Seanad Éireann

Vol. 245 Tuesday, No. 6 26 January 2016

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Insert Date Here

26/01/2016A00050Business of Seanad ��315

26/01/2016B00200Commencement Matters ��315

26/01/2016B00300Disadvantaged Status ��315

26/01/2016C00200Visit of Chinese Delegation ��317

26/01/2016C00400Commencement Matters (Resumed) ��317

26/01/2016D00900Obesity Levels ��319

26/01/2016F00700Labour Activation Measures��321

26/01/2016O00100Order of Business ��325

26/01/2016Z00300Funding of Cystic Fibrosis Medication: Motion ��336

26/01/2016Z00600National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 (Section 44) (Variation of Indemnity Amount) Order 2016: Referral to Joint Committee ��337

26/01/2016CC00100Road Traffic Bill 2016: Committee and Remaining Stages ��337

26/01/2016MM01500 ��Credit�� Guarantee�� (Amendment)�� Local Government Review: Statements ��365 SEANAD ÉIREANN

Dé Máirt, 26 Eanáir 2016

Tuesday, 26 January 2016

Chuaigh an i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m.

Machnamh agus Paidir. Reflection and Prayer.

26/01/2016A00050Business of Seanad

26/01/2016A00100An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the former world boxing champion Bernard Dunne and his group to the Visitors Gallery. We could do with him here on some occasions to keep order. I have received notice from Senator Gerard P. Craughwell that, on the motion for the Commence- ment of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to confirm the terms of reference for the current review of disadvantaged schools and the date by which the recommended reforms will be implemented and to outline the funding that will be available to implement a new delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, programme to cater for the new entrants who will inevitably emerge from the review.

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

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to outline his Department’s policy on imposing a “no fry zone” within which fast food outlets cannot open near schools.

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

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to state if she has proposals to include unregistered unemployed persons in activation programmes.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion and they will be taken now.

26/01/2016B00200Commencement Matters

26/01/2016B00300Disadvantaged Status

26/01/2016B00400Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I welcome the Minister. I join the Cathaoirleach in welcoming a great sportsman, Bernard Dunne, to the Visitors Gallery. I am honoured to be here in 315 Seanad Éireann his presence and to be speaking on a matter that is very close to his heart. I would like to acknowledge that a man of his standing having an interest in DEIS schools, in students generally and in the shaping of children is evidence of the great service he does for the State. We should honour him for that. In saying this, I am not taking away from the work done by my colleague, Senator Eamonn Coghlan. It is an honour to have two great sportspeople in the Chamber.

As the Minister knows, I have asked her to confirm the terms of reference for the- cur rent review of the disadvantaged schools and the date by which recommended reforms will be implemented. I also ask her to outline the funding that will be available to implement the new delivering equality of opportunity in schools, DEIS, programme in order to cater for the new entrants that will inevitably emerge from this review.

I thank the Minister for coming to the Seanad to debate this important issue. There is no doubt that the DEIS programme, first introduced in 2005, has been extremely successful. At- tendance rates have improved, the gap in retention rates between DEIS and non-DEIS schools has narrowed and there have been considerable improvements in maths and reading scores. There is also no doubt that some schools currently included in the DEIS programme no longer have the same level of need as previously. Similarly, some schools previously outside the DEIS programme have now become centres of disadvantaged communities and urgently require access to the supports provided under the programme.

I understand both the overall DEIS programme and the school meals programme which is operated by the Department of Social Protection are under review. Given the complexity of the matter with regard to DEIS designation, what are the terms of reference for the Minister’s review and by what date will the recommendations of the review be implemented? Will she also outline the funding that will be available to implement the new DEIS programme to cater for the new entrants that will inevitably emerge as a result of the review?

The DEIS programme has many objectives, one of which is the elimination of food poverty. This is an essential foundation stone on which educational attainment is built. No child can learn when he or she is hungry. I am concerned that there are now serious anomalies in disadvantaged communities. Some DEIS schools have funding for all their children, 60 cent for breakfast - a rather paltry sum - and €1.40 for lunch. However, some schools are only 50% funded. The Minister may say this is a matter for the Department of Social Protection, but a cross-departmental approach is needed to deal with this matter. The issue of child food poverty should be an intrinsic part of the educational policy.

Dr. Paul Dowds of St. Patrick’s College, Drumcondra, has said there is no systematic strategy in place to prevent children from being hungry in schools. He has reminded us that unlike countries such as Britain, France and Poland, Irish schools have historically had a poor infrastructure for school meals and are dependent on external suppliers.

In Ireland, there is no regulation of school meal suppliers and quality depends on the in- tegrity of the supplier. I ask the Minister, together with the Minister for Social Protection, to review the following issues: increasing the budget for the school meals programme; increasing the allocation for breakfast and lunch by 5% to 63 cent and €1.47, respectively - these have not been increased for over a decade and suppliers are struggling to supply; establishing a list of approved suppliers for school meals programmes to guarantee quality; and introducing the schools meals programme into all schools where there is recognised food poverty, but which do not have DEIS status. 316 26 January 2016 I thank the Minister for attending the House and hope she will be able to follow up on these issues with the Department of Social Protection. I know that some of these matters are the direct responsibility of the Department of Social Protection but, overall, the Department of Education and Skills has a responsibility for education. Hungry children simply cannot learn. We cannot continue to have staff - as in some places I have seen - paying for breakfast cereals in order that kids will have a basic meal before starting the day. I am not sure if the Minister is aware that is happening in some areas but it is.

26/01/2016C00200Visit of Chinese Delegation

26/01/2016C00300An Cathaoirleach: Before calling the Minister to reply, I am sure that Members of the House would like to join me in welcoming Mrs. Lee, the wife of the Chinese ambassador, with Mr. Walter Pan, the political adviser, and all the staff of the Chinese Embassy. They are very welcome.

26/01/2016C00400Commencement Matters (Resumed)

26/01/2016C00500An Cathaoirleach: I now call on the Minister to reply.

26/01/2016C00600Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): I wish to join in welcoming Mr. Bernard Dunne and the staff of the Chinese Embassy, some of whom I have already met. I also wish to welcome the school students from Enniskillen who are in the Visitors Gallery. I met them coming in the door earlier.

I thank Senator Gerard P. Craughwell for raising this issue. I absolutely concur with him that this is a very important issue. As he is aware, I announced a process for a review of the DEIS programme last year. The overall scope of the review is to assess the existing DEIS programme in the context of evaluations to date, and any relevant policy and other developments in order to inform future policy on educational disadvantage.

This DEIS review process is now well under way with the majority of the work being undertaken during the course of the current 2015-16 school year. It is envisaged that the new identification process and a revised framework of supports will be in place for the 2017-18 school year.

One of the first tasks conducted, as part of the review process, was an invitation to the education partners to make submissions on their experience of DEIS and on suggestions for future interventions. These submissions are available on my Department’s website and will inform the overall DEIS review. The general guidelines with regard to the review are also on the De- partment’s website.

A technical working group within my Department is considering appropriate eligibility criteria to assist with the identification of the level of need in schools. This work is currently under way with a view to completion during the current school year. That will be added to the information that is already on the website.

Any revised identification process for schools will be clearly set out and communicated to schools. An advisory group has also been established to review the current supports available under the DEIS programme and make recommendations for a revised framework of appropriate 317 Seanad Éireann supports, as well as a suitable monitoring and evaluation framework.

As is the case with the identification process, any change to the existing school support programme will be clearly set out and communicated in advance. As the Senator so rightly said, there are issues across other Departments also.

Socio-economic differences and the link with poorer educational outcomes cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader social context. Therefore, I have established an interdepartmental working group in order to ensure a more joined-up and consistent approach to service delivery in the future. Representatives of relevant Departments and agencies are reviewing their current inputs to the DEIS programme in order to make a more cohesive contribution to the overall framework of supports to combat educational disadvantage. That will include the Departments of Social Protection and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. I understand the De- partment of Health has an input also and there may be other relevant Departments.

All of the groups that I have mentioned are part of the overall review of DEIS. It would be premature at this stage to outline what funding will be made available in advance of the various groups finalising their work and recommendations for a new framework of supports. Once this work has been completed, the costs associated with additional and-or new supports will form part of the overall consideration of the new programme to tackle educational disadvantage. Such consideration will take place in the context of the overall budgetary planning process.

DEIS was established in 2006. One of the problems has been the fact that it is impossible to join the scheme, even for new schools. There are also issues around amalgamated schools and a number of other issues. Overall, there has been positive progress. We want to maintain what is good about the programme, but we think it is time to have a review.

26/01/2016D00200Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I take what the Minister has said. She has worked hard and done an excellent job even as we approach an election. I hope we will see her back here and that when the next Government is formed we will move rapidly towards identifying schools. I am aware of a school in Galway that I will not name, but I may come back to the Minister about it. The school is surrounded by a fairly well-to-do area, but a huge number of Traveller children attend the school. It would qualify on every level for DEIS status, but for some reason such status has been impeded.

I would prefer if the Department of Social Protection, rather than funding the school meals programme, gave a grant to the Department of Education and Skills. Such an initiative would allow the Minister or her successor to utilise the money in the best way possible rather than having a cross-departmental thing. I can understand how the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and the Department of Health might have to work with the Department of Educa- tion and Skills. The funding from the Department of Social Protection should be ring-fenced and handed to the Minister for Education and Skills thus allowing her to deal with the entire programme of meals and education, which is something similar to what happens in the United Kingdom.

26/01/2016D00300Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: First, we are going to develop a transparent identification process. That work is under way. Any school that meets the criteria for inclusion in the new programme will be included and that is an undertaking. Second, a forum will take place in the spring. I do not know whether I will be the Minister at that point, but I thank the Senator for his good wishes.

318 26 January 2016

26/01/2016D00400Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: We wish the Minister well.

26/01/2016D00500Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: One way or the other, a forum will be held in the spring to further engage with relevant stakeholders on the review process. This will include a discussion on the process used to identify schools for inclusion and the proposed framework of supports to be deployed. I imagine that the issues about interdepartmental co-operation and whether certain things should move from one Department to another will probably form part of the discussions on the various programmes for Government which will also, I presume, feed into this process.

26/01/2016D00600Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Independent Alliance group will support the Minis- ter.

26/01/2016D00700Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: That is good to hear. We all know that this is an important programme. For example, literacy and numeracy results in DEIS schools have improved significantly. We want to make sure we keep what is good about the programme but we must also broaden opportunities for schools like the one mentioned by the Senator that are excluded.

26/01/2016D00800An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Minister.

26/01/2016D00900Obesity Levels

26/01/2016D01000An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection, Deputy Kevin Humphreys.

26/01/2016D01100Senator Catherine Noone: I, too, welcome the Minister of State. The obesity epidemic is an issue that I have been vocal about for some time and my Commencement matter pertains to children, in particular.

The Minister of State will be aware of recent figures. I was shocked by one figure in particular which claimed that in the next 14 years, or by 2020, we will spend approximately €4.3 billion a year on health-related obesity costs. To a health service that is already struggling such a cost deserves serious consideration. There has also been a 65% rise in diabetes in the United Kingdom in the past ten years. A similar study has not been conducted in Ireland but we are following a similar trend, if not a worse one, than in the United Kingdom. Such figures are very significant from that point of view. Obesity robs children of their health and vitality. It is an issue we are not taking seriously enough in this country. One in four children is either overweight or obese. We will soon be talking about one in three children being overweight or obese if we do not begin to take the issue more seriously. Pinning the blame on parents simply will not wash. In the long term, we have to take a societal approach. One such measure is imposing a “no fry zone” near schools. It is a catchy headline. The reality is that if children are able to make an unhealthy choice, they are more likely to make it. I propose that within a 500 m radius of a school, one should not be allowed to build or use premises as a chipper. There are chippers in many towns around the country but this is not about banning chippers or chips or anything of the sort. It is simply about getting children to make healthier choices. It is a little like removing sweets from the till area, which many supermarkets have done. It helps in dealing with pester power and in making better choices.

I reiterate that I am not down on chippers as a business. It is not that I think children should not eat any fried food. Why not occasionally? It is just that some of these outlets target chil-

319 Seanad Éireann dren on their lunch break or after school with deals to get them eating their food. They are business people and they have to make a living. One can understand why it happens. There is some international evidence to back this up. In a study carried out in California, students with a fast food restaurant near their schools consumed much less fruit and vegetables, consumed more fizzy drinks and were more likely to be overweight or obese. Obviously this is an issue for development plans in the council. When it comes to planning, it is a local government issue but the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government should have some policy when it comes to this issue and should encourage local government to come up with a reasonable proposal for a “no fry zone” near schools. It has simply gone beyond the stage where we need to do something about the issue of growing obesity levels in the country. I look forward to hearing from the Minister of State on the matter.

26/01/2016E00200Minister of State at the Department of Social Protection (Deputy Kevin Humphreys): I am taking this Commencement matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Com- munity and Local Government. I thank the Senator for raising this important issue and giving me an opportunity to set out the position on this matter.

In the first instance, I wish to clarify that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government does not have a role in imposing a so-called “no fry zones” in particular areas. However, the Department has a role in advising planning authorities, through statutory guidelines, as regards the structure and content of their local area plans. In this regard, I confirm that the Department has advised planning authorities that in adopting local area plans for their areas, that they may, in certain circumstances, adopt policies to curtail an excessive concentrations of takeaways in particular areas. The advice given was outlined in planning guidelines on local area plans published in June 2013 and to which planning authorities must have regard in the discharge of their functions under section 28 of the Planning and Develop- ment Act 2000, as amended.

These guidelines recognise the important role of planning in promoting and facilitating active and healthy living patterns for local communities. For example, section 5 of the guidelines offers advice regarding the structure and content of local area plans and sets out a range of policies that can be put in place to promote and facilitate active and healthy living patterns. These include: promoting of walking and cycling as modes of transport; accessibility to public open spaces, recreation and sports facilities; proximity of new development to sustainable travel modes; provision of play areas; and careful consideration of the appropriateness of the location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of schools and parks. One particular effect of these guidelines with regard to fast food outlets is that consideration be given to the appropriateness of their location in the vicinity of schools and parks, for example, in a new development area, while at the same time taking account of wider land use considerations. However, with regard to the many schools located in or near town centres, restrictions of fast food outlets in such situations must be considered carefully on a case by case basis in view of the mix of existing use typically found in core urban areas.

In addition, planning policies with regard to the location of fast food outlets must be considered within the wider policy context of practical steps that can be taken to promote more widely and facilitate active healthy living patterns by enhancing the scope for activities such as walking, cycling, sports and active leisure pursuits and their associated facilities.

I do not merely speak about the Department’s position but that of all Departments when stat- ing the pursuit of healthy lifestyles requires an holistic approach that requires a much broader 320 26 January 2016 public health discussion. I am confident, however, that the guidance the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government offers to planning authorities in this regard fulfils an important role in achieving that goal. I thank the Senator.

26/01/2016F00200Senator Catherine Noone: I thank the Minister of State and will respond briefly. I note the comment in the reply given by the Minister of State on the Department’s position to the effect that the pursuit of a healthy lifestyle requires an holistic approach which requires a much broader health discussion. I know that and do not suggest that were one to implement a no- fry zone around schools, the obesity crisis would suddenly disappear. It obviously would not solve the crisis single-handedly and the issue of fast food restaurants near schools is not the sole reason for obesity. I welcome that under section 5 of the guidelines issued under section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, careful consideration should be taken of the appropriateness of the location of fast food outlets in the vicinity of schools and parks when it comes to planning. However, I refer to a specific provision in the case of a new business that seeks to set up near a school and do not believe that should be left to chance. There should be specific policy embedded in legislation whereby it is not possible to have a fast food outlet in close proximity to a school.

While I welcome that some positive measures are outlined in what was a good reply, the Government must go further. I thank the Minister of State.

26/01/2016F00300Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I thank the Senator. While this undoubtedly is an important issue, as indicated within the body of the original reply, the guidelines give power to local government regarding new developments. The Senator highlighted this point in respect of section 5 of these guidelines. There is a specific problem regarding existing businesses that would be within 500 m and I acknowledge the Senator accepts completely that point. However, there must be much greater concentration on local area plans at local government level, which can give those guidelines to the planning authorities to show there is a concern with regard to the location of fast food outlets. In my constituency, a burger outlet sought to open right next door to a school but it was refused planning permission for some of the reasons the Senator outlined. Consequently, in some cases, there is a robustness to the existing guidelines. However, this is an holistic endeavour and is not simply a matter for the Department of the Environment, Com- munity and Local Government. It is about education and all the different factors, as well as working with the commercial sector. However, it also is a parental issue and I do not dismiss the influence parents have in this regard.

26/01/2016F00400Senator Catherine Noone: That is the primary influence.

26/01/2016F00500Deputy Kevin Humphreys: There must be a much stronger emphasis on parental skills in this regard. I believe this to be one of the major challenges Irish society will face in the coming years but the Senator has a fantastic track record in highlighting this issue. I again thank her for raising it.

26/01/2016F00600Senator Catherine Noone: I thank the Minister of State.

26/01/2016F00700Labour Activation Measures

26/01/2016F00800Senator Marie Moloney: I thank the Minister of State for coming into the Chamber to take this matter. I apologise that my voice is suffering; it was not by any means from cheering 321 Seanad Éireann on Kerry at the weekend.

3 o’clock

Before I speak about unregistered unemployed persons, I commend and acknowledge the work the Minister of State, the Minister and the Department have done to lower the number on the live register. I appreciate that priority had to be given to reducing the high number on the live register and that it was a mammoth task to get people back to work. As the figure has been lowered significantly, I am now asking that attention be given to unregistered unemployed persons and, in particular, bringing them into activation programmes. Who do I mean when I refer to the “unregistered unemployed”? I mean self-employed persons who, through no fault of their own or as a result of the recession, have seen their businesses go belly-up. They are no longer in self-employment and some of them cannot access jobseeker’s allowance as they have property or their spouse is working.

We also have women in the home whose children have reached the age of 14 years. They are no longer in receipt of homemaker’s credits and would like to get back to work. We have college students who are looking for their first job such. They cannot sign on until September, even though it is acknowledged that they have finished college. In many cases, their parents do not want them to sign on because they think it would be bad for them. They want them to look for a job instead. There are, therefore, a number of people who are, in fact, unemployed but not registered. In particular, I urge that attention be given to women in the home. A number of years ago a course was set up by FÁS for women who wanted to return to work having reared their children. The course helped them re-enter the workforce. A similar course should be introduced.

I have been very vocal in this House and committees on the situation faced by self-employed persons, many of whom do not realise that even if they access jobseeker’s allowance, they will not have a credited contribution because they are moving from self-employment. This will be detrimental to them later in terms of their pensions and they do not realise it. They are getting a few bob from the Department of Social Protection, but they do not realise the situation in which they find themselves. Furthermore, if they do not make a voluntary contribution within 12 months of making their last contribution, they will not be allowed to make one at all. They will then find themselves in no-man’s land and in years to come will see a big reduction in their pensions.

I think the Minister of State will find it funny when I tell him what happened yesterday when my secretary googled the words “unregistered unemployed” to see if there was any category on which I was missing out. We discovered that on 13 December 1934 an oral question had been asked on the subject in the Dáil. Some 82 years ago a Deputy Doyle spoke about it. He asked the then Minister for Industry and Commerce who happened to be Seán Lemass a question about it. It is ironic that 82 years later I am asking questions about the unregistered unemployed, although I am sure they have been asked during the years too. I await the Minister of State’s reply. Now that things are getting better, we really need to turn towards that cohort to bring them into the system, have them activated and brought back into employment.

26/01/2016G00200Deputy Kevin Humphreys: We are certainly moving in the right direction. Five years ago the rate of unemployment was 15.2%. It is now below 9% and moving in the right direction. It was natural that there would be a concentration on assisting those in receipt of benefits to get back into employment. The distribution of what was a scarce resource was prioritised, I believe 322 26 January 2016 correctly. Now, as we move from recession into recovery, the topic raised by the Senator is timely. We have to discuss how we spend the fruits of the recovery and can ensure everyone will have an opportunity to share in it. The Senator has raised the issue of the unregistered unemployed with me numerous times, not only here in the House but also privately and I understand the concerns she has articulated especially in the past two years.

When the resources available to help people who are unemployed find work are constrained it makes sense that the State should allocate those resources, in the first instance, to those people upon whom it imposes an obligation to look for work. Having said that, many services are also available to unemployed people who are not in receipt of a qualifying social welfare payment, regardless of their previous employment or self-employment status. For example, employment services, such as advice on job search activities and the use of online job search tools, are available to people if they register as jobseekers with the Department’s Intreo centres, regardless of their social welfare status. In addition, unemployed persons not in receipt of payments may also be eligible to avail of upskilling opportunities, for example, through education and training board, ETB, formerly FÁS, training for unemployed people.

Although they are not eligible to receive a training allowance while undertaking the course, as the allowance is related to the level of people’s prior welfare payment they may receive some support for travel and meals costs. Springboard and Skillnets courses for unemployed people, funded through the Department of Education and Skills, are also open to people who are unemployed, regardless of their social welfare status.

Activation services and programmes are generally available to other groups of welfare recipients who are not required to be unemployed, in other words, to be available for, and actively seeking, work. The two main groups involved here are recipients of lone parent’s payments and of disability allowance. In fact, people on disability payments have access to a range of programmes and supports such as the wage subsidy scheme, the employability service and specialised training courses that are not available to other jobseekers.

The Department is training some staff in all of its Intreo centres to improve the quality of service offered to people with disabilities. As the economic recovery continues and demands on the employment service to work with unemployed people diminish, the Government has sig- nalled its intention, in Pathways to Work 2016-2020, to extend proactive engagement to people of working age beyond the primary target group of people who are fully unemployed and receiving a jobseeker payment. Among the main groups under consideration for the expansion of services are: casual and part-time workers who receive welfare support; adult dependants of jobseeker claimants; “voluntary engagers”, people who are not on the live register but wish to avail of employment services; and people in receipt of disability payments who may have a capacity to work and an interest in employment.

Pathways to Work has a number of specific actions, for example, developing a proactive approach to support qualified adult dependants of people on welfare payments access employment, and expanding the use of Intreo centres by people with a disability, an objective that will be enabled by the staff training to which I referred. In short, the Government is committed to assisting as many people as possible to become more self-sufficient through work and will do this by developing and building on the successful implementation of the Pathways to Work strategy.

That does not cover all of the Senator’s contribution on pensions and pension contributions 323 Seanad Éireann but this Government has made a commitment to start expanding the supports to people who are not receiving a benefit from the Department and helping as many people as possible to partici- pate in the recovery that has started. There will be many opportunities for people to get back into employment and the Intreo service, which is an excellent one, in the Senator’s town will help people who had a break in their career, either because they were self-employed and their business went bust or because they took time out to rear children, back into work. The Intreo centres have grown roots in almost every major town in the country and they will be built on and expanded to provide a service for citizens.

26/01/2016H00200Senator Marie Moloney: I thank the Minister of State for his very detailed reply. I am delighted to see the groups under consideration for expansion of the service. If the Minister of State or the Minister, Deputy Joan Burton, are not in their positions in the period ahead, I hope this will be continued by whoever will have responsibility for it because it is vital that people such as women in the home or adult dependants in receipt of a payment have an opportunity to get back into the workforce.

It is also welcome that people with disabilities are being looked after. I have always advocated that just because a person has a disability does not mean he or she cannot work. I am delighted that is the case.

The extension of the community employment scheme to people in their golden years went down very well with them. They are thrilled about this and I hope the scheme will be expanded further.

This may be my last chance to raise the issue, about which I have been harping on for quite some time. I thank the Minster of State for his reply and hope what he outlined will come to fruition.

26/01/2016J00400Deputy Kevin Humphreys: I thank the Senator. There is nothing more important than having a role model within the household of somebody going out to work.

The Senator mentioned the year 1934 and the question to the then Minister, Mr. Lemass, but we should look back and learn from what happened in the 1990s. During the previous recession there was a group of persons who lost their jobs and did not have an opportunity to go out to work and were left behind as a result. With their families, they did not see the Celtic tiger. What we saw in many instances was intergenerational unemployment. What we must do as a team of elected representatives of the people is to make sure, as we move from recession into recovery, everybody will have an opportunity to share in the recovery. The best way to share in it is to ensure every household will have a role model of one member being back at work in order that everybody can aspire to having a good job that pays a fair wage, a good career and a good home and being able to rear a family. The Government, including the Tánaiste, is committed to doing this. That is the reason the Tánaiste introduced the changes in Intreo offices and brought forward so many schemes to make sure persons who were unemployed could stay in contact with the workforce, whether through training, community employment schemes, the JobBridge programme and many other elements. JobsPlus is also playing a significant role in allowing persons who are long-term unemployed to get back into employment.

I accept fully what the Senator has said about those who do not receive a payment from the Department of Social Protection and who have not been able to access such payments in the way she and I would wish, but as we move from recession into recovery, there is an opportunity

324 26 January 2016 to make sure they will receive these supports which will help them to get back into employment.

I thank the Senator for the support she gave me in the House during the year I have been a Minister of State. I look forward to working with her in the future.

26/01/2016J00500Senator Marie Moloney: I thank the Minister of State.

Sitting suspended at 3.15 p.m. and resumed at 3.30 p.m.

26/01/2016O00100Order of Business

26/01/2016O00200Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. 81, non-Government motion No. 19 re the availability of medication to treat cystic fibrosis sufferers, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of the Order of Business; No. 1, motion of referral to the Joint Com- mittee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht of the National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 (Section 44) (Variation of Indemnity Amount) Order 2016, to be taken without debate at the conclusion of No. 81; No. 2, Road Traffic Bill 2016 - Committee Stage, to be taken at 4.45 p.m. and adjourned not later than 6 p.m., if not previously concluded; No. 3, Credit Guaran- tee (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Second Stage, to be taken at 6 p.m. and adjourned not later than 7.30 p.m., if not previously concluded, with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes; and No. 81, non-Government motion No. 10 re a review of local government arrangements, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 3, with the time allocated for the debate not to exceed 90 minutes and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the contribution of every Senator not to exceed three minutes and that of the Minister not to exceed ten minutes. The Senator who proposes the motion will not make a speech in reply.

26/01/2016O00300Senator Mark Daly: The Minister for Health has dismissed a report which rates emergency care waiting times in Ireland as the worst in Europe. Ireland ranks alongside Macedonia, Croatia and Slovenia in the provision of emergency services. However, as Senator John Crown pointed out last week, when one is closing an entire surgery department to accommodate and cater for patients in the emergency department, one knows one has a crisis. The Minister does not appear to be aware there is a crisis, although he is very good at commentating all of the time, as if he was not the Minister for Health.

Last week I raised the issue of the victims of child abuse and the fact the Minister has been attacked because she is trying to minimise the State’s liability for the payment of compensation to the victims of abuse. The Irish Times has stated the State has gone to the courts to seek protection to minimise its liability because it is being sued by the victims of child sexual abuse. In that High Court case, the State is trying to minimise its liability and to seek protection from being sued, with the Christian Brothers. We all know about the Louise O’Keeffe case and the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. To date, on the basis of that ruling, 350 cases for compensation are pending and only six cases have been settled by the State.

Unfortunately, in this job, we come across some horrific cases of people who have been the victims of child sexual abuse. We also hear about some of the victims who have gone to the courts and secured criminal convictions. When those victims have sought compensation from the religious orders, including the Christian Brothers, they have been pursued and blocked at every turn by the religious orders. That has happened despite the fact the victims have secured 325 Seanad Éireann a conviction against the Christian Brothers in the criminal courts. Victims of abuse have asked me where the State was when they needed protection. The orders are now seeking protection through the courts to minimise their liability. Worse than all of that, when one asks those in the Christian Brothers why it is going to court to try to minimise its liability, even though a member of the organisation has been found guilty in a criminal court, the answer one receives is that it wants the courts to decide the level of compensation. When a member of the Christian Brothers told me that, I asked, “Is that what Jesus would say to you?” If Jesus were here now, would he say that we should go to the courts?

A case in Florida, which was reported in the newspapers, was of a priest from County Donegal who, in 2015, reported an allegation against a paedophile priest who was subsequently convicted. The priest who made the allegation was victimised by the church. He was locked out of his house and put on leave of absence by his bishop. The priest reported these matters to the Vatican but he has not received a satisfactory reply.

Despite all of the assurances given by the Taoiseach in the other House and his fine words about protecting and looking after the victims of child abuse, we can see that the State is still seeking protection not for the victims but from the victims. We can also see that the church, as recently as last year, victimised the priests who were brave enough to report people who perpe- trated child abuse. The priests who reported the abuse suffered consequences because of their brave actions. Will the Leader amend the Order of Business in order that the Minister can come to the House and we can know why, despite all of the fine words about protecting the victims of child abuse, the State is going to the courts to seek protection from paying compensation to the victims of child abuse?

26/01/2016P00200An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator clarify his amendment to the Order of Business?

26/01/2016P00300Senator Mark Daly: I seek an amendment to the Order of Business in order that the Min- ister for Education and Skills can come to the House to discuss the treatment of the victims of child sexual abuse.

26/01/2016P00400Senator Ivana Bacik: I thank the Leader for taking the all-party motion on medication for patients with cystic fibrosis, No. 81, non-Government motion No. 19, on today’s Order Paper. I refer specifically to the provision of Orkambi for cystic fibrosis sufferers which is a hugely important and pressing issue for many people across Ireland. As I said last week, the matter is too important for it to be made a political football by us. I thank the many colleagues from across the floor and from this side for signing up to the motion.

I also welcome the introduction of paternity leave which was announced today. The Cabinet has announced that it has given the green light for the introduction of two weeks paid paternity leave to take effect from September 2016. This is a welcome first step in the recognition of fathers’ rights in the workplace. The Tánaiste gave a commitment on it this time last year and it will come into effect later in the year. It may not be possible between now and the general election but when time permits, will the Leader arrange for a broader debate not only on paternity leave and provision for fathers in the workplace but also on child care costs and the best models for child care, including the most cost effective and high quality models? We, in the Labour Party, have given a commitment to extend paid paternity leave rights by three months over five years and to take measures to tackle the cost of child care. It is a very pressing issue for many people.

326 26 January 2016 I welcome the announcement this week in respect of physiotherapists. Many of us raised the issue of the title of physiotherapist in the House and with the Minister for Health. I am glad that the Minister has decided not only that the title of physiotherapist will be protected under the Health and Social Care Professionals Act but also that he will protect the title of physical therapist as a varied title of physiotherapist as the best way to eliminate the ongoing risk of confusion and the consequent risk to public safety. I am aware that new grandparenting provisions are being prepared which will allow practitioners to apply on a once off basis and for a limited period to register in the physiotherapist register and that after this period only qualified physiotherapists will be permitted to register. This is a sensible decision. It has been communicated to the Physiotherapists Registration Board and other interested parties and the Department of Health is preparing the necessary legislation to give effect to the Minister’s decision. It has been welcomed by practising physiotherapists, many of whom have been in contact with many of us. It is an eminently sensible decision.

I call for a debate on fourth level education and research funding when time permits. I am aware we had a debate in recent weeks on Horizon 2020 but the issue of fourth level, postgraduate education and postgraduate research opportunities is a pressing issue on which I would like a debate.

26/01/2016Q00400Senator David Norris: I am sure the Seanad has noted that the European Court of Audi- tors has been in Ireland to produce a report on the crash and on the way in which the moneys supplied by the ECB and so on were administered here but, most regrettably, there was no Irish representation because the person appointed to be our representative on the European Court of Auditors was deeply implicated in the crash and, as a result, was forced to withdraw. I won- der if it is appropriate given this very significant inquiry - looking into the causes of the crash, looking into the way in which money was applied and looking into and criticising quite heavily the European Commissioners - that we had no representation whatever on this body. That is devastating. That is the result of cronyism. This individual was transferred to elsewhere in Eu- rope as a sop to get him out of the way after he was involved in making a bags of the situation. I have not named this person.

26/01/2016Q00500An Cathaoirleach: He can be identified and I ask the Senator to steer away from him.

26/01/2016Q00600Senator David Norris: That is his problem.

26/01/2016Q00700An Cathaoirleach: It is not his problem.

26/01/2016Q00800Senator David Norris: He led us into this.

26/01/2016Q00900An Cathaoirleach: That is a problem for the House. He is not here to defend himself.

26/01/2016Q01000Senator David Norris: I am not attacking him personally but his appointment, which was cronyism, has led to a situation where it is highly-----

26/01/2016Q01100An Cathaoirleach: That is all personal.

26/01/2016Q01200Senator David Norris: I am talking about his exclusion, the fact he was not able to represent Ireland.

26/01/2016Q01300An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is talking about a person who can be easily identified.

26/01/2016Q01400Senator David Norris: It is really lamentable that we had no representative on this body. 327 Seanad Éireann It is crucial to the well-being of the State and accountability to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are adversely affected by this situation.

Another issue to which I draw the attention of the House and on which perhaps we could have a debate is the way in which planning regulations for apartments in Dublin have been changed in order to allow ever smaller apartments, tiny little one-bedroom apartments into which a bed would hardly fit and for which the minimum size in terms of square metres has been reduced. This is disastrous. The inner city of Dublin is suffering from decisions made ten, 20 and 25 years ago which led to the continued increase in the provision of one-bedroom apartments which means that there is a completely volatile community passing through the inner city, leaving nothing of value behind. These apartments are neglected by many of the residents, although not all. It is a recipe for disaster, socially and every other way, to have an over- abundance of tiny, cramped apartments in the inner city. This is the Government’s response to the housing crisis and the shortage of apartments and other living accommodation. However, it is not appropriate to stuff the city with one-bedroom apartments. An architect who appeared on television last night said these regulations were completely unworkable.

26/01/2016R00200Senator Máiría Cahill: I am raising an issue of great importance today because I was contacted directly by victims yesterday and this morning regarding a story printed yesterday by Al- lison Morris in the Irish News. I am calling for an urgent debate on the matter. The story states that the IRA broke into Special Branch headquarters in 2001 and stole thousands of documents, which it decoded. It discovered its commander in north Belfast was an informer and that certain information was known to intelligence services in advance of the Shankill bomb. I know the identity of this man but I will not name him here. The news is all the more shocking because it demonstrates the republican movement concealed this information for 15 years - since 2001 - while all the time highlighting collusion within the loyalist community.

Two children were murdered in the Shankill bombing, with seven other innocent people and an IRA man. All these families deserve the truth. In addition, while the IRA commander was ordering murder and mayhem from 1991 to 2001, 68 people were murdered in north Belfast. The British were also running intelligence agents in the Shankill area and the majority of those murdered were innocent people. Serious questions need to be asked. I did not hear one statement from anyone within Sinn Féin or the main Unionist parties yesterday. Furthermore, this information shows that the IRA knew since 2001 that Denis Donaldson was an informer, yet he continued his position as a senior Sinn Féin member working in Stormont right up until 2005. Why would Sinn Féin allow an intelligence agent to continue to act as the public face of its offices while knowing this information?

26/01/2016R00300An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator looking for a debate on this issue?

26/01/2016R00400Senator Máiría Cahill: I am looking for an urgent debate on the issue. The victims who are the most affected are always at the bottom of the pile when it comes to action. People with broken hearts and broken minds are living with the legacy of grief to this day. There are people who can put a stop to it, but they will not because self-preservation and political expedience are more lucrative for them.

I will finish on this point. It is traumatic, sick torture for the families concerned to be de- nied answers but worse when they discover the truth has been deliberately withheld from them. With the greatest of respect to the Leader, I do not want to hear any more waffle about truth recovery processes. The reality is that neither Sinn Féin, the British Government, the current 328 26 January 2016 republican or loyalist paramilitaries or past loyalist paramilitaries are capable of telling the truth. They are instead delaying and waiting on relatives to die in the hope that the issue will go away. It will not go away. Nothing short of an inquiry for all actions during the Troubles, including present actions, will suffice.

26/01/2016R00500An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is way over time.

26/01/2016R00600Senator Máiría Cahill: The Government is a co-guarantor of the Good Friday Agreement and should exercise its responsibility in this regard and hold to account those who blatantly abdicate their responsibilities.

26/01/2016R00700Senator Paschal Mooney: I second the amendment proposed by my colleague, Senator Mark Daly, to the Order of Business. During the years I have used the platform of the second House of the Oireachtas to inform people of and alert them to the issue of e-mail spamming and its insidious practice. Sadly, it has reared its ugly head again in the past week. This time the potential victims are customers of Irish Water. An e-mail, a copy of which I received, is being sent, as is the practice, to customers and non-customers alike. The e-mails have become increasingly sophisticated. I am sure all Members of the House are familiar with banking spam e-mails, which look like the real thing. This one looks like the real thing too and an unsuspect- ing consumer would be inclined to respond to the request to log on with his or her details. The senders then get the person’s bank account details and clear it out. I am sure the Leader will join me in condemning this practice and highlighting to all those who are computer literate and use e-mail that no institution - financial or otherwise - such as Irish Water uses this type of e-mail to contact or communicate with its customers. Therefore, it is a scam. It is the old cliché in the newspaper business, namely, “if in doubt, leave it out”. People should not touch it or click onto it but should simply delete it. It is an insidious practice but sadly, people will be caught by it. There are regular instances of people who succumb to this type of scamming and as a result have lost considerable sums of money, as well as enduring the emotional anguish that surrounds it. The Leader should take this opportunity to agree with me and to highlight this insidious practice. I hope that will at least save some potential victims from losing all their money.

26/01/2016S00200Senator Michael Mullins: I support Senator Marie Mooney in what he just said. All Members regularly receive such e-mail scams. Recently, I have been getting one such scam e-mail consistently which claims to be notification from the Revenue Commissioners that a refund is due to me.

26/01/2016S00300Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Senator is a lucky man.

26/01/2016S00400Senator Paschal Mooney: They originate in the United Kingdom, which goes to show how little they know about the Irish tax system.

26/01/2016S00500Senator Michael Mullins: If only it were true. Given the current level and sophistication of technology, I am surprised it is not possible to get to the source of such scams because that is the only way in which they can be stamped out.

All Members and all right-minded people are horrified by the reports being heard on a daily basis regarding the horrific murder that has resulted in an unfortunate victim’s body parts being found in the Grand Canal at various locations close to the capital city. Members’ thoughts and prayers are with the family of the victim who suffered an horrific death. They also have heard that in recent months there have been similar murders with similar outcomes for unfortunate victims and the media have suggested the existence of a serial killer or killers at large in Ireland. 329 Seanad Éireann We must support strongly the Garda, which is trying to resolve these horrific murders. The Garda needs manpower and resources and I have no doubt but that all resources are being made available to it as it attempts to crack these particular crimes. However, the Garda also needs the support of the public in the form of information on the movement of such dangerous criminals. I urge the next Government which probably will take office in less than two months time, to commit additional resources to tackling organised crime in all its guises and to place particular emphasis on the drugs trade that is destroying the lives of so many young people nationwide. That is my message and appeal to whosoever forms the next Government.

26/01/2016S00600Senator Diarmuid Wilson: We are listening and will take that on board.

26/01/2016S00700Senator Feargal Quinn: Four years have passed since I introduced a Bill into this House on organ donation. While I had hoped to make presumed consent part of organ donation, the Bill was not accepted by the Minister, although a lot of attention was given to it. The reason I mention the Bill is because of a lovely story that emerged yesterday of a young man who had just arrived back into Dublin Airport, having had a double lung transplant in England on Christmas Eve. Looking at him, I would say he is not ten years of age, but it was a wonderful achievement. However, the fact he was obliged to travel to England to get such a transplant is a reflection on Members themselves, who should be able to do something more than is being done. His mother has urged people to take out a donor card, which is something all Members would encourage. In the meantime, however, I hope Members’ voices will be heard on presumed consent, which is that one assumes that unless a person has opted out, in the case of his or her death, a person is willing to have his or her organs transplanted to save the life of someone else. The life of the young man in question was saved and he is back on its feet. On meeting him yesterday at Dublin Airport, his mother could not get over the fact that he was smiling, was delighted with himself and was able to walk again. Members should be able to do this; it is in their hands and they should make sure they do it.

4 o’clock26/01/2016T00100

Senator David Cullinane: It is welcome that industrial action undertaken by over 100 construction workers in Waterford in the past few days has come to an end and agreement has been reached between the main contractor on the site and the workers. Over 200 workers were working on the site. The issues that led to the strike will not go away. There is widespread an- ger in the construction sector that a lot of subcontractors are employing people but paying well below the construction rates. This is particularly the case with people from outside the country. This exploits workers from outside Ireland and should not happen.

All workers, regardless of whether they are from Poland, eastern Europe or anywhere else, should be paid the same rates as Irish workers and there should be no exploitation of workers in these areas. There is no doubt that it does happen. Since the employment regulation orders and registered employment agreements were dismantled, there has been no registered agreement in the construction sector. A sectoral agreement needs to be put in place. The problem is that the contractors and developers do not want to sign an agreement. They want to continue the lower rates of pay and do not want agreed rates. If that is not put in place, I fear we could have more industrial action as we progress. As there is some sign of a recovery and there are more promises in terms of capital investment, we must ensure all of these developments can go ahead and that workers are treated and paid fairly.

I ask the Leader to raise with the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation the issues that 330 26 January 2016 led to this industrial action and the need for a sectoral agreement to be put in place to protect construction workers and to ensure we have decent rates of pay and that no construction companies can exploit foreign or domestic workers. I am sure Senators from across the House would agree with this. I would appreciate it if the Leader communicated that directly to the Minister.

26/01/2016T00200Senator Cáit Keane: I do not think we will have time for debates. Perhaps we might have time. I want to raise one important issue, namely, recycling. The city of San Francisco banned the 18-ounce plastic bottle last week. I hope we will all be back here speaking in the House and putting the most important issue first, namely, the environment. I am from the west and very familiar with the ocean. If we continue the way we are going, there will be more plastic rub- bish than fish in the ocean by 2050. That is a very serious proposition. We are bound to look at what we are doing with plastic. This country led the way with the plastic bag initiative and it could lead the way as well on the smaller plastic drinking bottle following San Francisco. We could look at that issue. Some 95% of plastic packaging worth €73 billion per year is lost to the economy because it is not recycled. When, I hope, we are all back here again, the environment should be one of the first issues we deal with. We introduced the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act, which is very welcome, but we should also look at further recycling, particularly the glass initiative, and curb plastic pollution. San Francisco has done it. It is estimated that 50% of the plastic on the planet is only used once. We must think outside the box. The Think Outside The Bottle campaign is one of the initiatives used in San Francisco. Will the Leader put this issue on the agenda for the environment?

26/01/2016T00300Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Leader has allocated 90 minutes to the debate this evening on the review of county councils. He will be aware that I have an amendment to that motion. I seek reassurance from him that the amendment will be taken and that I will not be subjected to the nonsense of us running out of time before I get an opportunity to speak.

I agree with Senator Ivana Bacik. What has happened today regarding physiotherapists and physical therapists is a tremendous step forward on which I compliment the Minister for Health. I also ask Members to meet the Teachers Union of Ireland in Buswell’s Hotel regarding the establishment of technological universities. During a meeting last week of the Joint Com- mittee on Education and Social Protection a noted academic of high esteem asked why we need 16 universities in Ireland and what has happened to level 6 and level 7 qualifications that they are being downgraded?

There has been much talk about cronyism, particularly in the context of the appointment of Mr. David Begg as chairman of the Pensions Board. I am categorically of the view that Mr. Begg is the correct person for the job. I am delighted he was appointed to that post. He has represented the working class people of this country for many years and has done a great job in that regard. I know that Mr. Begg is himself unhappy about the manner in which he was appointed and would have been preferred if there had been an interview process before-----

26/01/2016U00200An Cathaoirleach: We are not discussing that issue now.

26/01/2016U00300Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: There has been a lot of talk about Mr. Begg. It is my belief he is an excellent choice for the post concerned.

26/01/2016U00400Senator Paul Bradford: I appreciate that we will be having a debate on local government structures and ancillary matters later, but there will probably not be sufficient time to allow all Members to make contributions. Last Thursday, with the permission of the Cathaoirleach, I had

331 Seanad Éireann the opportunity to discuss, by way of a Commencement matter, the issue of local government reform and, in particular, municipal districts and town councils with the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Ann Phelan, who, on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, stated that, unfortunately as far as he was concerned, the current debate on the future of local government was off the table. I was, therefore, surprised but pleased to hear the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, concede once again that, as far as he was concerned, the abolition of town councils was a grave mistake and one that should be rectified. The Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, has indicated that he wants this issue to form part of the Labour Party manifesto. However, that is the business of the Labour Party. It is an issue that forms part of the manifesto of my party, Renua.

Every political party should reflect on the fact that this country and its citizens have been well served down the years by the women and men who served in an almost voluntary capacity on town councils. It is more rather than less democracy that we need. I am glad that the Minister, Deputy Brendan Howlin, is brave enough to admit that the Government made a grave mistake in this area. We should legislate well in advance of the local government elections in 2019 for the repeal of the current local government Act and put in place proper local government structures such that local means local and all citizens have a say in electing their council. This would include former town councils and, hopefully, many more units of local government through which the people of a particular community want to be represented at local level. This is the norm across Europe. We moved in reverse and in a negative fashion by abolishing the town councils in 2013.

26/01/2016U00500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I agree with my colleague, Senator Paul Bradford, that taking 744 town council seats out of the democratic institutions of 80 town councils was the wrong move. It was but a tinkering around the edges in terms of the weak local government structure we have in Ireland. According to the European Commission, Ireland has one of the weakest forms of local government anywhere in the European Union. There are many shortcomings in the local government system in terms of the lack of fiscal and oversight powers of local authorities versus the Executive. I commend the Leader for facilitating debate this evening of the all- party motion on the local government sector. While I welcome that debate, I agree with Senator Paul Bradford that there is a need for the political system to re-evaluate the decision on the abolition of town councils. Many Governments, irrespective of political colour, come to office with many grand ideas in relation to reform but very often they do not materialise. There was a golden opportunity on this occasion to bring about many reforms, given the straitjacket of the troika. While some of these reforms have been introduced and some good work has been done, unfortunately, other reforms such as public sector reform, political reform within the Houses of the Oireachtas and the introduction of budgetary oversight were not touched. There is a failing in the political system generally regarding the role of Members of Parliament, whether in the Dáil or the Seanad, vis-à-vis the powers afforded to local authorities. This is a debate this Seanad may not have the time to have.

26/01/2016V00200An Cathaoirleach: We will have a debate on the matter later today.

26/01/2016V00300Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: At a future time we will all need to reflect on it.

I ask the Leader to facilitate a debate, if possible before the term of this Seanad expires, on the issue of Brexit and the economic implications of the United Kingdom’s decision on whether to leave or remain in the European Union. A decision to leave would have huge consequences for the economic opportunities of these islands and, in particular, those in the business com- 332 26 January 2016 munity who depend on exporting their goods and services to Britain and the many people from the State who work across the water. We also need to reflect on the North-South dimension. It would be opportune to have such a debate before the conclusion of the Twenty-fourth Seanad at the end of April.

26/01/2016V00400An Cathaoirleach: I call an tAire; I am sorry, the Leader.

26/01/2016V00500Senator Mark Daly: Has the promotion come through? Congratulations.

26/01/2016V00600Senator Maurice Cummins: I have not yet been promoted. We will all have to be re- elected. Whether any of us will come back-----

26/01/2016V00700Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: That will be done in the motion to be debated this evening.

26/01/2016V00800Senator Maurice Cummins: As the Senator is speaking about that motion, I meant to amend the Order of Business with reference to No. 81, non-Government motion No. 10. There will be statements, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 3, on the review of local government arrangements. The time allocated shall not exceed 90 minutes and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, the contribution of every Senator shall not exceed three minutes and that of the Minister shall not exceed ten minutes. We will not deal with the motion but rather hear statements on its contents. With each Senator having three minutes, I hope we will have about 25 speakers.

26/01/2016V00900Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The e-mail from the Whip stated we would deal with the motion.

26/01/2016V01100Senator Paul Coghlan: I am not the Leader.

26/01/2016V01200Senator Maurice Cummins: I am confining contributions to three minutes to allow everybody an opportunity to speak.

26/01/2016V01300An Cathaoirleach: I seek clarification. There will be statements rather than a debate on the motion.

26/01/2016V01400Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes.

26/01/2016V01500Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: On a point of information, I have before me a copy of an e-mail the Fine Gael Whip sent to councillors. It states-----

26/01/2016V01600Senator Maurice Cummins: Excuse me; I have no control over anyone who sends e-mails to councillors-----

26/01/2016V01700An Cathaoirleach: The Leader circulates the Order of Business.

26/01/2016V01800Senator Maurice Cummins: I am only responsible for my own business, not anybody else’s.

26/01/2016V01900Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Many people are very anxious.

26/01/2016V02000Senator Maurice Cummins: People are always anxious to send e-mails about everything and anything.

26/01/2016V02100Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Perhaps Senator Gerard P. Craughwell might enlighten us. 333 Seanad Éireann

26/01/2016V02200An Cathaoirleach: The Leader to continue, without interruption.

26/01/2016V02300Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Mark Daly spoke about the issue of child abuse, a matter he also raised last week when I think I gave a comprehensive reply on the points made by him. I do not wish to expand on them. I read about the priest in Florida who was a whistle- blower, as a result of which he suffered through the actions of his church, which was absolutely crazy. An elderly nun who had assisted him in reporting the allegations of child abuse was also ostracised. It is a matter for another jurisdiction, but I think I dealt comprehensively with the Senator’s comments on the matter last week.

Senator Ivana Bacik welcomed the giving of the green light for the introduction of two weeks paternity leave. She called for a debate on the matter and also on the cost of child care. I doubt that we will get around to having it in this term. I am sure, however, that whoever will be in my place after the general election will arrange such a debate.

The Senator also welcomed the Minister’s clarification on the difference between a physiotherapist and a physical therapist, which has been welcomed by everyone.

Senator David Norris spoke about the European Court of Auditors and the fact that the Irish representative had to stand aside. It is regrettable that there is no representative from Ireland on this body when dealing with the issue referred to.

The Senator also strongly expressed his views against the new regulations governing the size of one-bedroom apartments. That matter has been debated at length and I am sure it will continue to be debated in the coming months.

Senator Máiría Cahill raised a very important matter about the IRA and informers and said Sinn Féin should clarify its position on it. She rightly pointed out that victims were always at the bottom of the pile, which is most regrettable. I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Senator Paschal Mooney raised the issue of spam e-mails, including about Irish Water. I also received one and agree with him that it is a despicable practice. He said banks - Senator Michael Mullins mentioned Revenue - did not contact their customers in that way. Customers should be aware of this and not be conned. People must be very wary about what they receive in e-mails.

Senator Michael Mullins also referred to a recent horrific murder and called on the public to co-operate fully with the Garda, something we all endorse.

Senator Feargal Quinn raised the issue of organ donations and presumed consent, a matter we have debated in the House. I note his point about a young boy who received a transplant. It was wonderful to see how well and how young and vibrant he looked after the treatment. We all wish him well. This is a matter that will not go away. Differences were expressed from some sides of the House on whether providing for presumed consent was the right approach to take. Personally, I think it is, but there is a difference of opinion on the matter. Some action should be taken by the Government one way or the other on it.

Senator David Cullinane referred to the difficulties in the construction sector and the fact that some subcontractors were not paying proper rates. Workers must receive a fair rate of pay and any exploitation of workers should be condemned.

334 26 January 2016 Senator Cáit Keane spoke about the ban in San Francisco on using small plastic bottles. She suggested we adopt a similar approach to curb plastic pollution and protect the environment. I doubt that we will have time to debate the matter in this Seanad, but I am sure it is one that will be raised and debated in the new Seanad.

In response to Senator Gerard P. Craughwell’s inquiry, I mentioned the time allocated for the debate. Provision has been made for 25 speakers, which will probably be the maximum number who will offer to speak on the matter.

Senator Paul Bradford referred to town councils and the recent comments of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on the matter which was also raised by Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill. To go back on the decisions that have been made would require much debate in terms of which councils should and should not be reinstated if the decisions made were to be reversed. I am sure it is a matter that will be discussed by the new Members of the Oireachtas, whoever they may be.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill also called for a debate on Brexit and the economic implications of same. The matter has been debated at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and in several other fora. I agree with the Senator that it is of paramount importance to this country and that if Britain was to decide to leave the European Union, it would have severe implications for Ireland. However, as I have said in the case of other matters, I doubt that we will have an opportunity to discuss it in the coming week or two.

26/01/2016X00200An Cathaoirleach: Will the Leader clarify if he is amending the Order of Business to substitute statements on the review of local government arrangements for No. 81, non-Government motion No. 10, on the Order Paper?

26/01/2016X00300Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes. There will be statements on the contents of the motion.

26/01/2016X00400An Cathaoirleach: A Supplementary Order Paper will be circulated. The Minister will speak for ten minutes, while Members will speak for three.

26/01/2016X00500Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes.

26/01/2016X00600An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mark Daly has proposed an amendment to the Order of Busi- ness: “That a debate with the Minister for Education and Skills on the Government’s treatment of victims of child sexual abuse be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?

26/01/2016X00700Senator Mark Daly: Yes.

Amendment put:

The Seanad divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 20. Tá Níl Daly, Mark. Bacik, Ivana. Mooney, Paschal. Brennan, Terry. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Cahill, Máiría. O’Sullivan, Ned. Coghlan, Eamonn. Quinn, Feargal. Coghlan, Paul. Wilson, Diarmuid. Comiskey, Michael.

335 Seanad Éireann Cummins, Maurice. D’Arcy, Jim. Gilroy, John. Hayden, Aideen. Henry, Imelda. Keane, Cáit. Landy, Denis. Moloney, Marie. Mulcahy, Tony. Mullins, Michael. Noone, Catherine. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. O’Neill, Pat. van Turnhout, Jillian.

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

Amendment declared lost.

26/01/2016Z00100An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That statements on the review of local government arrangements be substituted for No. 81, non-Government motion No. 10.” Is the amendment agreed to? Agreed.

Order of Business, as amended, agreed to.

26/01/2016Z00300Funding of Cystic Fibrosis Medication: Motion

26/01/2016Z00400Senator Maurice Cummins: I move:

That Seanad Éireann:

notes:

- that the process for approving new medicines is set down in law, the Health (Pricing and Supply of Medical Goods) Act 2013 and is not a ministerial function;

- that the manufacturer of Orkambi has yet to make a full application for reimburse- ment to the Health Service Executive;

- that no decision on funding can be made until a full health technology assessment is carried out and a recommendation is made by the National Centre for Pharmacoeco- nomics;

- looks forward to Orkambi being made available for cystic fibrosis patients who will benefit from it, once the normal approval procedure, as with other high-tech medicines, is completed and an appropriate fair price negotiated with the manufacturer.

Question put and agreed to. 336 26 January 2016

26/01/2016Z00600National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 (Section 44) (Variation of Indemnity Amount) Order 2016: Referral to Joint Committee

26/01/2016Z00700Senator Maurice Cummins: I move:

That the proposal that Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:

National Cultural Institutions Act 1997 (Section 44) (Variation of Indemnity Amount) Order 2016,

copies of which were laid in draft form before Seanad Éireann on 22nd January 2016, be referred to the Joint Committee on the Environment, Culture and the Gaeltacht, in accordance with Standing Order 70A(3)(j), which, not later than 28th January 2016, shall send a message to the Seanad in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 73, and Standing Order 75(2) shall accordingly apply.

Question put and agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 4.35 p.m. and resumed at 4.45 p.m.

26/01/2016CC00100Road Traffic Bill 2016: Committee and Remaining Stages

26/01/2016CC00200Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I welcome the Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe.

SECTION 1

26/01/2016CC00400Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Amendments Nos. 1 and 11 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

26/01/2016CC00500Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, to delete lines 12 to 15 and substitute the following:

“(2) This Act will be commenced within 28 days of being signed by the President of Ireland.”.

I welcome the Minister back to the House. In terms of the Ireland-UK agreement signed by Ambassador Chilcott and the Minister’s wish to restrict drug driving and local speed limits, I believe the Minister has the support of everybody in the House. That is the spirit in which the amendments before us, if they are of use to the Minister, are offered, particularly at this stage of the political cycle. If we were starting on day one as a new Senator and a new Minister, we could go through some of the issues here. However, they are important and Parliament should discuss them.

Taking amendments Nos. 1 and 11 together, it is noted from the explanatory memorandum that we have developed a tradition of not commencing sections of road safety legislation. As I said in the previous debate, Ministers and their Departments bring forward legislation, which is passed by the Dáil and the Seanad and signed by the President. However, the explanatory memorandum states that sections 34 to 37, inclusive, 42 and 50 of the 2010 Bill were not commenced. PARC, the road safety body whose representatives the Minister met regarding their 337 Seanad Éireann concerns about this, would add section 44 to that list. In fact, they regard section 44 as a way of evading payment. It has referred to commencement of the third payment option - section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 2010 - to stop drivers avoiding conviction and penalty points by claiming in court that they did not receive the fixed charge notice. This is now of epidemic proportions and must be stopped. I asked a legal friend about this and he said the worst case of failure to commence was the Child Care Act 1991, which was eventually repealed before it could be commenced. In Australia, there is a rule that a law comes into operation on the 28th day after the Governor General has approved it. Perhaps we should have discussed the issue of how legislation disappears on Second Stage.

Amendment No. 1 proposes that this legislation will not be delayed. Amendment No. 11 proposes that the parts that have been delayed, plus section 44, as proposed by PARC, be commenced. Perhaps, given that PARC has made representations on this matter, the Minister will give consideration to it prior to Report Stage. This is an urgent problem. As the Minister said on Second Stage, 13 people were killed on Irish roads between 21 and 31 December 2015. We cannot let this go. For whatever reason, the legislation was not commenced. It is in that spirit I propose these two amendments.

26/01/2016DD00200Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Paschal Donohoe): I thank the Senator for tabling this and other amendments. I acknowledge the point he has made, which follows on from the issue he raised on Second Stage in respect of his concern about legislation that has been enacted by the Houses of the Oireachtas but then not commenced, often for many years.

The reason the Road Traffic Acts generally state that provisions “commence on the day or days appointed by the Minister” is that, in many cases, administrative procedures need to be put in place before particular measures in the legislation can be enacted. This is a sound principle which I believe is particularly appropriate in the context of road traffic legislation. Looking at the group of amendments referred to by Senator Barrett in the context of items of previous road traffic legislation, the reason they have not been enacted is that they refer to what is often known as the third payment option, which gives people a further option to pay a fine before they end up going to court. The reason the group of sections have not been enacted is because of the amount of work that needed to be done. That work is being done now in order to put the administrative procedures in place. In this particular case, work needed to be done to put the IT infrastructure in place to then allow the enactment of the legislation. In regard to the third payment option, what was required in order for that to happen was to put in place a new piece of IT infrastructure to allow the option to be implemented. I am pleased to be able to confirm that we believe we will have this available for implementation by the middle of this year. The latter will then allow the commencement of the different sections of the previous Bill to which the Senator referred.

The reason I am not in a position to accept these amendments is that I believe it is a sound principle of policy making that we tie the commencement of particular sections to being in a place where we are ready to implement them, although I appreciate the intention behind the Senator’s amendments. I would also would like to be in a situation where we can speedily enact the different provisions various items of road traffic legislation make available to us. However, it is good practice that we give ourselves the flexibility of not enacting sections until we are in a situation where we can make them happen.

26/01/2016DD00300Senator Sean D. Barrett: I thank the Minister for his reply and utterly accept his bona 338 26 January 2016 fides that we are all on the same side on this. I am delighted those measures will be ready for implementation by the middle of this year. One must acknowledge that the legislation was passed in 2010 and that the years in between have been difficult, with many things happening - not least in regard to the ability of the public finances to fund all the things we wanted to do. Therefore, I will not press the amendments. Again, I thank the Minister for his reply.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4

26/01/2016EE00200Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

26/01/2016EE00300Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, line 29, after “it” to insert “and where the drug use did not impair the person’s driving capability”.

These two amendments concern drugs and I stress that I am on the Minister’s side. I am particularly conscious of the drug-related death in Cork over the weekend.

In amendment No. 2 I am looking to see if a belt and braces approach is needed. On the last occasion, the Minister mentioned the ability of the Irish legal profession to drive a coach and four through legislation, particularly where driving law is concerned. If a person is allowed to have a drug for medicinal purposes, could that lead to a defence that this drug was for medicinal purposes? If it strengthens the Minister’s position, the response can be “Yes, okay we accept you had drug for medicinal purposes, but it did impair your driving.” That is the purpose of amendment No. 2, if it is of use to the Minister.

Amendment No. 3 refers to drugs prescribed by a member of the medical profession and dispensed by a pharmacist, but states that will not be an excuse either if it impairs the person’s driving ability.

As regards both amendments, I am asking the Minister to consider if there is a loophole concerning the use of permitted drugs for medicinal purposes. Can the use of such drugs be excused because they were prescribed for medicinal purposes, even if at the same time driving is impaired? In case there is a gap in the legislation, amendment No. 3 states that prescription drugs are not an excuse if the person is incapable of driving.

I support the Minister on the issue and offer those two amendments if they are of use to him in strengthening the Bill.

26/01/2016EE00400Senator Pat O’Neill: This Bill deals with three aspects of the road traffic legislation, including the section on drugs. People have been in contact with me concerning drugs that are forbidden, as listed in Schedule 4, such as cannabis, cocaine and heroin, or derivatives of those drugs. Where people are prescribed a medicine which may be a derivative of cannabis, for example, to treat some illness, are they allowed to drive if there is a prescribed drug in their system? I will let the Minister explain to the House how big a part 1 ng is.

339 Seanad Éireann

26/01/2016EE00500Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Senators for their different points. On Senator Pat O’Neill’s last point, 1 ng is a nanogram. As regards prescribed substances, the consequence of this law, if it is enacted, is that for those particular drugs the presence of the drug within the system means the users should not drive. The purpose of this law, therefore, is only to look at road traffic incidents and making our roads safer. If people are consuming the drugs that are laid down here as being prescribed, having those drugs in their system alone, is a road traffic offence. The direct answer to the Senator’s question is, therefore, leaving aside any of the criminal or other legal matters concerning the consumption and presence of the drug, from a road traffic legislation perspective, if people consume these drugs and get behind the wheel of a car they are committing an offence. Therefore, if they consume these drugs they should not be driving on the roads.

I will go back to some of the figures quoted earlier on Second Stage. Figures from County Kildare concerning a large number of tests that were carried out showed the presence of drugs within the system, which was a contributory factor to either road safety incidents or risks being created on the roads.

5 o’clock

I will now comment on the points made by Senator Sean D. Barrett, the common theme of which was whether a loophole would, in any way, be created due to the drafting of the Bill. Before I deal with each of his amendments in turn, the common thread in his question and my reply is that currently the Road Traffic Act 2010 allows the prosecution of people for driving while intoxicated. In each case, the 2010 Act provides for an anchor law for dealing with anybody who is suspected by the Garda of driving while intoxicated. This Bill strengthens that law by focusing on the intoxicants that are drug based.

Amendment No. 2 in the name of Senator Sean D. Barrett would amend the provisions around the proposed medical certificate exemption by introducing the concept of impairment. The purpose of the medical certificate of exemption is to allow an exemption from this new offence for people who are prescribed Sativex, which is a medicinal form of cannabis. This refers to the new offence of presence only and I believe that adding a reference to the concept of impairment at this point, where it is not relevant, might create confusion.

Let me return to the answer I offered to Senator Pat O’Neill when dealing with this group of drugs. We have delineated these drugs from other groups of drugs that could include prescription drugs and are saying that we judge the mere presence of these drugs alone to be so serious that it is a road traffic offence in its own right. It is for that reason I would not want to introduce an amendment which states: “where the drug use did not impair the person’s driving capability”. That dilutes, and could be a direct contradiction of, the objective of this Part of the Bill, which states that the presence of these drugs alone is a road traffic offence.

I will now deal with Senator Sean D. Barrett’s third amendment on prescription drugs. I acknowledge that the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications considered this in some detail in its discussions at the pre-legislative stage. The main worry of the joint committee was that individuals might be concerned about taking their prescription drugs for fear that it might lead to impairment. The conclusion we have reached on the Senator’s amendment is that it addresses the other side of the coin, that is, that some prescription medications can have effects which are detrimental to driving. This might include some non-prescription medication, such as over the counter cough mixtures that might cause drowsiness. However, as I said 340 26 January 2016 earlier, under the Road Traffic Act 2010, it is already an offence to drive while intoxicated. We would deal with many of those matters under that Act but this Bill seeks to introduce a new ability to deal with this matter, which is what we are doing here.

Notwithstanding anything the Bill is dealing with, I would make the broad point that the responsibility rests, first and foremost, with the driver, as is the case with any other area of road safety law. If a person consumes a drug, be it something that is available over the counter or on prescription and if he or she believes that the effect of the drug makes him or her drowsy and might impede his or her ability to drive the car, his or her judgment is impaired and he or she should not be driving the car in the first place. There is very little that any of us can do in road traffic legislation which will ever take the place of somebody exercising his or her judgment in a reasonable manner. However, the other side of the coin also implies that if a person takes a drug and does so in line with the advice of the doctor or pharmacist, there is every reason to believe that taking the medication would not impede his or her ability to drive safely.

26/01/2016FF00200Senator Sean D. Barrett: I thank the Minister. I know he has been dealing with this and will do so again tomorrow as there is a section in the Public Transport Bill on people leaving the scene of an accident. The Minister has established his credentials in dealing with these issues. Prescription drugs featured prominently in a coroner’s case yesterday in respect of an accident in Bansha, County Tipperary, where one of the parties had consumed prescription drugs, albeit they were prescribed for another member of the family. Perhaps the pharmacist or the doctor should state on prescriptions that people should not drive as they will cause drowsiness. The fear I have is in respect of medical exemption certificate where a drug is found to be present in a person’s blood but it had been lawfully prescribed for him or her and where the certificate is signed by the doctor who prescribed it. It might not be much consolation for the party who was injured or killed that the person responsible was lawfully prescribed the drug.

I appreciate the amount work the Minister has done and do not wish to delay the promulga- tion of this legislation; therefore, I will not press amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I thank the Minister for expressing his theories and observations. We all share what he is trying to do in this matter. Perhaps in the next Parliament, we will work on impairment and on other ways to deal with it. This is a good day’s work.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Section 4 agreed to.

Sections 5 to 17, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 18

26/01/2016FF00700Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 15, line 18, to delete “hour,” and substitute the following:

“hour. In areas where the designated limit is 20 kilometres per hour the guidelines may specify further traffic calming measures and shared uses of road space. There shall be public consultation between the road authorities and residents of areas where the designated limit of 20 kilometres applies,”.

341 Seanad Éireann In some senses, this is Jake’s law, named after Jake Brennan who was killed in Kilkenny. His parents were in touch with the Department and with the previous Minister and they can- vassed for signatures outside Leinster House. As I said the last day, this shows the system can work. I am delighted the Minister has introduced the speed limit of 20 km/h. This, in a sense, is a strengthening measure. People in residential neighbourhoods will be delighted to see the Minister invoking the 20 km/h limit in those areas in order that children will be safe.

Is there a need for further consultation between residents and the local authorities on how we implement this? Can we make these areas even more safe with measures other than the 20 km/h speed limit the Minister has proposed, which I fully support?

26/01/2016FF00800Senator Paschal Mooney: I have a certain sympathy with Senator Sean D. Barrett’s amendment. I cannot begin to imagine the anguish of Jake’s parents and the circumstances in which he lost his life. I cannot be sure about the introduction of a 20 km/h or 12 mph speed limit. When one drives a modern manual car at 12 mph, one feels like one is stopped. That is why I am not sure the motive behind the lobby for the introduction of this speed limit, which is to reduce speed to the minimum, will be enforceable.

The amendment provides for other traffic calming measures. Such measures, including speed bumps, work in residential areas. I hate speed bumps even driving at 12 mph but they are effective and they work. I acknowledge the new speed limit will be enshrined in law and the Minister will not amend it but perhaps consideration could be given to the aspirations behind the amendment on two fronts. One is traffic calming measures and the second is consultation with residents and local authorities. Such a speed limit should not be mandatory in all residential areas because each residential area is different in the context of how one accesses or leaves it, where it is located and so on. One size does not fit all. I have no problem with the principle underlying the provision and I understand it perfectly. Perhaps the Minister might consider the amendment in the context of consultation and other traffic calming measures alongside the mandatory speed limits of 40 km/h, 30 km/h and, in particular, 20 km/h.

26/01/2016GG00200Senator Pat O’Neill: It is a testament to Jake Brennan and to his parents that the legislation has made it to the House and will be passed. This will be part of his legacy. A speed limit of 20 km/h is slow, as Senator Paschal Mooney said. The explanatory memorandum states: “Slow zones are envisaged as areas with a reduced speed limit of 30 km/h along with self-enforcing traffic calming measures such as speed bumps and road markings which seek to change driver behaviour”. We do not have sufficient gardaí to enforce this on every estate. It is about self- enforcement. Local authorities will have the power to designate the speed limit on a housing estate, but they will have to install speed bumps, erect proper signage and ensure proper road markings. It is better not to tie them down and the Minister has ensured this in the legislation. They may not be able to put in a speed bump in certain circumstances because of school transport and ambulances, for example. I know of problems that have been caused for hearses because of speed bumps outside churches. It is important that we do not tie the Minister down too much in this regard. Three speed limits of 40 km/h, 30 km/h and 20 km/h are provided for, which are self-enforcing. It is up to the local authority to enforce them through proper road markings and speed bumps. We cannot expect gardaí to sit in a van on an estate with a speed camera. I ask Senator Sean D. Barrett to withdraw that provision in the amendment.

26/01/2016GG00300Senator Marie Moloney: A speed limit is only good and valid if there is somebody to police it. Imposing a speed limit on an estate will not necessarily slow traffic but traffic calming measures will slow motorists down. As Senator Pat O’Neill said, there will be places where 342 26 January 2016 ramps and so on cannot be introduced. Some ramps in Killarney are not wide enough mean- ing only half the car travels over them, which is almost worse. Many people have complained about them. Traffic calming measures have to be introduced in conjunction with the new speed limits on estates.

26/01/2016GG00400Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank Senators for their contributions. I agree with most of what has been said. As Senator Paschal Mooney said, 20 km/h is slow.

I offer my continued sympathy to Jake Brennan’s family. When the Jake’s Legacy Campaign began, it sought mandatory implementation of this speed limit via a directive from the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. I believed then, as I believe now, that would have been the wrong thing to do for two reasons. The first is the correct forum in which to set speed limits for local roads is the local authority in conjunction with the communities it represents. While it is appropriate for the Minister to have a direct role in issues relating to national roads and roads overseen by TII, the correct way to regulate speed limits an all other roads, which comprise the majority of roads, is for the Minister of the day to set down the options based on research available to him or her before the local authorities determine the correct speed limit for them. That is particularly appropriate for residential estates and areas in which many people live because it is important that the local authority goes through a period of consultation with them before the councillors set the speed limit. The reason for that, as Senators have acknowledged, is it is not realistic or appropriate to think the Garda would be available to enforce every speed limit at all times. Speed limits have to be self-regulating and securing the consent of communities for new speed limits, therefore, makes sense if one is looking for them to be self-regulating.

Senator Paschal Mooney is correct that 20 km/h is a low speed limit. While I do not believe it will be broadly applied in residential areas all over the country, in many cases, the 30 km/h or 50 km/h speed limit will be implemented. Nonetheless, it could well be applicable for particular housing estates and communities based on the number of young children on them or the number of roads passing through them or their adjacency to a busier road. However, the correct people to decide on that are local authority members in conjunction with the communities who may well decide a lower speed limit is appropriate, which the local authority can then implement.

Senator Sean D. Barrett referred to the need to public consultation and to specify further traffic calming measures. The reason I do not propose to accept the amendment that contains these provisions is section 9 of the Road Traffic Act 2004 empowers local authorities to make by-laws setting speed limits and provides for the need for public consultation. Section 9(4) requires that the by-laws be published in the press or local media and be subject to public scrutiny for 30 days into which local residents can input. Local authorities can incorporate this feedback into the decisions they make.

With regard to specifying the need for further traffic calming measures, in my own experience, local authorities do this. Regarding the lower speed limit of 20 km/h, last year we paid centrally for new signage to be available for local authorities in order that they could then implement the lower speed limit. Graphics of that new signage may have been shared in the information made available through the Oireachtas Library.

While I understand completely where the amendment is coming from, I believe it is already covered in earlier road traffic legislation, which is why I am not proposing to accept it.

343 Seanad Éireann

26/01/2016HH00200Senator Sean D. Barrett: I thank the Minister. This debate was also taking place yesterday in Belfast. I think the proposal in the central Belfast district is to reduce the speed limit from 40 mph to 20 mph. There are the usual complaints but the point, if I can recall the numbers correctly, was that the reduction in fatalities is about 70%. There is a massive difference between being hit by a car at 40 mph and at 20 mph. That is what the amendments are trying to capture.

Again, I thank the Minister. I hope the procedures he has described are observed. I can recall roads on which the speed limits changed without notice. There was supposed to be a committee; the matter was referred to one of the recent meetings of the transport committee. The committee members may be a bit more open in their work.

I do not wish to delay the House and will not press amendment No. 4. I thank the Minister and support him. Reducing the speed limit to 20 mph in Belfast is the correct thing to do given the evidence of the damage to the human body in collision with a vehicle at those speeds.

26/01/2016HH00300Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Just to pick up on something the Senator has said, he made the point that the United Kingdom was looking at miles per hour, whereas we of course are looking at kilometres per hour. It is a really important distinction as there was a campaign in place more broadly about the concept of “20 is plenty”. That figure of 20 referred to miles per hour whereas we are implementing kilometres per hour. Perhaps the more appropriate speed limit on many estates would be 30 km/h. We are simply making the option available so that if, in any particular circumstances, they want to go lower the option will be there. As has already been said, the difference between being hit at 30 km/h and 35 km/h is life changing in terms of the potential harm.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 18 agreed to.

Section 19 agreed to.

NEW SECTION

26/01/2016HH00800Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 16, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“20. Each provider of road insurance shall publish data on premiums, awards and risk for each category of driver and vehicle and each type of insurance held, the cost of awards under both litigation and PIAB and the costs of uninsured drivers and failed insurance companies.”.

A number of strands are coming together and this problem is emerging as a larger one. There was an interesting discussion on the Sean O’Rourke programme on Thursday last week. The Road Safety Authority, RSA, now knows that far more accidents are taking place than we are actually recording. The information supplied by the Garda to the RSA may be about one third of the picture and, in respect of pedal cyclists, who are covered in this section, it may be about one tenth of the picture. We need co-ordinated data between the insurance industry, hospitals, general practitioners and the Garda, not just the Garda acting on its own.

I mentioned the work of Jack Short who used to work in the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and then went to the European Conference of Ministers of Transport, which 344 26 January 2016 disappeared into the OECD. He has done work on this issue in the recent past and finds that the insurance sector is not really addressing the issues of providing data as to what the insurance market for road safety should cover. Should it cover certain kinds of vehicles or drivers? The Central Bank report on insurance seems to indicate that third party fire and theft cover, which sells more cheaply on the market, actually costs the companies more than comprehensive insurance.

We need a market in risk and need to deal with the problem of moral hazard. We need the information to tackle this area of huge social cost. At Jack Short’s estimate, accidents probably cost about €500 million more than we think, including the ones not reported to the Garda but found in hospital and insurance company data. We can keep putting out public campaigns and so on but we need to get behind the numbers. That is why some of those issues arise in the discussions which the Minister is going to have with the insurance industry and which the Taoiseach is having in respect of other matters.

We need insurance which encourages people to make the right choices in terms of reducing risk. We need to deal with the cost of awards in Ireland. Road safety has been improving but the average High Court and Circuit Court awards, according to Mr. Kevin Thompson of the insurance industry federation, are up 34% and 14%, respectively, in those courts. We have a whiplash problem. We have extremely high legal costs. Dorothea Dowling, who was previously the chair of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board, PIAB, reckons that legal costs in Ireland add about 50% to the costs of awards. She sees a gap of over €1 billion between these awards and what would have been made by the PIAB.

The cost of uninsured drivers and the failed insurance companies must also be considered. I know that has gone to the Central Bank now. How Setanta, a Maltese company, got to cost Irish road users €92 million I just do not know. There may be court cases pending on it. As we found in the banking inquiry, which mercifully reports tomorrow, we have an insurance industry which needs a stricter set of controls and to provide the information with which we can make better decisions. That is the purpose of the amendment.

26/01/2016HH00900Senator Pat O’Neill: I understand Senator Sean D. Barrett’s frustration with insurance companies. My insurance is due in the middle of next month. I have received my documen- tation and just noticed that it went up by 23.5% in 12 months. It is worrying. I do not know whether the legislation under discussion would help people in that situation. The biggest problem is that the awards are too much, as the PIAB states. I do not know if the Minister can commission a report or if it is even a matter for his Department.

We all know that whiplash in Ireland is worth €15,000 when in the United Kingdom it is worth £3,000. People are going to be priced out of the market. As Senator Sean D. Barrett has pointed out, uninsured drivers are a big problem. If costs continue to rise, people will not be able to afford insurance. It is going to be like health insurance, except that there is a public system in place so that those without health insurance get treated. If a driver crashes into somebody without insurance, it will be the rest of the general public who will pay for it.

I do not think the Minister can provide for these matters in the Bill. I hope he will be back as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, in which case I would ask that he commission a report on the insurance industry and why the costs have risen so much. The general public and young people are being priced out of the market and the PIAB has always said the awards are too high. I do not think we can put it into this legislation, but I accept and understand Senator 345 Seanad Éireann Sean D. Barrett’s sentiments in this matter.

26/01/2016HH01000Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Senators. I admire the ability of Senator Sean D. Barrett to look at all of the different legislation coming through and to see if there is an opportunity to progress matters about which he feels strongly. Of course, he is correct, as is Senator Pat O’Neill, to be concerned about the fact that insurance premia are going up. As Minister who has responsibility for road safety it is a matter I have to be aware of and monitor because people having insurance is an important element in allowing us to deal with the consequences of incidents and collisions on the roads.

The reason I cannot accept the amendment is that my Department does not play a role in many of the matters to which Senator Sean D. Barrett is referring in his amendment. The Cen- tral Bank, which on 1 May took over responsibility under the auspices of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority for the regulation and prudential supervision of insurance companies in Ireland is best placed to deal with these matters in terms of monitoring the costs of insurance, including motor insurance. As this amendment relates to matters that my Department does not deal with, nor does this legislation, I am not in a position to accept the amendment.

26/01/2016JJ00200Senator Sean D. Barrett: I thank the Minister.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SECTION 20

26/01/2016JJ00400Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 16, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

“(a) in subsection (1), by the insertion of “driving licence,” after “his or her” where it occurs,”.

The Minister is dealing with cyclists who previously would not give their name and address to a garda, as I understand to mean by the amendment of section 7 of the principal Act. I have tried to tie that down. Why are not people required to produce driving licences, carry them with them, bring them to court and have them there at all times? If it is important - I fully support the Minister on this - that cyclists cannot be anonymous. Surely drivers must have identification. What I have run up against on this issue is some belief that it is invidious to ask somebody to carry his or her driving licence with them, that it is an infringement of human rights. This matter is too serious. It is an activity that kills 166 people per year. I am seeking a requirement that people must have a driving licence with them when driving. The garda knows who they are, as he or she is about to know who the pedal cyclists are with whom the Minister is dealing.

26/01/2016JJ00500Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The power to which the Senator refers is already available under section 40 of the Road Traffic Act 1961. The Senator is correct to say the Garda needs to have the power to require production of a driving licence, but that power is already available under section 40 of that Act.

26/01/2016JJ00600Senator Sean D. Barrett: Are we satisfied that the failure to produce driving licences has been fully addressed? It was still in the ether, certainly in the term of office of the Minister’s immediate predecessor, Deputy Leo Varadkar, when about 40% of offences, at one stage, were alleged to have been committed by people who were not licensed at all, but they pretended not to be so as to escape the system. I accept the Minister’s assurance if that has been addressed. 346 26 January 2016 That was the problem in recent times. It is a great step forward for road safety. On that basis I will not press the amendment.

26/01/2016JJ00700Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I would not say to the Senator that this is always a matter that is addressed because it is always something we have to keep under review. The provision is in the 1961 Act giving the Garda the power required for the production of a driving licence. I should say in regard to the Senator’s amendment, sections of the Bill focus primarily on cyclists. An unintended consequence of this would be that the Garda would require the production of a driving licence from a cyclist. That, I do not believe, would be appropriate and I am not proposing to bring in a licensing regime for cyclists. On the more substantive point, I can assure the Sena- tor I am satisfied that under section 40 of the 1961 Act, the right degree of power is in place for the Garda in respect of individuals who are driving mechanically propelled vehicles.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

26/01/2016JJ00900Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 16, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

“(c) by inserting the following subsection after subsection (5):

“(6) Trailers and semi-trailers referred to in this section shall require a separate certificate of roadworthiness of each trailer.”.”.

Using a trailer or semi-trailer with a maximum permissible weight exceeding 3,500 kg without a licence is an offence. As for dealing with those trailers, I agree with the Minister. The amendment seeks that the trailers and semi-trailers should be subject to the NCT. I can recall accidents where a trailer broke free and killed pedestrians. In the economics of road space, if the trailer lengthens a truck by a factor of two, many economists would say there should be two charges for that vehicle in terms of adding to road space and that the trailer should not be going free. In terms of safety, are we satisfied that in dealing with this aspect the trailers on the roads are tested to the same NCT standards as the vehicles?

26/01/2016JJ01000Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Ireland’s commercial vehicle road worthiness testing, CVRT, regime is fully in compliance with European Union roadworthiness testing directive 2009/40/ EC and operates within a framework of EU legislation which stipulates the testing standards for member states in regard to various categories of vehicles. In accordance with current EU requirements, not all trailers are required to be roadworthiness tested at the CVRT centre. Pres- ently, goods trailers, which are categories 03 and 04 with a design gross vehicle weight in excess of 3,500 kg are tested. The design gross vehicle weight refers to the gross weight of a vehicle laden with the heaviest load which it is designed to carry. In view of current EU roadworthiness testing requirements it would, therefore, not be appropriate to align the roadworthiness testing requirements for all traders with a DGVW in excess of 3,500 kg with current obligations to licence such as trailers and semi-trailers which are being used on the public road.

What we have from a roadworthiness testing perspective is currently compliant with best practice in the European Union. I am very satisfied with the regime we have in place. I have a further concern that if we were to extend that further, it would be a further piece of regulation and a potential cost that we would extend to the owners of different vehicles who are in a very competitive sector. I would be concerned that might have cost consequences and impose a regulatory burden, matters which are close to the Senator’s heart, that might not be proportion- 347 Seanad Éireann ate to the benefit the State would get from us. I would be particularly concerned at the effect it could have for smaller businesses and employers in the agricultural sphere. For those reasons I am not accepting the amendment.

26/01/2016JJ01100Senator Sean D. Barrett: I am aware that this year’s budget was warmly received by the owners of those vehicles because it provided for a substantial reduction in taxation. One would hope that did not occur at the expense of safety and perhaps that is something which might be taken up on an EU-wide basis. I am concerned about the number of vehicles being towed which do not have the same registration plate as the one doing the towing. This is a matter the Minister may wish to keep under review because we cannot be too careful in terms of safety. I thank the Minister for his response. If it is necessary for Ireland to take a lead on some of these aspects compared to the rest of Europe that is fine. Perhaps it is also something at which the Garda may have to look. I do not know what law applies in the situation where there is no relation between the vehicle being towed and the registration of the vehicle that is doing the towing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That section 20 stand part of the Bill.”

26/01/2016KK00200Senator Paschal Mooney: Will the Minister assure the House that the Garda will continue to place importance on the visibility of cyclists, particularly in urban environments? I know that sounds strange because rural environments have less public lighting. Anecdotally, we know - I notice it occasionally when cyclists pass by Leinster House - that many cyclists do not have lights on their bikes. I understand that gardaí are under severe pressure in a variety of areas but traditionally down the country, gardaí were the bane of cyclists because if there was anything wrong with one’s bike, one was done. I remember as a child that District Court cases were more about the fella not having a light on his bike when coming home from the pub than anything else. That issue appears to have gone down the list of priorities.

I appreciate gardaí have a very important job and I am fully supportive of them but in the context of this Bill, a number of cars have wonky lights. Cars will have one strong beam and one weak beam. We have the NCT but some issues arise between tests. It might not even be a car which is due to do the NCT, but it might be negligence or a costs issue. However, it is certainly a safety issue. It is greatly irritating to drive at night and to find oncoming cars have one beam very high and another very beam low. Obviously, the balance is wrong.

I raise these issues in the context of Senator Sean D. Barrett’s amendments on driving licences. All of this, as the Minister would testify, is about improving road safety, saving lives and trying to ensure that motorists and cyclists comply with the law as much as possible. I wish to be reassured that gardaí have not allowed these issues to slip down their list of priorities.

26/01/2016KK00300Deputy Paschal Donohoe: In regard to Senator Paschal Mooney’s question on cycling, it is in recognition of the risks outlined by the Senator that last year, I made the decision to allow fixed charge notices to be applicable to a number of offences relating to the use of a bicycle. Two of the offences relate to a cyclist riding a pedal cycle without reasonable consideration and having no front lamp or rear lamp lit on the bicycle during lighting up hours. Some 547 fixed charge notices have been applied to date to cyclists, of which 110 have been applied for not having a lit lamp on a bicycle during a lighting up period. That provision was brought in and covers the points made by Senator Paschal Mooney.

In regard to the issue of lights on vehicles not working correctly, that is the reason we have 348 26 January 2016 the NCT. A light which does not work would be a reason for one’s car not passing the NCT.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 21 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

NEW SECTION

26/01/2016KK00600Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): Amendments Nos. 8 to 10, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

26/01/2016KK00700Senator Sean D. Barrett: I move amendment No. 8:

In page 21, after line 40, to insert the following:

“PART 6

Measures to improve vehicle safety

26. The Minister shall under the Innovation 2020 and other programmes cause to be conducted research on vehicle safety such as alcohol locking devices, vehicle immobilisation where seat belts are not worn, driver exhaustion recognition, obstacle recognition and driver distraction.”.

Jack Short’s study of cyclists states the injury understatement for vulnerable modes, such as cycling, indicates that the number hospitalised with clinically serious injuries is ten times higher than the police serious injury figure. We must have a suite of policies to deal with this problem. The Minister will be in the House again tomorrow to deal with this.

We had a debate with the Minister of State with responsibility for science and technology in which it was stated there is no transport section in Innovation 2020. A section for transport could offer valuable contributions on topics, such as the alcohol locking devices used by some bus companies, vehicle immobilisation when seat belts are not worn, driver exhaustion recognition - when the car will set off an alarm if it sees the driver blinking and which is already fitted in some models of cars - obstacle recognition and on the general problem of driver distraction.

I support what the Minister has done in regard to making phone calls and texting while driving. Senator John Crown brought legislation through this House on smoking in cars. Any technology which inhibits driver distraction will save lives. That is the purpose of the amendment. Complex factors need to be addressed. The Minister has already accomplished much regarding drivers but the vehicle has a role to play and we have listed those factors which may be on the agenda in terms of road safety in the next semester.

Amendment No. 9 will address the improvement of road infrastructure safety. That was a topic on “Today with Sean O’Rourke” recently. We have roads with design faults or maintenance faults and some are not being addressed. Maintenance of roads is the function of county council engineering departments. Have we overlooked their contribution to the deaths and injuries? Should there be a liability on local authorities which do not maintain their roads to a certain standard and which become hazards? The scope in this regard is quite large. Road accident rates on dual carriageways are half those on single carriageways because head-on accidents are eliminated while the figure is halved again on motorways because junction accidents are eliminated. We must ensure that in planning, design and maintenance of roads, we do not

349 Seanad Éireann have infrastructure which adds to the problem the Minister is addressing.

Amendment No. 10 deals with the subject of adequate data. PARC and Jack Short state we are seriously underestimating the safety problem which the Minister has tackled so thoroughly. Rates are probably an average of three times for injuries and ten times for pedal cyclists. That was admitted by the Road Safety Authority on “Today with Sean O’Rourke”. We must get the data in order to fully comprehend this problem. What I am doing here is allowing Parliament to endorse this. The problem has been hidden away by inadequate data but it has caused the kind of misery we have all seen and much misery which perhaps we have not yet seen or of which we are not aware because it is in data general practitioners, hospitals and insurance providers have. Let us have comprehensive data. I hope the Minister will be returned after the general election in order to tackle to the problem with comprehensive data and more tools in the toolkit to deal with vehicles and road or highway conditions. That is the purpose of the amendments.

There is much for us to tackle, although much has been tackled, including the drugs issue, the Northern Ireland interchange, the UK interchange and the 20 km/h speed. There is another agenda we may need to face. PARC seems to think so, as do many of those families who have suffered personally from road accidents. We need the comprehensive picture of data to address road conditions and any other measure needed to improve the safety of vehicles such as driver- less cars. We are good at other aspects of technology, but we have to get up to speed on this one.

26/01/2016LL00200Deputy Paschal Donohoe: The matters which are the subject of the amendment are all important. Carrying out research on road safety issues is one of the responsibilities of the Road Safety Authority, RSA, which has conducted a great deal of relevant research on a wide range of matters, including some of those listed in the amendment. Likewise, the availability of relevant information in statistical form and analysis of factors in road safety form essential com- ponents in improving safety on the roads. While I agree with the intentions of the amendment, I do not believe legislation is the place in which to specify the research that is appropriate. If we were to do so, we would find ourselves amending the law repeatedly, as new priorities and concerns emerged.

On the matters of road signage and conditions, since August 2007 it has been standard practice for a Garda forensic collision team to close a road following a collision resulting in a fatality or serious injury and undertake a detailed investigation of all relevant matters and the location where the collision occurred. It includes taking detailed measurements at the collision scene, including the measurement of the skid resistance of the road surface. A LA16 form is completed jointly by the Garda and local authority engineers following each collision resulting in a fatality. The purpose of the form is to record factual information on such collisions and quickly establish if there were road factors which may have contributed to the collision and which need to be remedied. When completed, LA16 forms are sent to Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, formerly the National Roads Authority, for analysis and ultimate decisions on any necessary remedy to address these factors. Examples of such factors would include missing signs, faded road markings or poor skid resistance results. By formally notifying TII of such results, the agency will be well placed to indicate to the road authorities what remedial works are needed or to undertake further investigations.

This post-collision investigation compares favourably with that carried out in other leading countries in terms of road safety. Where appropriate, a file is forwarded by the Garda to the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is in the context of this latter action that I cannot give consideration to publishing such reports, as to do so would undermine any decision taken by the 350 26 January 2016 Director of Public Prosecutions to initiate a prosecution or a hearing of the case as a result of serious road traffic collisions resulting in a fatality.

One of the changes introduced under the current road safety strategy which runs from 2013 to 2020 is that for the first time we are focusing not only on road fatalities but also on serious injuries. By extension, it is necessary to have the required data. The road safety strategy addresses this issue and notes the importance of additional information from the health sector. As emphasised in the strategy, the definition of a serious injury is problematic and has been the subject of widespread discussion at EU level, as well as in the wider international community. We need to ensure we are measuring the same factors as others are internationally. A serious injury is defined as such by the Garda at the scene, based on one or two factors, namely, an injury for which the person has been detained in hospital as an inpatient, or injuries, regardless of whether they lead to detention in hospital, including fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushing, severe cuts and lacerations or severe general shock which requires medical treatment. That is the official definition of a serious injury, based on how the Garda should assess injuries. However, in practice it may be difficult for the Garda to assess the second aspect of injury. Hence, the challenge with under-reporting of serious injuries. Anything that does not fall into the categorisation listed is assessed as a minor injury. There would need to be one serious injury for a collision to be categorised as serious. It is no news to anybody working in the area of road safety that there are cases reported to hospitals of injuries on the roads which are not reported to the Garda. Being clear on what we are measuring when we talk about serious injuries is, therefore, essential. However, it is not appropriate to limit the RSA by writing into law what it should take into account.

In the case of the amendment, I note that there would be no obligation on hospitals or doc- tors to provide the RSA with information. We need the right data on which to base policy decisions and measure policy impacts. That is a given. On road safety, the RSA is the right body to collate data. However, nothing would be gained by specifying in law particular sources of data. Inevitably, there would be other sources of data available. We will have better law if we leave the data sources open to be selected and changed, as appropriate, over time. Otherwise, we would find ourselves constantly amending the law as data sources and priorities changed. For these reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.

26/01/2016LL00300Senator Sean D. Barrett: I do not intend to pursue the amendment. However, it is useful in Parliament to ventilate, as the Minister has, that there are other sources of data that we need to consider. I hope hospitals, general practitioners and the insurance industry will always co- operate in this regard. This is a matter on which we are all on the one side and the data should be as comprehensive as possible. The amendment is intended to have the issue debated in Parliament because it has been debated outside by groups referred to by the Minister. If 166 people were to be killed in a single event, it would be a national emergency. That is the number killed on the roads every year. We cannot be vigilant enough in collecting data and examining all of the causes of road traffic fatalities. It is an immense tragedy for so many. There is also the large number of road traffic injuries, of which we are not aware because they are categorised in different statistics.

The Minister’s bona fides in this area need no endorsement by the House. He has established his credentials and done an immense amount of work on the issue of road safety, with more to come tomorrow. I thank him for his response and the way he is always willing to discuss the issues we raise. This is a good and noble cause.

351 Seanad Éireann Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 9 to 11, inclusive, not moved.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

26/01/2016LL00900Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): When is it proposed to take Report Stage?

26/01/2016LL01000Senator Pat O’Neill: It was proposed to take it next Tuesday. However, would it be possible to take Report and Final Stages now?

6 o’clock26/01/2016MM00100

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): The order of the House only provides for the taking of Committee Stage today.

26/01/2016MM00200Senator Pat O’Neill: As Acting Leader, I ask that we take Report Stage now.

Agreed to take Remaining Stages today.

Bill received for final consideration.

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

26/01/2016MM00600Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson): I thank the Minister and my colleagues.

26/01/2016MM00700Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Paschal Donohoe) (Deputy Pas- chal Donohoe): I thank Senators for what they have just done. The passage of the Bill through the Seanad is immensely helpful in dealing with the issue of road safety. Every Senator has touched on the fact that every life lost on the roads is one too many. The country has made huge progress in reducing the loss of life. At its awful peak in dealing with this tragedy, over 600 people a year were being killed on the roads. We have reduced that figure over a number of years and it is to the credit of all Governments that this matter has been pursued. Driving while intoxicated and with the presence of drugs in one’s system is a new offence in pursuing the agenda of road safety. The Bill passing through the Seanad is a very important step in making progress in that regard. It is my hope that, owing to the fact that we will implement this legislation and empower gardaí to deal with the matter, there will be people alive at the end of this year who would otherwise not be. I genuinely thank the House for dealing with the Bill in the way it has.

I acknowledge the work of all my officials on the Bill. While on the surface the Bill may appear quite simple, as one Senator described it, the work done on it has been anything but simple. I thank my officials and everybody involved in the Department for the huge amount work done in producing the Bill.

26/01/2016MM01100Senator Paschal Mooney: All Ministers, regardless of party, have a primary purpose in mind when they take office - to get through a body of legislation. I fully acknowledge the work done behind the scenes on the Bill and compliment the Minister’s officials who I am sure are equally pleased that it has not been delayed further. We, in Fianna Fáil, are more than happy to 352 26 January 2016 accommodate its swift passage because, as the Minister quite correctly said, if it saves one life, it will have been worthwhile and will be the Minister’s legacy. I wish him well in pursuit of a similar outcome in the Dáil and hope he will have time to achieve this. A continuing theme of Senator Sean D. Barrett’s contributions on the proposed amendments was ensuring the legislation would have a speedy passage and be implemented into law as quickly as possible. I compliment the Minister on ensuring this. I am happy to accommodate him and compliment his officials on drafting what is a very significant body of work.

26/01/2016MM01200Senator Pat O’Neill: I do not want to delay the House as we have another Bill to deal with. I said a lot on Second Stage, but I would like to compliment the Minister and his officials. As I said, he is very proactive as Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport. He summed it up when he said that if the Bill saved one life, its passage through the House would have been worthwhile. The Bill deals with three issues, including driving while under the influence of drugs, which is a serious offence and has to be dealt with in a serious manner. We now have Jake’s law which is Jake’s legacy. There is also cross-border co-operation with the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. It is now about enforcement. We will continue to try to make the roads safer. I compliment the Minister on the passage of the Bill through the House. We had a good debate on it and we will see him again tomorrow in dealing with the Public Transport Bill 2015.

26/01/2016MM01300Senator Sean D. Barrett: I agree with all Senators. I am delighted that Report Stage was taken today and I am aware of the Minister’s satisfaction in that regard. I thank him and his officials and wish him well.

26/01/2016MM01400Senator Marie Moloney: On behalf of my Labour Party colleague who has been active on the Bill throughout but could not be here today, I compliment the Minister and his officials on bringing it forward. I am delighted that it has passed through the House during the term of the Government. If we had not done it today, who knows whether it would have been passed during the term of the Government? As the Minister said, one life is worth anything.

Question put and agreed to.

26/01/2016MM01500Credit Guarantee (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage

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

26/01/2016MM01600Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Comiskey): I welcome the Minister of State.

26/01/2016MM01800Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Ger- ald Nash): When we took office in 2011, the programme for Government prioritised action to achieve access to finance for every business, finance which was needed for working capital and to feed investment, expansion, growth and job creation. In spite of recent progress, good access to finance for business remains very high on the agenda of Irish SMEs in the context of national competitiveness, with a recent Central Bank report indicating that 39% of SMEs still consider access to finance a matter of high concern. The Bill revisits credit guarantees to ensure Irish firms will have the full suite of supports necessary to compete and succeed and that they can operate on a level playing field with international competitors. Solving the problem of access to finance for SMEs - the section of the economy which accounts for 99% of business and 68% of employment - was a major challenge. No significant action had previously been taken to ad- 353 Seanad Éireann dress the major area of concern to business. Accordingly, the programme for Government committed to introducing a credit guarantee scheme for banks against losses and qualifying loans to job creating small firms. It was designed to get banks lending again to viable businesses in cases where there was either a lack of collateral or where banks lacked an understanding of the operation of novel SMEs, their business models or markets.

In November 2011 the Government approved the urgent drafting of a Bill to give effect to the work undertaken and the future appointment of an operator for the day-to-day operation and management of schemes made under the credit guarantee legislation. In July 2012 the Credit Guarantee Act 2012 was passed. With the Act in place, a scheme under its provisions was drafted and an order was subsequently made to give effect to it. Finally, after conducting a public tender under public procurement regulations, an operator, Capita Asset Services Limited, was appointed and the scheme went live on 17 October 2012. In short, the 2012 Act and 2012 scheme were designed in double quick time to facilitate additional lending to small business.

As regards the operation of the scheme today, the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Inno- vation, Deputy Richard Bruton; the Department and I have at all times maintained very close contact with Capita Asset Services Limited, receiving detailed weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual reports. Some of these details have been published on my Department’s website on a quarterly basis and I recently asked the operator for up-to-date figures, as of Friday, 22 January 2016, to present to the House today, which I will summarise.

Approximately €45 million in credit guarantee scheme loans were sanctioned, averaging €161,300 in over 279 cases. Live credit guarantee scheme facilities were approximately €32.6 million, averaging €159,700 over 204 cases. Credit guarantee scheme loans drawn down were approximately €16.2 million, averaging €123,400 over 131 cases. The employment impact is estimated to be 1,142 new jobs created and 907 existing jobs maintained.

The regional distribution vis-à-vis sanctioned loans is as follows: the east, which is regarded to be Dublin, Kildare, Meath and Wicklow, stands at 56.52%; the mid-west area, comprising Limerick, Clare and north Tipperary, is at 11.84%; the south east, which includes Waterford, Wexford, Carlow, Kilkenny and south Tipperary, is at 10.88%; the south west, comprising Cork and Kerry, stands at 7.85%; the midlands, comprising Laois, Offaly, Longford, Roscommon and Westmeath, is at 6.67%; the west, which comprises Galway and Mayo, is at 4.61%; the north east, which comprises Cavan, Louth and Monaghan, is at 1.43%; and the north west, which comprises Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim, stands at 0.2%.

An integral part of the 2012 Act was the commitment in section 10 to review its operation, to ensure we could learn from its operation and also to ensure it was fit for purpose in meeting the needs of business. In mid-2013 the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, noting the fact that loan sanctions were running at less than expected, despite a relatively high estimated level of positive jobs impact and no loans defaulting at the time, commissioned a full external review of the operation of the Act and the scheme. This review was laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas in July 2014 and the contents were reported to the Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in autumn 2013.

In short, the review concluded that while the scheme had real merit, its complexity, the narrow range of products covered and the apparent disproportionate skewing of risk distribution in favour of the State as guarantor, made it unattractive for the banks to operate. The review accordingly proposed changes in respect of the simplification of scheme procedures, the term 354 26 January 2016 of the guarantee, the spread of risk-sharing and the product range. On 3 February 2015, as an interim measure addressing urgent concerns brought to my attention at short notice and with the consent of both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, I made an order giving effect to a second scheme, namely, the credit guarantee scheme 2015. This made two revisions to the 2012 scheme by first, providing for the re-financing of some loans where an SME’s bank was exiting the Irish SME credit market and, second, extending the maximum length of the guarantee from three to seven years. However, it was clear that more significant changes requiring primary legislation would be needed to ensure that the Irish credit guarantee system fitted the needs of business.

The review to which I referred was brought to the attention of Government on 17 June 2014 and approval was given to a draft Bill to amend the 2012 Act and associated schemes to enhance uptake, facilitate the growth of SMEs and support job creation. At that meeting, the Minister, Deputy Richard Bruton, was also asked to work with colleagues to seek an appropriate role for the newly established Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, in terms of the operation of the credit guarantee scheme. Work on this aspect was initiated immediately by officials at my Department and the Department of Finance. This Bill was published on 16 September 2015 and a detailed regulatory impact assessment, RIA, has been posted on my Department’s website.

The Bill progressed through Second Stage in the other House on 25 and 26 November last. In advance of Committee Stage on 8 December 2015, a significant tranche of amendments, primarily a new Part 3 covering a role for the Minister and the SBCI to work together in respect of counter-guarantees, was presented. In summary, this Part 3 was designed to leverage EU funding for Irish SMEs. A supplement to the September RIA, covering the new material, was also circulated to Deputies and posted on the Department’s website. I will describe these amendments in more detail presently. In advance of the Report and Final Stages in the Dáil on 20 January 2016, I circulated a final tranche of amendments, this time adding a new Part 4 covering miscellaneous but necessary amendments to other legislation administered by my De- partment unrelated to credit guarantees. I have also arranged for additional briefing to be sent in advance to Senators and I understand this has been the case.

Part 1 is headed “Preliminary and General”. Sections 1 and 2 are quite straightforward and deal with citation, definitions and so on, including at section 1(2) making it clear that Part 4, which amends other legislation, stands completely separate from Parts 1 to 3.

Part 2 is headed “Amendment of Principal Act”, that is, the 2012 Credit Guarantee act. This Part covers sections 3 to 9 and is primarily concerned with expanding and improving credit guarantees from the form in which they have operated since 2011. Broadly speaking, the provisions are designed to amend the 2012 Act and the two schemes as follows: to broaden the definition of “lender” so as to cover additional financial products provided such as lessors, factors, invoiced discounters and other non-bank financiers; to change the definition of loan agreements to include non-credit products such as invoice finance and leasing and to include overdrafts; to rebalance the level of risk between the State and the finance providers, with the State taking a greater share; and to charge an appropriate premium for the guarantee.

Specifically, section 3 amends section 1 of the 2012 Act by providing definitions of new key concepts such as finance agreements, finance providers and related matters.

Section 4 substitutes a new section 2 into the Act providing for certification and approval of 355 Seanad Éireann finance providers.

Section 5 substitutes a new section 4 into the Act allowing the Minister to take greater share of the risk vis-à-vis participating finance providers, subject to constraints, in particular capital limits, to which I will return.

Section 6 amends section 5 of the Act to broaden the scope of future schemes to cover non- bank finance providers.

Section 7 amends section 8 of the Act to allow the Minister to charge premiums on all of the products covered by the legislation and, in addition, sets out objective policies and principles that the Minister must observe when so charging, primarily to ensure that premiums charged in respect of credit guarantees should not exceed what is needed to defray the costs in whole or in part.

Section 8 substitutes a new section 9 into the Act in regard to the withdrawal of the guarantee by the Minister in problem cases. Section 9 provides that existing schemes and guarantees are not affected by the change in this part when they come into effect.

Part 3 is new and deals with counter guarantees. As I mentioned, when approving the Bill the Government also agreed that my Department and the Department of Finance would work together on additional amendments to the Bill in regard to a role for the SBCI in this area. In pursuit of this aim, Part 3 contains important new provisions. First, to enable State promotion of financial institutions - the SBCI currently and perhaps also others in the future - to work with the Minister to enhance the provision of credit to SMEs and, second, to empower the Minister to give counter guarantees that will enable the SBCI to unlock matching guarantee facilities from EU sources and thus better share the risk across the banks, the SBCI, the Minister and the EU sources. It is envisaged that this counter guarantee will operate in conjunction with optimal leveraging of EU financial instruments in this area such as the European programme for competitiveness of SMEs, known as COSME, the Horizon 2020 funding earmarked for SMEs and the European Fund for Strategic Investment administered by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund, otherwise known as the Juncker plan.

Section 10 contains the definitions to enable counter guarantees to work. While it in some ways mirrors section 1 of the principal Act, as extended for section 3 of the Bill, on definitions for credit guarantees, it goes further in respect of counter guarantees, most notably in the defin- ing the promotional financial institutions. While this is currently the SBCI, the way is left open for others in the future as that evolves.

Section 11 empowers the Minister to give counter guarantees directly to the promotional financial institution, a move that is designed to enable the institution to in turn leverage funding from EU sources, as well as seeking funds from other finance providers.

Section 12 is very important in that, in accordance with the relevant Government decisions, a monetary limit of €15.6 million is set on any risk liability of the Minister under not just counter guarantees but also credit guarantees.

Section 13 provides for the making of a counter guarantee scheme by statutory instrument jointly signed by the three Ministers.

Section 14 covers the payment of premiums to the Minister, with a like provision to that in

356 26 January 2016 Part 2 to the effect that, as with credit guarantees, any premium charged to the SME should not exceed what is needed to defray the costs in whole or in part.

Section 15 provides for a review of the counter guarantee scheme, as in the case of the credit guarantees. Section 16 enables the Minister’s expenses in running counter guarantees to be paid from public funds.

Part 4 comprises sections 17 to 20, inclusive, and contains a number of unrelated amendments which were essential to the good working of other enactments. Section 17 amends the Employment Equality Act 1998 to insert a new section 101(4A) to ensure the complainant cannot seek redress under both the Unfair Dismissals Act and the Employment Equality Act in respect of the same dismissal within a new framework for the adjudication of disputes under employment and equality legislation which has been put in place following the establishment of the Workplace Relations Commission.

Section 18 amends section 34 of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 to correct a typo- graphical error in the numbering of the subsections.

Section 19 makes two separate amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 2015. The first amends section 37 of that Act to make provision for transitional arrangements to apply in respect of the transfer of the power to prosecute for summary offences under employment related enactments from the Minister to the Workplace Relations Commission. The second amends Part 2 of Schedule 1 to that Act to correct an incorrect reference to the Employment Permits Act 2003.

Section 20 amends section 916 of the Companies Act 2014. That Act, as the House will be aware, consolidated the 17 previously existing Companies Acts into one Act and introduced a number of key reforms which designed to make it easier to operate a company in Ireland. The Companies Auditing and Accounting Act 2003, one of the 17 Acts that were repealed and replaced, established the Irish Auditing and Accounting Supervisory Authority. In section 14, it provided that the authority could levy accountancy bodies for the purposes of meeting its expenses. This section 14 was re-enacted in section 916 of the 2014 Act but in a way that inadvertently limited the purposes for which moneys from the levy on the accountancy bodies could be used. The amendment will enable the authority to use moneys from the levy to meet expenses properly incurred by it in performing its functions, as was originally intended.

An overarching challenge for the Government in the past five years has been to ensure Irish firms have the full suite of financial and other supports available to compete internationally and to grow sustainable jobs across the country for citizens in order to facilitate an economic turn- around. This legislation is part of the ongoing work of the Government to address these challenges. In October 2015, an OECD study of 37 countries found that most of them continue to support access to bank financing by SMEs through loan guarantees. In the amendments to our legislation which I am proposing today, we are not just beefing up credit guarantees as regards risk spread but also extending them to non-traditional, or non-bank, sources of finance. We are also introducing, for the first time, counter-guarantees by the Minister to the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland to both spread risk and leverage EU funding.

I am confident these amendments will ensure we have a range of products that they are fit for purpose in this area and that they will continue to help to drive the economic recovery across the country and secure a sound economic future for our citizens. For these reasons, and because

357 Seanad Éireann it fits business requirements to successfully compete internationally, I commend the Bill to the Seanad.

26/01/2016OO00200Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: This is an important Bill which we, on this side of the House, will support. It brings about reform following the review of the credit guarantee scheme. These reforms are overdue, significant, warranted and absolutely necessary. The lifeblood of the economy not just in Ireland but across Europe is the SME sector. More than 99% of all the corporations in the European Union are SMEs. I think the figure is approximately 99.8%. They provide more than 66.7% of all employment and account for 58.6% of value added according to EUROSTAT figures. They are essential.

SMEs have a distinct disadvantage in terms of accessing credit because they do not have access to credits through the markets, venture capital or the possibility of raising equity through the stock exchange. Therefore, often the only alternative available to them is bank lending. They have come up against huge obstacles in the past few years since the economic crash as a result of the difficulty in accessing credit. This has been compounded by the financial crisis. It is not unique to Ireland but Ireland is one of the stressed countries, according to the European Central Bank and the Irish Central Bank, along with Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. The stressed position of the Irish economy has made it more difficult for SMEs to access credit and, as a result, less economic activity was generated within the State. The Government, therefore, had to intervene and the guarantee was introduced but it was found not to be working.

The review carried out in 2013, to which the Minister of State has referred, was scathing of the credit guarantee scheme introduced in 2012 and the figures on uptake speak for themselves. Various forms of guarantees have been implemented across European countries. Some are public guarantees while others are public-private guarantees. However, the litmus test must always be the uptake, that is, the numbers availing of the scheme. The figures up until the end of June on the current scheme showed just more than €31 million had been made available through it. The figures referred to today by the Minister of State indicate approximately €45 million in lending has been made available, which is an improvement, and I acknowledge that fact. It was going nowhere fast otherwise given it had a target of €450 million but lending was at approximately €1 million per month. Something drastic was required.

The review was damning. It found the scheme to be over-complicated, offered a narrow range of lending products and was skewing the risk in favour of the State. It also found the range of financial products under the scheme was too restrictive, that the three year term was too short given most loans are for a minimum term of five years to seven years and that the current level of the scheme guarantee at 7.5%, being 75% of 10%, was seen to be too low and did not provide an equitable level of risk sharing. More competitive rates must be introduced. For example, the recent Lord Mayor’s fund in Dublin City Council, offered in conjunction with Ulster Bank, has a rate of in or about 4%. It is 4.1%, if memory serves me right. We have to look at making the scheme more competitive.

According to the review, the 2% premium was seen as expensive. There was no cost sharing of the premium with the lending institutions. Furthermore, the requirement to issue a formal decline letter as a prerequisite to being considered for inclusion under the scheme was viewed negatively by borrowers and stakeholders alike. The cost of administration of the scheme, which was high relative to the level of underlying scheme activity, came in for criticism. The review found the scheme was not appropriate for low-level credit needs and should be adapted to facilitate the flow of some credit, in particular to smaller SMEs, sole traders and partnerships. 358 26 January 2016 The scheme is onerous in terms of smaller levels of funding and, if we are to drive economic improvement within the economy, every sector must be catered for. The 2% premium was imposed on the borrower. There should have been some level of burden sharing of it with the bank, perhaps a 1% split.

The review recommended the appointment of a dedicated owner or manager to the scheme who would have responsibility for its general management, including the driving of performance against the scheme’s objectives. Ultimately the scheme will be successful if it meets its performance objectives. Those objectives have been set out quite clearly. Heretofore, the scheme has not been meeting those objectives and someone is required to drive this forward. Public policy makers, including the Minister of State, cannot micro-manage a scheme such as this one but responsibility to drive the scheme has to be given at an appropriate level.

One alarming statistic was touched on by the Minister of State. I cannot understand why the scheme does not like the north west and other regions in the country. Why is so much of the activity generated in the direction of the commuter belt and the greater Dublin region? I will use the Minister of State’s figures when looking at the uptake. I had alternative ones but the Minister of State’s figures are worse than those which I was going to present this evening for my area. Take, for example, the west. One of the big arguments coming from rural Ireland concerns the lack of economic activity there. The issues being raised include emigration, no opportunities, lack of investment, no jobs, no access to finance and banks not being available. Given the figures, I am not sure an economic appraisal was carried out in the review or if the Minister of State’s Department has carried out a subsequent appraisal of why the uptake is so low.

What are the reasons? I will not speculate. Let us take the region of the west, Galway, Mayo, Cavan, Louth, Monaghan, Donegal, Sligo and Leitrim. All of that region is the old BMW region which was recognised by the European Union as an area that required special economic incentive from the State and the European project. The region only received about 6% of funding; therefore, the remaining 94% goes to the rest of the country. There is something seriously wrong with such an allocation of funding. Has that been investigated? Why did it happen? Surely if we are bringing legislation forward and trying to drive this agenda then these are some of the questions that must be asked. Surely a manager driving performance targets would have to look at the situation also. If the Government’s programme is really about balanced regional development, creating regions and developing regions, a balanced approach must be at its core.

I am almost out of time. We will have an opportunity to tease out some of these issues on Committee and Report Stages. I am not sure how much time will be allowed, but my party will table a number of amendments on Committee Stage. I would appreciate if the Minister of State commented on some of the points that I have made.

26/01/2016PP00200Senator Imelda Henry: I welcome the Minister of State. This is timely legislation because the Central Bank has just produced its latest SME market report which was compiled by economists in its financial stability section. The report aims to give an updated picture of the developments in the SME credit market. It is important for us to note the main conclusions of the most recent report. Gross new lending to non-financial, non-real estate SMEs shows positive growth since the start of 2014. For the first three quarters of 2015, year-on-year growth rates in quarterly new lending were 26%, 33% and 4.9%, respectively. Despite this growth, the overall stock of outstanding SME credit continues to decline, implying that the volume of 359 Seanad Éireann repayments is outstripping new lending in each quarter. Since the last report, outstanding credit has declined by 8%. Compared with other euro area countries, new lending, including renego- tiations, relative to domestic demand is currently low.

While SME perceptions of bank willingness to provide credit have improved, 39% of Irish SMEs still consider access to finance a major concern. This share is similar to what is known as the EU2 countries of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece but above what is known as the EU1 countries of Austria, Belgium, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands and France.

Interest rates on Irish SME loans are high relative to the euro area. Furthermore, SME rates did not decline in line with the euro area from 2014, particularly relative to the EU2 countries. The difference between SME and large firm interest rates is also relatively high in Ireland. The latest data show a slight reduction in interest rates for smaller SME loans. In addition, the share of SMEs reporting interest rate increases is declining.

Bank finance application rates have been declining since 2012, driven by declines in applications for renewed and restructured products. Loan application rates, which have been steady since 2013, are low by European levels. The majority of finance applications are for working capital purposes, although this rate is declining. Bank rejection rates have declined slightly since the last report, currently 15%, down from 16%, but this rate is above euro area averages of between 8% and 9%. Firm-level data show that the share of SMEs with no outstanding debt is rising, while debt-to-turnover ratios are declining. Furthermore, it is evident that the majority of fixed asset investments are currently financed through internal funds-retained earnings rather than external bank finance. SME default rates are declining. Currently, 19% of loans and 31% of total outstanding balance are in default, which is down from 26% and 41%, respectively, in 2013. Default rates remain highest in the construction and hotel-restaurant sectors.

SME profitability and turnover have improved substantially since 2013. The recovery in activity has been strong by European standards. For example, the net increase in profits, which is the share of SMEs reporting increases minus share reporting decreases, is currently 28% in Ireland compared with 5% in EU1 and 10% in EU2 countries. Similar trends are observed for turnover changes. However, improvements in business performance are weaker for smaller SMEs, both in Ireland and the euro area.

Much of this is good news and shows the progress made by the Government since the crash. It also shows the importance of the passing of this legislation. As SMEs and others have noted, the legislation is intended to address the competitive disadvantage of SMEs that lack collateral and, as a result, find it difficult to access finance. It is fair to say and the Minister of State will agree that the original legislation was not as successful as was hoped. The Government recognised this and a review was commissioned. Action was taken in the form of this legislation. It is vital for SMEs, the backbone of the economy, that this legislation is enacted as soon as possible. I commend the Minister of State for his action in remedying the original legislation.

26/01/2016PP00300Senator David Cullinane: I welcome the Minister of State. As the Oireachtas Joint Com- mittee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has spoken on this issue a couple of times, I am familiar with a lot of the background work on the matter. In fact, my party raised some concerns about this scheme when it was first established. We warned that it was not going to achieve its targets and, unfortunately, it has not. One of the big failures of the Government has been its inability to create a functioning credit market.

360 26 January 2016 The dysfunctional credit market has played a significant role in the problems affecting small businesses. Legacy debt is still in place. Businesses are frozen out of growth and development because they are unable to service their loans or grow beyond servicing their loans. We have this dysfunctional system because the Government decided to have a very concentrated and limited banking market. If we had a more diverse and less concentrated banking market there is no doubt in my mind that it would create more competition and many of the problems regarding credit and access to finance would start to dissipate.

As the Minister of State is aware, the economy is very lopsided in the sense that we have few decent sized indigenous businesses that are able to export. Of approximately 4,500 export- ers in the State, 1,500 are foreign enterprises, which means only 3,000 indigenous enterprises are exporting their goods. These figures do not compare well with other countries of similar size, such as Austria and Denmark. This structural problem in the enterprise sector can be at- tributed in part to the structural problems in the banks.

The credit guarantee scheme was designed to provide much needed finance to job creating small and medium-sized enterprises that are struggling to obtain credit from banks. This was one of the legacy issues that arose from the previous Government and the problem was inherited by the current Government. One of the promises that this Government made to businesses and people, in terms of developing and diversifying the economy, was that it would deal with the lack of credit available to entrepreneurs, risk takers and people who want to establish new businesses. However, most of the schemes that were put in place by the Government have failed or been insufficient.

The purpose of this scheme was to provide credit for viable businesses in two specific circumstances, where a business has insufficient collateral or where it operates in a sector with which the banks are not familiar. In such circumstances, the State would provide a 75% guarantee against losses of qualifying loans. The scheme was intended to benefit 5,400 businesses and create 3,900 new jobs but neither objective has been realised. These were not our targets in opposition. These were the targets that were set by the Government. Since 2012, approximately €20 million backed by the guarantee has been provided to only 156 businesses.

Since the introduction of the credit guarantee scheme, Sinn Féin has repeatedly highlighted other opportunities for resolving the crisis small businesses are experiencing in accessing bank credit. My party colleague, Deputy Peadar Tóibín, has developed a model for a public banking system which could be used to direct credit to small businesses. It was modelled on a network of local banks in Germany which are a major component of the German banking system. It would add a new dimension in terms of competitive behaviour among the banks and rebalance somewhat the relationship between the banking sector and those it is meant to serve.

Our proposal envisaged the establishment of ten new regional banks, managed indepen- dently and supported by a centralised specialised unit that would provide auditing, risk management and procurement services to the network. The costs of these elements of banking would be reduced because they would be carried out centrally. Each bank would operate in a defined region, ensuring a balanced distribution of deposits and lending across the State and providing a greater incentive to invest in the sustainable development of a local banking region. In other words, it would focus money back into the regions because it would be ring-fenced. It would also ensure the management, staff and expertise of the bank was oriented to the needs of the region.

361 Seanad Éireann The Minister will know that I published an economic development strategy for the south east in 2012. One of the key issues that arose in many of the engagements I had with small businesses and entrepreneurs was access to credit. Another key issue was how to get finance into regions. We all know that unless the capital, tools, resources and infrastructure are there, regions are not in a position to build, grow and develop to the extent they should. That is where the State comes into its own. It can provide a positive robust environment in which we can create jobs, encourage job creation, sustain jobs and reward and enable risk takers, entrepreneurs and those who are creative to create the jobs we need. Access to credit is central to this.

The Government will present its own case on the economy, which is recovering. I acknowledge it inherited a real mess from the previous Government. However, we are concerned with the supports that have or have not been put in place for small businesses. Unfortunately, the Government has not succeeded in supporting the SME sector and small businesses across the State.

26/01/2016QQ00200Senator Aideen Hayden: Anybody who reads a newspaper or watches television here would imagine the economy revolves around foreign direct investment and companies such as Google and Apple. Many of the Senators who have already spoken have pointed out that the SME sector here is central to and is the backbone of the domestic economy. It accounts for approximately 54% of total employment and 70% of total private sector employment. SMEs also contribute approximately 48% of value added funds. In 2011, which probably represents the low point of the Irish economy, SMEs created 90,000 extra jobs in Ireland, despite the fact that 50% of SME businesses failed. Apart from employing a large number of people, SMEs also represent risk takers, innovators, entrepreneurs, the tourism and retail industries and the construction sector. Many of the companies that have led and are leading the economic recovery are in the SME sector.

As mentioned, SMEs face an environment where access to credit is hampering the recovery. This is partly due to systemic factors, such as lack of collateral or lack of a track record, but in general the lack of credit is a response to the economic downturn. For example, in the construction sector, the equity gap between what can be raised through bank finance and what is required by the builder is in the region of 40%. At the end of 2012, some 94% of all external finance to SMEs came from banks, but between March 2010 and March 2015, lending to SMEs by financial institutions fell by 23%. Senator Imelda Henry has provided good figures to show how Irish SME lending from banks and financial institutions compares with other European countries. Unfortunately, since the crisis, SMEs have also become more risk averse and are less likely to borrow, and are now increasingly more dependent on short-term finance, such as overdrafts and trade credit. Viable businesses are failing owing to a lack of liquidity. It is important to emphasise the less than proud record of Irish financial institutions in terms of the interest rate they charge in comparison with other European countries. This is also reflected in the interest rate being charged on mortgages, both old and new. This raises an issue for the sector.

The credit guarantee was introduced in 2012 and while it has come in for some criticism, it can be argued that the scheme has been successful. It is estimated that 864 new jobs were created and 601 jobs maintained as a result of the €31 million loans. However, it is accepted that the scheme did not achieve the uptake expected. Ian Lucey, whose foundation helps entrepreneurs, has argued this was partly due to a lack of awareness. Not only did the banks not advertise the scheme, but there was a lack of knowledge within bank branches and a failure to actively encourage SMEs to take up the scheme. Some 90% of SMEs admit to having low awareness of Government schemes and 80% say more information should be made available. A 362 26 January 2016 review of the scheme found improvements could be made and this is what this Bill seeks to do.

The Bill proposes to increase the guarantee period from three to seven years, to increase the overall amount available from €31 million to €150 million and to allow the Minister to guarantee up to 80% of a loan. The types of loans covered have been extended significantly, to include other products such as invoice discounters, non-bank financiers and other financial products, such as invoice financing leasing and overdrafts. Overall, it is expected there will be 1,350 successful businesses assisted as a result of this scheme. I understand the Bill will enhance the capacity of Microfinance Ireland, a welcome initiative. Microfinance Ireland was established to deliver the microenterprise fund and to provide small unsecured loans of up to €25,000 for commercially viable proposals at favourable conditions.

There is no doubt that the Bill goes a considerable way towards improving the environment for SMEs. As mentioned, an important part of the amended Bill is that it contains new provisions to enable the State’s promotional financial institution, the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, to work with the Minister in enhancing the provision of credit to SMEs. It also empowers the Minister to give counter guarantees. This is important when we consider the level of funding, through quantitative easing, that is being made available at the European level. If we are to be able to access that type of funding, it is important the systems are in place to enable our businesses to compete on a level playing field with other European businesses.

There are one or two positive developments I would like to highlight that I believe will assist Irish SMEs. The Bill is an important part of the process of enabling businesses to access credit. The capital markets union will create a single market for capital in Europe and will help unlock capital and liquidity for businesses. One of the disadvantages here is that the SME sector is highly dependent on bank funding. We are the most dependent on bank funding of any of the 28 EU countries. The idea behind the capital markets union is to enable businesses to access venture capital funding and to put in place the provisions that will enable that to happen. I welcome this, but at EU level it is important to ensure the relatively small size of Irish SMEs is borne in mind when agreeing on issues, such as the level of reporting that is required. Regulations that are overly onerous that do not take size into account would be very costly to Irish businesses.

I welcome the new Central Bank regulations on SME lending which were released in De- cember 2015. These regulations are aimed at strengthening protection for SMEs, at facilitating access to credit and at making the application system more transparent. I have come across a number of situations where SMEs have been refused finance. This has happened mainly in cases where the finance of the SME concerned has been tied up with borrowing for something such as a property investment. Where the borrowing is blended, there has been a major issue for Irish SMEs to access credit in certain circumstances. I believe an SME that has reached an agreement with its creditors is entitled to know why an application for credit is being refused by a lender. The new system being introduced will be a valuable mechanism for ensuring that viable SMEs are not unduly prejudiced by the hard times they have faced following the collapse of sectors of the economy.

If we want a knowledge economy and want to lead recovery through innovation, we need the requisite capital financial systems. If we do not improve the credit market, whether through the traditional banking sector, venture capital funds or other means, the people who want to set up the next Stripe, which enables websites to access credit and debit card payments easily, will go elsewhere. The website hassle.com is a Hailo-type business for cleaners and Fenergo 363 Seanad Éireann provides software to investment banks. They will go somewhere else. The Bill represents an important step in encouraging job creation and opportunities for businesses and employees in the country. I commend it to the House.

26/01/2016RR00200Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy Ger- ald Nash): I thank colleagues for their contributions. I am very pleased to sponsor the Bill and to have taken responsibility for the legislation when I took office approximately 18 months ago. This is a necessary Bill to assist small and medium enterprises, SMEs, as best we can. We reviewed the operation of the scheme quite early in its existence and accepted what the independent review indicated regarding the changes that needed to be made to help us achieve the ambitions we had for the SME sector in the context of access to finance. Everybody agrees that the principles of the scheme and as set down in the original legislation were ambitious and were certainly targeted in the right direction in terms of supporting SMEs. Those original ambitions were not realised for a host of reasons, as outlined in the review. We have very much accepted what the review had to say.

Almost 70% of our employment and 90% of companies are in the SME sector. We need to strive each and every day to ensure we provide appropriate vehicles for access to finance for growth. In the first couple of years of the existence of the Government, the challenge was to ensure that there was access to finance at a very basic level for SMEs but the challenge now is to ensure we can finance for growth as SMEs are expanding and our economy is becoming more successful. We need to ensure we have vehicles of this nature, available through the legislation before the House, that are flexible and receptive to the needs of business. We must ensure that we get credit to the businesses that need it when and where they need it.

The emergence of the Strategic Banking Corporation of Ireland, SBCI, is an important addition to the landscape for SMEs. It is not yet a year in existence but it is performing very well, providing a host of opportunities for businesses to expand. The opportunity to access SBCI finance comes through the pillar banks and we have made important changes in this legislation to broaden a range of products and vehicles covered in the scheme to ensure that risk-sharing is spread. There should be a host of products and vehicles available to SMEs outside the traditional banking products.

The range of initiatives we are taking through this legislation on foot of the review we initiated a couple of years ago really will make a difference and make the scheme much more attractive to SMEs. Critically, we have provided a role for the SBCI in the legislation to help leverage funding from appropriate EU sources such as COSME, for example, and opportunities that will arise under the Juncker plan and a range of different EU financial instruments. That will help the SME community to create the good, decent and sustainable jobs that everybody in the House wants to see.

I take on board Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill’s point about the spread around the country and there is a job of work to be done to promote awareness of the opportunities that will emerge and which are available. The scheme has protected a significant number of jobs and helped to create a large amount of jobs that would not have been created or been maintained in the absence of a scheme such as this. There is always room for improvement, as we acknowledge. We will ensure this enhanced scheme and the opportunities arising under this legislation will be promoted through the relevant avenues.

I thank my colleagues in the Seanad for the very positive contributions. I look forward to 364 26 January 2016 engaging with them again later this week on Committee Stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

26/01/2016RR00400Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Comiskey): When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

26/01/2016RR00500Senator Maurice Cummins: Next Thursday.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 28 January 2016.

7 o’clock26/01/2016SS00100

Local Government Review: Statements

26/01/2016SS00200An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government and invite him to make his opening statement. Away you go, Minister.

26/01/2016SS00300Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Alan Kel- ly) (Deputy Alan Kelly): I hope the Cathaoirleach will not be saying that to me in a few months.

26/01/2016SS00400Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Before the Minister speaks, there are a couple of matters that are concerning me with respect to a point of order. First, this debate was to start at 7.30 p.m.

26/01/2016SS00500An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.

26/01/2016SS00600Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: If I may continue-----

26/01/2016SS00700Senator Maurice Cummins: There was an amendment to the Order of Business.

26/01/2016SS00800An Cathaoirleach: What is the Senator’s point of order?

26/01/2016SS00900Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: My point of order is that I understand all we are going to do is waste time making statements-----

26/01/2016SS01000An Cathaoirleach: The Order of Business was agreed to by the House earlier today. The Senator should resume his seat. He is only wasting time.

26/01/2016SS01100Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I have no notion of doing so until I have said what I have to say. The Minister will forgive me.

26/01/2016SS01200Senator Denis Landy: The Senator can leave if he wishes.

26/01/2016SS01300Senator Cáit Keane: He is just wasting time.

26/01/2016SS01400An Cathaoirleach: The House decided on the Order of Business earlier today.

26/01/2016SS01500Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I do not mind how much time we waste. The bottom line is that we were to have a debate on an all-party motion, not a series of----- 365 Seanad Éireann

26/01/2016SS01600Senator Cáit Keane: That is not a point of order.

26/01/2016SS01700Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Senator e-mailed her entire group about this matter, as did Senator Paul Coghlan.

26/01/2016SS01800An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator, please, resume his seat?

26/01/2016SS01900Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I have no notion of doing so until I am given an answer.

26/01/2016SS02000An Cathaoirleach: I will have no option but to suspend the sitting if the Senator does not resume his seat.

26/01/2016SS02100Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Cathaoirleach should suspend the sitting if he believes he must do so, but let us not play charades.

26/01/2016SS02200An Cathaoirleach: The House decided on the Order of Business earlier today.

26/01/2016SS02300Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Let us not play games.

26/01/2016SS02400An Cathaoirleach: It was the House which decided the business to be conduted, not me or anybody else.

26/01/2016SS02500Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Gerard P. Craughwell was not even in the Chamber for the Order of Business.

26/01/2016SS02600Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Cathaoirleach will recall-----

26/01/2016SS02700Senator Cáit Keane: The Senator was not here for the Order of Business.

26/01/2016SS02800An Cathaoirleach: Senator Gerard P. Craughwell should resume his seat. He is completely out of order.

26/01/2016SS02900Senator Cáit Keane: He should have been in the House for the Order of Business like the rest of us.

26/01/2016TT00100Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Cathaoirleach will recall that when I proposed this debate, I proposed that we discuss the motion. I know that the Minister would be only too willing to discuss it.

26/01/2016TT00200An Cathaoirleach: The House decided this matter on the Order of Business.

26/01/2016TT00300Senator Cáit Keane: Senator Gerard P. Craughwell should have been here for it, rather than grandstanding now and again.

26/01/2016TT00400An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senator Gerard P. Craughwell to, please, resume his seat.

26/01/2016TT00500Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: We are not going to play this game.

26/01/2016TT00600An Cathaoirleach: I have no choice but to suspend the sitting for five minutes.

26/01/2016TT00700Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: That is fine. I will still be standing when the House re- sumes.

Sitting suspended at 7.10 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

366 26 January 2016

26/01/2016TT01000Deputy Alan Kelly: I thank the House for inviting me to discuss this important topic. I thank everyone in the House, including Senators from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, for the cross-party support for the motion. It is admirable and should be acknowledged. This provides me, as the Minister responsible for local government, with an important opportunity to update the Members of Seanad Éireann on the operational review of the new local government arrangements and the role of elected members in that regard.

I hope, irrespective of political backgrounds, we can all agree that effective local government structures are an essential part of our democracy. In turn, effective local government cannot be achieved without the hard work, dedication and commitment of the elected members who give so much of their time in service to their communities. Local authority members are now operating within an entirely new framework following the most radical change in local government structures and governance in more than 100 years. The majority of policy decisions first announced in the 2012 action programme for effective local government, Putting People First, and subsequently given effect by the Local Government Reform Act 2014 came into operation on 1 June 2014. Those changes include enhanced roles for local authorities in economic and local and community development, the dissolution of local authorities in Limer- ick, Tipperary and Waterford and the establishment of new, merged entities in their place and the replacement of town councils by municipal districts.

A series of new governance arrangements was also put in place such as provision for an enhanced policy-making role for elected members, new citizen participation measures, local authority service delivery plans, the re-designation of the position of manager to chief executive, stronger oversight powers for the elected council regarding the implementation of policy and increased obligations on the executive in respect of the elected council. Together, these measures constituted a radical reform process designed to yield significant benefits. For example, at county and city level, greater efficiency and economies of scale are among the objectives of the amalgamations in Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford. Over time, benefits will arise following the establishment of single authorities that will be better positioned to lead economic, local and community development, deliver efficient and good value services and represent citizens and communities effectively and accountably. In addition to creating a more rational and comprehensive structural arrangement, the new system should result, over time, in more effective and community-focused decision-making and implementation.

The new structures and reform measures are, of course, still at an early stage of implementation and given that issues were arising, it is very important that they be addressed. In the meantime, it is important to ensure the reformed system is operating effectively and as intended. Consequently, in May 2015, I established a local government reform review group to advise me on how the new structures are operating on the basis of the experience to date. The objective is to consider the operation of the revised local government arrangements and implementation of the reform programme and to provide ongoing advice, views or proposals in that regard. The review involves an advisory group, chaired by my Department, on which both elected members and local authority chief executives are represented. Senator Denis Landy from this House who is sitting in front of me also is a member. In addition, there is a local government forum for direct engagement with the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG. The advisory group and forum have met on six occasions thus far with further meetings scheduled to take place shortly. The overall feedback to date from the process suggests the revised structures generally are operating quite well but will need more time to bed down fully. I have made clear that if adjustments to the operation of the system are needed, these can and will be considered and I

367 Seanad Éireann assure Members they will be acted on. The next stage of the review process involves detailed surveys of elected members on the operation of the new structures and related matters, including workload, which obviously is raising its head continually. This work is now well advanced and the results, which will be available shortly, will be essential in helping the advisory group to report to me on how the system is operating and whether adjustments might be warranted.

One aspect on which concern has been raised is the pressures on councillors due to considerably increased work demands. These pressures appear to be felt particularly in the councils with the new municipal districts. I have seen that in my travels throughout the country. I probably travel the country more than do most Ministers and see this directly wherever I go. The workload issue is partly a result of the increased governance, oversight and policy responsibilities of elected councils, which are positive developments in themselves. It also reflects issues that can be addressed in the future such as the size of local electoral areas. In the nearer term, there may be issues in respect of how council business is organised and the need to take greater account of how local authority membership is not a full-time occupation for most councillors. There also is a need for the council executive to provide maximum support and appropriate facilities to enable the members to perform their new roles effectively. In short, there is a need to be sure we are not just addressing the symptoms of the problem. The workload problems should be tackled at source. I wish to inform the House I am deeply aware of these concerns through contact with councillors nationwide and Members of both Houses and if, arising from the review, proposals come forward to take account of this issue, I will give every consideration to them and will not be found wanting.

All Members are aware of the extraordinary number of hours given by councillors to provide the optimum level of service for the public, for which I commend them all, across all political codes. The role of the elected member is almost something of a vocation and certainly being an elected member of a local authority is not a job of determinate hours. Councillors are, to all intents and purposes, continuously on call for their constituents and they work extended hours. With this in mind, I regard it as very important to engage with elected members on issues of concern to them. I met representatives of the AILG and the Local Authority Members As- sociation, LAMA, last July to hear at first hand their views on the supports in place for elected members and I note some Members of this House facilitated that meeting and process. I attended and addressed the AILG annual conference in Inchydoney in October as part of the ongoing engagement. As I have indicated, the AILG is well represented on the local government forum and a special meeting of the advisory group was held last November to hear directly from the association, including from its president. Consequently, I am conscious of the strong view that there is a need for improvements to the range of supports available for councillors and I note specific proposals have been made by the AILG in this regard. I am, of course, very sympathetic to these concerns. I also am conscious that to further this issue, there is a need to be able to document the extent of the workload now involved. The work of the advisory group will provide necessary data on the situation and will provide key context and content for me for decisions to be made in this area. I also wish to proceed to build some form of civic acknowl- edgement of the role of councillors in respect of all the work they do because it is not merely about the terms, pay and conditions under which they work. Many councillors work for many hours far beyond the call of duty and at some point in the future, this must be acknowledged on a regular basis. I intend to bring forward some proposals in this regard within the next week or so and will announce them to Members.

The Government side is content to support the motion before the House. It is excellent that

368 26 January 2016 the motion has been put forward on a cross-party basis as, in that way, maximum progress is likely to be achieved. In fairness, I believe all Members who are engaging in this debate from all the different parties do so with the right intention. The amendment proposed by the Inde- pendent Senators does not take into account that the specific terms of reference for the advisory group have been settled since last May and the group has been operating on that basis since then. Members can be assured that the workload issues affecting councillors and the range of options for responding to them will be considered fully when decisions are being taken. I look forward to receiving the recommendations of the advisory group and continuing to take forward this important issue on a cross-party basis. I encourage all Members present to operate on a cross-party basis in future as I believe this to be the right way to do things on this issue uniquely. I also believe a great deal more will be achieved by adopting such a stance. Consequently, I congratulate all the parties for the motion they have tabled.

26/01/2016UU00200An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Minister and remind Members that as there is a short time- frame, we need to stick to the time of three minutes per Senator. I acknowledge the presence in the Visitors Gallery of former councillor Mr. Pat Crimmins.

26/01/2016UU00300Senator Paschal Mooney: I thank the Minister for his encouraging words and again compliment all my colleagues representing all the party groupings in this House on the manner in which they have approached this issue. It is a case of strength in unity and the Minister has acknowledged this is the way forward, I hope on the basis of the recommendations made thus far. Although these recommendations are not covered in the all-party motion, the Minister is aware of them through the advisory group and through the ongoing process of engagement with the two representative bodies, namely, AILG and LAMA. However, I wish to refer to one or two comments the Minister made. One point he made here was that local authority membership is not a full-time occupation for most councillors, but I must state that since the last election, many more of them have been forced into it. I believe the age profile of local authority members will increase into the future because one increasingly will find that councillors will be unable to combine this increased workload with that of their existing job. This is already happening in that people who wish to continue in local government have been taking early re- tirement. The Minister has acknowledged the reason for this is the provision in the reform Act of 2014 for an enhanced policy-making role for elected members, stronger oversight powers for the elected council regarding the implementation of policy and that councillors would lead economic, local and community development, deliver efficient and good value services and represent citizens and communities effectively and accountably. In a nutshell, it encapsulates the reason the two representative organisations, as reflected by the all-party group that has met the Minister, are attempting to secure some meaningful reform in this area. Certainly, the vast majority of the people realise and accept that democracy does not come cheap and costs money. That is why we need strong democratic institutions which provide strong support for those who put themselves forward for election in order that they will be able to provide the service provided for in the reform Act and which the Minister has outlined. It is in that regard that I have great concerns. It seems elected councillors over the age of 66 years are the only ones in the country who pay PRSI. This matter should be addressed immediately and we do not need to wait for an advisory group to tell us.

It is unacceptable in this day and age not to have pension provision. We have elected members who are ineligible to receive a contributory pension in their other walk of life and the age profile of councillors is increasing. It should be mandatory for pension contributions to be made. That would mean that they would receive a pension at the end of their term in office like

369 Seanad Éireann most others in the working population. I accept that such a provision would cost money, but that is the nettle the Minister and his successor must grasp. I hope the availability of money will not dictate decisions. If recommendations are made along the lines I think they will be and as the Minister will hear, I hope money will not be an obstacle. I hope the Minister will be able to provide the necessary resources to ensure we implement the reforms outlined and which councillors have embraced.

26/01/2016VV00400Senator Paul Coghlan: I welcome the Minister to discuss this important subject matter. As he will know from representations made to him and meetings we have had, there is an agreed all-party position in this House, as laid out in the motion and as he kindly acknowledged. It was an honour for me to work and serve with Senators Diarmuid Wilson, Denis Landy and David Cullinane. Together, we agreed to the motion which speaks for itself.

We commend the Minister for initiating the operational review of the new local government arrangements under the Local Government Reform Act 2014. In the light of his consideration of these various matters, we are very grateful for his attendance and what he has said. As he will know, councillors are the front-line troops in our democracy. They work hard and are extremely dedicated, as he has admitted. The size of their electoral areas has been greatly enhanced, with a consequent increase in their workload, not to mention the additional meetings they have to attend and the other functions imposed on them. They are at everyone’s beck and call at any hour of the day and night. Many of them work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Like everyone else in the public service, they accepted the cutbacks and what was necessary in the national interest and got on with the job. Surely now is the time to review their position and make some necessary improvements. The PRSI system imposed on them is totally unfair and the matter does not need further elaboration by me, as Senator Paschal Mooney has already referred to it. As recovery is well under way and has taken hold, surely now is the time to reward councillors. The Government has, correctly, increased the national minimum wage and improved the tax system. Other incremental increases are working their way through the public service. In the light of this, we must not leave local public representatives out of the loop.

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said, in particular his references to the recommendations made by the advisory group, from which, please God, fruit will flow. I look forward to this happening in early course.

26/01/2016VV00500Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I welcome the Minister for this important debate. Local government is a fundamental plank of our democratic institutions. Councillors are the point of contact closest to the citizen. As many as 80 units of local government - town councils - have been removed from the system, while the workload of councillors has been increased. While there is much that could be said about local government finances and the autonomous role councillors play, in this debate we are assessing their right to earn a fair living. I agree with my colleague, Senator Paschal Mooney, that many councillors have no alternative source of income. I know many young councillors across the country who are unable to make mortgage repayments from their council remuneration. As Senator Paschal Mooney said, they make PRSI contributions. However, if they become ill, are made unemployed or lose their seats, their contributions will not be worth anything to them. Neither will they be worth anything at the end of their tenure in office in terms of an entitlement to receive a pension. This anomaly must be addressed urgently.

Another issue is the increased workload of councillors. Their number has been reduced. Some 744 town councillors have been taken out of the democratic system. There has been a 370 26 January 2016 small increase in the numbers of county and city councillors from 883 to 949. Their workload has increased as a result of the abolition of town councils and the creation of the new municipal districts. Two things must occur. First, the level of remuneration must be increased to reflect the increased workload of councillors. Second, they must have a backup system in the form of secretarial assistance, as otherwise the balance of power will be skewed in favour of the executive at council level. It is unfair that the county manager, whom councillors are supposed to hold to account, has backup in the form of full-time staff. The system will end up being broken.

I urge the Minister to raise and deal with these matters. This is a cross-party motion. I thank everyone who was involved in the working group, particularly my colleague, Senator Diarmuid Wilson, who cannot be here but who represented Fianna Fáil’s view on it.

26/01/2016VV00600Senator Denis Landy: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock. The Min- ister had to leave to take part in a debate in the Lower House on homelessness. I am pleased to welcome the Minister of State because, unlike the Minister, he served his time in local government. Perhaps the Minister might not like me for saying he came to the Seanad straight off. The Minister of State served in local government for a number of years and, therefore, knows what we are talking about in the context of its day-to-day functioning.

I welcome the Government’s decision to set up a local government advisory group. I also appreciate the fact that the Minister has appointed me as the sole Oireachtas member of the group. He has acknowledged that I have 20 odd years of experience in local government to bring to the table. I am satisfied with the group’s eight terms of reference. Previous speakers have alluded to the terms and conditions of councillors and I am satisfied that they are encom- passed by the terms of reference. As I was concerned about the issue, I raised it at one of the first meetings I attended and I am now quite happy that they have been incorporated in the terms of reference.

As I have only three minutes, I will cut to the chase. Councillors cannot continue to function with the payment they receive. It is impossible to work full-time as a councillor and hold down another job because council work requires one’s full attention and councillors must be properly remunerated. No one expects to be become wealthy by being a public representative, but one does expect to be able to maintain one’s wife and children, if one has them, and pay bills. The process which the Minister started and I welcome greatly is about looking at this and many other matters. It is also about looking at how work is done.

It must be recognised that the geographical areas councillors must cover have multiplied in size by three and four times. The review group must also examine in an objective way whether councillors can be expected to carry out their work on their current wages and the current level of expenses. They cannot do so. To address the matter, we must collate data. The group is conducting a survey. The next forum meeting which I will attend will be held during the first week of February. I expect the survey to be complete and that arising out of that meeting and possibly the one after that, a set of recommendations will go to the Minister. Among other things, I believe they will include changes in remuneration and expenses.

Senator Paschal Mooney mentioned pensions and the PRSI contribution. This is being dealt with separately by the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister of State, Deputy Kevin Humphreys. This matter needs to be addressed as well and I am confident it will be addressed. It cannot continue. A councillor who is a member of my party and who lost his seat in 2014 told me that he went to the local labour exchange and signed on to discover he was not entitled 371 Seanad Éireann to a single cent. This is unacceptable. If a person loses their job, they should be entitled to a payment. I am happy that we are where we are at this point. We must keep driving this issue on and ensure we continue until we get a full result.

26/01/2016WW00200Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I have already expressed my outrage at what has taken place this evening. Members on the other side of this House contacted councillors all over the country and told them that we would be debating No. 81, non-Government motion No. 10, an all-party motion with an amendment put forward by a number of Independents and me.

26/01/2016WW00300Senator Paul Coghlan: I never said anything about amendments.

26/01/2016WW00400Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Will the Senator allow me to finish? I tabled an amendment seeking a review of the representational payment and the treatment of councillors in respect of PRSI, sick pay and pensions. Perhaps the Minister of State might tell me why when Members of this House get elected, they get a booklet giving them all their terms and conditions of employment. One of the things mentioned in this booklet is the opportunity to make voluntary contributions under PRSI to secure an entitlement to an old age pension. Today, I received from county councils the terms that are handed to councillors. No councillor is advised of his or her entitlement to make voluntary contributions to PRSI thus leaving him or her without a pension. There are councillors in this country over 66 years of age who do not have a red bloody cent and we are sitting here pretending we care about them. We are supposed to be debating their issue and we talk about all-party motions. I set out to try to put something together under class K PRSI. I asked for the assistance of all parties and got bloody well none.

What we are doing here is an outrage. We should be debating the motion and putting the Minister on the spot because councillors around this country get a miserable €8,000 per year. Does anybody take a cent out of Members’ public representative allowance? Nobody does. Why are we calling the representational payment a salary when it is not? Councillors are not paid salaries. They do not have terms and conditions of employment. They are being treated in a most appalling way and the 2014 Act has only made their terms and conditions worse.

If we really cared about councillors, we would be doing something about it and not talking about it. Perhaps those old parties about which we are talking are more concerned about their electoral possibilities in the forthcoming general election and do not want to be seen to increase any politician’s pay. Councillors are getting a miserable €8,000 after tax, USC and other deduc- tions are made. It is simply not enough. We have doubled their areas. There are councillors who cover hundreds of miles. It is not right. I do not know how many councillors are here. Councillors expected a report from this and that we would do them the courtesy of providing one. Members told them we would debate the motion and I asked this morning that we also be given time to debate the amendment to the motion. What has happened is disgusting and an outrage. I am deeply disappointed in the Members of this House.

26/01/2016WW00500Senator Cáit Keane: Senator Gerard P. Craughwell has greatly insulted the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, and the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA, which have beaten the door to the Minister-----

26/01/2016WW00600Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Not according to my freedom of information request.

26/01/2016WW00700Senator Cáit Keane: They are working with him in an established forum to give rights to councillors. I look forward to that report. As Fine Gael spokesperson on local government, I am working with the Minister on it. We have seen the extra workload councillors have been 372 26 January 2016 given in the most radical reform of local government. There is stronger oversight and powers in respect of policy, drawing up of service plans, the introduction of citizens’ participation and the extra workload that brings with it and the redesignation of manager as CEO. This all results in increased obligations on councillors. The Minister has said he recognises that and will do something about it. Many councillors must have jobs but there are only 24 hours in the day. I was a councillor for 20 years and had to give up work when I was a mayor and not take up work again. It is getting more difficult by the day, particularly since the reform. I know what I am talking about. The Senator was never a councillor. I was a councillor for 20 years. The Senator can crow from his height-----

26/01/2016WW00800Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Senator should care a little more about them then.

26/01/2016WW00900Senator Cáit Keane: Their wives, partners, sisters and brothers answer phones and e-mails and are unpaid, unpensioned and unrecognised. I recognise the councillors and ex-councillors in the Visitors Gallery. As I have only three minutes, I will concentrate on secretarial services for councillors and the PRSI class K that they pay at 4% and for which they get nothing. When I was on the North-South body and the Confederation of European Councillors with other councillors here, we carried out a survey of all councillors in Europe, including the United Kingdom. There is not a councillor in the European Union who is asked to pay a contribution but who gets nothing for it. If a case was taken under the Constitution, we would win it for the councillors because in Europe, they pay for nothing. It would not cost that much to get rid of it. I did the sums. If one takes 949 councillors who pay €669 each and multiplies that, one will get the total of €634,881. That is what it would cost to get rid of the PRSI rate of 4% for councillors.

Will the Minister do this because those over the age of 66 years are the only people in the country who are asked to pay class P without getting anything for it? The regulation concerning 4% PRSI was introduced in January 2011 before the Government came into office. I know that we are blamed for everything, but it was actually introduced before we came into office. Will the Minister get rid of that because councillors, AILG and LAMA have asked that they be given an opt-in or opt-out clause in respect of class A as that brings some recognition with it and pension entitlements? If councillors do not pay the voluntary contribution, they end up losing all the rights that come with it.

As party spokesperson on local government, I want to mention training because many councillors have mentioned accredited training. Councillors are not be able to avail of many of the training options for councillors if they are unemployed under a certain class. That is another issue. Council staff are at an advantage compared to councillors in that they can avail of accredited training while councillors can only do so to a lesser extent.

I welcome the review and look forward to the report which the Minister said would be brought forward shortly with the new arrangements and recognition for the increased workload of councillors. I will revert to the Minister on this issue.

26/01/2016WW01000Senator Paul Bradford: I welcome the Minister of State. I am glad to have an opportunity to say a few words on this matter. We are having statements and I concur with the sentiments expressed very strongly by Senator Gerard P. Craughwell that there was a motion before the House requesting that certain actions be carried out or contemplated. While statements are useful and may be an opportunity vent our feelings, little may come from them.

Given that we are discussing the operational review of local government, I wish to discuss

373 Seanad Éireann the current structure of local government, particularly the decision taken some time ago to abolish town councils. I had thought that this was also part of the operational review until last Thursday in this House when I put a Commencement matter to the Minister for the Environ- ment, Community and Local Government. I was advised by the Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, that while much was on the table for discussion, as far as the Minister was concerned, there was no intention of returning to the level of town council government. I was, therefore, glad to read the intervention today, which I think was the second intervention by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform claimed that as far as he was concerned, the decision to abolish town councils, of which we might all have been part, was a mistake. To use that abused phrase, “on mature reflection” - not recollec- tion - I certainly think it was a mistake to abolish that tier of local government. Any operational review of local government should look at the structures. The Minister of State and his father before him served on Cork County Council and Mallow town council. Anybody who looks at the new structures, in particular the size of the municipal divisions, must concede that we have absolutely removed the concept of local from local government. My problem is that we have no respect for local councillors in this country because we have no respect for local government. Local government is seen as a necessary nuisance. We occasionally allow it to bring forward councillors who advance onto the national stage of politics but, uniquely in Europe, we squash local government and the functions it should be carrying out. Its purpose is replicated here in this Chamber and in the other House. In the strange type of politics that we practise in this country, we refuse to allow local councillors to conduct the genuine business of local authority membership and governance. If, on the issue of town councils, this review ties the hands of its members, I am not sure how broad it can be. We need a much deeper review of politics and local government. This unwillingness to respect councillors stems from the fact that, if we are honest, we do not respect local government. There was great drama and excitement a number of years ago when we held a referendum to recognise local government in our constitution. Absolutely nothing has flown from that. There are so-called municipal districts where half the constituents have nothing in common with the other half and see no natural boundary or hinterland. The next Government should go back to the drawing board. We should stop this window dressing.

26/01/2016XX00400Senator Maurice Cummins: When communities have a problem, whether housing, roads, or grants, the local councillor is normally the first port of call. As has been mentioned, councillors pay class K PRSI and derive no old age pension or other benefit. The workload of councillors has increased significantly since local government reforms were introduced and in some cases, the areas which some represent are bigger than many constituencies. There is an urgent need to amend existing bands and reform them to take cognisance of the increased areas nationwide. This should be done as a matter of urgency because they have not been changed since they were introduced.

The ludicrous situation of meals being deducted from the small subsistence that councillors receive for conferences, which have also been curtailed, must end. The Minister of State gave me an assurance that this would be addressed and it needs to be done now. There is no standardisation - some councils are introducing and adhering to it and others are not. Meals should not be taken away from the small subsistence. When conferences were curtailed, many councils had several thousand euro in their budget for them. The former Minister, Commis- sioner Phil Hogan, suggested that some increase in councillors’ salary would be necessary to compensate them for this loss. It has never happened and it needs to be addressed. Recently, some councillors raised the question of privilege for councillors, which is enjoyed by Members 374 26 January 2016 of the Oireachtas and perhaps it is something that could be considered. An annual health check for councillors could replace some of the benefits that have been stripped from them in the past few years.

In most cases, council meetings take place in the mornings and afternoons which means that in future people who work in the private or public sector will find themselves unable to attend meetings or represent their constituents. It is something that needs to be addressed and the Minister of State mentioned it in his comments. The allowances of mayors and chairmen have been cut drastically. If a chairman’s headquarters is 40 or 50 miles away he may have to go there every day, and it all has to be taken out of his allowance for activities.

Councillors nationwide have been treated very shabbily. They seem to be the whipping boys of Ministers, the Government and the media. I believe 99% of councillors from all political persuasions are decent and honest people who wish to represent their communities in the best possible manner. They should be provided with adequate resources to fulfil their mandate.

26/01/2016XX00500Senator Jim Walsh: Some 19 years ago when I was first elected to this House, I said at one of our parliamentary party meetings that having spent 18 years on Wexford County Council, I was not entitled to anything when I left it. I would get no payment or pension, yet when I arrived here I got a booklet telling me all my entitlements. I felt that it was manifestly unfair and discriminatory against councillors. At the time, many Members campaigned strongly against it, including Senator Cáit Keane who was with me on the executive of LAMA at the time. I acknowledge the constructive approach the former Minister, former Deputy Noel Dempsey, took at the time and we made some progress. Unfortunately when I rolled out the boat about the salary, I rolled it out too low, at a quarter of a Senator’s salary. When we came to put our presentation together, we looked for one third and I think it should be brought to that level. Councillors are the only people in the public service who do not have a pension entitlement, which is blatantly discriminatory and wrong. The issue is compounded by the fact that they pay class K PRSI, which deprives them of any social welfare entitlements. The whole thing needs to be looked at.

Remuneration is not the only issue; the whole system of local government has not improved in the interim. At that stage, the 2001 Act was introduced which provided for directly elected mayors or chairmen of councils which I think would have considerably transformed the system. I am a long-time advocate of transferring all executive powers from the manager to the chairman and council. Perhaps a mini Cabinet might be formed by the chair of the council and the chairs of the SPCs working together, which was part of the proposals we made at that time. Unfortunately, Noel Dempsey was not reappointed to that ministry where I think progress could have been made.

We urgently need a devolution of powers from the Department to the council. I am aston- ished to learn that departmental officials are not dealing with the housing crisis and officials at council level are unable to take the initiatives, which they had the power to take ten years ago, to address the difficulties in the housing situation and provide housing. It is a disgrace.

There needs to be a complete rebalance not only between the Department and the council but also between the executive and its members. Members will act responsibly when given responsibility. They have been denigrated by politicians and officials. It is simply not good enough.

375 Seanad Éireann I commend the initiative taken and urge Independents to work with the parties and work as a team to get justice for councillors. I say this without looking for any benefit because talking about local government is probably my swansong.

26/01/2016XX00800Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: One could get the Independents to work with the parties, but will the parties work with the Independents?

26/01/2016XX01000Senator Michael Comiskey: I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for taking the time to address this most important issue. Local government and councillors are the lifeblood of the public service. The workload of councillors is onerous and we need to ensure they are adequately provided for. The Local Government Reform Act 2014 brought about great changes to the operation of local councils. It provided for the dissolution of town councils and a review of council area boundaries.

8 o’clock

The upshot of this legislation means that in practice councillors now represent a much larger council area and work on behalf of a much increased electorate.

The Act has now been in force for over a year and an operational review began in May 2015 to ensure these structural changes operate effectively. The intent of the legislation was to provide the electoral areas involved with a more balanced representation, generally with less variation in ratios of councillors to population across the State. It is crucial that this is being achieved. While I strongly welcome the review, it is imperative that it focuses on the effect that the Act has on councillors and their workload. It is important that the review would also incorporate the view of local government organisations such as the Association of Irish Local Government, AILG, and the Local Authority Members Association, LAMA.

I am glad to see there is an AILG representative on the advisory group that is carrying out this review. Due to the vast job of work associated with the role of councillors, many are full- time councillors serving the needs of communities and it is important that this is recognised and they are sufficiently compensated for the important role they play in our society. We need to highlight the important work carried out by the councillors and the valuable contribution they make as public representatives. I agree with my colleagues in the House that the workload of councillors right across the State must be recognised. In my own county of Leitrim we have been reduced from 22 councillors to 18 with the workload remaining the same. Our neighbour- ing county of Sligo has been divided into two vast areas with 18 councillors. We could call for a review of those boundaries, especially in counties such as Leitrim and Sligo where the two areas are very large.

The necessary resources must be provided for councillors. We have seen the work they have done, particularly during the recent storms when councillors took calls day and night to look after people. I thank the Minister of State for joining us in the House and look forward to hearing how these concerns will be resolved in the context of the review of the Local Govern- ment Act 2014.

26/01/2016YY00200Senator Mark Daly: I thank the Minister of State for coming into the House to debate this issue. I also thank Senator Jim Walsh who is possibly retiring at the next election and who did much work regarding local government. The Senator was one of the first to propose a representational payment for councillors and the then Minister for the Environment and Local Gov- ernment, Mr. Noel Dempsey, took it on board. Councillors around the State have the former 376 26 January 2016 Minister and Senator Jim Walsh, among others, to be thankful to.

Senator Jim Walsh has spoken on the PRSI payment and councillors’ lack of pension provision. In many instances this is a councillor’s only job and this should be of concern to us all. The days of being a voluntary councillor are long past because there are so many competing alternatives. If one wants the best people one needs to make sure they are properly catered for and compensated appropriately.

Reference was made to the powers of councillors which have, in reality, been eroded by central government. We have the most centralised government in the world which, in reality, is down to four Ministers who control the Government. However, when it comes to local government, over the last number of years we have seen the roads transferred to the National Roads Authority, housing authorities have taken over the provision of housing for groups and organisations, driving licences have been removed from local government and water has been removed from local government. The power that was once held, controlled and decided locally on issues of importance to local people has now been centralised. Senator Jim Walsh and I have long advocated that giving councillors power is an issue of rebalancing. Appointing a chief executive who is a public servant and who is elected would be a transformation entirely in the way we do democracy in the Government and for decision making. Ultimately, it is the chief executive rather than the public representatives who has the final say in so many areas. We often see this in this House and in the Dáil where it is the Secretaries General who make a lot of the decisions, depending on who the Minister is. There is a lot that needs to be done for public representatives into the future.

It is unfortunate that the survey results on local government reform will only be issued in the next few days, by which time there will be no action in the lifetime of the Government. Action is, however, required.

26/01/2016YY00300Senator Michael Mullins: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock. It is welcome that the Minister for the Environment, Deputy Alan Kelly, attended the House to commence the debate. In fairness, the Minister hit all the right notes in his contribution. He recognised the very significant change in the role and workload of the councillors since 2014 local government reforms were put in place. I also welcome his reference to the operational review which he established in May 2015.

I come from a county that had three town councils. A total of 27 councillors have been taken out of the system as a result of the abolition of town councils. There has been a significant consequent increase in the workload of the county councillors with very increased representation, especially those who represent the towns of Ballinasloe, Tuam and Loughrea. I welcome the establishment of the local government advisory group and I compliment Senator Denis Landy on his positive influence on the workings of that group.

The councillor has an increasingly responsible role in decision making that impacts significantly on all citizens. This must be reflected in the remuneration and conditions of employment of councillors. The sum of €16,500 is a totally inadequate level of remuneration to reflect that workload. Many councillors are now full-time and trying to raise a family and pay the bills on that income. Those who are not full-time councillors have to take time off - if they can get it - with a subsequent loss of earnings from their other employment. The whole issue of PRSI and paying 4% in respect of class K was raised by me when I was a councillor but it never seemed to get a sympathetic ear from the relevant Minister. I hope that everything is on the table on 377 Seanad Éireann this occasion when the advisory group comes to its conclusion and that the next Minister - be it Deputy Alan Kelly or his successor - puts together a proper package for councillors who do such a wonderful job representing the citizens on the front line of democracy.

With remuneration, back-up secretarial services and expenses for meal allowances should be revisited. The small-minded reductions were made by officials without the blessing of any particular Minister; therefore, what is happening today is important. The AILG and LAMA want us all to work together on this matter. I am disappointed that there has been some discord on the issue.

26/01/2016YY00400Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: How to go?

26/01/2016YY00500Senator Michael Mullins: If we are to achieve success, we all need to work together.

26/01/2016YY00600Senator Aideen Hayden: I note that many Senators have been involved in bringing forward the issue of councillors and their remuneration. I particularly wish to acknowledge my colleague Senator Denis Landy who has been tireless in his efforts to improve the lot of councillors.

I am not going to reiterate the many points that have been made on issues such as the level of remuneration, the level of support and the PRSI benefits to which councillors are entitled. We must acknowledge that there is an advisory group in place and I am confident that when this group examines the role of councillors, it will have no option but to make a positive recommendation on pay and conditions. As a society, we must ask ourselves what we want. We have given local authorities more resources, in terms of funding, and more responsibility. We must now ask whether we are going to be serious about the remuneration we give to councillors who take on this responsible role. I do not want to see a scenario where only people who can afford to, namely, the noblesse oblige type, contribute because they have the resources behind them. They should not be the only people who end up representing local communities, sometimes in areas that are most important to those communities, as we saw during the recent flooding crisis. We must decide what we want and we must want a proper system of local government. We will not have that, unless we remunerate councillors properly.

26/01/2016ZZ00200Senator Terry Brennan: I welcome the Minister of State and thank the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, for his contribution.

There is no doubt that since the abolition of town councils, county councillors have taken on a more significant role, involving more travel, longer hours and greater responsibility. I acknowledge the work being done by the reform review group on this issue. Senator Paschal Mooney mentioned that Senator Jim Walsh approached a former Minister, Mr. Noel Dempsey, on this issue. Prior to that, I was part of a delegation of five from my county who approached the then Minister, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, on the issue. He gave us a fair hearing. I was a councillor for 15 years and I note that other Senators served on councils for as long, with no remuneration whatsoever. Both former Ministers listened to the case we put forward in respect of this issue.

I have made personal approaches to the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, to the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brendan Howlin, and the Taoiseach on the issue of remuneration for councillors during the past 12 to 18 months, in recognition of the fact that the young people who succeeded in obtaining positions as councillors following the local elections did not realise the workload they were 378 26 January 2016 taking on. They are not complaining about it but they did not realise how the role had changed. The Minister, in his travels to councils throughout the country, has recognised the responsibilities and work councillors have taken on. They have greater responsibilities and longer working hours but are only getting half the minimum wage gross. When tax and PRSI are taken into consideration, they are left with approximately €8,500 a year for working 50 to 60 hours per week. They are not recompensed to the level they should be. As far as I am concerned, all councillors deserve the minimum wage, regardless of whether they operate in the role on a full- time basis. Some councillors have to take time off work and pay somebody to take their place.

I am encouraged by what the Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, said and look forward to the findings of the review group. The Minister said he would work on the recommendations he received from that group and I have no doubt he will do so.

26/01/2016ZZ00300Senator Pat O’Neill: I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Sean Sherlock, for coming to the House. A great deal has been said during the debate. The vast majority of Members served as local councillors before they came to the House. This issue revolves around remuneration. People do not like to hear mention of payment for politicians because many of them feel politicians are well off and should not be remunerated. We have often heard what a former Minister said here, namely, that if one pays peanuts, one will only get monkeys.

In the years following the coming into force of the 1905 Act, local government was the preserve of the landed gentry or professional people and they were not paid for their work. In 2002, remuneration for councillors was introduced. I was elected to the local authority in 2004 and I received a salary. At present, councillors are not even paid the minimum wage and have no PRSI entitlements. We have made changes to local government, some of which have been for the better. However, we need to review the changes made and to admit we got some wrong.

Under the new Local Government Acts, we gave councillors more powers, more responsibilities and asked that they attend more meetings and cover more ground. When Oliver Twist took his bowl and asked for more, he was refused. We took the bowls of councillors and filled them. However, we filled them with more work rather than remuneration. They deserve a review of their position and I welcome the fact that the Minister intends to consider the situation. A councillor’s salary was set at a quarter of that of a Senator. It is time to change this. Such a move may be a cost for local government but we must do this if we want proper people in the job. The job of a local councillor has almost become a full-time occupation. It is no longer the position that somebody can do the job on a part-time basis. Some professionals may be able to do the work at times but people in the public service or another job find it very difficult to get time off work to attend more frequent meetings. There are significantly more meetings due to the new municipal areas.

I do not want to delay this debate further. The review group, in conjunction with the two main groups, the AILG and LAMA, must get this right. Councillors deserve payment. People should not be afraid to say this. As politicians, we are afraid to say that politicians should be paid more. Councillors do an unbelievable job 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The proof of this was seen during the flooding crisis, when councillors, the locally elected people, took the lead. It is time we reviewed what they are paid. As a result of the changes made in recent Lo- cal Government Acts we got some things right. However, we also got some wrong. We must ensure councillors are rewarded properly or we will not have the calibre of people in local government that we want to lead communities.

379 Seanad Éireann

26/01/2016ZZ00400Senator Martin Conway: Like most colleagues, I am a former member of a local authority and we know better than most the workload involved in being a county or city councillor. How- ever, having been here for over four years, we do not know what the workload is like now. In County Clare the electoral area of north Clare was amalgamated with the electoral area of west Clare and the eight councillors in north-west Clare must now service a geographical area that is 50% of the land mass of the county. They must travel the bones of 80 miles, from Ballyvaughan to Kilrush, over to the borders of Ennis and back up towards Corofin. This is unworkable, unrealistic, unreasonable and unfair. It is anti-democratic and does not allow councillors the scope to do their work the way they want to whereby they know every part of their areas inside out. Unfortunately, a land mass of the size they must cover is more like a Dáil constituency. In the United Kingdom a constituency of that size would elect an MP.

We must be realistic. The creation of these large council areas was a bizarre notion. I sus- pect these large areas were created in order to support smaller parties. That is fine in itself but it is totally unworkable.

The dramatic reduction in the allowances payable to local authority members that took place in the aftermath of the 2014 local elections was totally unfair. A clear indication was given at that time that the pay scales and remunerations would be favourably looked at after the elections, when the reduced number of councillors serving areas of increased size came into effect. That did not happen. What happened was the total opposite. The situation with regard to PRSI is bizarre, indefensible, inexcusable and unrealistic. If councillors were to take a case, they would certainly win on equality grounds. Why in the name of God would anyone pay PRSI to get no benefit? This is the type of thing that happens in a cuckoo republic, not a democratic state like Ireland.

These are the issues. I welcome the review group. I would like to know when it is proposed that it would come back with its recommendations. We could write out the recommendations for the review group, in particular those regarding PRSI, a review of the huge municipal districts and equitable remuneration, which would be properly vouched and controlled but fair. I believe the vast majority of people want to see public representatives paid fairly. Perhaps the media do not, but the vast majority of decent Irish people want to see people get a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

26/01/2016AAA00200An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

26/01/2016AAA00300Senator Maurice Cummins: Ar 10.30 maidin amárach.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 27 January 2016.

380