the use of Skype together with the introduction of digital text books. This welcome investment in our education system is a great idea. Too often in the past, moneys invested in ICT have not borne fruit because planning and oversight of the service was not factored into the costs. What system of oversight and inspection will be factored into the operation of this scheme? That is the vital question for the successful operation of this welcome new initiative.

Senator Thomas Byrne: I was pleased to welcome the Cathaoirleach and the Taoiseach to my constituency and I hope they will visit again. The Cathaoirleach might note that the matter I wish to raise on the Adjournment relates to the parish he visited in recent days. I wish to raise an important issue in County Meath — the Lagan Brick workers in Kingscourt on the Meath-Cavan border. This is a very serious issue as all 25 workers were let go, without due formality, in the middle of December. Since then the workers have been maintaining a constant vigil and blockade on the brick factory in Kingscourt to assert their rights and to prevent the stripping out of the factory before they are paid their entitlements. The matter has been before the Labour Relations Commission but I understand that the talks broke down yesterday. I do not know if there have been developments today. The matter is due to go before the Labour Court. This is an urgent situation. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Burton, responded to the issue when it was raised in the Dáil but the workers were not happy 259 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

[Senator Thomas Byrne.] with the sense of urgency he displayed. I am calling on the Leader to engage in a debate in this House on the issue and to request the Minister to attend the House and show he is dealing with it as a matter of extreme urgency. This is a traditional industry in the Kingscourt area. As the factory pays rates, it is an important source of income for County Meath. Little remains of the industrial production in that part of north County Meath. My understanding, although something contrary was said at the Labour Relations Commission, was that the business was relatively successful in England, where it was developed and built up, when the building boom ceased in Ireland. I understand from workers that they were kept very busy. We need to debate this issue, the loss of a traditional industry. The workers from counties, Cavan, Meath and Monaghan cannot afford to lose their jobs and the area cannot afford to lose the facility. We need to debate the issue in the Seanad and we need to recognise the urgency of saving those jobs. The Seanad should acknowledge these workers. The Vita Cortex workers mounted a similar protest indoors around the same time. They have had significant publicity and deserv- edly so, but this group of workers in County Meath have not had the same level of publicity yet they have been pursuing an outdoor blockade, including being present on Christmas Day. They deserve our support. I know all parties have visited them. We need the Government to take action.

Senator Michael Mullins: I support the request by my colleague, Senator Fidelma Healy Eames for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar to make a statement on the situation in Galway Airport. The dawn raid by Bank of Ireland is both unethi- cal and unacceptable. From the reports this morning, the employees at the airport are fearful that their legitimate redundancy payments may be jeopardy. The future of the airport is also being jeopardised by the bank’s action and the board is now considering recommending liquidation. This is a most serious development. The action by the bank brings into sharp focus the anecdotal evidence that the banks are indulging in practices that are putting many businesses across the country in jeopardy. I ask the Leader to once again consider having a major debate on banking. Unless we resolve it as a matter of urgency many businesses will go to the wall with the loss of many jobs.

Senator David Norris: I note that there is a constricted opportunity for people to talk about the fiscal treaty. I support Senator Mullins and ask again for a general debate on the economy. It seems perfectly clear to me that market capitalism, in its present form, is in a state of collapse. It simply is not serving the interests of the people. In our country we have the kind of situation in Galway airport in which I agree, elective surgery is being cancelled and health contributions are being enormously increased. Anybody who lends even one ear to the wireless will hear voices like the man in Connemara who said he would like to pay but he had no money and cannot pay. A woman whose mother has cancer has not the petrol to visit and must rely on her neighbours to bring her. She burns DVDs and shoes in her grate to keep her children warm. I thank God for the voices of those who, at a meeting in the west of Ireland, said this is all true but we must not just attack the German people but the banks. There should be solidarity around the people. It is notable that the former centres of alleged communism, China and Russia, have now totally given in to monopoly State capitalism. We in the West should counter it by moving to the left, moving on behalf of the people and moving in solidarity with the oppressed. I agree with the commentators that talk about the situation in Athens and say it is appalling to see people, including former professionally employed people, living in card- board boxes. What more can they do? Where are these people being driven? Who are the 260 Order of 7 February 2012. Business dictators? Where is democratic accountability? That is the debate that we need to have in this House and I hope that we can.

Senator Terry Brennan: I ask the Leader to bring the following issue to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Varadkar. The M1 Dublin to Belfast route is the busiest road in the country but its central reservation is broken at seven or eight locations between Dundalk and the Border. I refer to the cheese cutter type fence at the centre of the road. Vehicle traffic could veer off into oncoming traffic causing a major accident. Some of the breakages have existed for the past two years. I hope there will not be a major accident in the meantime.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I support Senator Mullins in his call for a specific debate on banking. I want to also refer to the bluster and smokescreen that was announced last night by the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, in Deputy Mattie McGrath’s constituency. I do not know why he announced it there.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The only reason was because he was there.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Minister announced that there will be a reduction of €50 to €5 in the registration fee for the septic tank charge.

Senator Michael Mullins: Is the Senator disappointed?

Senator Rónán Mullen: He is delighted.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ó Domhnaill to continue, without interruption.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I welcome the reduction.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator seeking a debate on it?

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I welcome the reduction but I do not know why the Minister did not have the courtesy to accept a Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin amendment seeking no fee.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: He spent over 20 hours debating the Water Services (Amendment) Bill with us yet he announced the fee reduction at a public meeting in a rural constituency instead of here. He has not dealt with the real issues. His announcement was a smokescreen that has backfired badly on the Government because rural Ireland is up in arms today. The real issue of the septic tank Bill is standards and the cost of meeting them and he has done nothing to address it. He tried a smokescreen but it backfired on him. Let us see what the standards will be when they are published in a fortnight. I guarantee that rural Ireland will not take any more bluff and bluster from him.

Senator Michael Mullins: He has outsmarted the Opposition again.

Senator David Cullinane: He climbed down under pressure.

Senator Catherine Noone: I want to raise a matter of concern that relates to the Luas connector. It can be added to the list of issues that need to be brought to the attention of the Minister, Deputy Varadkar. An Bord Pleanála has raised concerns about this issue. The original plan was that the Luas connector would be built after the DART underground and metro north projects. If that does not happen, certain issues might mean that the connector will have to be closed at some future stage. I would like to get some clarity on the issue from the Department 261 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

[Senator Catherine Noone.] of Transport, Tourism and Sport. I hope it will be possible to ensure we do not do things in reverse in this regard.

Senator Feargal Quinn: The Minister for Health recently appointed a new head of the organ donation and procurement office. What has happened to the Bill that was drawn up to deal with the question of whether it should be possible to increase the number of organ donations in this country? The debate on the Bill in this House was adjourned almost three years ago to facilitate public consultation on the matter. Last year, just six hearts and eight lungs were transplanted in Irish hospitals. That is a tiny fraction of what is required. People in hospitals are waiting for organs to be donated, but that is not happening. We know what the answer is. It is in the Minister’s hands. When the Bill was introduced in this House three years ago, the debate was adjourned to give us an opportunity to hear what the public felt about it. We have not heard a word on it since then. It was not mentioned in the programme for Government. The rate of organ donation in Spain is approximately twice that in this country. That cannot be attributed solely to that country’s presumed consent legislation. The role of co-ordinators in Spanish hospitals and other factors are also relevant. If we make similar progress, we can save lives. Can the Leader urge the Minister for Health to grab this opportunity? No real cost is associated with it. It can proceed very readily. There was almost full agreement in this House on the Bill we were considering. We have not heard a word on it since the then Minister said public consultation was required. Can we make sure something happens in this area? Progress can be made. I would like to make another point. I am not taking up a different topic. I have raised this matter previously. Every day, each of the 60 Members of this House receives an Order Paper in an individually addressed envelope. I imagine the same thing happens in the Dáil. I cannot believe the waste this must entail. It just does not make sense. When my daughter held a birthday party for our granddaughter the other day, she insisted that those who had brought presents had to bring the wrapping paper home with them. That shows the extent to which she is anti-paper. It seems to me that we are unaware of the significant amount of waste that is taking place. We can start to do something about it by getting rid of the envelopes I have mentioned.

Senator Jimmy Harte: I would like to address the point Senator Ó Domhnaill made about septic tanks. I welcome the Minister’s decision to change the fee.

Senator David Cullinane: It was a climbdown.

Senator Jimmy Harte: Last week, Marian Harkin, MEP, made the valid point that it is very convenient for members of Fianna Fáil to blame the present Government even though it is their fault that the last Administration failed to introduce legislation in this area. They kept knocking it back. They blamed the owners of septic tanks for the water pollution. If anyone reads the judgment on the court case — I do not know how many Opposition Senators have read it — they will learn that the previous Government claimed that septic tanks were at fault for the bad water in Ireland. That is not the case. The pollution was caused by the last Govern- ment’s lack of investment in urban water schemes and——

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: If that is the case, there was no need for the legislation we passed last week.

Senator Jimmy Harte: We had no choice. I can ask the Minister to explain that to the Senator. We had no choice. The case that was made by the Opposition was flawed. Marian Harkin, who 262 Order of 7 February 2012. Business is an Independent MEP from a rural area, talks a lot of sense. She made that point very clearly. It is on the public record.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: She is disagreeing with the Minister, Deputy Hogan.

Senator Jimmy Harte: We all disagree at times.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Ba mhaith liom aontú leis an méidadúirt na Seanadóirí Healy Eames agus Mullins maidir le cás Aerfort na Gaillimhe. Mar eolas dóibh, tá mé tar éis rún a chur ar aghaidh maidir leis an aerfort. B’fhéidir gur féidir liom an ábhar seo a phlé ar an Athló amárach. Beidh mé sásta mo chuid ama a roinnt leo, más mian leo agus má ghlacann an Chathaoirleach leis.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Go raibh maith agat.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Tá an cás seo iontach tábhachtach. On Galway Airport, I hope a matter I submitted for discussion on the Adjournment tomorrow will be given favourable consideration. I am willing to share time in any such discussion. When the Seanad debated operational expenditure, OPEX, grants for airports I expressed my concern to the Minister for Transport that a cut in the grant to Galway Airport would place it in a difficult position. The subsequent decision to reduce the grant, which I would like to discuss with the Minister, may have caused some of the current difficulties at the airport, including the departure of the chief executive before Christmas. The airport’s woes have gone from bad to worse. Workers have been subject to questionable treatment and had to engage in a sit-in to have their redundancy rights confirmed. I understand the Department has already paid redundancy moneys to Galway Airport. We need to ascertain what the Government will do to address this issue. If we are serious about regional development and job creation in Galway and the west, we must have an airport in the region. Will the Government preside over a policy that will result in the closure of Galway Airport? That would not be good enough for people in Galway or the west. Ba mhaith linn go mbéadh an t-Aire istigh anseo le go mbeimísinanné sin a phlé leis.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I ask the Leader to consider inviting the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Róisín Shortall, to the House to debate the recently published report on alcohol sponsorship in sport, which makes a number of valid recommendations, not least of which are recommendations to phase out sponsorship of sports events by drink companies and introduce a 9 p.m. threshold for alcohol advertising on television. In recent days, the media also reported on stark statistics produced by international bodies which show that alcohol abuse and even alcohol consumption at levels which most drinkers would assume to be minimal is leading to many forms of cancers. The statistics are horrific and it would be timely if the Minister of State, who has commendably placed the issue of drug abuse at the top of the agenda, were to return to the House to outline what legislative proposals, if any, she may wish to introduce in response to the recommendations of the advisory body. I will finish on a positive note from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association, which, I am pleased to note, has managed to secure sufficient funding to continue its excellent work. The association has pointed out that while our reputation as being a nation of boozers may be justified, Ireland still has the highest percentage of non-drinkers in the European Union. There is, therefore, some hope that those who abuse drink will see the folly of their ways. This can only be done through legislation, however, especially on sport sponsorship by alcohol companies which is commonplace. The name of a drink company which sponsors a certain sport has almost been included in the dictionary. While I do not have anything against the company or 263 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

[Senator Paschal Mooney.] the sport in question, of which I am a keen follower, it is wrong that drink companies are involved in the sponsorship of sport. I ask that the Minister of State come to the House at the earliest opportunity to allow the House to debate the report of the alcohol advisory council.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Darragh O’Brien referred to a report on the attendance record of Ministers in Brussels. I presume the report relates to the records of individual Mini- sters rather than countries.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is correct.

Senator Maurice Cummins: While I am not aware of the report, I will certainly read it. The case has been proven that Ministers did not attend many of the European bodies.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is not true.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Government has attempted to play catch-up in that regard and has made significant progress in repairing the problems that arose when the previous Government was in office.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The Leader does not believe that.

Senator Paschal Mooney: Those are lies.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Bacik raised the potential for greater trade opportunities with China. I will certainly endeavour to have the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Joe Costello, come to the House to address that situation. I am sure he would be quite willing to do so for the first time as Minister of State. Senators van Turnhout and Rónán Mullen referred to the Internet and Internet providers. I agree totally with them on the need to block child abuse material on the Internet, which should be a priority. I will try to get the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, or the Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Sean Sherlock, to come to the House for a debate on that whole area. Senators Barrett and Conway referred to driving down VHI costs. I understand the Milliman report was eventually placed in the Oireachtas Library, which I arranged for Senator Barrett. We should discuss it during a debate with the Minister for Health. Senators Healy Eames, Martin Conway, Mullins and Ó Clochartaigh referred to the situation in Galway Airport, which was raised here last week. At that time I described the situation and the actions of Bank of Ireland as deplorable and I have not changed my mind on it. We will certainly raise the matter with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar. Senator Healy Eames also mentioned she would write to the relevant committee to ask it to deal with this matter. Senator Leyden referred to the second home charge. The birds in the trees should know about the second home charge at this stage. I do not believe there will be any——

Senator Terry Leyden: The birds in the trees are not paying it.

Senator Maurice Cummins: There will be no reduction or no amnesty in that regard. Senators Mary Moran and Jim D’Arcy welcomed the roll out of high-speed broadband to all schools by 2014 and referred to the need for digital boards. I agree totally with Senator 264 Order of 7 February 2012. Business

D’Arcy that there is a need for oversight and inspection of the scheme when it is up and running. That is of paramount importance. Senator Zappone referred to the personal insolvency Bill. I understand public hearings on the heads of that Bill will commence next week at the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. We have a number of members on that committee and I am sure they will take part and offer their opinions on the heads of the Bill. Like Senator Zappone, I note Deputy Stephen Donnelly’s Bill last week. He is to be complimented on it, as is any Member of either House who introduces a Private Members’ Bill. I would encourage more of them to do so. Senator Rónán Mullen called for a debate on the Internet but we will have a debate on media standards, to which he referred also, on 22 February. Senator Colm Burke called for a debate on the future role of VECs. Senators Cullinane, Ó Domhnaill, Harte and others referred to the Water Services (Amendment) Bill. The registration fee for those who register before 30 June 2012 is now €5 and from July 2012 to March 2013, it will be €50. I am sure everybody welcomes the reduction.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: It is a pity the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government did not tell anyone when he was here last week.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Minister also outlined that unless there is evidence of endangerment to human health or the environment, the septic tank system in place will pass inspection. There is no question of applying the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2009 code of practice to older systems. That is clear to everybody.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The legislation is primary.

Senator Maurice Cummins: If some people choose not to listen to the Minister or agree with him, that is their——

Senator David Cullinane: That is not what he said when he first came in here.

(Interruptions).

Senator Maurice Cummins: I am sure Members will continue to misinterpret what the Mini- ster said even before he came into the House

(Interruptions).

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader, without interruption. People misinterpreted what the Mini- ster said before he came into the House, and they have continued to misinterpret him even after he attended the House.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: He could have done it in here.

Senator Maurice Cummins: They are continuing to misinterpret him.

Senator David Cullinane: Last week he said different European standards had to be put in place, now it is about a fiver.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: He is changing the record.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader without interruption. 265 Directive on 7 February 2012. Insider Dealing: Motion.

Senator Maurice Cummins: We still have all this bluff and bluster from Members on the other side who continue to scaremonger people.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: On a point of order, it is disingenuous of any Member of this House to accuse anyone of scaremongering——

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: ——when none of us knows what the standards will be.

Senator David Cullinane: It is Government by press release.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Ó Domhnaill should resume his seat.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I will accept it if the Leader can clarify what the standards will be. We do not know at the moment.

Senator David Cullinane: Why was the announcement not made in this House?

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader without interruption.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I note Senator Byrne’s point about the brick factory. Senator Brennan referred to the fact that the central reservation on the M1 is broken in at least seven places. That is a serious matter which we will raise with the National Roads Authority. That is the relevant body and it should be notified of such dangers to motorists. Senator Quinn raised the organ donation Bill and I will check the status of that legislation. Three years is a long time for a public consultation. The Senator will note that the Bill is not on the Government’s list of proposed legislation, but I will endeavour to find out what the situation is. I could not agree more with the Senator about the envelopes we continue to receive.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Brown or otherwise.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The matter was raised at the Committee on Procedure and Privil- eges and we will raise it there again. There should be no need to send out the Order Paper in envelopes. I cannot see why it cannot be dropped into Members’ pigeon-holes for collection. Senator Mooney referred to sports sponsorship by the alcohol industry, as well as the work of the alcohol advisory body. I will endeavour to have the Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, attend the House to inform us of what legislation is proposed in this regard. Senator Mooney said we have the highest percentage of non-alcohol drinkers in the EU, which might be forgot- ten by many commentators.

Order of Business agreed to.

Directive on Insider Dealing: Motion Senator Maurice Cummins: I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, that it wishes to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure: 266 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation,

a copy of which was laid before Seanad Éireann on 20th January, 2012.

Question put and agreed to.

Teaching Council Act: Motion Senator Maurice Cummins: I move:

That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

Teaching Council Act 2001 (Amendment of Nominating Bodies) Order 2012,

copies of which were laid before Seanad Éireann on 9th January, 2012.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader of the House wishes to make a change to the Order of Business.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I propose that the House be suspended for five minutes. The Minister of State is not yet available, but she is on her way.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Sitting suspended at 3.30 p.m. and resumed at 3.45 p.m.

EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: Statements, Questions and Answers Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Lucinda Creighton): I thank the House for the opportunity to brief it on the European summit that took place on Monday. I appreciate the opportunity for a good exchange, and to date the exchanges have been robust, interesting and constructive in this House. I specifically want to brief Senators on the new treaty on stability, coordination and governance in the economic and monetary union. I previously briefed this House following December’s European Council meeting and I hope to continue this practice as time goes on. I am strongly of the view that the Houses of the Oireachtas have a critical role in ensuring that EU issues are properly communicated to the people and properly scrutinised and debated in the Houses. Such communication is really important as we deal with complex and difficult issues. In the programme for Government, drawn up 11 months ago, the Government recognised that there is a need for a marked step- up in engagement with the Oireachtas on key issues arising at EU level. Senators will be aware that this commitment is being taken very seriously by the Government and we are delivering on those words. My presence in this House is an element of delivering on that. Understandably, there has been a great deal of interest, including here in the Oireachtas, in the contents and indeed in the form of the intergovernmental treaty agreed by leaders last week. There has, however, been considerable misrepresentation of what is contained in this treaty so, at the outset, I will set out as clearly as possible for the House the main elements contained in the new treaty. They include the introduction of a “deficit brake” at national level, which will require member states to have an automatic correction mechanism in their national laws, preferably at constitutional level, which ensures they abide by the requirement for countries with debt in excess of 60% of GDP to maintain budgets in balance or in surplus. There is 267 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy Lucinda Creighton.] also a restatement of the pre-existing obligation in EU law to have a “debt brake”. This requires countries with debt in excess of 60% of GDP to reduce it at an average rate of 1/20 per year. There is a requirement for countries in the excessive deficit procedure, as set out in the EU treaties, to have a “budgetary and economic partnership programme”, the content and format of which is to be defined in EU law. There is an agreement among the countries signing the new treaty to support Commission recommendations in regard to a country’s deficit under the EU excessive deficit procedure unless a qualified majority is opposed. This undertaking effectively reverses the voting rule under the treaties and is sometimes called reverse QMV. It will be possible for a signatory of the new treaty to be brought to the European Court of Justice if its national law is regarded as not complying with the requirements of the new treaty regarding the establishment of the national deficit brake. The court has an ability to impose fines if a signatory ignores its judgment in this regard. There is a commitment among the signatory countries to work towards an economic policy that fosters the smooth functioning of the economic and monetary union and a statement that they stand ready to make active use of enhanced co-operation, as provided for under the EU treaties, whenever appropriate and necessary. New arrangements are set out for the governance of the eurozone, including provision for at least two euro summit meetings per year, at the level of Head of State or Government, at which the Taoiseach will represent Ireland. Particularly important for the Houses of the Oireachtas is the fact that the new treaty provides for a conference of representatives of the relevant committees of the European Parlia- ment and national parliaments of countries participating in the treaty to discuss budgetary policies and other issues covered by the treaty. There are arrangements for the treaty to enter into force on 1 January 2013, once 12 euro area signatories have ratified it according to their national requirements. Countries will then have a year in which to transpose measures into national law. The new treaty concludes with a provision that, within five years at most, following entry into force, the necessary steps will be taken with the aim of incorporating the substance of the EU treaty into the EU’s legal framework. Very significantly for Ireland and other countries currently in stabilisation programmes, it is made clear in the preamble to the new treaty that none of its provisions is to be interpreted as altering in any way the requirements of a stabilisation programme such as Ireland’s EU-IMF programme. The preamble also contains a statement that access to the European Stability Mechanism is linked to ratification and implementation of the treaty’s provisions. This is done on the not unreasonable basis that if a country is to have access to Europe’s permanent support programme, the ESM, partners will have a reasonable expectation that the country will be committed to a measured and responsible approach to deficits and government debt. Throughout this intensive and quite rapid negotiation process, Ireland negotiated to secure its priorities an outcome that reflected Ireland’s particular position as a programme country; an outcome that ensured that the measurement of structural deficit would make sense for all member states, including small open economies such as that of Ireland; and an outcome tied as closely as possible to the existing EU treaties and law. On each of these points, our interests were addressed. I pay tribute to our team of senior officials, drawn from a range of Depart- ments, on their sterling work on defending Ireland’s interests throughout the negotiations, which stretched right across the Christmas and new year holiday period. These officials have, in the very best tradition of the public service, promoted and defended Ireland’s interest throughout. It is appropriate to reflect on this and acknowledge it in the Chamber. 268 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

I have outlined the main elements of the new treaty. I now want to touch briefly on what is not encompassed by it. It is not an austerity treaty, as some voices in these Houses and beyond have claimed spuriously. The treaty states nothing at all about how tax should be raised or about how much tax each member state should raise, nor does it state anything about how or how much each member state should spend. All it calls for is an equilibrium between income and expenditure to be moved towards and maintained. That is already a stated objective of the Government. Any other approach is, regrettably, unsustainable. Each member state needs to pay its way in the world. Everybody, no matter how big or small his budget, knows the basic tenet that, over the medium term, one’s income should cover one’s outgoings. Anything else is simply a recipe for compounding the spiralling of debt, which is not something we should or could aspire to. Very regrettably, today’s debt cannot be magicked away by some sort of financial wizardry. If we keep adding to our debt in ever-increasing volumes to maintain unsustainable Govern- ment deficits, we will simply be borrowing from tomorrow and placing an added burden on generations to come in paying down our debts. If we keep adding to our debt in ever-increasing volumes in order to maintain unsustainable Government deficits, we are simply borrowing from tomorrow and placing an added burden on the generations to come in paying down our debts. That is not the basis for intergenerational solidarity and our children and grandchildren will certainly not thank us for it. We have a responsibility to sort this out now. For all the attention it is receiving in Ireland and elsewhere, this new treaty is not a major departure from the EU treaties and existing EU law. Most of what is contained in the treaty, including the need for balanced budgets and sustainable debt already exists within the EU. What this treaty does is bring these approaches into sharper focus and tighten up some of the rules. What is genuinely new is the need for national legislation to implement the deficit brake. Of course, this was envisaged already in the programme for Government and the legislative programme and in that sense it is nothing new for us. None of the provisions in this treaty, new or pre-existing, should cause any concern for a country like Ireland. The requirements placed on us by the EU-IMF programme go consider- ably further than what is envisaged in this treaty. What this treaty will do is level the playing field so that all member states, no matter how big or powerful, will in future be held to account just like everybody else. Every Member in this House should be aware at this stage that this is not what was happening under the pre-existing arrangement. Essentially, rules were there to be broken, and the first offenders were the larger member states, not the smaller ones. The automaticity that now applies under the terms of the new treaty will benefit small member states and ensure that all countries, big and small, must play by the rules. This is a really important development and, I reiterate, it is good news for Ireland. We are already delivering on our commitments, on time and in full. That is now acknowledged internationally, including by euro area leaders last week. What is good for Ireland is an arrangement whereby all member states play by the rules and are seen to do so. That will bring credibility to our common currency and stability to the financial markets. It is on this basis that I believe this treaty will be good both for Ireland and for Europe. However, nobody has suggested, even for a moment, that this new treaty is the whole story. Clearly, it is not. It is a piece of a puzzle. Europe’s response to the current crisis has been multifaceted. In addition to this treaty, we have established the EFSF, from which Ireland currently draws its funding. Its permanent successor, the ESM, has now been put in place and is due to enter into force in the middle of this year, a year ahead of schedule and without a reference to private sector involvement, PSI, which would have hindered our efforts to return to the financial markets. At the same time we have put in place the European semester which is 269 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy Lucinda Creighton.] overseeing the implementation of structural reforms set out in the national reform programmes provided by each member state. Europe has also been conscious of the need to put in place robust and convincing firewalls in order to prevent detrimental spillover effects from one member state to another. This crisis has underlined for all that in a currency union what happens in one member state can have very serious repercussions on all the others. The level of interconnectedness is now extremely pronounced. It is very welcome that leaders reaffirmed last week they would return to reassess the adequacy of the overall ceiling of €500 billion of the EFSF and ESM when they next meet in three weeks’ time. The Government has been consistent in advocating that firewalls in the euro area be as strong and as credible as possible. The other element which is now being acknowledged as mission-critical among Europe’s leaders is the need for a very sharp focus on sustainable growth and job creation. The credibility of all these efforts to get through the crisis will rest, rightly, in the minds of our people, on our ability to deliver a return to economic and job-creating growth. To this end, it 4o’clock was very welcome that the main thrust of the discussions among leaders last Monday was on stimulating employment, especially among young people, com- pleting the Single Market and boosting the financing of small and medium-sized enterprises. The Taoiseach was invited by the European Council President, Herman Van Rompuy, to introduce the discussion on support to the SME sector. His intervention was extremely well received by his European colleagues and set out the extensive range of measures the Government is taking to try to improve the life of SMEs in Ireland, including through the forthcoming jobs action plan, the partial guarantee scheme, the micro financing loan fund and the strategic investment fund. The SME sector is the very lifeblood of our economy and of the economies of our European partners. Across Europe, they number more than 23 million companies, which is staggering. Their potential to drive sustainable job creating growth is unmatched and the Government is strongly committed to supporting and facilitating that engine of enterprise. The Taoiseach also highlighted the steps being taken to ensure the economy gets a return for the vast sums committed to recapitalise our banking sector, including through monthly monitoring of lending targets. The Government is pursuing this issue rigorously and we are determined to achieve results. Ahead of last week’s informal European Council meeting, Ireland joined a number of like- minded member states to submit two papers — one which identified steps with potential to deliver growth and the other on the digital Single Market. These papers formed important inputs into the outcome statement leaders eventually agreed. The Government has been completely committed to proactively pushing the jobs and growth agenda at home and also in Europe. Steps being taken both nationally and at European level must support and complement each other. There is an appreciation among European leaders that this needs to be done and this issue is firmly fixed on the agenda of future European Council meetings. Before concluding, I want to address one issue which has been generating a great deal of heat, whatever about light, since last week’s meeting of European leaders, namely, the issue of how Ireland will ratify the new intergovernmental treaty. I confirm to the House that the Government has sought the formal advice of the Attorney General on what will be required for Ireland to ratify this new treaty. The Attorney General is giving the legal implications of the treaty careful consideration and she will advise the Government in due course. 270 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

As regards the question of the holding of a referendum on this treaty, the Government has been completely clear. If the treaty is not compatible with our Constitution, a referendum will be held. This House can be assured that whatever path towards ratification is required, the Oireachtas will be fully involved in the process. There is nothing undemocratic in proceeding to ratify this treaty through the Oireachtas, should that prove to be what is required. Our system is a parliamentary democracy, which is clearly enshrined in Bunreacht na hÉireann. In the vast majority of cases, international treaties are ratified without recourse to a referendum. Our tradition and practice in this State has been to have referenda only when it is necessary to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann and we have no intention of deviating from that. It is regrettable in the extreme that Opposition parties, groupings and individuals are tripping over themselves to call for a referendum, even before advice is received by the Government on this point. It is most unfortunate that, on an issue on which Ireland has a vital national interest, many of those in opposition are attempting to score cheap and populist political points. It is sad that for many of those Opposition voices, Ireland’s interests seem to take a back seat to their own narrow domestic political agendas. The Government will not adopt such an approach.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is what Fine Gael did last year before it entered office.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Opposition leaders have not even been brought in for a briefing.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: We will continue to strongly advocate for the best possible outcome for Ireland in Europe. That is where our vital national interests lie and that is where our energies will be directed. The people elected us one year ago to do a tough job for them but, at all times, to advocate and defend Ireland’s interests. That is what we have done with this treaty and that is what we will do in seeking to have it ratified. I make no apology for that. I look forward to engaging with Members during the remaining time.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Group spokespersons will now make contributions of five minutes each. This will be followed by a contribution from a Sinn Féin Senator for two minutes and questions from Members, which will be confined to one minute each. I call Senator Leyden.

Senator Terry Leyden: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. She does not require senior officials from the Departments of the Taoiseach and Foreign Affairs and Trade to brief her on the questions that may arise, which means she is well up on her brief. I refute the partisan comments she made towards the end of her contribution because the main Opposition party, Fianna Fáil, has been most constructive and helpful on this issue. Only 12 months ago, the then Opposition parties, including Fine Gael, were unhelpful to the Govern- ment, which was going through a difficult period with our national problems, by giving the impression to the electorate that it would burn the bondholders. It gave the impression that it would be Labour’s way, not Frankfurt’s way.

Senator John Gilroy: It still will be.

Senator Terry Leyden: If the Minister of State wants to say the way the Opposition parties have acted recently is regrettable in the extreme, she should recall her party’s position in opposition 12 months ago. The fact is the Government has not burned any bondholders. It is Frankfurt’s way, not Labour’s. The Government misled the electorate. It must pay the price for this by being in government which means it must make hard decisions. 271 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Terry Leyden.]

A team of senior officials drawn from a range of Departments were involved in the negotiations. Will the Minister of State confirm a number of representatives from the Attorney General’s office advised the team on the treaty on stability, co-ordination and governance in the economic and monetary union? Will she confirm the treaty has been geared towards ensuring a referendum will not take place here? I understand the Attorney General may give her recommendation to the Government this week. It is, however, a recommendation — her view and it must be borne in mind that she was appointed because of her political affiliations like all Attorneys General. It will be the Government’s final decision.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: The Attorney General provides independent legal advice. If Senator Leyden is calling into question the integrity of the Attorney General——

Senator Terry Leyden: I am not questioning her integrity.

Senator John Gilroy: Yes, the Senator is.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: That was a bizarre statement.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The spokesperson does deserve some protection from the Chair. The Minister should not be interrupting him.

Senator Terry Leyden: The point is the Government awaits the advice of the Attorney General. It then makes a decision based on its attitude to this particular issue or its wish to put a complex treaty to the Irish people for them to endorse or otherwise. This treaty has far-reaching consequences for the people. The Minister for Transport, Tour- ism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, let the cat out of the bag when he said he did not trust the people on a referendum because it would end up being a debate on issues such as septic tanks or the closure of Roscommon hospital’s accident and emergency department, which is very important too.

Senator John Gilroy: It is a good job we did not send Senator Leyden to negotiate for us.

Senator Terry Leyden: However, the people are entitled to have a debate on the treaty and its details. It is confirmation of austerity over the next several years which the Minister of State claimed it was not. The Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Martin, has put a list of questions on the treaty to the Taoiseach. I hope the Minister of State will be able to give some responses to them here. Given that Ireland will remain in a programme of assistance with the EU and IMF until the end of 2013, the preamble makes it clear that the treaty’s provisions will not apply to Ireland when it remains in the programme. Will the treaty’s provisions apply to Ireland as soon as it leaves the programme on 1 January 2014 or will it apply on 1 January 2016? I have been informed the Minister of State recently made some comments about Ireland’s past attendance at European Council meetings. Attendance has always been exemplary and an independent assessment put us fifth highest out of 27 member states. When I was a trade Minister I attended all Council meetings. The Minister of State should show some humanity for any Minister who may have personal reasons for not attending a meeting. All crucial Council meetings were attended.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: It has never been suggested they were not. 272 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

Senator Terry Leyden: Fianna Fáil’s work in Europe is exemplary. We have done more in Europe than the Minister of State will ever do. We have been exemplary in our stands, in putting referenda to the people, consulting the people, being with the people. We have proved to be the best party in government in Europe. Let the Minister of State prove what she can do but she should not disparage Fianna Fáil. I defended her in Independent newspapers in regard to her ministerial responsibilities for Europe but I am disappointed by her regular attacks on Fianna Fáil, which are grossly unfair and beneath contempt.

Senator Michael Mullins: I congratulate the Minister of State and the Taoiseach on the progress they made on two key issues, namely, the jobs and growth agenda and the fiscal compact treaty. I pay tribute to the civil servants who put in long hours over the Christmas period to defend the best interests of this country. We are fortunate to have public servants of the highest calibre. In the simplest of terms, this treaty is part of Europe’s response to the current economic crisis, alongside growth enhancing measures and the firewalls to which the Minister of State referred. It will strengthen the rules underpinning the euro by requiring member states to run balanced budgets and ensure that expenditure is balanced against tax revenue. They will have to reduce their debt to manageable levels. The treaty will help the euro area in particular because it will show the rest of the world that we are serious about the stability of the currency. Everyone will have to play by the rules. Large member states will no longer be able to use their voting weight to wriggle out of their responsibilities. In economic terms, it means that Ireland will be part of a stronger and more credible currency. Future Governments will be not be able to run unsustainable budgetary policies without regard for the long-term consequences of their actions. Despite the scaremongering, it is clear that the treaty will not impose decades of austerity that we could otherwise avoid. We are already in a stringent programme which will take pre- cedence and we will in any event have to close the gap between spending and taxes to reduce our debt levels. This will require time and hard work. Over the weekend, a number of well- known Irish economists, including Karl Whelan and Alan Ahearne, confirmed that a considerable amount of work will be required before we return to a sustainable footing. The treaty does not commit member states to a single economic philosophy. It is up to each state to decide how to tax and how to spend. It does not entail permanent interference in our economy. It is right and proper that members of a common currency view their economic policy as a shared concern, and that is already set out in the treaties. Our openness to peer review under the Commission’s supervision is a necessary part of that process. Considerable time was devoted to a discussion on economic recovery and job creation at the recent informal European Council meeting. The Taoiseach highlighted two key concerns which are raised regularly in this House, namely, ensuring access to finance and reducing red tape. These issues will have to be addressed before small and medium enterprises — the engine of economic recovery — can fulfil their potential. Banking behaviour has to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Reference was made on the Order of Business to what happened at Galway Airport. I look forward to the roll-out of the Government’s jobs action plan and hope it contains some of the good ideas proposed in this House during our recent debate on employment creation measures. The partial guarantee scheme, micro-finance loan fund and strategic investment fund will help to support bank lending. This treaty is good for Europe and good for Ireland. I hope the Attorney General comes to an early decision on whether a referendum is required. If she advises that a referendum is necessary, I do not doubt the Irish people will back the treaty in the interest of our country. If 273 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Michael Mullins.] she advises that a referendum is not necessary, it would be irresponsible for the Government to waste public money on a referendum that was unnecessary.

Senator Katherine Zappone: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, to the House and thank her for coming to hear our views prior to the publication of the fiscal responsibility Bill. I note her comments at the beginning of her speech about the Government’s commitment and the importance of engaging with the Houses of the Oireachtas. Shall we take it this is another sign of the relevance of Seanad Éireann? I thank her for being here. I will order my comments and questions in three areas. First, what is missing in the treaty? The people of Ireland would have been happier with the treaty if the fiscal compact offered was an holistic compact. They would have been happier if it was a true and trusting compact that asks us to sign up not only to fiscal rules but to fiscal insurance. Such a treaty would offer a carrot with a stick, mutual support of EU membership as well as mutual monitoring, particularly in light of our high current debt-to-GDP ratio of 120%, our high level of unemployment and our high level of structural deficit, as distinct from our deficit at a point in time. I am referring to the average deficit over a long period of time. As the Minister of State will be aware, the Taoiseach denied that Ireland’s acceptance of the fiscal compact will condemn the State to further years of austerity and there have been a few comments from Senators on the issue of austerity. However, as she also will be aware, the Department of Finance recently predicted a budget structural deficit of 8% of GDP for 2012, reducing to approximately 3.7% in 2015 after, hopefully, we have exited from the bailout programme. This is a far cry from the 0.05% of structural deficit target that we must reach according to the treaty, if we are to follow the golden rule and not end up in the European Court of Justice because we deviate too much from the corrective mechanism. If we are only at a structural deficit of 3.7%, we need to contract our budget by another 3.2% which, some economists predict, would be approximately €5.5 billion and which sounds like more austerity to me post 2015. The structural deficit target is simply oppressive, certainly for the Irish. That is not to say that we do not require fiscal rules for the EU. I am in favour of a fiscal union to match our monetary union if the euro is to survive and our economy is to move towards sustainability. I am not in favour of the fancy financial wizardry to which the Minister of State referred in her speech although if we were looking for an example of that, we might look at the emergency liquidity assistance that was used for the promissory notes, but that is a discussion for another day. I suggest that what we also need are mutual insurance mechanisms such as the ESM being provided with more fire power, for example, a banking licence so that it can borrow from the ECB to be in a position to buy sovereign bonds for those countries in need of lower bond yields to stimulate growth, or the offering of eurobonds or some form of fiscal transfers such as the financial transaction tax or European VAT rate. Can the Minister of State give us any indication of some type of mutual insurance mechanism coming on stream relatively soon after the incorporation of this treaty? Such an indication would go a long way towards making the treaty somewhat more palatable to the Irish public. Can we get clarification on the treaty’s elements? Professor John McHale of the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council has argued that the real innovation of this treaty relates to its enforcement — the Minister of State referred to that in her speech — particularly the proposal for the correction mechanism if we are deviating from our adjustment path towards the structural deficit target. The proposed treaty does not provide much detail on the form the correction mechanism must take, only noting vaguely that we must follow common principles proposed by the European Commission. Can the Minister of State provide any clarity on the substance 274 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers of these principles, or when they might likely be clarified? This will help us to have a better sense of the amount of flexibility, if any, we and other countries will have in moving towards the fiscal discipline targets. It seems that we must have some margin of flexibility in terms of the identification of a required adjustment path to ensure that lengthy austerity does not put us under for good. My last question for the Minister of State is rather more brief. In the Minister of State’s view, where is the added value to Ireland of signing the treaty? Is it that if we sign up we will be allowed access to European Stability Mechanism, ESM, funds should we require them again and, if we do not sign up to it, then we will not be allowed access? If we do not sign up, will we forego the solidarity of the European-wide safety net or the benefit of other mutual insurance mechanisms when and should they come on stream?

Senator John Gilroy: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the implications of the fiscal compact treaty. When I heard and read about it first I was concerned about the terms and, initially, I was against them. I took the view that the implementation of the terms might not be the best thing for Ireland and I readily concede that this was my view. The following are among the questions that arose in my mind. How could Ireland possibly reduce its borrowing to 60% of GDP in such a short period? Why was it necessary to achieve balanced budgets within the 3% threshold set down? How could we agree to accept sanctions for not complying with these terms? Why should we believe it is fair to codify these terms in law and, if this were the case, would a referendum not be required? Even if it was not required, would it not be desirable? Finally, was the fiscal compact not simply a recipe for continued years of unrelieved austerity? All these questions seemed legitimate at the time until I put some thought into trying to answer them. I asked myself whether there was anything in the fiscal compact which might allay my concerns. I noted that Article 3.1 recognises that exceptional circumstances would be considered in certain cases. The challenge of closing the deficit ratio over such a short or medium term will be simply that, a challenge. I questioned whether I was against the concept of balancing budgets or in favour of moving to a position such as that held by the former Minister, Mr. McCreevy, whose ideology was summed up by his comment that when he had it, he would spend it. The consequences of that ideology are all too obvious today. I held the view that it was reasonable that there should be no sanctions for a breach of the compact until I recalled that I had come across this somewhere before, in the Growth and Stability Pact signed in 1997. It contained such targets. However, did not Germany breach the terms of that pact in 2002, 2003 and each year up to 2008? Similarly, did not ten other European countries breach the terms? What sanction was implemented at the time? None. Perhaps these automatic stabil- isers might act to protect Ireland’s interests as much as they might inconvenience us by having us manage our affairs properly. Would the fiscal compact consign us to years of austerity as suggested by some commentators on the Opposition benches? Whether we accept the terms of the fiscal compact, it must be conceded that further expenditure cuts and tax increases are inevitable and unavoidable. This is unpalatable for the Government and it would be unpalatable for any government, regardless of its make-up. We cannot finance the country without borrowing from the EU or the IMF. Banks cannot sustain their balance sheets without funding from the ECB. Rejecting the treaty will not alter these facts. These are not my words but the words of the economist, Colm McCarthy. He went on to say that a rejection of the fiscal compact could make things worse. One of the articles makes access to ESM money contingent on accepting the terms of the treaty. Whether we will need access to this funding is a moot point because we hope to have 275 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator John Gilroy.] returned to the markets before this becomes necessary. Regardless, is it sensible to close off a source of funding in advance, whether we chose to use it on occasion? Let us consider Government debt from a local point of view or perhaps through the back window of Roscommon County Hospital as some have suggested we should do.

Senator Thomas Byrne: That was Deputy Leo Varadkar, no-one else.

Senator John Gilroy: That will lead us to one point of view. We could move in another, perhaps more productive, direction and consider our situation in the wider European context. There is a compelling argument that the levels of debt being carried by European countries, not only Ireland, are unsustainable. Until a solution is found by which the debt can be re- engineered at European level, we will be unable to return to sustainable or affordable levels of growth that would allow all Europeans to enjoy the undoubted benefits that the Union brings. This might well involve a monetisation of debt by the ECB, supported by our Euro- pean partners.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is not in the treaty.

Senator John Gilroy: The main concern regarding this course of action has been articulated as moral hazard. The monetisation of debt is a radical measure and one the markets will not tolerate easily. In order to make the case for this course of action as a once-off move that will not need to be repeated, procedures need to be put in place to prevent the recurrence of a debt problem. Perhaps the adoption of the fiscal compact forms part of that strategy. There is no guarantee that being a member of the fiscal compact will place us in this position, but it is certain that being outside of the fiscal compact will guarantee we cannot be part of any debt resolution scheme at European level. The question of the need for a referendum to ratify the terms of the fiscal compact has been raised. There has been significant uninformed comment on this and I recommend we await the decision of the Attorney General on whether a referendum is required. If the Attorney General’s advice is that a referendum is required, we will have a referendum. However, if the Attorney General advises that the compact can be ratified into law without a referendum being required, some commentators have called for a referendum to be held anyway. We need to be very clear about this. The proponents of this position are obliged to clarify the constitutional position if such a scenario arises. The legal advice of the Government might be there is no requirement, yet those calling for a constitutional referendum might say the opposite. I would like someone to explain to me how this constitutional paradox may be resolved, because I see no resolution to such a conundrum. At this stage of the debate, I ask commentators to be responsible in their comments and to take the time and the trouble to think about the inevitable result of the actions they are promoting. I thank the Minister of State for coming to hear what I have to say.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I welcome the Minister of State, whom I always admire when she comes in to address these sessions. We are honoured by her presence. I looked up the word “compact” in the dictionary to see what it is and one of the definitions was “a miniature flat vanity case or a refill for it”. There are elements of that to this compact, because the miniature flat vanity case or refill is needed because of the design faults in the euro to which we have referred. I hope these design faults are not carried forward into this particular package. It is for that reason I particularly welcome the presence of the Minister of State, because we must get this right. There is no doubt that the faults in the euro on the 276 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers monetary policy side are what caused the collapse of Ireland on the fiscal policy side and the difficulties which the Minister of State must face. I agree strongly with what she had to say on page six of her speech that if we keep adding to our debt in ever increasing volumes in order to maintain unsustainable Government deficits, we are simply borrowing from tomorrow and placing an added burden on the generation to come to pay down our debts. That is not the basis for intergenerational solidarity and our children and grandchildren will certainly not thank us for it. We have a responsibility to sort this out now. The Seanad has broadly endorsed this approach and as the Minister of State will see, No. 20 on our Order Paper is the Fiscal Responsibility (Statement) Bill 2011, which was discussed here before Christmas. The problems relate to trying to have legally binding macro-economic rules when the macro- economists themselves are not sure how we adequately define a structural or cyclical deficit. The wisdom of trying to implement the compact in that situation creates a problem of clarity for the Seanad and for the Minister of State and the Government. There are great doubts among economists as to whether what we are doing is possible in either law or economics and as to whether we may end up with an unsatisfactory combination of the two, as we had with problems like the lack of an escape route out of the euro and the one-size-fits-all approach to how to deal with the massive transfers of funds. We have designed economic policies at Euro- pean level which have had dire impacts on countries because they were not carefully thought out. The view of Karl Whelan, who has been mentioned, is that this compact could give us a debt-to-GDP ratio of 25% which is a bit theoretical in our case given that we are heading towards a ratio of 125%, but which is felt is too low. Colm McCarthy estimates it could go down to as low as 10%. We could be engaging in unnecessary austerity and stringency. We do not really have an economic consensus on either the deficit brake, the debt brake or measurement issues. We certainly do not want to damage the economy, as happened on previous occasions. It is important to mention that the flaws in the euro are not recognised and addressed. I can appreciate how this happens. The gestures are that the powers that be are in favour of small and medium enterprises but we should remember that the last time out, we destroyed the banks, which is pretty bad for small and medium enterprises. To correct the faults, we are destroying people’s purchasing power, which is also pretty bad for small and medium enterprises. The Minister of State and her ministerial colleagues should stop the clichés and have policies that help small and medium enterprises rather than giving out consolation prizes after we have destroyed the resources of finance and purchasing power of customers. I welcome the Minister of State’s presence in the Chamber and the process that she started, which we began in the Seanad with our fiscal responsibility Bill. It will be a long road and we have quite the journey to travel before we get this right. I assure the Minister of State of our support and assistance to ensure that this can eventually work to correct the problems we inherited from 2008, with the bankruptcy of Irish banks, and two years after when we sought rescue. This is very much a work in progress, as the Minister of State has indicated.

Senator Kathryn Reilly: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. In the spirit of setting the record straight, particularly with the issue of the referendum, a high level European official was recently reported as saying the treaty had been specifically crafted to minimise the prospect of a referendum in Ireland. At a recent meeting of the European affairs committee, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, said in response to a question from me that Ireland, in common with a number of other member states, sought to have the term “preferably” included in the text of the draft treaty. Last week, the Taoiseach is reported as denying that the Government negotiated to avoid a referendum. Will the Minister 277 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Kathryn Reilly.] of State advise on which version is accurate? Does she believe that seeking the term “preferably” could be seen as negotiating to avoid a referendum? Reference has been made today to last week’s meeting of the European affairs committee, at which Mr. Karl Whelan and other experts presented. The Minister of State mentioned that most of what is contained in the treaty is already in existence within the EU. Last week Mr. Whelan stated that the economics of this treaty are pretty terrible, although he believes that Ireland must sign up to the treaty because of the link to the European Stability Mechanism. He believes the treaty is significant because it is more constraining than anything in existence in EU law, and he referred particularly to the six-pack. He noted that one of the key differences is that it will be brought into permanent and binding law where, for example, the six-pack was not. His view is that once the treaty is passed, it will be extremely difficult to change it, whereas the six-pack, for example, could have been revisited in future. That could have happened if there was a realisation that some of the measures did not work. What is the Minister of State’s opinion on the treaty’s inflexibility?

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): I thank the Senator for keeping to time. We are moving to questions, each of which should not be longer than a minute. I have an extremely long list of Senators and we must try to keep within our time constraints.

Senator Colm Burke: I thank the Minister of State for again coming to the House to keep us fully advised of what is going on at European level. My question relates to Article 3.3 and the right of a contracting party to deviate. I raise this in the context of what has happened in Ireland. When the building industry was doing very well, from every €100,000 a builder got in, some €44,000 would have come in to the Revenue Commissioners. Is the Minister of State satisfied that the definition of “exceptional circumstances” is adequate in the event of change? A simple example is a sudden downturn for whatever reason in agriculture, with a resultant drop in incomes. Is the Minister of State satisfied that the provisions of this section are adequate? The United Kingdom never joined the Economic and Monetary Union, and now is distancing itself again in this instance. What are the consequences of the road the UK has decided to take from an Irish viewpoint?

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I ask the Minister of State to look at the independent report published by the University of Gothenburg on ministerial attendance at meetings in Brussels. It would highlight the truth. That is a minor issue.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: As I said to Senator Thomas Byrne on my last occasion in this House when the same issue was raised, members can look at the records for parliamentary question and the questions tabled by myself and other Deputies on the then Opposition during the last election.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: When the Minister of State looks at this report, perhaps we will have another chat.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: It clearly shows the representation by Ireland, much of which was not at ministerial level.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: This is an independent report.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: This has changed with the change in Government. 278 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I see from the opening statement, we are trying to deal with the fiscal pact and I am merely suggesting that the Minister of State look at the report to which I have just referred because it might broaden her horizons on this issue and give her a more nuanced view of the situation.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: Unless the answer is given by Ministers from the last Government.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: More importantly, we will await the view of the Attorney General and I accept that we must do that. Expanding the role of the ECB is not covered by the pact. Nor is debt re-engineering, referred to by a colleague across the floor of the House, and which is the elephant in the room. My question relates to the Taoiseach’s remarks when he said on 24 January that we will pay our way and that we have never looked for a debt write down. On 1 February, the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, referred to debt write-down and that looking for debt re-engineering, as Senator Gilroy said, was central to her negotiations. What is the truth of the situation? Is the Taoiseach correct or is the Minister of State right?

Senator James Heffernan: I thank the Minister of State for once again attending the Seanad and engaging with Members on the detail of the legislation that will come before the House. In putting this question, I am playing the Devil’s advocate. While it may be a hypothetical situation, there is a push to have this issue put to a referendum of the people, regardless of what the Attorney General states. I received a letter from a Deputy in the Technical Group who is looking for a majority of the members of Seanad Éireann and not less than one third of the Members of Dáil Éireann to petition the President to put the issue to the Council of State. While the defection of Senator Eamonn Coghlan to the Fine Gael Party makes that less likely, if this issue were put to the people and defeated in a referendum, what consequences would that have for the Irish people?

Senator Feargal Quinn: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. In the course of her speech she states:

It is not an austerity treaty, as some voices in these Houses and beyond have claimed spuriously. The treaty states nothing at all about how tax should be raised or about how much tax each member state should raise,

We have run our economy, very successfully over a long number of years, until very recently on the basis that a low tax rate brought in more money, but it is clear that this is not acceptable to both Germany and France. Will the Minister of State put our minds at rest, in spite of all that has been said here, that no more pressure will be exerted through this treaty on our low corporation tax rate, which brings in far more money than would come in otherwise? The belief that we have a competitive Europe is very important and I believe that others do not understand that.

Senator Cáit Keane: I welcome the Minister of State. I think I am correct when I say no referendum was ever held in this country on an issue other than to amend the Constitution. I know, as other Senators have said, there is provision for reference to the people under Articles 27 and 47 of the Constitution but no Government has conceded to a request for a referendum if it was not necessary to amend the Constitution. Should 12 of the 17 eurozone countries sign the pact, the sanction would then be semi-automatic. What will be the effect if Ireland does not sign? I know the Minister of State cannot fully answer my question, but who will implement 279 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Cáit Keane.] the final fiscal compact treaty if and when it is signed? Is it the country holding the EU Presi- dency on the date or is it a policing member state? If it is, there is an existing provision in EU treaties that has been used six times in 60 years. It does not add anything new to treaties.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Why have the Opposition leaders not been briefed by the Govern- ment? I understand it was common practice in previous referendums. If one is looking for a common approach, I suggest that is a good way to start on these major European issues.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: There is no referendum.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The Minister of State said there is no referendum.

Senator John Gilroy: There is no referendum.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): As we speak, there is no referendum. Does the Senator have a question because time is moving on?

Senator Thomas Byrne: I thought we were deciding whether there will be a referendum. Have we already made the decision? When will the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, answer Deputy Micheál Martin’s questions? When will there be a public education campaign? If the Government will not consult the people, at the very least it could explain what is in the treaty. We did not use any leverage whatsoever regarding the common consolidated tax base. Chan- cellor Merkel and President Sarkozy are moving ahead with their implementation plans for it but the Government has done nothing except constructive engagement. We were told that would stop it but that has not been done. It is not part of the treaty but it is of concern to people. The Minister of State did not mention that enforcement will be carried out by other Euro- pean countries. Germany or France will enforce it on us rather than the European Commission, which should do it. She was not able to do it because of the veto. Why has that aspect of the treaty not been addressed?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I call Senator Harte and ask him to be brief as I want to allow as many people as possible to join the debate.

Senator Jimmy Harte: To put people’s minds at rest, we want to know that it is a genuine European treaty and is not being pushed by the markets. People in the Opposition and outside the political arena are using the treaty to claim that the markets are pushing everything. We need clarity from the Minister of State and the Minister for Finance that the treaty is not being pushed by the markets, but for the right reasons.

Senator John Crown: I welcome the Minister of State to the House. To say that the pact is not an austerity budget reminds me of Big Vinny, the debt collector. When Big Vinny comes to one’s house, he just wants his money. He does not tell one how to get it, or whether the kids should go hungry or not have health care. He just wants his money. To be honest, we are now being told to get the money. I am not an economist or a Minister of State but a relatively simple doctor. However, I have had a look at the treaty and at Phillip Lane’s dissection of it at the recent Dublin economic workshop. It is not clear to me, perhaps due to some ignorance on my part, what is a structural deficit. This leads me to two simple questions that I wish to ask the Minister of State on behalf of the people of the country, most of whom are not economists. What is the structural deficit 280 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers and how exactly will it be calculated? Second, exactly what part of the treaty and its limitations on the structural deficit would have prevented the economic meltdown in the eurozone area over the past decade?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I agree with Senator Thomas Byrne’s call for a public education campaign on the treaty regardless of whether there is a referendum. It is widely agreed by most commentators that the treaty is only a piece of the jigsaw and is inadequate. What does the Minister of State think would be adequate? Do we know the endgame? What is her view on the comments of Michael Somers recently that we are likely to need a second bailout? My view is that it is not feasible or right for so much austerity to be placed on our working generation, and nor is it good for growth. Is it possible, against such a background, for Ireland to negotiate a structured write-down and a longer payback term for its current commitments?

Senator Mark Daly: I am interested in the answer to Senator Crown’s question. It was in the news, and the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton said it herself, that we had no position paper going into negotiations. There is no support for the common consolidated tax base on our corporation tax. We lost the vote on it as recently as last October. Just nine European countries supported us. Mrs. Merkel and Mr. Sarkozy want to have this wrapped up by the end of the year. We are going to lose control over corporation tax. The corporation tax rate might stay the same, but the fact that France——

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Does the Senator have a question?

Senator Mark Daly: I want to know why we did not have a position paper on corporation tax. On the question of debt write-down——

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: We circulated many such papers.

Senator John Gilroy: Senator Daly is scaremongering.

Senator Mark Daly: We did not go into the negotiations with a position on the consolidated corporation tax base.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): If the Senator wants to get a reply, he will have to conclude.

Senator Mark Daly: The answer is here.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I thank the Senator.

Senator Mark Daly: It has nothing to do with it.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I call the Minister of State.

Senator Mark Daly: The Government is not entirely tuned in. By the end of the year, France and Germany will have taken away whatever competitive advantage we have.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I cannot allow a discussion across the floor of the House.

Senator Mark Daly: I am wondering why the Government is——

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I ask the Senator to resume his seat. 281 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

Senator Mark Daly: I want to know why we did not go in with a position paper.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): If I do not call the Minister of State to reply now, there will be no reply.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: How long do I have?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): We will give the Minister of State as much time as we can.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: Okay.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): She can speak until the bell goes.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I do not have all day, unfortunately. I will try my best to answer the questions that were asked.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): If the Minister of State wants to be technical about it, she has two minutes.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I will repeat——

Senator Cáit Keane: I think there is a time limit.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): The Minister of State has two minutes.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I will repeat the point I made the last time I visited the House, which is that more time is needed for these question and answer sessions. I would be happy if an extra hour were allocated for a proper and meaningful exchange. I apologise in advance if Iam——

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): For the benefit of the House and the Minister of State, I would like to mention that attempts were made to get the Leader of the House to extend the amount of time for this debate. The answer came back in the negative. That is why we are pushed for time.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I would not have a problem with that. I will talk to the Leader about the matter. I do not want to interfere with the business of the House. A number of questions were asked. Senator Colm Burke asked about Article 3.3 and the reference to “exceptional circumstances”. Clearly it is a subjective test. It is impossible to predict what precisely is envisaged. Certainly, it refers to any unusual economic circumstances. It is clear that we are in an unusual economic period at the moment. Something along the lines of what he has suggested — a dramatic force majeure that would effect agricultural or agri- food output — would be taken into account. I have to say the question of the United Kingdom distancing itself from Europe, and the consequences of that for Ireland, has been somewhat overplayed. The suggestion of a potential meltdown from an Irish point of view, simply because the UK is not part of this intergovernmental treaty, is unfortunate. I wish an agreement could have been reached between the 27 member states within the framework of the EU treaties. That was not possible, unfortunately. As has been said, this is not the first time our approach to European policy has deviated from that of the United Kingdom. Ireland’s adoption of the euro is the best example of that. We have adopted a different position from the UK on numerous occasions. I do not think it—— 282 EU Fiscal Compact Treaty: 7 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I ask the Minister of State to move to a conclusion. I am sorry.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Is it in order to propose an extension to the time that has been provided?

Senator Cáit Keane: No.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That would allow the Minister of State to give a longer reply, subject to her having time to do so.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): In the absence of——

Senator Cáit Keane: An amendment to that effect was proposed on the Order of Business but it was not agreed.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Who is the Acting Leader on the Govern- ment side?

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Perhaps I can——

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Excuse me, please. Who is the Acting Leader on the Government side?

Senator Cáit Keane: It is Senator Mullins.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Can I ask the Acting Leader if he wants to propose to extend the time allowed for the Minister of State’s reply?

Senator Michael Mullins: Unfortunately, the Order of Business was agreed earlier this afternoon.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I am happy to speak for another couple of minutes, if that can be facilitated.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The business was ordered earlier this afternoon. There is a Mini- ster waiting to come in. We have to proceed.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I thank the Leader. I apologise to the Minister of State.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Perhaps the Leader might provide for the Minister of State to come back on another occasion.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Certainly.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The Minister of State has made a suggestion to that effect.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Minister of State has been more than helpful to the House on many occasions.

Senator Thomas Byrne: I hope she can return at an early stage.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I thank the Minister of State. I am sure she will come back to the House in the near future. 283 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Would it be possible for the Minister of State to give us written answers to the useful questions that were asked?

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I am happy to do that in the short term.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: People like to get information.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: I would prefer to return to the House for an exchange.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): I apologise to the Minister of State.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton: Okay.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Unfortunately, the Chair has no role in this matter. The business of the House has been ordered as the Leader has indicated. I thank the Minister of State.

Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: Report Stage Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Before we commence, I remind Senators that a Senator may speak only once on Report Stage, except for the proposer of an amendment who may reply to the discussion on the amendment. Also, on Report Stage each amendment must be seconded. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, both of which arise out of Committee proceedings, are related and may be discussed together with the agreement of the House. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 4, to delete line 19.

I do not propose to continue the debate we had on Committee Stage on this issue. I note Senator Mullen has arrived.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I second the amendment. I apologise to Senators and the Minister for my late arrival. I was attending to other business around the Houses. The amendment returns us to the issues we discussed on Committee Stage. I ask the Minister to reconsider his position on this matter. The amendment effectively proposes to reverse the deletion of section 2(1)(f) and would have the effect of reversing the exclusion of speech therapy services from the definition of “support services”. Likewise, amendment No. 2 proposes to reverse the substitution of paragraph (n) with a new paragraph (n) so as to maintain a role for the Minister in consulting the appropriate health authorities on the provision of support services. I listened to the Minister’s contribution on these matters on Committee Stage. When I revisited the text I noted that the language elsewhere in the Bill refers to what the Minister may do, for example, he “may” request assistance. Amendment No. 3 proposes to reverse the repeal of section 7(5) and (6), as inserted by section 40 of the Education for Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, which provides that the Minister may request the assistance of the relevant health authority. The Department and Minister have a function in this area.

Senator Averil Power: I support the amendments tabled by Senators Mullen and Quinn for the reasons I outlined on Committee Stage. While I understand the motivation behind the amendments introduced on Committee Stage in respect of the Department, I continue to share the concern of management bodies about the lack of a positive obligation on the Minister for 284 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages

Health to ensure the health service steps up to the plate by providing health therapies in schools, the absence of which makes it impossible for some of the most vulnerable children to avail of a full and meaningful education.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): We have given consideration to the reinstatement of these amendments to section 4 of the Bill but they are not being accepted. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to maintain the position that support services details under section 7 of the Education Act 1998 remain defined in section 2 of the Act to include speech therapy services despite the actual position that such services are provided by the HSE and that funding is made to that body for the provision of these services. The continued existence of sections 2 and 7 of the Education Act 1998 causes confusion for parents, schools and professionals as to who is the service provider. There are no services currently being provided by my Department which will no longer be provided as a result of the revised legislation. Rather, the amendment is necessary to clarify the actual position in regard to the delivery of speech therapy services to students of school going age. The additional funding of €7.2 million for disability was provided to the HSE in budget 2009 for the provision of 90 additional therapy posts targeted to support children with disabilities of school going age and including speech and language therapists. The legislative 5o’clock framework will be regularised in accordance with the de facto position, which is, that the provision of speech therapy services is a matter for the HSE. The proposed provisions will not impact on the availability through the HSE of speech therapy services for children with special educational needs. The Department will continue to support the co-ordinated delivery of services to families of children with special educational needs and will continue to work with service providing partners in the health and disability sectors through the inter-departmental cross-sectoral team.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 29; Níl, 21.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. Heffernan, James. Bradford, Paul. Henry, Imelda. Brennan, Terry. Keane, Cáit. Burke, Colm. Kelly, John. Clune, Deirdre. Landy, Denis. Coghlan, Eamonn. Moloney, Marie. Coghlan, Paul. Moran, Mary. Comiskey, Michael. Mulcahy, Tony. Conway, Martin. Mullins, Michael. Cummins, Maurice. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. D’Arcy, Jim. O’Keeffe, Susan. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Neill, Pat. Harte, Jimmy. Sheahan, Tom. Hayden, Aideen. Whelan, John. Healy Eames, Fidelma.

Níl

Byrne, Thomas. Mullen, Rónán. Crown, John. Norris, David. Cullinane, David. O’Brien, Darragh. Daly, Mark. O’Brien, Mary Ann. Leyden, Terry. O’Sullivan, Ned. MacSharry, Marc. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Mooney, Paschal. Power, Averil. 285 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages

Níl—continued

Quinn, Feargal. White, Mary M. Reilly, Kathryn. Wilson, Diarmuid. van Turnhout, Jillian. Zappone, Katherine. Walsh, Jim.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe; Níl, Senators Rónán Mullen and Feargal Quinn.

Question declared carried. Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach: Owing to the omission of Senator O’Keeffe, who was present in the Chamber but did not vote, with the agreement of the tellers, the result has been amended.

Senator Thomas Byrne: On a point of order, is it in order for the tellers to agree, if they did so, that Senator Susan O’Keeffe’s vote be counted? As a teller, she did not vote and the vote should not stand.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): The tellers agreed to it, the result was announced to the House and the adjusted result stands.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, to delete lines 20 to 27.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I second the amendment. Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried. Amendment declared lost.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, to delete lines 28 to 30.

It is proposed to repeal section 7(5) and 7(6) on the 1998 Act, which were inserted by section 40 of the Education for People with Special Educational Needs Act, which provides that the Minister may request the assistance of the relevant health board in the provision of support services. For the reasons outlined in my earlier comments, it is not appropriate to repeal those subsections and my amendment will negative the proposed repeal.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I second the amendment.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: This amendment follows on the amendments made in section 4 to amend the definition of support services in section 2 of the Education Act 1998. As section 2 of the Act has been amended to clarify the position that the delivery of health and personal services, including speech therapy services, to students of school going age is not a support service to be provided by the Minister for Education and Skills, sections 7(5) and 7(6) of the Education Act, which provided for the Minister for Education and Skills to request the services of health boards to make provision for such services, no longer apply. The support services are now delivered by the HSE as opposed to by individual health boards, subsequent to the establishment of the HSE by the Health Act 2004. The HSE has responsibility for the delivery, planning and co-ordination of service delivery. My Department will continue to support the 286 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages co-ordinated delivery of services to families of children with special educational needs and will continue to work with service providing partners in health and disability sectors through the inter-departmental cross-sectoral teams. Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried. Amendment declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 9, 13 and 14 are related and will be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 4: In page 6, line 7, to delete “or are” and substitute “or who are”.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: These Government amendments are drafting amendments. I introduced a number of amendments on Committee Stage to clarify that the powers on employment issues would apply to existing and newly appointed teachers. A discussion with Senators raised the issue of whether the grammar used was correct. In particular, the phrase that these matters were to apply to people “who are, or are to be, remunerated”, was questioned and it was suggested that it ought to be more correctly read as “who are, or who are to be, remunerated”. My officials raised this matter with the drafting office and amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 13 are designed to make this change. I thank Senators for their assistance. The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to clarify that the power of the Minister under the new section 24(8) of the Education Act, to prescribe the conditions for the employment of an unregistered person in place of a registered teacher, applies to recognised schools. For the sake of consistency with other provisions of the Education Act, it is important that this is made clear. Amendment No. 14 makes a minor change to the new section 24(13) of the Education Act by ensuring the language is consistent so that it refers to a principal teacher and another member of staff in the singular.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 5: In page 6, line 14, to delete “or are” and substitute “or who are”.

Amendment agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Amendments Nos. 6 and 12 are related and will be discussed together.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 6, line 17, to delete “Minister” and substitute the following:

“Minister after consultation with and with the agreement of bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations and any recognised trade union or staff association representing teachers, or other staff as appropriate and”.

This amendment proposes to adjust section 24 by the substitution of text at 24(3). This part of the section deals with the terms and conditions of employment of teachers and staff. The issue we discussed at some length on the previous occasion was whether it should be for the Minister to determine terms and conditions of employment for teachers and other staff appointed by the board and whether it should only be with the concurrence of Minister for Public Expendi- 287 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages

[Senator Rónán Mullen.] ture and Reform or whether we should propose that the Minister, in determining terms and conditions of employment, does so in a manner that involves consultation and agreement with bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations and any recognised trade union or staff association representing teachers or other staff as appropriate. Amendment No. 12 deals with the same issues except that the boards of recognised schools may appoint, suspend or dismiss principals, teachers or other staff in accordance with procedures to be determined from time to time with the Minister, following mere consultation, with bodies representative of patrons, recognised school management organisations and with recognised trade unions and staff associations. I am not sure whether this is an error of mine or of the Bill’s Office but I should take responsibility for it. I will not press amendment No. 12 because, as I propose it, it is badly worded. If I were to rewrite it I would have sought to replace the word “consultation” with the word “agreement”. I cannot press amendment No. 12 because there is a mistake in my wording. However, I do not believe I am mistaken in expressing to the Minister the view that the question of appointment, suspension and dismissal of staff should be dealt with in accordance with procedures determined by the Minister, in agreement with representative bodies of patrons, school management organisations, etc. There is a core point, which I am not sure if the Minister gets or disagrees with. By imposing a particular teacher on a school board, which in effect is what is involved if these procedures are to be determined by the Minister after mere consultation with others, is it not the case that the Minister is in fact acting as the employer? In effect, he is taking away the right of an employer or the board of management to appoint a teacher of its choice in order to deliver an appropriate education to students. This arises with the redeployment issue as well. It is worth thinking of some case law, such as the case of McEneaney v. The Minister for Education [1941] Irish Reports 430. The case limited the power of a Minister to vary contracts of employment or teachers without their agreement. There is a quote from it worthy of consideration. The court held that “The case was of importance to teachers in as much in that they must recognise a power in the department to make a general reduction of pay as the necessities of the time it may require” but in the judges’ view they are not protected against changes which depend upon new qualifications for the individual teacher. The key line is that the Department is not, in the case of teachers appointed under one set of rules, entitled to modify these rules to the detriment of individual teachers who may not come up to special standards devised from time to time. The case was upheld in O’Keefe v. Hickey, 2009. When one takes the two cases together, it becomes clear that if the Bill is enacted and amended it is likely that the Department of Education and Skills would find itself held to be vicariously liable, possibly with a board of management, in a case of wrongdoing by a teacher. This applies to my proposed amendment on redeployment as well. It might extend to a teacher recruited and employed by a school but under a contract, the terms of which were fully determined by the Minister without agreement of the employee’s representative union. In such a case the Department would become, to all intents and purposes, the employer and hence might be liable for the acts of the employee. The McEneaney case is interesting from the point of view of section 30 of the Teaching Council Act as it refers to the ability of the Minister to change, ex post facto, the qualifications which teachers are required to have in order to be registered. Has the Minister taken advice on the impact of those cases? I suggest he needs to take careful heed of them before issuing regulations proposed under the draft new section 24 of the principal Act to replace the old 288 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages one. These points relate not just to the issue of redeployment, but to the general issue of appointment, suspension and dismissal because the Minister is giving himself more power to determine the procedures under which all of these things may happen. There is quite a degree of confusion in some quarters about the roles of patron and trusteeship in schools. The role of patrons is defined by section 8 of the legislation. Does the Minister have any view on the issue of clarity on the definition of rules of patents and trusteeship? The issue was raised with me by a number of people involved in education and the management of schools. There is a degree of confusion around those terms on occasion.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Without in any way wishing to circumvent a debate, time is rather limited.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I second the amendment. It seems to me that in general the development of management, right or wrong, in every sphere including education is to pass responsibility closer to where the action is. In this case, the Minister seems to be saying that consultation will take place but he is not willing to deal with the agreement of the board of management. If we are to have successful boards of management in the future we do not want to hand over all that power, particularly in faith schools, to the Department of Education and Skills

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I recall this discussion last week. While I argued in favour of the amendment and agreed with its thrust, namely, that agreement is more ideal, I am aware that the Minister gave assurances on entering into IR discussions on this issue leading to what I would consider meaningful consultation and that an inappropriate teacher, for reasons of ethos or lack of confidence in an area, would not be forced on a school. In the event of a court case, would the debate we have had here form part of meaningful consultation, rather than hearing what people have to say but not agreeing with them and imposing teachers on them? That is the fear. This matter will only be tested in a court.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I will refer to my speaking note as I can only speak once. I will then address the speculative points that have been raised. The effect of the Senator’s amendments would be to introduce a general requirement that the Minister must agree with the education partners any change in the terms and conditions of employment of teachers and other school staff, and to continue the requirement to reach agreement with all parties on appointments, suspension and dismissal procedures. Amendment No. 7, which we will come to presently, deals with redeployment in so far as it might be construed to be appointment related. It is connected to the matters at hand in amendments Nos. 6 and 12. For clarity, I will confine myself to addressing the substance of amendments Nos. 6 and 12. Senators will recall that we discussed these matters at length during Committee Stage last week. Amendment No. 6 introduces a requirement to consult and agree the terms and conditions of employment generally. This would set aside the existing provision whereby it is the Minister and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform that can determine the terms and conditions of confinement. I am simply not going to diminish the existing powers and legislation given to the Ministers and, by extension, the Government regarding terms and conditions of teachers and other staff remunerated from public funds. On amendment No. 12, the existing legal position which requires agreement all around concerns three particular aspects of the terms and conditions of teachers and other staff. They have been referred to already and are appointment, suspension and dismissal. Furthermore, it is confined to the procedures that apply or are carried out in regard to those matters. In a situation where the existing legislation permits Ministers to determine the terms and conditions anyway, the new provision will bring legal clarity on the carrying out of recruitment, suspension 289 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages

[Deputy Ruairí Quinn.] or dismissal. The procedures that apply will in future not be subject to a potential veto by one party withholding agreement. I am not accepting the proposed amendment because it would maintain such a veto. I understand the concerns about substituting consultation for agreement, but we can allay concerns outside the statutory provisions through the existing well-developed partnership structures. I said on Committee State that agreement should not equate to unanimity or veto, but equally that consultation must not be a steam roller. I used the phrase, if I recall accurately, that it should not be a diktat. I have asked my officials, following enactment of the Bill, to engage in discussion with the education partners on having a general consensus on the extent and clarity of such consultation and how agreements were reached. We will use the well-established mechanisms under the teachers’ conciliation council, which comprises school management bodies, teacher unions and officials from my Department and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform. While management bodies may have a mandate from patrons, officials will also engage directly with bodies representative of patrons that are not members of the council. I am conscious that I have been invited to offer a comment and my remarks, therefore, are without prejudice to anything we might do subsequently. Senator Mullen, supported by Senator Quinn, is concerned that owing to the necessity to take somebody from the panel who may not be deemed appropriate, for whatever reason, to the employing body or school, the nature of the relationship is being changed. However, the nature of the relationship has been changed fundamentally under the employment control framework, which is part and parcel of the loss of our economic sovereignty. The consequence of not accepting somebody from the deploy- ment panel, although the school in question may have great reservations, is that the teacher would be blocking the employment of a new person unless he or she got a job elsewhere. It is conceivable, given our circumstances and bearing in mind my comments on having meaningful consultation with the education partners, that a definition of “consultation” would be agreed. What is at issue is our being in a position to alter that without having to return to this Chamber or change a statutory instrument. As a former Minister responsible for labour, I realise some things are best left with a bit of fudge on different sides such that there is room for manoeuvre. One cannot, therefore, transpose by way of statutory instrument, let alone primary legislation, as we are doing at present. The definition, which can be written down and clearly understood by the education partners, can be changed over time. As Minister I certainly do not want to be in a position where the Department is imposing a teacher from a panel who has been redeployed because of changes elsewhere and who is deemed to be utterly unacceptable to the school to which he is being deployed. I find it hard to believe that the teacher would be deemed to be unable to do the job properly, to use Senator Healy Eames’s phrase. This Bill will enable section 30 of the Teaching Council legislation to be activated and will enable the council, using its professional powers, to decide whether a teacher is up to standard. Through the council, a teacher or all teachers may be required to demonstrate proof of CPD in order to have his or their registration properly validated and renewed. It will be a matter for the council, whose powers have been strengthened. The power to ensure that no person can be on a panel for redeployment whom a prospective employer will say is not really up to the job is being transferred back to the teaching profession. If the employer says this, an alarm bell will ring elsewhere in the system and the system should respond appropriately. Senator Mullen’s other cause of concern, that a prospective teacher could present a problem in regard to upholding a school’s ethos by behaving in a manner disrespectful towards that ethos, I speak hypothetically, would be a question for the Teaching Council. I am offering an 290 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages opinion rather than interpreting law in stating I do not believe a teacher would be behaving responsibly if he or she were to be disrespectful towards the ethos. There is sufficient anecdotal evidence, certainly from my consultation with teachers and their management bodies and representatives, to suggest there are many teachers in the system who are carrying out duties required by their schools under their ethos, that do not necessarily conform with their personal beliefs. Those teachers are not, to my knowledge, disrespecting the ethos or causing offence to the extent that they would be inappropriately employed. With the continuation of social diversification, rather than secularisation, as some might say, we will need to determine how best to address the issue. With regard to the amendment, I assure the House that we will define what “consultation” means. It will not involve some kind of steamroller or diktat. To repeat what I said on Committee Stage, although the legal or union representatives of a would-be redeployed teacher may want him or her to be agreeable to a change, the teacher can exercise a veto over which they do not necessarily have control. Senator Mullen, whose many talents and skills include his being a professional lawyer, will know a client can ultimately determine whether to accept advice. I am seeking some room for manoeuvre. Senator Quinn articulated a view that was supported broadly on Committee Stage. It is not the intention of the Department of Education and Skills to micro-manage individual schools. We are, however, brought into the system on occasion where there are appeals to section 29 of the 1998 Act, which concerns admissions policy. I issued a document last June inviting schools to consider their admissions policies in order for us to minimise the number of disputes that proceed immediately to a legal appeal. There is, of necessity, a close coming together but the coming together generated by people going to law should not in any way be interpreted, either on foot of an attitude in the Depart- ment internally or an attitude of the Minister, that we want in any way to micro-manage or interfere with the relationship between the patron, board of management and employees in respect of how they run their affairs. This autonomy is one of the essential qualities of our education system. I want to respect that. Cases brought to us, because of section 29, in the main, and also because of demographic change, which includes people moving from one town to another, necessitated our examination of existing roll policy. Some people may have interpreted that as a desire, either by me personally or the Department institutionally, to intrude in an area that was previously ignored. It is absolutely not the case. Although I am prevented from straying from the amendment, I had no choice but to respond on this matter considering that the Chair allowed it to be raised.

Senator Averil Power: On the basis of the assurances given by the Minister to the House today and on Committee Stage, we are prepared to support the aspect of the Bill under discussion. It is critical that there be real partnership in education. I welcome the fact that, in addition to the assurances the Minister gave us last week, he stated specifically today that the teachers’ conciliation council will be used, which is really important, and that there will be real consultation with the patron bodies. There are genuine concerns, and issues will arise, and we all need an effective and reasonable way to deal with them. I welcome the Minister’s assurances in that regard. On a point of order, I wish to clarify whether this debate will be guillotined at 4.45 p.m. Will we get an opportunity to vote on amendments other than Government amendments that the Minister indicated previously he is willing to accept? What is the procedure to allow for those amendments to be taken on board? The Minister indicated he would accept the amendment on retired teachers.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Does the Minister wish to respond? 291 Education (Amendment) Bill 7 February 2012. 2012: Report and Final Stages

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Is it in order for me to reply?

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Yes.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I can accept the amendment on Garda vetting, which was a drafting amendment. Unfortunately, I am advised I am not in a position to accept the Senator’s second amendment, on retired teachers. I am told it is covered elsewhere by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Which amendment is the Garda vetting amendment?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Amendment No. 10.

Question, “That the word proposed to be deleted stand,” put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Amendment No. 7 is in the name of Senators Mullen and Quinn and arises from Committee proceedings. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are alternative to one another and will be discussed together.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, to delete lines 25 to 52.

I hope this debate will not be guillotined. I do not believe we need that much extra time and we have already discussed the substance of this matter. I raised the issue and asked the Minister to change his mind on it. I recognise there is a need to try to facilitate redeployment of teachers and that what this legislation seeks to do is, in a sense, to embed the terms of the Croke Park agreement into both situation and legislation. I do not believe there is any substantial mischief that requires giving legislative effect to the Minister’s power to determine the procedures under which teachers may be redeployed. Although difficulties arise from time to time, the approach of consultation and agreement is the best way to proceed. Notwithstanding that, I note the Minister’s assurances and accept completely his good faith in the matter. Looking at it further, however, why is it that whereas consultation is at least provided for in one area, given the Minister’s determination on redeployment procedures and the procedures around the appointment, suspension and dismissal of teachers, it was not considered appropriate to provide for consultation on the terms and conditions of employment of teachers and other staff within the legislation? Will the Minister explain this disparity between the two issues? Arguably, I should have raised this point at an earlier stage but it occurs to me now as I look at the legislation.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Is Senator Quinn formally seconding the amendment?

Senator Feargal Quinn: I second it.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): We are about three minutes away from the agreed end time of this debate. I call the Leader.

Senator Maurice Cummins: May I amend the Order of Business? Rather than concluding, with the rest of Report Stage remaining, I propose we resume discussion at 6.45 p.m. I thank the Minister for facilitating the House in that regard. 292 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Is it agreed to resume at 6.45 p.m.? Agreed.

Senator John Gilroy: Briefly, on the issue of redeployment, I strongly support the Minister’s position because in extreme circumstances we cannot have a veto, particularly given the present control framework and the new situation. It would be wrong for us to hold off employment because there was no agreement, in particular, in light of the Minister’s repeated and substantial assurances that through the industrial relations mechanism and the teachers’ conciliation council, there will be a mechanism to ensure full and adequate consultation. On the last occasion, a speaker stated a teacher might not be able to work in an all-Irish school. In this day and age we have to be more flexible in those terms and in moving between different types of structures of management.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: On a point of order and for clarity, I believe both Senator Power and Senator Gilroy used the term “teachers’ conciliation council”. I referred to the Teaching Council which, though similar, is a different body.

Senator Averil Power: The Minister stated “teachers’ conciliation council” in his address.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Then I misled the House.

Senator John Gilroy: The Teaching Council it is. I believe there is adequate mechanism in place to come to an agreement after consultation and if that does not happen we must act because we do not want a situation where on 1 September each year 20 classes might be left without a qualified teacher when teachers are waiting to be employed.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): Does the Minister wish to add anything? No.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand,” put and declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Acting Chairman (Senator Paschal Mooney): As it is now 5.45 p.m., and with the agreement of the House, this debate is suspended and will be resumed at 6.45 p.m.

Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Question again proposed:”That the Bill be now read a Second Time”. Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): Senator Cullinane is in possession, with four minutes remaining.

Senator David Cullinane: I will continue where I left off, on the point that all Oireachtas Members, especially males, should support the legislation before the House. It is a tragedy that women are under-represented in politics. While this House has a good percentage of female Members, across the Oireachtas, unfortunately, that is not the case and the same applies to local councils. Male Members should not see gender quotas as a threat. We should embrace them as a means of bringing about equality in the Houses of the Oireachtas. We must ensure women and the voice of women are properly represented in the Seanad, the Dáil and local council chambers. I would even go so far as to apply it outside of politics. We can all point to areas in society in which women are under-represented. While I support the Minister’s proposals in this Bill, it is important to remember they are not a panacea. Members referred earlier to a report published by Senator Bacik on this issue. When the House last debated this matter, I pointed out there have been many debates both 293 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator David Cullinane.] inside and outside the Oireachtas on female representation in politics. The issue of quotas is only a small part of what we need to do to ensure more women engage in politics, stand for elections and join political parties. Funding, child care and unsocial hours have already been signalled by women as barriers to their engagement in politics which must be addressed. While I support the Minister’s proposals for gender quotas, does he accept we have to do more about those other barriers? How will the Government address them? If they are not addressed, then this legislation could just be papering over the cracks. I support the Bill’s proposals on corporate donations. We need to move towards a complete ban on such donations. All Members accept politics has been tainted by accusations of corrup- tion, the Galway tent, the close relationships between some political parties and large devel- opers, businesses and the banks and all we have seen in the past that led to the economic crash. It ties into the broader issue of representation in politics. Many people have turned away from politics because of what they have seen. If the entire political system is to clean up its act once and for all, the Minister should be bold and brave and consider a complete ban on corporate donations.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: This Bill marks an interesting development in dealing with corporate donations to political parties and women’s participation in politics. I support the reduction of the maximum possible corporate donation to €200, which is almost a ban. It will see the phasing out of corporate donations. Does it also apply to an individual or a sole trader? To bring more women into politics the Bill proposes a gender quota with parties running at least 30% women candidates and 30% men candidates in general elections. If they do not, they will lose half of their annual State funding received under the Electoral Act 1997. The threshold will rise in time and Ireland will become the seventh country in the EU to implement a candidate-balancing mechanism in law. While this provision acknowledges a problem exists, it will not solve it. We all know the stark figures of how few women participate in politics. There are barriers to women’s involvement in politics. How does the Minister expect political parties to use this new quota mechanism to look at these barriers? Four key resources tend to equate to electability in politics — experience, networks, time and funds. While funding is a critical resource, networks is a larger one. It ties in with culture, people’s political habits and how politics is perceived. How does the Minister see the gender quota mechanism changing these barriers fundamentally? How will Fine Gael — of which we are both members — use this quota system? Given the persistent division of care in society, generally men are in a better position to take advantage of these resources than women. Just 16% of councillors are female, a particularly low figure and one of concern as would-be Deputies and Senators cut their teeth at council level. I would not be a Senator or have even entered council politics if it were not for a personal family arrangement with my husband. There was no other way it could have been facilitated as we have two young children and have had to work around that for ever and a day. A cultural change needs to be spoken about publicly by parties. These factors mean the candidate pipeline is dominated in the main by well-positioned and electable men. Up to now — and it will continue to be the case — it takes a determined woman to come through these normal difficulties in political life. The ideal situation for women at this time would be a partial quota system and meritocracy. A party will achieve the quotas set out in this Bill by having 30% of female candidates nationally, not by constituency. It is a pity the quota will not apply at constituency level because that would force a massive cultural change. If I recall correctly, Fine Gael achieved the 30% for female candidates nationally in the last general election. 294 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

When I refer to partial quota and meritocracy, I will use the example of a candidate selection convention to explain how it could be beneficial to women candidates. Let us say the quota at a convention is 130 votes for a candidate to be selected, putting it at 100 votes for a woman candidate would give her a leg-up, for want of a better word, to get started. It would recognise genuine barriers just like when a woman plays a man at golf, different handicaps apply. It takes a long time for the discourse at national level to drip down to the local. The potential danger of the quota system is that it will reinforce the stereotype of women as the weaker sex. What type of public debate can we have to counter such stereotypes? These cultural barriers are the real issue.

Senator Terry Leyden: I welcome the Minister, Deputy Hogan, who has been very attentive to the opinions expressed in this House. This Bill will not be as controversial as the other legislation he brought before us recently. As there is general consensus on its provisions, he will not have to deal with many attacks by lobby groups on this occasion.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Not after a fiver.

Senator Terry Leyden: I could say that “cute” is a very good word. The Minister is a good political operator but that is another day’s work. Senator Healy Eames is someone who fought her way through the system. She ran a great campaign for nomination and the two formidable Fine Gael women candidates in Galway West achieved 50% of the quota. Section 27 of the Bill sets out the proposal in detail. I admire the Minister’s courage in grasping the issue. We have been debating it for too long without doing anything about it. He has taken a step in the right direction at least. At a recent Council of Europe meeting, I received a copy of the report, Gender Sensitive Parliaments, which was published by the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The report examines ways of making parliaments workable for women who are raising families. It is practically impossible at present for a young parent to work in the Dáil or Seanad because of the unsociable hours we keep. The Council of Europe’s committee on equal opportunities for women and men is also preparing a report on best practices for promoting gender equality in political parties. The committee sent a questionnaire to the Government in December 2011 but has not yet received a response. I ask the Minister to investigate this matter. The Minister has developed a practical proposal based on the overall number of candidates as opposed to candidates per constituency because while the latter may be desirable it would be difficult to achieve in the context of giving outgoing candidates the right to stand. Fianna Fáil supports the use of gender quotas to build up a fair and balanced represen- 6o’clock tation that reflects society and encourages women to participate in politics. Inter- national experience points to the need to take a proactive approach to achieving gender equality and addressing historically low levels of female participation. My party has undertaken internal action to promote greater female involvement at all levels of the organisation. Gender quotas reflect the continuation of this policy at a national level. They offer voters a choice in who they want to represent them while also helping women to overcome fundamen- tal obstacles to participation. I commend the Minister on having the courage of his convictions to bring forward this Bill. It is a step in the right direction. On a technical note, I am unsure whether he left out the position of Seanad Éireann, which will continue to exist until a referendum decides otherwise. Gender quotas should also apply to the bodies which nominate candidates to the Seanad because political parties do not have control over nominations by outside bodies. The 2014 local elections would offer a good starting 295 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Terry Leyden.] point for quotas but I am not sure if the legislation will cover them. There are only four women on Roscommon County Council out of a total of 26 councillors. They have contributed greatly, however. The involvement of women in politics has been enormously helpful in terms of presenting different points of view and contributing to constructive debates. They have been thorough in their study of legislation. Overall, the women who break through the barriers can be extremely effective where the details of legislation are concerned. However, the legislation will have to be coupled with reform of both Houses of the Oireachtas so that we work regular hours which allow women, and men for that matter, to rear families while also attending sessions. This issue is more pertinent to places like Kilkenny, Roscommon, Mayo and Donegal than to the greater Dublin area. One can cope to some extent if one lives in Dublin but it is neither suitable nor necessary to call votes at 11 p.m. or midnight. Ingenious systems could be put in place for distance voting because we have the technology. Crucial votes, such as on no confidence motions, could still require Members to be physically present. I wish the Minister well with this Bill and I am sure he will be open to Members’ suggestions in regard to tweaking it.

Senator Paul Bradford: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I had expected to speak prior to Senator Healy Eames but feared I was being removed from the debate under a gender quota.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Not at all.

Senator Paul Bradford: I listened with interest to the Senator’s sensible contribution. Six minutes is a ridiculously inadequate amount of time to speak on such important legislation. If we are trying to involve larger number of women and younger and older people in politics, we need to allow a space for debate. The system of politics itself needs to be reformed. In essence, the legislation before us comprises two Bills which deal with different issues, namely, the lack of female representation in politics and the funding of politics. Each of these issues requires substantive debate and I hope we will have an opportunity to expand on our thoughts on Committee Stage. The Minister is attempting to make funding more accountable and transparent, which is welcome. My colleague from Sinn Féin asked that there be no corporate or outside funding of politics but, unfortunately, politics has to be paid for and if we do not fund political parties privately we will require the taxpayer to fund them. That would not be welcomed warmly. The Bill moves in the right direction towards a reasonable balance. Most of the debate thus far has concentrated on the proposed 30% limit — I understand it is not deemed to be a gender quota. This represents a reasonable effort to encourage or facilitate women in becoming part of the political process, particularly at Oireachtas level. To reach that stage will require much more than candidate quotas or gender quotas. We need to consider the type of politics we practise in this country. We need to look at the place of work that Leinster House is and how it facilitates or fails to facilitate certain people. Senator Healy Eames’s contribution was interesting in that respect. Our bizarre sitting hours and sitting days, and the way we do work in this House whereby the Dáil, the Seanad and several committees are sitting simultaneously, deputations are arriving, bells are ringing and meetings are being adjourned, would not encourage anybody into politics. I hope that in the course of the Mini- ster’s term in conjunction with his Government colleagues he will try to reform the way this 296 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

House does its business, the way Leinster House does its business and how politics is run. It is not even a debating place at this stage or even a talking shop because we do not get much opportunity to talk. How we practise politics must be not just examined but also acted upon. It is obviously very desirable that more women should offer themselves as candidates at election time and be elected. I am not sure what the solution is. I recently watched the film about Margaret Thatcher and I doubt whether she would have been a gender quota candidate. A few weeks ago I read a biography of the former Israeli Prime Minister, Golda Meir, who intervened to save Israel when it was being wiped off the map. I doubt if she would be a person who would have required a gender quota or a candidate quota. It is probably not the perfect solution — I do not know what the perfect solution is. I know the culture in this House and in politics in general regarding how women are treated, written about and discussed needs to be changed. I never hear comments about how male colleagues dress or look. I am often bemused at the comments by female journalists about female politicians. These same female journalists, who are likely to give the Minister a standing ovation for introducing this sort of legislation, can write in very unusual terms about female politicians. If we want to have equality, there needs to be equality in how we talk and write about female politicians. In journalism colour pieces can be very funny, but I can remember down the years certain female politicians being described as “the lovely” this or that — almost a lovely girls competition. That kind of culture will not be resolved by having more women elected by virtue of a gender quota or a candidate quota. Our thinking will need to change and this legislation will not be enough in that regard. Again from a journalistic perspective the women who have been elected to this House down the years seem to be expected to have certain views and to sit on a certain place in the spectrum, and once they do so everybody is happy. However, if they think beyond the box of what women are supposed to do or say, suddenly everybody is upset. Six minutes is completely inadequate to talk about anything substantive and I hope we can return to it on Committee Stage. That culture and thinking needs to be changed first and then we can start getting real results. I commend the Minister on doing his best to try to bring about a numbers change, but much more will be required if we want to bring about a culture change.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): As a number of speakers are offering, I ask Senators to stick to the time allocated to them.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I welcome the Minister. What an interesting debate on a fascinating topic we are having. The Minister has a difficult challenge. I disagree with something Senator Bradford said — I get great comments about my socks.

Senator Paul Bradford: And ties.

Senator Feargal Quinn: And my ties also. The reason is that most of the men have dull and boring ties.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: Some do not even have ties.

Senator Feargal Quinn: Some do not even have ties. I also went to the film about Margaret Thatcher, which was very interesting. It was a reminder to us that some women with children can break through that barrier. With all the challenges we talk about it is possible. I do not know if Chancellor Merkel has children and what ages they might be. I know the US Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton, went into politics when her daughter was comparatively young. So there 297 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Feargal Quinn.] are success stories. I am on the board of a European organisation representing 6 million shops in Europe. I was chairman of the body and the new chairman to be elected shortly will be one of two women candidates, one from London and one from Athens, both of whom are mothers. I do not know how they fit that in — it is a very difficult challenge. We need to find some way to get more women into politics and I am not sure how we will do that. Linking quotas for women and funding is more complex than it first appears. How far we should take quotas is also a good topic for debate. It is not correct to say that women are not well represented across the political spectrum. The academics, Fiona Buckley and Claire McGing, recently provided figures indicating that women are very involved in the local echelons of political parties, accounting for 42% of the membership of Fine Gael, 37% in Labour, 34% in Fianna Fáil and 25% in Sinn Féin. However, it seems that running for election is not as attractive to women as it is to men. They pointed out that research undertaken with party women reveals a vicious circle of supply and demand barriers. Women are less likely to contest selection conventions because they believe they lack the local support base required, but they are also less likely to be approached to run by party selectors when an electoral opportunity opens up. Of the 18 candidates added to tickets by Fine Gael headquarters following selection conventions for the 2011 election, only two were women. Only two of the eight candidates added by the Labour Party were female. Should we at least get them on the ballot paper and let the voters decide or will political parties be reduced to tokenism? Senator Leyden raised a very interesting point for those of us who sit on these benches when he talked about quotas for political parties. Of the six university Senators — I have been a Senator for almost 20 years — we have always had one woman. It is Senator Bacik at the moment and prior to her it was Dr. Mary Henry and earlier on Dr. Mary Robinson and others. I believe there has always been only one. However, how can a quota be put in? I believe we had 24 candidates on the NUI panel in the last Seanad election and I cannot remember how many were women.

Senator Rónán Mullen: It was 27.

Senator Feargal Quinn: It may have been 27. How can a quota be applied to Independent people running for election? There are challenges and it is not easy to solve. Must political parties and the voters take some of the blame themselves? By definition political parties are purely tactical machines. I recently read that in the UK the Liberal Democrats lost dispro- portionately in constituencies in which they ran a female candidate. They then changed tactics for the next election and did not run the same campaign. While I do not have the figures for Ireland, given that political parties are so tactical I would guess that they decided not to run female candidates in certain constituencies as they had a better chance with a particular male candidate. While it is hard to prove, the parties could be doing something similar here in Ireland. While political parties are the target of the legislation — they will need to run a female candidate or lose funding — and are supposedly anti-female institutions, they are in fact still getting funding. I am sure the Minister will have read a recent article by Daniel K. Sullivan in The Irish Times, in which he stated: “Take the constituency of Phil Hogan, Minister for the Environment — unless one of his recently elected male party colleagues stands down, Fine Gael will be compelled to run an extra candidate where there is no realistic chance of a fourth seat and, in so doing, will imperil at least one of the party’s three seats, in the face of a strong SF and FF challenge.” 298 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Senator Terry Leyden: The Minister will not stand down.

Senator Rónán Mullen: Is he suggesting the Minister has an ulterior motive?

Senator Feargal Quinn: I am not suggesting——

Senator Rónán Mullen: I mean Mr. Sullivan.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I had not thought how complex it was and had not thought about Independents. I would prefer to see a great deal more Independents in both Houses. However, our challenge is complex. Let us consider the Minister’s example of Daniel K. Sullivan who has written about the Minister’s constituency. It reminds us how difficult this is. Let us be careful about how we challenge it. Many women join businesses but tend to concentrate on certain jobs because they are more child-friendly. Often, these are jobs in accountancy or in the office rather than on the shop floor in manufacturing. Sometimes, this means the core business lacks their expertise at board of directors level. We must face up to this challenge but it is interesting to note that we have faced up to it in this area and we are looking to find a way. There must be information available in other countries and we could see how they do it. France and Norway have introduced similar legislation not limited to political parties; it applies to businesses as well. Let us look around the world and see how it has succeeded elsewhere.

Senator Mary Moran: I welcome the Minister back to the Seanad. I wish to focus on Part 5. As previous speakers have said, this is a vast Bill and we simply do not have time to speak in detail about all the areas. I will hone in specifically on the gender balance question. Many of the facts and figures have been discussed and have arisen between today and last week. When we reflect on the 15% of women in the Lower House and that only 86 of the 566 candidates in the general election were women, it serves as a clear signal that it is time for us to change. If someone had asked me one year ago whether I was in favour of quotas, I would have been hesitant and I would have had major reservations and, until some months ago I would have held my reservations in tow. Now, when we consider the success they have had throughout Europe I believe it is important for them to be introduced. The population ratio is 50:50 but only 15% of women are in the Lower House. Until this is changed and until our democracy is more representative of the population, certain issues will never be addressed by the political system. Therefore, I have changed my mind on the matter. I still hold reservations. Women are more than capable of being elected on their own merits once they are given the opportunity. However, this is the lesser of two evils and we should introduce quotas. During the last general election some constituencies had no women candidates. In my constituency of Louth, I was the only female candidate to run. I would not have considered running in politics one year ago. I was not involved at all and I was not on a council but I was involved in local issues and I was on local committees. I do not suggest it is all women but the driving force on many of these committees, including parent’s councils and such organisations and groups, are women. When I was offered the opportunity by the Labour Party I had never thought about it but I believed strongly enough on certain issues and I decided to stand up and be counted. I am glad that I did so and that I was given the opportunity to stand. Upon my appointment to the Seanad last May I became the first female Member from County Louth, something of which I am very proud. 299 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Senator Terry Leyden: Well done. Congratulations.

Senator Mary Moran: It was a momentous decision and one that is more pressing for female Members who must try to juggle things, especially when one has a family without support. We need the men and their support as much as they need us.

Senator Terry Leyden: The men need the women to be here as well. It is natural.

Senator Mary Moran: That is what I am saying. I agree with Senator Leyden that it should be a 50:50 arrangement. We need the support. I agree with the speakers who raised the matter of anti-social hours and long debates. They do not take into consideration that one might have small children or a family at home. Today, I received a telephone call from a school about one of my children who is sick. I am 52 miles away but it is always the mother that one comes looking for.

Senator Catherine Noone: It should not be.

Senator Mary Moran: It should be.

Senator Rónán Mullen: These are matters best left to families to regulate for themselves.

Senator Mary Moran: I am lucky that I have the support and that I can go on. I hope this can be considered as part of the reforms and, as previous Senators have said, I hope that the whole system can be reformed and made more desirable for women to put forward their names. The main problem is taking the initial step. However, if we give women the opportunity then more and more will take it. I compliment the Minister of State, Deputy Lynch, on the excellent conference in Dublin Castle two weeks ago on how to elect more women. It was impressive to see so many women in Dublin Castle. Many valid points were made. Many women who have great ideas were there and they should be given the opportunity to come forward. As others have done, I call on the Minister to consider the possibility of introducing gender quotas at local level for local elections.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): Under the Order of Business the Minister must respond at 6.35 p.m. I call Senator Mooney.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I welcome the Minister to the House. I am pleased to see that he has returned from his foray into hostile territory in County Tipperary.

Deputy Phil Hogan: No, it is very friendly territory.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I wonder whether a covert operation was underway given the announcement that Lar Corbett is retiring. Had the Minister anything to do with influencing him to make things easier for Kilkenny this time out? Those of us on this side of the House are pleased to give the legislation a fair wind despite some reservations on how it will be executed and the impact it will have. A great deal of rhetoric surrounds this issue. I wish to nail my colours to the mast in that I was privileged to have been a member of the Irish delegation to the Council of Europe between 2002 and 2007 where I sat on the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. Members will note that it was referred to as the committee for women and men. I was the rapporteur for a report, adopted unanimously by the assembly in 2004, calling for more participation by women 300 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed) in politics. It is on the website for anyone who wishes to examine the deliberations and recommendations. Having said that, I question whether the legislative route is the way to go. Several facts jump out. There are legislative models throughout the world which apply under various guises, whether to do with seat selection, candidate selection or simple quotas. Despite all of these improvements and developments, one interesting statistic is that, internationally, only 19% of women serve in parliament. There is an old chestnut thrown out from time to time to the effect that political parties in smoke-filled rooms with men in grey suits have deliberately and conspiratorially gone out of their way to ensure good women are prevented or denied the opportunity to put themselves before the electorate. Let us consider the last elections. Only 11% of women put themselves forward as independent candidates. If there were such a vast cohort of women who sought to get involved in the political process, going independently would not prevent them from doing so. Therein lies a particular difficulty. All surveys and facts suggest that, at least in this country, a significantly higher proportion of women are involved in the voluntary sector than men. Somehow they do not make the jump from being actively involved in the voluntary sector to political participation and electoral politics. Therefore, the question arises whether it is as much about the institutions that run the country and the manner in which they are run which prevent women rather than any conspiracy. This is about reform of the Dáil and making it more user- friendly, especially for women with families who live far from the Parliament and the other elements surrounding the issue. I was pleased and honoured to co-author a book with Maedhbh McNamara, senior research assistant in the House, in 2001. Among the conclusions we came to was that the most advan- tageous position was to be a male incumbent and the most disadvantageous position to be was a female challenger. Therein lies a real difficulty facing women in getting into political activity. I hope this legislation will address this but I have serious doubts about it because I believe several things will happen. One is that the quotas will be adhered to, but these women candidates will end up as token candidates. I have no doubt that when these candidates go out on the hustings, the male and female candidates running alongside them will tell the voters not to worry about them because they are only token female candidates. There are many good women in politics in this and the other House and one of them has taken a brave and courageous stand in this regard in that she has challenged the perceived wisdom. That person is Deputy Joanna Tuffy, who served with distinction in this House. She has made a point I have heard repeatedly down through the years within my party. Many of my dear departed sisters since the most recent election are vociferously opposed to quotas on the basis that they believe they were elected on merit rather than because of a quota. To nail my own colours to the mast, I agree there is a need for some form of quota in the short term. Otherwise, this glass ceiling will not be pierced to an effective degree. While a quota system is not required to work in the long term, it would work in the short term. All I question is the manner in which the Minister is going about it. There are constitutional questions surrounding the issue and the Minister has allayed fears in that regard, but some eminent lawyers are raising a question with regard to a quota somehow interfering in the process. Also, when it comes to how the candidates will be selected, no matter the party, it will come down to whether the person is electable — whether it is the right place and whether the person has a local connection and is capable of being elected. I do not believe any woman would want to be put in a position where she would be seen as a token candidate. 301 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Paschal Mooney.]

One of the last things I said when wrapping up the debate at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which I attended with all of my colleagues from the committee for equality between men and women, was that the last thing that women would want would be to be seen as coming into any parliament as a result of an artificial quota. They would want to be seen and perceived as taking their place in parliament on merit, because they had put themselves forward before the people and had been elected and therein lies the flaw with quotas. I am not sure the proposed quota system will work. I know the Minister holds out the threat of reducing moneys, but I believe he will return to this House in the lifetime of the Government with a review of this. I ask for nothing more from the Minister now than that he gives some indication of whether he will monitor how this works when put into practice. I am not talking about compliance with the law, but whether it will achieve the objectives purport- edly set out in the Bill, namely, to increase significantly the number of women parliamentarians. I fully agree with those who have put forward the view repeatedly in this House and beyond it, that unless women have a critical mass in parliament — of the order of 30% to 35% — they do not have the effective influence on legislation they can have. I welcome the Bill, but what are the Minister’s thoughts with regard to monitoring its progress and a review of it at some point?

Senator Catherine Noone: My time is short, so I will just make some brief observations. I commend the Minister on his work on this issue. I remember asking the Minister a question at a Fine Gael Party conference meeting once on this issue and remember commenting that I had never come up against any difficulty because of the fact I was a woman at that point in my life in politics. I was on the council at the time. However, since coming into this House, I have found it a very male environment and believe it will take time to change it. I can speak with some qualification as a member of the legal profession and women are now at the top of that profession across the board. It did not require any legislation to get them there. Perhaps it is because tradition is that politics is a male environment that it is difficult for women to break through. In the case of the legal profession, it is almost entirely run by women now and there is a significant percentage of women partners and many of those in high positions, such as the DPP, are women. I cannot understand why there is such a problem with politics and until I came into the House I did not see it. Democracy is intended to be representative of society rather than reflective of it. Our opinions are too diffuse and our characters too disparate to ever properly reflect our population through quotas or percentages. If we were to account comprehensively for the under-representation of other groups, we would need to have all sorts of minority groups represented here, which is unrealistic. While I agree with the principle of increasing the participation of women in politics, I wonder whether there is a better way towards getting more women involved. I suggest a combination of a phased quota and a more deliberative, systematic programme of support for women in branches, local elections and general elections that would eliminate the difficulties, such as child care, confidence, cash, culture and candidate selection, that women experience. Perhaps that would bring about a more rounded form of participation. I commend the Minister for his work on this.

An Cathaoirleach: I welcome a former Member of the House, Gemma Hussey, to the Visitors’ Gallery. She is very welcome to this debate.

302 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I join the Cathaoirleach in welcoming our former distinguished Member of the House, Gemma Hussey, to the House. She championed the cause of many issues relating to both women and men throughout her political career in both Houses of the Oireachtas. I thank the Members of the Seanad for their thoughtful and detailed contributions to the Second Stage debate on the Bill and particularly acknowledge the generous reception given to the Bill by Senators who contributed during the two days of this debate. Many points have been raised and I will attempt to deal with some of them now. Hopefully we can deal with all the issues and tease them out in more detail on Committee Stage. The range of views expressed by Senators reflects the wide scope of the Bill. Points have been raised about gender balance provisions, corporate funding of politics, political donations and political party accounts. Some Members have raised more general concerns that relate to political reform and others have raised matters that go beyond the immediate scope of the legislation. Overall, the contributions reflect positively on the diversity and ambition of the Bill. Senator Feargal Quinn referred to the fact that I might find myself in a dilemma in Carlow- Kilkenny if we had a female candidate on the ticket along with three Fine Gael Deputies. I would not have difficulty with that and am sure we would still win three seats with our four candidates. However, that is another day’s work.

Senator John Gilroy: Will Fine Gael win four seats?

Deputy Phil Hogan: I have a track record in terms of the promotion of women from Carlow- Kilkenny in politics. I am glad to be able to tell Senator Quinn that in the most recent local elections for the county council, some five out of the 12 people elected for Fine Gael were women. Therefore, we have well in excess of the quota required for those elected. We in Carlow-Kilkenny do not just operate on the basis of greater participation and opportunity, but have people who in their own right are well able to go out, get votes and get elected. I am particularly proud of that achievement in terms of the encouragement those particular candidates received from our party in Carlow-Kilkenny. The gender balance provisions have generated a good deal of comment and I welcome the constructive manner in which points have been made. I acknowledge that some of Members are reluctant converts to the approach taken in the Bill. However, unless we take action, experience has shown that the current gender balance in Irish politics is unlikely to improve to any great extent. I also recognise that many Members, including some within my party, would like to see the Bill go further than it does. When I introduced the Bill at the start of this debate, I reflected on the fact that the legislation before us is a significant step. I reiterate this view, but the Bill only represents a small step in the approach needed to achieve gender equality. I also outlined how the gender balance provisions are to apply and why the provisions are structured as they are. They are designed to be ambitious, effective, fair and legally robust. The measures in the Bill link the payments made to qualified political parties by the State under the Electoral Act 1997 to candidate selection at a general election. Payments are made under that Act to parties that contest general elections, based on their performance at those elections. There is no linkage between these payments and local elections or elections to the European Parliament. I am, therefore, not in a position to apply a similar measure to candidate selection at local or European elections, as has been suggested by many speakers. However, I am sure the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, will bring forward additional proposals to promote and assist political parties and others to ensure we have greater participation of women in Irish politics in all elections. 303 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Phil Hogan.]

A number of Senators have suggested that the gender balance measures should be applied at Seanad elections. I welcome the enthusiasm shown by Members of this House to embrace the spirit of the Bill and I note how far people are prepared to go. I note in particular the contributions of Senators Mark Daly and David Norris but they fail to realise that the nomination process for Seanad elections is very different from that of the Dáil. It would not be feasible to apply a gender balance provision to a registered nomination body for one of the vocational panels or to an individual who nominates a university candidate. There is an idea that the Bill should have a sunset clause, as has been suggested by Senator Power and others. I realise the thinking behind the proposal is that after a certain period of time and once the desired effect has been achieved, the gender balance measures would lapse. It is an interesting proposition but I am not inclined towards it on this occasion. People on vocational panels and who wish to nominate candidates have the right to do so and give an opportunity for people of both genders to contest. I do not want to be overly prescriptive and put a certain number of candidates on each vocational panel. There are people who oppose what is in the Bill and while I disagree with them, I respect their right to hold a differing opinion. I reject the suggestion made by Senator Mullen that the Bill represents some form of social engineering. Such a term is not only unduly emotive, it is utterly wrong. I agree with the comments made by Senator Hayden as what we are doing here is providing an opportunity for women to stand before the electorate. It is a matter for the people to decide who is elected for a constituency, so this modest proposal is designed to facilitate greater participation of women in Irish politics. Senator Mullen and others have quoted from an article written by the former leader of the Progressive Democrats, Mr. Michael McDowell, in the Sunday Independent last November opposing the gender balance provisions. It is not the first time Mr. McDowell has indicated that pieces of legislation which have gone through both Houses were unconstitutional and I do not believe he was right in what he wrote. The article grossly misrepresented the legislation before us and it included deliberately repugnant scenarios designed to mislead and scare people, particularly in mentioning issues relating to emigration. I categorically reject this analysis. The Electoral Act provides for funding to democratic political parties that contest general elections and that have support from the electorate. On the legal points raised in the article, Senator Bacik’s response — published in the Sunday Independent a week later — rightly challenged and roundly rebutted the arguments that were put forward. Senator Bradford has correctly pointed out the cultural changes required in politics in general, and it is a matter for political parties to be encouraged and lead by example in ensuring that the spirit of what we are introducing in legislation is brought to the fore in implementation at national level. All of the executive councils, political parties and other relevant groups should be conscious that it would be foolhardy to ignore the new provisions in this legislation for Dáil elections in respect of selecting candidates for local elections. In contributions to the debate, reference has been made by Senators Keane, Cummins, Power, Norris, Mac Conghail and others to the current and past failings in the system of political funding in this State. Senator O’Keeffe made reference to her own direct and difficult experience in courageously attempting to reveal these failings. I again reassure Senators that the measures contained within the Bill are comprehensive and far-reaching. In developing this Bill the Government has had particular regard to recommendations made in the Moriarty tribunal report, published in March 2011, which I now want to address. 304 Electoral (Amendment) Political Funding 7 February 2012. Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)

The tribunal report did not recommend that corporate donations be banned, although it noted that the desirability and feasibility of a complete ban on privatepolitical funding is pre- eminently a matter for the Oireachtas, and for public debate and consideration, having regard to constitutional issues that might arise and to the national financial exigencies. It is therefore my view that the restrictions to be placed on corporate donors in the Bill will go beyond what the tribunal was in a position to recommend. The provision in the Bill for the publication of political party accounts will address the Moriarty tribunal recommendation that all income of political parties be disclosed. It will go beyond this recommendation by providing that the expenditure of parties is also reported and open to public scrutiny. The tribunal recommended that all political donations, apart from those under a modest threshold, be disclosed. I believe that the reductions in the donations thresholds we are introducing are substantial and significant, and they address this recommendation. Senator Mac Conghail specifically raised a point about the party leaders’ allowance and payments made to Independent Members of these Houses. This issue was also alluded to by other Senators during the debate. My colleague, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has responsibility for the legislation dealing with the party leaders’ allowance, which is the Oireachtas Ministerial and Parliamentary Offices (Amendment) Act 2001. I understand the Minister is currently giving active consideration to the introduction of reforms to the arrangements currently in place and intends to bring proposals to Government shortly. Currently, Independent members of these Houses do not submit an audited statement in respect of their use of this funding and the leaders of political parties do so, and that issue must be examined. The matter, raised by Senator Mac Conghail and others, falls outside the scope of the Bill before us but I assure him that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, has been made aware of the views expressed by Members. Senator Power, in leading the Fianna Fáil response to Bill, stated that the measures dealing with political funding do not go far enough. Reference was made to a Bill from her party on political donations that came before the Dáil last May. The Government voted against that Bill because it was too limited in scope. The principal measure in the Bill was to restrict corporate donations but loopholes would have allowed a number of corporate-type bodies to continue to make political donations unhindered. The measure to enable the publication of political party accounts in that Bill would have placed the responsibility and cost of auditing the accounts on the Standards in Public Office Commission rather than on the political parties. This approach was not consistent with existing audit requirements that apply with the State funding of parties under the Electoral Act and through the party leaders’ allowance. The Fianna Fáil Bill provided for a reduction to €2,500 in the maximum donation that may be accepted by political parties, which is the same as the figure in the Government’s Bill. For a candidate and elected representative, the maximum donation was to be reduced to €1,000, which is also the same as the figure in the Bill before us. The Fianna Fáil Bill in 2011 did, however, recommend lower thresholds for the declaration of donations than the Government Bill, although the party had the benefit of having seen our proposals in the programme for Government. It is the right of an Opposition to suggest that we would do more and be more radical but all reasonably thinking people would see this as a fair and balanced approach.

305 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

[Deputy Phil Hogan.]

There has been criticism that the Bill, while restricting corporate donations, does not provide for an outright ban. Reference has been made to a Fianna Fáil Private Members’ Bill on political donations debated in the Dáil in November 2011 that sought to have a constitutional referendum on this question. The constitutional issues that could not be overcome were refer- enced by Senator Power. This Bill will work to that end to the maximum possible effect in reducing and restricting donations. Even if it were feasible to ban corporate donations to political parties in Ireland in a constitutional way, issues will arise with regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and the treaty on the functioning of the European Union. An outright ban on corporate donations raises particular questions with reference to the provisions of Article 40 of the Constitution, relating to freedom of expression and freedom of association. The Fianna Fáil Bill did not have sufficient regard for the compatibility of the proposed constitutional amendment with other legal and justifiable constitutional commitments. The wording did not fit those requirements, and it is a fair conclusion that the amendment was being inserted in a part of the Constitution that would be inappropriate to the subject matter. The proposed new article would have been sandwiched between Article 29 on international relations and Article 30, which regards the Attorney General. It was the wrong amendment in the wrong place, which is why the Government voted against the proposal.

Senator Averil Power: The Minister is going to extraordinary lengths.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The measures in the Bill before us will restrict corporate donations, having regard to the need to respect Ireland’s Constitution and our commitments under international and European law. Perhaps more importantly, they will significantly enhance openness and transparency by requiring corporate donors that intend to give a political donation of more than €200 to be listed on a public register. I thank Senators for their comments and observations, and for agreeing to this ground- breaking Bill. I look forward to further consideration on Committee Stage to the specific provisions in the Bill and I also look forward to hearing Senators elaborate on some of the ideas and proposals mentioned in contributions over the two days of debate so far. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Senator Maurice Cummins: Next Tuesday.

Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 8 has already been discussed with amendment No. 7.

Government amendment No. 8: In page 6, line 28, to delete “is to be” and substitute “who is to be”.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 9: In page 7, line 37, to delete “schools” and substitute “recognised schools”. 306 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 10: In page 8, line 47, to delete “Garda” and substitute “An Garda Síochána”.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): On Committee Stage I accepted an amendment from Senator Power, which allows the Minister of the day, in making regulations on the use of unregistered people, to impose a requirement that they be vetted by the Garda.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 10 is a Government amendment.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Yes, but it originated from a Committee Stage amendment tabled by Senator Averil Power from the Fianna Fáil Party. There is a new regime in this office. Senator Power proposed an amendment which allows the Minister of the day, in making regulations on the use of people to impose a requirement that they be Garda vetted. The purpose of my amendment, on advice from the Parliamentary Counsel, is to give the Garda its full title, An Garda Síochána, and does not change the substance of the proposed amendment. I thank the Senator for her amendment.

Senator Averil Power: I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment. It is an important issue and it is good that we have been able to reach a consensus on it.

Amendment agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: Amendment No. 11 arises out of committee proceedings.

Senator Averil Power: I move amendment No. 11:

In page 8, after line 49, to insert the following:

“(11) The Minister may from time to time prescribe the conditions attaching to the employment of an appropriately qualified and registered retired teacher, in circumstances where all reasonable efforts to secure an appropriately qualified registered teacher who is not retired fail.”.

I outlined the rationale for this amendment on Committee Stage. Members from all parties expressed support for it. I am concerned about the growing evidence that schools are relying all too easily on retired teachers, people who are on pension, and giving them job opportunities before giving substitution work to young teachers who are unemployed and not only need the money but also the experience. Young teachers cannot get the substitution work to give them teaching experience at present and they cannot get a permanent job because they do not have the experience, not having built up the necessary hours of teaching experience. The Minister expressed support for the amendment and I was glad to hear last week that he would accept it. I hope that is still the case, but the Minister appeared to indicate otherwise before we adjourned. This is a serious issue and if there is an area where restriction is needed in legislation, it is here because it presents a real problem. I hope we can maintain the consensus that we had last week.

An Cathaoirleach: Is there a seconder for the amendment?

Senator Maurice Cummins: I second the amendment, so that it can be discussed. 307 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: On Committee Stage I made a commitment to reviewing this amendment and indicated my agreement in principle to the inclusion of provisions for determining the terms and conditions of registered teachers who are in receipt of an occupational pension and are re-employed in our schools. I have examined the issues on this provision and my officials have engaged with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel on the matter. As a result of the concerns expressed by the Parliamentary Counsel over constitutional issues, the drafting office has advised that it would be necessary to explicitly stipulate the circumstances, conditions and requirements of the regulations which could be made under this provision. While we could go down that road, I am concerned that it would impose unnecessary restrictions on the Mini- ster of the day to deal with changing teacher supply and demand. While we currently have a large pool of unemployed teachers available for employment, this may not always be the case. Under section 24(3), the terms and conditions may be determined by the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This is effectively what has happened in the issuing of circular 31/2011 last year, which prioritises unemployed registered teachers over retired teachers, however, in the interests of education, it also prioritises retired registered teachers over unregistered teachers. I fully agree with and support the sentiments expressed by Senator Power on this issue and on the issue of principle there is no disagreement, however, if the only way to regulate it by secondary legislation is to put unnecessary restrictions and stipulations in primary legislation this is not desirable. If any aspect of it needed to change, further primary legislation would be needed. This is not in the interests of flexibility and I remain unconvinced that this best serves the needs of a changing society. Reluctantly, I am therefore unable to accept this amendment. May I add, that the Seanad has no role or function if we cannot act as legislators. I am not in a position, because of constraints on time and I must consult with the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, but unless we arrive at a situation where all the resources and talents of the Legislature can be invoked and mobilised, we are not as a Republic doing our job. I have much more loyalty over the length of my time in politics to the Houses of the Oireachtas than for the time I have been Minister, but I am constrained by collective responsibility and must reluctantly accept this advice.

Senator Averil Power: I will take the opportunity to reread the amendment, for the benefit of members of the House. It states:

I do not believe that is too prescriptive. I do not understand the advice the Minister has been given. All that the amendment states is that where all reasonable efforts have failed to secure an appropriately qualified registered teacher, that conditions apply to the re-employment of retired teachers. That leaves a great deal of scope for the Minister of the day. We have an acute problem at present with the high level of unemployment and the number of young teachers who are looking for work. It should always be the case, whether it is in five, ten or 20 year time, that all reasonable efforts should be taken to give a temporary post to a person who is out of work over a person who is on a pension, regardless of the economic context. I appreciate that things will change. 308 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

I acknowledge that the Minister is being genuine and is acting on the advice he has been given, but I do not understand it. I assume that officials in the Department had looked at the amendment tabled on Committee Stage and it appeared last week that the Minister did not have a concern about it. I will put this amendment to a vote, because I believe the interpretation of the current wording is too narrow. It is not my intention to tie the hands of the Minister or of any future Minister. I would not support an amendment if I thought that would be outcome. I acknowledge that we need to be sensible, in terms of providing for future circumstances. However, I do not believe that acceptance of this amendment would tie the hands of any future Minister. I am flexible 7o’clock in regard to the language, and I refer in the amendment to “The Minister may from time to time prescribe” conditions for the re-employment of retired teachers following “all reasonable steps” having failed to secure a quality teacher who is not retired. The Minister may prescribe whatever he likes, having looked at the issue in the context of the times. I do not see how that ties the hands of a Minister. This is an important issue and as others articulated in the House on Committee Stage, it is an issue of concern that was raised with the Minister. This is a reasonable way of dealing with it.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 24.

Tá

Cullinane, David. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Daly, Mark. Power, Averil. Leyden, Terry. Reilly, Kathryn. MacSharry, Marc. van Turnhout, Jillian. Mooney, Paschal. Walsh, Jim. Norris, David. White, Mary M. O’Brien, Darragh. Wilson, Diarmuid. O’Sullivan, Ned.

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Bradford, Paul. Henry, Imelda. Brennan, Terry. Keane, Cáit. Burke, Colm. Kelly, John. Moloney, Marie. Clune, Deirdre. Moran, Mary. Comiskey, Michael. Mulcahy, Tony. Conway, Martin. Mullen, Rónán. Cummins, Maurice. Noone, Catherine. D’Arcy, Jim. O’Neill, Pat. Gilroy, John. Sheahan, Tom. Harte, Jimmy. Whelan, John. Hayden, Aideen.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Ned O’Sullivan and Diarmuid Wilson; Níl, Senators Jim D’Arcy and Marie Moloney.

Amendment declared lost.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 12:

In page 9, line 3, after “with” to insert “the agreement of”.

309 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

Senator Averil Power: I second the amendment.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Government amendment No. 13: In page 9, line 10, to delete “to be” and substitute “who are to be”.

Amendment agreed to.

Government amendment No. 14: In page 9, lines 19 and 20, to delete all words from and including “subsection” in line 19 down to and including “school” in line 20 and substitute the following: “subsection (11) to the Principal, a teacher or other member of staff of a recognised school”.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I move amendment No. 15:

In page 9, between lines 39 and 40, to insert the following:

“(15) The Unfair Dismissals Acts 1977 to 2007 shall not apply to the dismissal of a person employed in a teaching position in a school where the dismissal follows directly from the cessation of the remuneration of that person out of monies provided by the Oireachtas.”.”.

This amendment relates to the Unfair Dismissals Acts. The Minister explained his refusal to accept this amendment on Committee Stage. I am trying to establish whether he can see where I am coming from. I am concerned about the requirements of the State and the possibilities under this legislation. If it is possible that the State might stop remunerating a teacher in certain circumstances, arising from the teacher’s failure to register, a stalemate could emerge. If a person is not receiving remuneration as a result of not registering, his or her school might have to bring in a substitute teacher. How long would such a situation be allowed to continue? If a school were ultimately to dismiss somebody, would it be fair for it to fall foul of the Unfair Dismissals Acts? Does the Minister agree that some comfort should be given to schools that might see fit to dismiss a teacher in this manner? I do not refer to arbitrary dismissals, but to those arising from ongoing stalemates that might result indirectly from the requirements of this legislation. The initial action would have been taken by the Department rather than by the school. I would welcome a response from the Minister in this regard. I do not know if the Minister has had a chance to address a question I asked earlier. Perhaps I missed his reply, but I do not think I did. I asked why there is no reference in the proposed new section 24(3) to any requirement for the Minister to consult various bodies, including management bodies.

An Cathaoirleach: That aspect of the Bill has been dealt with.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I asked this question earlier. Perhaps the Minister would like to give me some kind of an answer. He might not have got around to it earlier. I submit to the Chair that my question is of relevance to the section of the Bill we are considering. 310 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

An Cathaoirleach: Is the amendment being seconded?

Senator Averil Power: I will second it for the purposes of debate. I asked the Minister last week to clarify whether an issue arises in this regard. I expressed concern last week about the possibility of the Department telling a school to let a teacher go because he or she does not meet the criteria set out in this Bill. Even though the school would not have made this choice, its board of management would be liable in the event of a case being taken. The Minister undertook last week to clarify the matter for the House. I am seconding Senator Mullen’s amendment for the purposes of getting a response from the Minister.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: My advisers share my opinion that this amendment, which has been tabled by Senators Mullen and Quinn, would have the effect of encouraging schools to indis- criminately dismiss teachers whose registration with the Teaching Council has lapsed. We consider that this proposal is disproportionate and overly indiscriminate. Therefore, we do not intend to accept it. The provisions of this Bill, combined with section 30 of the Teaching Council Act 2001, prohibit the payment of a person employed as a teacher in a school unless he or she is a registered teacher. The only exception to this is when it is necessary to employ an unregistered person due to urgent, temporary or occasional staffing needs. Therefore, the pay of a teacher is stopped if his or her registration lapses. I am advised that the effect of this amendment would be to encourage a school to dismiss a teacher for allowing his or her Teaching Council registration to lapse, and to ensure that such a person would not even be entitled to make a claim for unfair dismissal. In my considered view, this proposal is too indiscriminate and disproportionate. It would mean that a person whose registration lapses for a day could be dismissed summarily and without recourse to the Employment Appeals Tribunal. That is the interpretation our people have put on it. If a teacher allows his or her registration to lapse, a number of courses of action are open to the employer and to the teacher. The circumstances which may arise may be varied. A teacher might allow his or her registration to lapse for a number of days. An individual might take some time to become registered. An individual who has allowed his or her registration to lapse for a short period may wish to continue to attend the school in the interim period. In the case of a longer period during which the unregistered person is prevented from being paid by the State, he or she may wish to avail of unpaid leave, such as a career break, pending his or her registration with the Teaching Council. Under these circumstances, there is no termination of the employment of the unregistered person — he or she simply cannot be paid from Oireachtas funds while he or she remains unregistered. If a teacher absents himself or herself from school without approval, established grievance and disciplinary procedures may be followed to resolve the situation. Even in such circumstances, I consider that the normal employment law protections, including access to the Employment Appeals Tribunal for a claim of unfair dismissal, should be available to the teacher. The effect of this amendment would involve interposing the Minister in the employment contract by essentially permitting the immediate dismissal with impunity of a teacher who has allowed his or her registration to lapse. I suggest that runs counter to the concept of equal treatment and fair procedures. It is not something we should seek to enshrine in legislation. Accordingly, I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I fail to see how this would involve “interposing the Minister”. The purpose of the proposal is to establish a protection for schools in circumstances where, for example, a stalemate may emerge which gives rise to an awkward situation for the school and in which the school could be prevented from taking any action other than to appoint a substitute. 311 Education (Amendment) Bill 2012: 7 February 2012. Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stages

[Senator Rónán Mullen.]

I do not propose to prolong the discussion on this matter. The essence of the Minister’s comments is that the amendment is too indiscriminate. Will he consider discussing with his officials the possibility of introducing an amendment in the Dáil to make this provision less indiscriminate and prevent the type of mischief that could arise in schools as a result of the circumstances I have described? As I indicated, under the legislation, it will be a State requirement that a person have a registration. Is it possible that a person who is unregistered for a long period and is not receiving remuneration from a school could arrive at a school and sit in the staffroom every day, potentially for years, and the school would not be in a position to do anything about it? This may be an extreme scenario but we must legislate with such circumstances in mind. Were such a case to arise, the school would not be able to do more than appoint a substitute, which would be unfair to someone else down the line. While it may well be that the Minister’s officials view such a possibility as being in the realm of the imaginary, as I indicated, we need to legislate with such scenarios in mind. I ask the Minister to consider, in advance of the Bill being brought before the Dáil, whether an amended version of my proposal could be introduced in the other House?

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I will consider what the Senator has suggested and communicate with him thereafter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.

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

Senator Averil Power: I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment tabled by the Fianna Fáil Party. We will revisit the issue of untrained personnel when the Bill comes before the Dáil as we remain concerned about the provisions in place in this area.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I thank the Minister for engaging so fully with the House, irrespective of whether he accepted our amendments, and his many comments and insights in the debate. As I made clear, I have concerns about aspects of the Bill. I am conscious also that the Minister has sought to give some reassurances on how the legislation will be implemented. I appreciate the various comments he made on the specific needs of particular schools, whether Gaelscoile- anna, schools with a certain ethos or schools for children with special needs. While I would prefer that the Bill contained more references to “agreement” and fewer references to “consultation”, nonetheless I hope the debate will inform the approach the Minister and his Depart- ment take in their interaction and liaison with various representative bodies. This would be in everyone’s interest given the importance of education and all that is at stake.

Senator Jim D’Arcy: I thank the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House and showing generosity in accepting amendments where it was possible to do so. I also thank his officials for their input. I am pleased the Teaching Council has been given oversight in the area of continuous professional development for teachers. This new power will have a significant effect on the quality of teaching and learning in schools. I thank the Opposition, in particular Senator Power, for its constructive approach to the legislation.

Senator Mary Moran: I thank the Minister and his officials for bringing the Bill before the House. I welcome the time afforded to the legislation and the many discussions we have had on it. I also thank my fellow Senators for their excellent contributions. As with Senator D’Arcy, 312 Private Residential 7 February 2012. Tenancies Board

I am pleased the Bill provides for greater powers of oversight for the Teaching Council and introduces compulsory professional development for teachers.

Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Ruairí Quinn): I thank Senators for their compli- ments and join them in complimenting the backup staff the Department has provided for me in respect of the Bill. Subject to the agreement of the Whips, I will soon introduce Committee Stage of the qualifications legislation, that is, a Bill to merge the three qualifications bodies in one entity. There was a delay in finalising amendments to the Bill because we are proposing to recognise, on a new basis, the National University of Ireland, with a redefined role for the future. I have sent to the Joint Committee on Jobs, Social Protection and Education the heads of a Bill to transform the local education and training boards, otherwise known as vocational education committees. I have found this process of consultation very helpful. I have been a Member of the Oireachtas for much longer than I have been a member of Cabinet in any Government and my primary loyalty lies with the Oireachtas. The Houses have a role to play in the deliberative consideration of legislation and in teasing out the meaning of the sections and subsections of Bills. The process of scrutiny by the Houses and the public manner in which we do our business, with the Fourth Estate and anyone else able to observe us, is an integral part of our democracy and one I intend to uphold in the legislation I bring before the Houses in future. I thank the Seanad for its co-operation. Question put and agreed to.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Maurice Cummins: At 10.30 a.m. amárach.

Adjournment Matters

————

Private Residential Tenancies Board An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Joe Costello. As I have not had an opportunity to do so since he was elevated to his current position, I congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment and wish him well in his new portfolio.

Senator Colm Burke: I, too, welcome the Minister of State and wish him well in office. The issue I raise is in respect of the failure of a large number of landlords to register properties with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. This information has emerged as a result of a survey of a large number of properties carried out by Cork University Residents Forum. The survey found that up to 60% of private rented accommodation in the area around University College Cork and Cork Institute of Technology were not registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board. Of the private rented accommodation occupied by tenants in the area, only 57% was found to be occupied. I understand that on 4 October 2011 representatives of the Private Residential Tenancies Board, appearing before the Joint Committee on the Envir- onment, Transport, Culture and the Gaeltacht, confirmed that 37% of landlords in receipt of rent supplement are not registered with the board. This means that, based on figures issued by the Department of Social Protection on 16 January 2012, the Department is paying out approximately €185 million per annum to landlords who are not legally registered. 313 Private Residential 7 February 2012. Tenancies Board

[Senator Colm Burke.]

The survey by the Cork University Residents Forum found that of 610 houses in the Mardyke area of the city, 233 were occupied by permanent residents, that is, homeowners, 152 were private properties registered with the Private Residential Tenancies Board and 235 were rented properties which were not registered with the board. This means 60% of private rented properties in the area were not registered. Another area, Wilton Court near Cork University Hospital, has 105 houses with 26 permanent residents. Some 45 are registered and 31 are not registered. It surveyed a total of 1,336 houses. Some 395 were owner-occupied, 531 were registered and 413 were not registered. Of 944 houses in the rental market surveyed, 413 were not registered. This is a very high figure. What action do we propose to take to deal with this? Should rents be paid, especially if they are being paid by a Department or a local authority, if the landlord is not registered? Should the law be clearly implemented if the landlord is not registered? Should there be an audit of houses identified as not being registered? Should the Revenue Commissioners carry out an audit to see if proper returns are being made to them? Another issue which arose in its examination of documentation with the PRTB was incorrect addresses being registered with the board. The properties registered were not easily identifi- able. A further problem it found was that a number of properties were registered more than once. For instance, it found that one property — St. Joseph’s, Bendemeer Park, Magazine Road — was registered on five occasions. There is much incorrect information with the PRTB. Action needs to be taken. If there is a need for amending legislation to be brought in, now is the time to look at it. The PRTB admitted that 37% of landlords in receipt of rent supplement were not registered. We should deal with this matter as soon as possible.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Joe Costello): I thank the Cathaoirleach for his congratulations and I extend my congratulations to him. We soldiered together here in the past and it is good to see him in that chair. I thank Senator Burke for raising this important matter in which I have considerable interest. I am glad to have the opportunity to address it on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and to outline the progress made by the Private Residential Tenancies Board in tackling the issue of non-registration of tenancies. I was particularly interested to hear the facts and figures from the survey Senator Burke mentioned. The PRTB was established under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The Act provides the main legislative framework for the private rented residential sector and for the operation of the PRTB. There has been a notable recent increase in tenancy registration applications due to the enforcement drive in this regard by the PRTB over the past year, in particular where it identified unregistered landlords whose tenants were in receipt of rent supplement from the Department of Social Protection. As a result, the rate of non-compliance has dropped from 37% for the last quarter in 2010, which Senator Burke mentioned, to 18% for the second quarter of 2011, a reduction of more than 50%. The Act applies to all dwellings that are the subject of a tenancy, whether oral or in writing or implied, except for the exemptions outlined in section 3(2) of the Act. There are tenancies where the tenant is in receipt of rent supplement which are outside the ambit of the Act, such as a dwelling within which the landlord also resides. Matters arising within the exempted categ- 314 Private Residential 7 February 2012. Tenancies Board ories are dealt with, as necessary, by civil proceedings. All other matters fall to be dealt with by the PRTB. The PRTB enforces tenancies’ registration requirements in accordance with the provisions of the Act, specifically sections 144 and 145 which provide for the issuing of notices to landlords and-or occupiers of the dwellings in question and the prosecution of offenders for non-compliance with the registration requirement. Under section 9 of the Act, a person guilty of an offence is liable on summary conviction to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or both. The PRTB has laid the groundwork for a compliance programme for prosecuting landlords who fail to apply for tenancy registration. New software rolled out in May 2011 is effectively interrogating databases provided by sister public sector organisations — primarily, the Depart- ment of Social Protection — and is proving a very effective tool both in identifying unregistered landlords and electronically managing their case files to secure registration compliance and bring prosecutions where necessary. Tax compliance is a matter for the Revenue Commissioners and the PRTB provides information to them in this regard. In line with increased funding, local authorities have significantly expanded their inspection activities in recent years. In 2010, the Department offered additional funding to all housing authorities to carry out once-off strategically planned programmes of inspection in addition to their usual inspection activity and to target key areas and categories of rented accommodation, including properties that are the subject of rent supplement. Full details of the inspections carried out on a county and city basis are published in the Depart- ment’s annual housing statistics bulletins. If Senator Colm Burke would like to submit any new data or research on this matter and if the details of what he mentioned are available, we would like to look at it and the Minister, Deputy Hogan, will ensure the matter receives appropriate attention.

Senator Colm Burke: I thank the Minister of State. I note he referred to the second quarter of 2011 and the figure of 18%. The survey carried by the Cork university residents’ forum was done in December 2011-January 2012 and its results are from that period. Its information is quite up to date. I am a bit concerned that the Minister of State’s figures are for the second quarter of 2011, which is up to May-June. There is a big difference between the 18% figure presented by the PRTB and up to 60% not being registered on a particular road.

Deputy Joe Costello: Is that 2011 or 2012?

Senator Colm Burke: The survey was done between the end of December 2011 and early January 2012. Has there been a fall-off in registration since the second quarter of 2011? Does that need to be looked at?

Deputy Joe Costello: Those are my figures. Due to cross-referencing with the different Departments, there has been a huge improvement in the registration of landlords and the percentage of unregistered landlords dropped from 37% to 18% in the second quarter of 2011. Since the Senator’s survey relates to a period almost six months later it is appropriate to query whether there has been any worsening of, or any improvement in, the situation. I will take this back to the Minister, Deputy Hogan, and we will check the figures and get back to the Senator on any further developments.

Senator Colm Burke: I can give the Minister of State a copy of the survey and the roads involved. 315 Redundancy 7 February 2012. Payments

Redundancy Payments Senator Paschal Mooney: I thank the Cathaoirleach for selecting this matter and welcome the Minister of State. However, I put on record my disappointment that the line Minister is not present. It is a practice I have never really supported, irrespective of the administration. I understand Ministers can be called away but it is vitally important for the status of, and respect for, the House that the line Minister is present to take Adjournment matters, in particular if the Department accepts them. ISME carried out a survey following the passing of the Social Welfare Bill 2011 which reduced the State liability from 60% to 15% for statutory redundancies. I understand perfectly why the Minister took this decision and I suggest that it was taken on two fronts. One was for revenue purposes — it reduces the State’s liability in difficult times — but it also prevents large companies from walking away and leaving the State to pick up the mess. TalkTalk in Waterford was mentioned as an example of the devastation that can be caused to a local economy in this regard. However, I do not think anybody needs to be reminded that the small and medium enterprise sector plays a significant role in creating and maintaining jobs. Some 85% of such companies have fewer than 20 employees. The survey carried out on week ending 20 January had 766 respondents and confirmed the following. Some 79% indicated that national employment levels will be reduced as a consequence of the change; 71% of companies feel the rebate reduction will negatively influence their future employment decisions; 71% are in favour of reducing statutory redundancy payments to the levels that exist in the UK, with which I am sure the Minister of State is familiar; and 94% of companies would like to see a derogation for SMEs. The last percentage is not all that surprising. I agree with Mr. Mark Fielding, chief executive of ISME, who stated: “The change is effectively another tax on jobs; a short-sighted move that will have the greatest impact on small and medium Irish enterprises, which do not have the option to up sticks and leave, as the Minister asserts.” Mr. Fielding continued: “Even at this late stage, it is imperative that the Minister reviews her position and, at the very least, introduces a derogation from the reduced rate for the SME sector, and reduces the actual statutory payments to UK levels, which will go some way to alleviating the substantial burden that has been placed on already struggling businesses.” I am raising this survey not just because it is an important document and a pointer to what is happening in the struggling SME sector, which provides the vast bulk of jobs, but also because it comes at a time when we are awaiting yet another jobs initiative from the Govern- ment. After Christmas, it was promised that there would be cross-referencing of various Departments and that a strong jobs initiative would be unveiled to address seriously the high unemployment rate. If that happens, we on this side of the House will be the first to applaud it. We are all here to ensure that jobs are created and maintained, so this is not a case of taking a cheap shot at the Government. However, questions marks have been raised by this survey. These question marks were there from the time the Government first proposed this plan. I tabled an amendment to the Bill seeking an exemption for small employers engaging up to 20 employees. Some form of accommodation or compromise should be reached because anecdotal evidence, not included in the survey, suggests that once the legislation was passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas employers let people go. They made them redundant because they found that if they were to make anybody redundant in future, they would have to take up 85% of the cost. I fully understand the financial strait-jacket in which the Government finds itself. That is a given, but I feel there is a certain contradiction here. The Government has repeatedly stated its support for the SME sector — as both sides of the House have — and sees it as an integral 316 Redundancy 7 February 2012. Payments part of economic recovery. This initiative and any other legal obstacle to maintaining existing jobs or affecting potential jobs should be avoided; otherwise, employers will not take people on. Small businesses are subject to the vagaries of the market and such employers may not wish to hire people because they may feel there will not be economic growth in six months’ time. All the statistics are not stimulating great encouragement at the moment, although I wish it were otherwise. Over the next 12 months this legislation should be revisited to see how it has impacted, irrespective of the survey. I do not wish to impugn the survey’s results in any way, but it is coming from a vested interest after all. We need some formula to monitor what impact this legislation has had over a 12 month period. Is it, as the survey points out, having a negative impact, preventing the creation of new jobs or actually losing jobs? I am sure the Minister of State will agree the last thing the Government wants to see is that a legislative initiative it introduced, perhaps for the very best of reasons, is failing and damaging our economy.

Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Joe Costello): I apologise that the Minister for Social Protection is not here. As the Senator is aware, on 1 January 2011, the Department of Social Protection assumed responsibility from the then Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation for administering the redundancy payments scheme. The purpose of the redundancy payments scheme is to compensate workers, under the Redundancy Payments Acts, for the loss of their jobs by reason of redundancy. Compensation is based on a worker’s length of reckonable service and reckonable weekly remuneration, subject to a ceiling of €600 per week. All payments are made from the social insurance fund, also known as the SIF. There are two types of redundancy payment made from the SIF: rebates to those employers who have paid statutory redundancy to eligible employees; and statutory lump sums to employees whose employers are insolvent and-or in receivership or liquidation. It is the responsibility of employers to pay statutory redundancy to all their eligible employees. Employers who pay statutory redundancy payments to their employees are then entitled to a rebate from the State. Rebates to employers and lump sums paid directly to employees are paid from the social insurance fund. Significant and increasing amounts have been paid out in redundancy rebates to employers from the SIF in recent years. While the SIF is constituted primarily from employer contributions, the taxpayers’ contribution is also significant. One of the factors which influenced the Government’s decision to revise the rebate rate was the increasing cost of rebates in recent years. The Minister is concerned about the deficit in the social insurance fund. Where the date of dismissal for the purposes of redundancy occurred before 1 January 2012, the social insurance fund refunded employers 60% of the cost of making people redundant. A sum of €152.2 million was paid out in rebates to employers in 2006. Some €167.4 million was paid in 2007, €161.8 million in 2008, €247.9 million in 2009, €373.2 million in 2010 and €188.2 million in 2011. The amounts paid out in lump sums to employees have also increased. The Minister does not see why this country should continue to borrow money to plug the hole in the social insurance fund in order to fund the cost of making people redundant, often from very profitable companies. As part of the deliberations on budget 2012, it was decided that the 60% level of rebate is not sustainable in the current economic climate. While this may cause difficulties for employers, it should be noted that redundancy rebate payments to employers are not common in many European Union and other jurisdictions. 317 Tax 7 February 2012. Code

Tax Code Senator John Kelly: I welcome the Minister of State to the House and congratulate him on his recent appointment. I wish to raise a matter which has been brought to my attention in recent days and concerns how we do our business. The Minister for Finance should clarify the way in which the Revenue Commissioners collect taxes owed to them, which also threatens the viability of other businesses. I am seeking guidance from the Minister of State on this issue. I know a businessman in the wholesale trade who has been delivering to shops in the west for the past 20 years. He recently called to a couple of customers, but both shops had closed down and had “For Sale” signs outside. He was owed €24,000 by one of the shops. The shop had owed him €31,000 but he had worked with the owners to whittle the sum down to €24,000 over a period. The other shop owed him €27,000. The Revenue Commissioners came in and shut both shops down. This wholesaler has absolutely no recourse to recoup what is owed to him and, as we know, the Revenue Commissioners have first call on what moneys are owed. As a result their actions have threatened the viability of his business. Apart from the fact that the banks would not lend to these two men so they could borrow to pay the Revenue and keep it at arms length, the viability of this man’s business, employing seven people, is threatened. I am aware that the Revenue Commissioners have first call on all moneys owed to them. In this case it held a fire sale of assets of one of the businesses that owed my constituent €27,000 but stock work €27,000 was sold for €4,000 to the highest bidder. If my client had been aware that a fire sale was taking place he might have bought his stock back for €4,000 thus compensating him a little for his loss. It is not right or fair and we must find a better way to resolve such issues. I am blue in the face speaking in the House about this and many related issues. Revenue’s actions in this case is similar to those taken by county councils where a business is closed over an outstanding rates bill. If this company must put seven people on the dole it will cost the taxpayer €147,000 to allow Revenue gain just €4,000. There must be common sense and logic and I ask the Minister of State to relay my message to the Minister for Finance. Perhaps there is something that I or my client have missed and he has rights or recourse to get some of his money back. It is not right that his business and staff are threatened with unemployment by the action of the Revenue Commissioners.

Deputy Joe Costello: I thank Senator Kelly for his contribution. I apologise that the Minister for Finance is in the Dáil debating the Bretton Woods legislation. I have great sympathy for the person the Senator referred to and I will convey his remarks to the Minister for Finance. The Senator will be aware that the Revenue Commissioners are responsible for the collection of the bulk of taxes and duties due to the Exchequer. Its focus is on making sure that every individual and business complies with the responsibility to pay the right amount of tax or duty due in full and on time. Delays in the collection of tax revenues confer an unfair competitive advantage on non-compliant businesses. Revenue approaches the task of securing the collection of the critical taxes and duties in an efficient manner. It is of vital importance to the economy to have a tax system that is efficient and easy to comply with, that is responsive to the needs of the taxpayer and other stakeholders and encourages and actively promotes voluntary compliance. Internationally, Ireland is among those countries that make it easiest for taxpayers to pay their taxes. In the recently published report of the World Bank Group, Doing Business 2012, Ireland was ranked in fifth position worldwide. 318 Tax 7 February 2012. Code

Revenue has invested significant resources in developing its online service, or ROS as it is more commonly called. The service is rated extremely highly both in Ireland and internationally. It delivers a 24-hour year round service. It also enables faster processing times for Revenue and reduced compliance costs for business and taxpayers. Even in the current difficult economic and financial environment for businesses it is essential that they maintain and organise their financial affairs to ensure that tax debts are paid as they fall due. Revenue will not allow businesses to continue to trade if there is no capacity to meet tax debts as they arise into the future. To do otherwise would have a corrosive effect on our high, timely and voluntary compliance rates by businesses generally. Revenue encourages businesses and individuals experiencing payment difficulties to work proactively with it when difficulties arise. The purpose of this is to maximise the opportunity for an agreed approach to secure timely compliance and enable any possible tax debt to be cleared over a realistic time- frame. I welcome the fact that tax practitioners and trade representative bodies have recognised and supported Revenue’s efforts in working with businesses to address tax payment difficulties. A key feature of Revenue’s approach to compliance and debt management is early intervention by its staff when payment and compliance problems arise. Sophisticated Revenue IT systems have been developed and refined to assist in the timely identification of cases for direct intervention on payment or returns compliance. The riskiest cases will be targeted first but there is a structured programme in place to ensure that all cases that are non-compliant in any form are examined and subject to appropriate intervention. Permission from Revenue to pay a tax debt by a phased payment arrangement is a concession and must be justified to it by reference to the circumstances of each taxpayer or business. Every phased payment arrangement will include interest. Therefore, it can entail substantial additional financial costs for businesses but it is appropriate to ensure that compliant businesses are not disadvantaged. Accordingly, it is in the interest of a business or a taxpayer to minimise their exposure to interest by paying as much of the debt up-front and any balance over the shortest possible timescale. Revenue is charged with the responsibility for collecting and securing the majority of the revenues required by the Government to fund State services. The majority of taxpayers and businesses readily fulfil their obligations to pay what is due and on time. Taxpayers and businesses can, and do, encounter cashflow problems but these must be addressed so that timely tax compliance is restored and assured. Addressing these problems, in consultation with Revenue, at the earliest opportunity is essential to avoid debt problems becoming insurmount- able or where avoidable interest or enforcement costs are incurred. With regard to the need for businesses to engage with Revenue, early positive and realistic engagement is necessary when tax compliance problems begin to emerge. Such an approach ensures that businesses maximise the opportunity of arriving at a successful and early resolution of compliance difficulties in a way that meets with Revenue’s approval. Tardiness in recognising or addressing tax compliance problems merely serves to exacerbate the compliance challenge for businesses and taxpayers.

Senator John Kelly: This is no reflection on the Minister of State but I know that he was handed a script to respond to my Adjournment matter. I would have got the same response if I had asked him to outline the job of Revenue. He was given a generic script that does not address my issue. Perhaps it is my fault because I did not ask a specific question when I sought to raise this Adjournment matter but I have clearly outlined the matter to him now. 319 General 7 February 2012. Practitioner Services

[Senator John Kelly.]

Earlier the Minister of State said that Revenue will not allow businesses to continue to trade if there is no capacity to meet tax debts as they arise into the future. My constituent was able to work with a businessman to reduce his debt with the wholesaler from €31,000 to €24,000. Revenue was not able to do that. Please do not blame such people but the banks who are not playing their part. The Minister of State now knows concerns and I would like, through legislation or otherwise, for such matters to be dealt with. It is ridiculous that we still forget that we have one pot of money. We are not just dealing with the budget for Revenue or other Departments. The funds come from one pot of money. If Revenue is happy to close a couple of businesses in order to secure €4,000 and put seven people on the dole at a cost of €147,000 to the taxpayer then it is no wonder we have problems. We need to do business differently.

Deputy Joe Costello: I appreciate the Senator’s comments. We are talking about jobs, employment, business, and small SMEs and the maximum should be done by everyone involved. Banks are supposed to be making money available yet Revenue is engaging, or supposed to be engaging, adequately with businesses with problems who clearly intend to sort their problems. That seems to be the way in the Senator’s case where debt was greatly reduced. I cannot answer the Senator’s question regarding the business to which he referred but I am sure the Minister for Finance would be interested to know the details. I will bring the matter to his attention and it is an appropriate matter to be brought to the attention of Revenue and the banks on how they conduct business.

General Practitioner Services Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I wish to share time with Senator Reilly.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Costello, to the House and wish him well in his portfolio. My party colleague, Councillor Shane P. O’Reilly, recently brought to my attention the lack of provision of a general practitioner, GP, service in Mullagh, County Cavan. In the past 12 years the town’s population has grown by over 45% to 3,000 people. In 2009, two GPs were in place, one operating for two days for half an hour a day while the other covered 8o’clock three days for the same time each day. Since February 2011, no GP service has been available to the Mullagh community and its hinterland. People there have to travel either four miles to Moynalty or seven miles to Bailieborough. This is unacceptable for a town with no public transport and causing extra hardship and cost for those without their own means of transport to access GP services. My party colleague, Deputy Smith, raised the matter in the Dáil on 3 February and received a response which was similar to the one he received from the Health Service Executive, HSE, Cavan area manager. It stated a contract was in place with a GP for two sessions per week in Mullagh but that in February 2011 the GP informed the HSE demand was not sufficient for the service. Since then no GP service has been in place. Will the Minister inquire of the HSE as to why this service is not provided even with a contract in place?

Senator Kathryn Reilly: I thank Senator Wilson for sharing his time on this issue. 320 General 7 February 2012. Practitioner Services

The people of Mullagh do not have access to a GP service in their town. No matter what the HSE says about an existing contract, the service is actually not being delivered. The GP service in the town finished in February 2011 when the GP in place informed the HSE he was discon- tinuing his sessions there. Under the terms of his contract, he is obliged to do two sessions per week in Mullagh. In correspondence I have seen, all the HSE has done is requested him to consider recommencing the service rather than telling him to do so under the terms of his contract. Will the Minister intervene to get GP services resumed at Mullagh? It has been an ongoing concern and raised by local representatives at the regional health forum. While formal complaints may not be on record, public representatives have been vocal on it. Canvassing in the town during numerous elections, I have noted how it has grown. Along with an elderly population, there are many young families there. Rural transport services are not great in the area which has resulted in people from the town either hitchhiking or paying for taxis to get to the GP in Moynalty and Bailieborough. It is not acceptable to have young mothers with small children having to thumb a lift or pay for a taxi when they are already struggling. The Minister for Health must put pressure on the HSE to ensure a basic GP service for Mullagh.

Deputy Joe Costello: I am taking this Adjournment debate on behalf of my colleagues the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, and Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Shortall, which addresses the provision of general practitioner services in Mullagh, County Cavan. The delivery of a sustainable GP service that effectively meets the health needs of the population in a primary care setting is paramount. The HSE’s primary, community and continuing care service in Cavan, which has responsibility for the provision of general practitioner services in the county, continues to make every effort to protect and maintain front line services. The HSE has a contract in place with a GP in the north east who practices from two centres, one in Mullagh, the other in Bailieborough. Under the terms of his existing contract, this GP is obliged to do two sessions per week in Mullagh. However, in February 2011, the GP informed the HSE there was not a sufficient demand for the service in Mullagh and that he was discon- tinuing his sessions there. He has not practised in Mullagh since February 2011. When the HSE contacted the GP in question this week, it was confirmed the GP had not received any complaints from patients about the cessation of the sessions in Mullagh since the service was discontinued. The HSE primary care unit in the north east has also confirmed it has not received any complaints regarding the lack of GP sessions in Mullagh. The HSE has written to the GP in question requesting him to consider recommencing the two sessions per week in Mullagh, as agreed in his contract. The HSE will also consider the option of encouraging a new GP to set up in Mullagh through the new open entry arrangement being introduced in the Health (Provision of General Practitioner Services) Bill 2011, once the relevant legislation is passed in the coming weeks. The Minister for Health will present this Bill to the House tomorrow. It provides for the elimination of restrictions on GPs wishing to obtain contracts to treat public patients under the general medical services, GMS, scheme by opening up access to GMS contracts to all fully- qualified and vocationally-trained GPs. There will be no limits on the number of contractors. When this Bill is enacted, new GMS contract holders will be free to establish their practice in the location of their choice.

321 The 7 February 2012. Adjournment

[Deputy Joe Costello.]

While this may not be an adequate answer, I accept the points made by Senators Wilson and Reilly that the population of the town has increased by 45% in the past ten years and that a contract has been effectively broken. Neither is it good enough for the HSE to ask the GP to consider recommencing his service. I will bring these points to the Minister for Health and the Minister of State and make clear the Senator’s dissatisfaction with the present state of affairs with GP services in Mullagh.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: For the HSE to claim it has received no complaints is not accurate. There have been complaints to Councillor Shane P. O’Reilly and other public representatives including myself, Senator Reilly and Deputy Smith. It is unacceptable for the HSE to have left Mullagh without GP services for over 12 months even when there is a contract in place for a GP to provide such services. I note from the Minister of State’s reply that a contract is in place for a GP to provide these services. It is not acceptable that the community, and its vulnerable members in particular, should be deprived of the services of a GP. I urge the Minister of State to investigate the matter at the earliest opportunity.

Deputy Joe Costello: I will add that to the points that have been made. It is the Senator’s assertion that a number of complaints have been made and what has been said tonight is not quite accurate.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 8 February 2012.

322