Vol. 196 Tuesday, No. 4 23 June 2009

DI´OSPO´ IREACHTAI´ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD E´ IREANN

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

Tuesday, 23 June 2009.

Business of Seanad ………………………………207 Order of Business …………………………………207 Visit of Czech Delegation ………………………………216 Order of Business (resumed)……………………………216 Night-time Rural Transport: Statements …………………………221 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage ……………………………237 Second Stage …………………………………237 Adjournment Matters: Health Service Staff ………………………………259 Water and Sewerage Schemes …………………………260 National Drugs Strategy ……………………………262 SEANAD E´ IREANN

————

De´ Ma´irt, 23 Meitheamh 2009. Tuesday, 23 June 2009.

————

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m.

————

Paidir. Prayer.

————

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

The need for the Minister for Health and Children to clarify whether funding will be made available for the provision of obligatory continuing professional development, for example this September’s forthcoming European seating symposium, hosted by the Central Remedial Clinic, for health care professionals in the Health Service Executive such as physiotherapists and occupational therapists.

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

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to outline the progress report on the Courtmacsherry-Timoleague, County Cork, sewerage scheme.

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

The need for the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to outline the plans he is putting in place to counter the growing drug use problem in Cork city and county.

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

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to address the situation in which hundreds of customers of Donegal County Council are paying over 10% interest rates on loans from the local authority and to outline how he intends to rectify this.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment. I have selected the matters raised by Senators Maria Corrigan, Michael McCarthy and Jerry Buttimer and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. Senator Pearse Doherty may give notice on another day of the matter he wishes to raise.

Order of Business. Senator Donie Cassidy: The Order of Business is No. 1, statements on the night-time rural transport service, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and to conclude not later than 5.15 p.m., with Senators having five minutes to speak, on which Senators may share 207 Order of 23 June 2009. Business

[Senator Donie Cassidy.] time by agreement of the House, and the Minister to be called ten minutes from the conclusion of the debate for concluding comments and to take questions from spokespersons or leaders; and No. 2, Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 — Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to be taken at the conclusion of No. 1 and not earlier than 5.15 p.m., with spokespersons having 12 minutes to speak, all other Senators seven, and on which Senators may share time by agreement of the House.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, that time be given for a debate as to how front-line services in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin, have been affected by cutbacks. This morning I spent a couple of hours in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin, as I also did last week. I went there this morning with the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, which had a very useful meeting there. However, this raises the question of how budgetary cutbacks are affecting front line services for children. The joint committee heard of a hospital with increased productivity that is dealing with new areas of children’s illnesses and is providing an increased number of services but which will be obliged to make serious cutbacks over the next few weeks and months until the end of 2009. These cutbacks will mean that outpatient services will be cut for thousands of children and that inpatient beds will be denied to children. While Ireland undoubtedly faces an extremely difficult budgetary situation, should not these services be maintained, developed and given the funding they need? This children’s hospital is a centre of excellence that must delay the treatment of children, which means that Ireland in general and Crumlin hospital in particular are falling behind best international norms for the treatment of children with serious illness. For example, this means that a child with scoliosis could end up waiting for the condition to deteriorate by 20% more than would be the case in other countries before that child will receive the operation he or she needs. Moreover, this applies across the specialties. Urgent treatment is being delayed, which means that as time goes on, it will cost more to deal with such children and there is no system in place to deal with the waiting lists that are developing in this regard. This House should discuss this most serious situation, as well as discussing the priorities and what matters in Ireland. Members should discuss what services will be maintained as a priority and whether the unique and desperately needed services provided in the children’s hospital will be protected or will face the proposed severe cuts in the next few months that would mean children would not receive the treatment they need in Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. Such a debate should take place in this House today in which all sides should be heard. A strong message should be sent to the Department of Health and Children about the priority that such services should receive.

Senator Joe O’Toole: In recent weeks, I commented in this House about a member of the hierarchy, as I am wont to do. Over the weekend he has taken me to task and has had the audacity to tell me I am wrong in the public newspapers. I have known Bishop John Kirby for the past 30 years and over that time, I always have found him to be an honourable, decent and dependable man. If his record is put up against my recollection of a day, I will concede fully and uninhibitedly to his records of events. I absolutely regret that I cause him embarrassment and apologise for misleading the House on the issue.

Senator Ro´ na´n Mullen: Did the Senator go to Specsavers?

Senator Joe O’Toole: My apology also is tainted by the fact that I sense a single transferable vote of long standing moving slowly across towards Senator Mullen in this regard. 208 Order of 23 June 2009. Business

An Cathaoirleach: No canvassing, please.

Senator Joe O’Toole: In this regard, I acknowledge I was wrong. There has been much discussion over the weekend on the question of the judges and one should go back to the starting point regarding this issue.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Joe O’Toole: This issue was simple and the entire weekend has been a distraction from what really went on. The Government of the day conned the world by not increasing tax through the expedient of calling it a levy.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Joe O’Toole: I objected at the time and spoke in this House on the subject many times. This measure should have been called what it actually was, that is, if it looked like a tax, sounded like a tax and felt like a tax, it was a tax that was payable by everyone. Its description as a levy and the subsequent creation of a difficulty for the Judiciary has caused a problem all round. Someone leaked the information and a distracting debate has taken place. The Govern- ment should do the decent thing and make clear that from henceforth, this constitutes a tax. This would take pressure away from everyone, as everybody would be obliged to pay it. More- over, taxes should never be left up to individuals one way or another. It was disgraceful that this tax was given the misnomer of a levy. It always was a tax, constituted a tax increase, is deducted like a tax and is perceived by the public to be a tax. That would be the easy way to deal with it. I do not wish to listen to Fianna Fa´il Members suggesting that a referendum is required to deal with this issue. A one-line Bill is all that is required to the effect that this is a tax rather than a levy and that would finish the problem.

Senator Alex White: I support Senator Fitzgerald’s call for a debate on frontline services. I agree with what she said about Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital in Crumlin. There is an urgent need for a debate on the services that are provided in the wards of this city’s most important children’s hospital. I hope Senator Fitzgerald will allow me to second the amendment she has proposed to today’s Order of Business. The debate is urgently needed. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate in this House, at his earliest possible convenience, on the general issue of child care. Senators will be aware that in the recent supplementary budget, the Minister for Finance indicated the Government intends to introduce a scheme of free child care places throughout the State. That announcement was partly welcome. It is proposed that the scheme will be rolled out over the next year or two. The question of how precisely the scheme will work is the subject of serious uncertainty. Although it may have gone against the grain, I was happy to welcome the principle underpinning the announcement that was made in the recent supplementary budget. I reiterate that my party supports the concept of providing free preschool child care places to children across the State. We need to have clarity about how precisely it will be implemented. Will it be implemented at all? There are many concerns in this regard. Our only concern relates to the need to ensure that an efficient and accessible child care scheme is available to children, through their parents. Many child care providers will be expected to step up to the plate, for example by providing sessional care. They have serious concerns about how this scheme will be implemented. The providers’ concerns relate to the level of the subsidy, for example. One might well say that people who are running businesses will always have a concern about subsidies, and that our job is not to bolster individual busi- nesses. If our objective is to provide child care places, our job is to talk candidly to the providers and listen carefully to what they are saying about whether it will be possible to implement the 209 Order of 23 June 2009. Business

[Senator Alex White.] scheme that was so enthusiastically announced by the Minister for Finance in the supplemen- tary budget. I ask the Leader to arrange for the Minister of State with responsibility for children to come to the House at some convenient point before the end of this session to debate this matter.

Senator Marc MacSharry: I would like to make a brief preamble before I call for a debate. In line with my ongoing efforts to ensure that the people of the north west can enjoy equitably accessible cancer services, and in light of the revelations contained in the Health Information and Quality Authority’s report on breast cancer services in Waterford, I submitted a freedom of information request to try to get my hands on the interim report on breast cancer services at University College Hospital, Galway, as well as a number of other support documents. I was amazed and flabbergasted to be told that my request had been declined. It is important for me to outline a couple of things. I ask the House to indulge me. I asked for the interim report on the basis that all the cancer needs of the people of the north west are supposed to be catered for at the centre in Galway. I received a letter telling me that no meetings concerning the interim report had taken place between University College Hospital, Galway, and the Health Information and Quality Authority up to the date of my freedom of information request. I found that shocking in the extreme. I was also informed that the hospital and its staff are “endeavouring” and “motivated” to meet the national standards for symptomatic breast dis- ease. I took the use of the words “motivated” and “endeavouring” to mean that, by definition, the hospital is not achieving those standards at the moment. The Health Information and Quality Authority has refused to validate the report on the self-assessment audits that have been carried out at Sligo General Hospital. If it did, it might see that the standards at the hospital are particularly high and that the hospital is therefore in a position to cater for the needs of the north-west region. However, the authority is seeking to transfer services to a hospital that is “endeavouring” and “motivated” to achieve the national standards. As we saw in the memo that was leaked two weeks ago, the management of the hospital in question is not in a position to meet its obligations under the national cancer control programme. In that context, I am calling for two urgent debates. The first debate should relate to the ineptitude of the HSE, which continues to pursue the implementation of the national cancer control prog- ramme in an authoritarian and dictatorial manner that discriminates against the people of the north-west region. I also request a debate on the Freedom of Information Act to examine the abuses that are being carried out because this particular response did not come back within the appropriate time. It would take too long to go into all of what it states but it is a basic admission that they were afraid that the information might help me and the people of the north west in the pursuit of equality and as a result I was not given the information.

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: It is disgraceful.

Senator Ciaran Cannon: I received a telephone call this morning from a friend of mine who is a blocklayer. He has received no offer of work since last September but in recent weeks he was encouraged by the fact that he received calls for quotations from six young couples living in his area who were contemplating building their first home. He was very much encouraged by that and he rang me at the time to say that perhaps the green shoots were finally beginning to emerge in his neck of the woods. However, he called me again this morning to say that he reverted to all these couples with a price and without exception every one of them told him that they had been refused a mortgage by their bank. These are people in relatively safe employment earning significant income to justify their being granted a mortgage but without exception every one of them was refused one. 210 Order of 23 June 2009. Business

What now have an economy that is in some kind of cryogenic suspended animation where we, the taxpayers, are pumping thousands of millions of our money into a banking system that simply refuses to allow one solitary cent of that to pass on to the real economy to people like this gentleman who are willing to get engaged and to get back working if they are given that opportunity. I again request the Leader to arrange for an urgent debate on banking policy because tax- payers’ money has not bought us one single modicum of influence on day-to-day banking policy. Our money is being used to shore up balance sheets day after day to avert nationalis- ation, which for a banker would be the most traumatic outcome possible. That is what they are trying to do. They are trying to stop that from happening by making their balance sheets look as healthy as possible. Not one cent of our money is being passed on to the people who, if given the opportunity, would be more than willing and capable of kick-starting this economy.

Senator Camillus Glynn: I recently asked the Leader to arrange for a debate on the report of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the electoral register. It is timely to have such a debate and for the Minister to be present for it. I have been inundated, as I am sure have other Members, with calls from people whose names failed to be recorded on the register. I reiterate what I said on the previous occasion we discussed this matter, namely, that a lady whose name had been recorded on the register for many years discovered when she went to vote that her name was not recorded on it. Old people take seriously the exercise of their franchise — the casting of their vote. It is time we had a debate on this matter. While it is not a recommendation in the report, I believe it should be mandatory for people to register to vote. There are many reasons some people do not want to register to vote. Some of those reasons are sinister, tax evasion being one of them. If people do not want their name recorded on the electoral register, what is the reason they do not want it recorded? What are they hiding? It is time this matter was brought centre stage, that we had a debate on it in this House and that definitive proposals were brought froward by the Minister to rectify the situation in regard to the compilation of the electoral register. Successive Governments down the years have tried to rectify this but none of them has been successful. What has continued to happen in this respect is a disgrace. I would welcome such a debate as soon as possible.

Senator Shane Ross: If I could share some of the humble pie Senator O’Toole is dishing around the Independent benches——

Senator Camillus Glynn: Does the Senator want it with cream?

Senator Shane Ross: ——on the basis that there is great rejoicing in the kingdom of heaven for the return of repentant sinners, I hope that the Leader will allow us to have a debate on the Lisbon treaty in order that everyone on these benches can revise their position.

(Interruptions).

Senator Shane Ross: Including myself.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Is this a U-turn?

An Cathaoirleach: Allow Senator Ross to continue, without interruption.

Senator Shane Ross: The House will possibly have noticed that last week the credit rating of this country was downgraded in a very serious way by Standard & Poors. One of the results of this was that the euro tumbled steeply on foreign exchange markets. That development was 211 Order of 23 June 2009. Business

[Senator Shane Ross.] received extraordinarily badly among our European partners. The latter have begun to regard Ireland and its economy and banking system not only as a deadweight in themselves but also as a deadweight on the European Union. We should give serious consideration, at a time when we face economic Armageddon, to whether we have any friends abroad. We should also con- sider how badly we need them. It is no coincidence that our breach of Europe’s Stability and Growth Pact has been tolerated for five years. We are dependent on the European Central Bank for continued economic oxy- gen and, as a result, we need every possible lifeline onto which we can cling. In the circum- stances, it would be folly to state we can go it alone without our European friends. It is important that any of us who wish to revise our positions should explain our reasons for doing so to the House. In that context, there should be a debate on this matter as soon as possible.

Senator Eoghan Harris: In times of impending Armageddon, to paraphrase Senator Ross, a society normally turns to its wise old men and women. This morning, therefore, I attended the Lemass International Forum to hear Dr. T. K. Whitaker, who is 93 years old but who remains hale and hearty, impart his wisdom. Dr. Whitaker was reluctant to give any advice to current Governments — the civil servant in him restrains him from doing so — but he stated the most important thing is not to lose jobs. He indicated that people should take pay cuts, work longer hours or whatever but that jobs should not be lost. I appreciate the difficulties faced by the Government. However, I cannot understand how it, in light of Fianna Fa´il’s dominant position, has departed so far from the ideals of Sea´n Lemass. Professor Tom Garvan has said of Lemass that his central political thesis, endlessly reiterated by him over a long political career, was that the spirit of the public was all-important in a democratic polity and that if public opinion was not with one, one would get nowhere. How can that be reconciled with the soft line the Taoiseach took last night in respect of judges? It may well be, as Senator O’Toole stated, that the cleanest action to take may be to impose a simple and straightforward tax. Nevertheless, there is a moral obligation on members of the Judiciary. If judges do not know that they should take a pay cut in a period of mass public unemployment, what do they know? How can one trust people such as that with the law of the land when they do not know the correct ethical decision to make in respect of themselves?

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

An Cathaoirleach: There should be no interruptions.

Senator David Norris: I merely said “Hear, hear”. I am always saying it. I am known for doing so.

Senator Eoghan Harris: I thank Senator Norris.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Harris should put a question to the Leader.

Senator Eoghan Harris: Will the Leader arrange a debate in the near future on the entrepren- eurial culture that was the subject of Dr. Whitaker’s remarks this morning and on the need to stop what the latter referred to as the “miserabilism” within the Department of Finance? Dr. Whitaker also spoke about the Department’s fiscal obsessions and the “inverted Micawberism” it displays by “waiting for something to turn down”. Is it not time we engaged in a debate on entrepreneurial culture? During such a debate we could focus on the point Padraig White, the distinguished former boss of what was then the IDA, made to me at lunch earlier today to the effect that every time 1,000 people go on to the dole it costs the State \20 million and would 212 Order of 23 June 2009. Business it not, therefore, be cheaper to spend \15 million on creating employment through the provision of employer subsidies, worker subsidies or whatever. Is it not time we had our third programme for economic expansion, a plan from the Government and a degree of toughness from the Taoiseach in talking to a delinquent class, even if the members of that class are judges?

Senator Eugene Regan: Acceptance of the Lisbon treaty is the prerequisite for getting the economy right. In addition, we must work with our friends in Europe in order to resolve our relationships with them. Our European partners have proven to be our friends 3 o’clock in the context of showing economic solidarity in the current crisis. They have also proven to be our friends in respect of how they accommodated the Government on the issues of concern raised during the previous referendum campaign. I ask the Leader to arrange a debate on this matter as quickly as possible, and have the Minister here to outline precisely the guarantees which have been received, and say why they have a legal status and how they are enforceable because the “No” side has already said these guarantees are not legally binding. They say the conclusions of the European Council and the agreement of the Heads of State and Government say they are legally binding, and that it is a legal guarantee, but we need to nail this straightaway so assertions are not made in relation to this treaty which go unchallenged and that we do not lose the initiative in this debate. Senator Ross has made a good point in that there were Senators who raised issues as regards the Lisbon treaty. I do not believe there is any point in going back over this or claiming that people have now seen the light. The reality is that genuine concerns were raised. Those con- cerns have now been dealt with and we have clarification——

Senator David Norris: It is up to the people who have concerns to say what they are.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Regan, without interruption, pleas.

Senator Eugene Regan: ——on the treaty and how it will be interpreted in the future. Even for Senator Norris that leaves a solid basis for meaningful debate in this House for the future.

Senator David Norris: Let us have a debate.

Senator John Hanafin: There is no doubt that in the good times people forget the bad, and vice versa. I am conscious that in the past a development plan and a national plan, even in difficult times, would have placed us very well for the future. I repeat calls made here earlier for a national development plan that would include a comprehensive expenditure programme, albeit which will need to be raised abroad, but which nonetheless will serve us well for when the upturn inevitably comes. This Government has taken brave and decisive action to ensure our finances are in a good state. It has not been politically favourable for the parties involved but notwithstanding that it has been the right thing to do and will stand to those parties again. I repeat the calls I have made in the past for a two-day debate to allow every political party in the House enunciate how they would make cuts and tax savings, if and when they get into Government. It is an initiative through which the Seanad could serve the State well, by for the first time hearing how the Opposition would deal with the \20 billion deficit.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: We have given it to the Government side already. The Senator has been like a broken record for three weeks. He should read our policy in this regard.

An Cathaoirleach: No interruptions, please. The House will hear Senator Hanafin. 213 Order of 23 June 2009. Business

Senator John Hanafin: I welcome the roars of disapproval because they prove they do not want to tell the public what they would do if they ever got into office.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Read our policy on this. It is widely available.

Senator John Hanafin: I therefore welcome the roars from the Opposition, who do not want to tell the public how they would bridge the \20 billion budget deficit.

Senator Ro´ na´n Mullen: I note what Senators Regan and Ross had to say about the Lisbon treaty, and they are always eloquent and compelling. I want to put it on the record that whereas some newspapers are numbering people who, allegedly, are going to jump ship into the “Yes” camp, it is certainly not based on anything I said. I shall do what I said I would do all along, namely, look at the guarantees in detail, discuss them with the Minister in person, I hope, in the coming weeks and make a decision for myself on the basis of the issues I have raised, without fear or favour. I agree with what has been said about the remuneration of judges. It seemed to me all along that notwithstanding the constitutional provision to the effect the remuneration of a judge should not be reduced while he or she is in office, what happened was a strange and overly cautious approach to that provision. I am glad the issue of Crumlin hospital was raised, and I found what the HSE said last Friday both bizarre and terribly insensitive, when it claimed the non-availability of abortion in Ireland was somehow responsible for delays affecting some operations at Our Lady’s Hospital for Sick Children. This was grossly insensitive. A civilised society, as we all know, is not built on measur- ing how much it costs to care for those most in need. It is a society that welcomes everyone in life, particularly the vulnerable and the marginalised. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Mary Harney, said in the context of another debate a couple of weeks ago that the care extended rightly to the unborn, as she put it, should also be extended to the born. It would be a testament to our society that, instead of taking the cold, clinical, culling mentality exemplified by the HSE in this statement, we sought to make our country one where people with disabilities of any kind, born or unborn, are at the top of the queue, not at the bottom.

Senator John Hanafin: Hear, hear.

Senator Nicky McFadden: Hear, hear.

Senator Ro´ na´n Mullen: It is interesting to note a very eloquent and tragic piece by Carl O’Brien in The Irish Times where he talks about people in the Leader’s area of Castlepollard who are still stuck in institutional settings, people with intellectual disabilities who should be at the top of the queue in our society but who are, yet again, being placed at the bottom. Shame on those responsible for such a deprioritisation of people.

Senator Nicky McFadden: I raised the issue of St. Peter’s Hospital in Castlepollard on the Adjournment and I am still waiting for the Minister to come back about the staffing of that centre. Senator Mullen is correct that people still live in these appalling situations. It is incum- bent on this Government, through the Leader’s good offices, to find out what the story is and when these houses will be open for once and for all. The Oasis concert last weekend is a major issue and nobody seems to be responsible. The event organisers, the owner of the land, Meath County Council and the Garda have agreed to have a detailed review. Who is responsible for allowing more than 80,000 people in there? At one stage they just opened the gates because the queues were so long. People were terrified out of their wits. A couple of people interviewed on the radio said it reminded them of what 214 Order of 23 June 2009. Business it must have been like to have been part of what went on at Hillsborough, the idea of being in a crowd and not being able to go forward or back. Some people were hysterical, drunk and on drugs and there were masses of fights and rows. Who is responsible? They are talking about this detailed review, but that is all very well when the horse has bolted. Who is responsible and what does the licence mean? We should have a debate on that issue.

Senator David Norris: I join Senator Fitzgerald in her call for a debate on Crumlin hospital. I support my colleague, Senator O’Toole, in what he said about the levy — it should be referred to as a tax. I was entertained by the efforts of the Chief Justice to prod his parsimonious colleagues into shelling out a few bob. I have personal experience of the fact that the judicial proboscis is not entirely immune to the lure of the scent of lucre. Colleagues will know that on many occasions in this House I have raised the question of the proliferation of licensing and the fact that every huxter’s shop in Dublin was stuffed to the roof with drink of all kinds. I have pointed out that there were occasions on which the city authorities, local community and police had all objected, and yet the judges gave licences. I repeated this question on television and said I could not understand what kind of idiots were doing this, I did not know where they lived or who they were, but that they did not live near me or they would not put up with it. It turned out, unfortunately for me, or rather for RTE, that there was only one judge and he took umbrage at this. A solicitor’s letter was received stating that his IQ had been called into question, that he had been described as a common idiot, imbecile or fool, and he sued. It was very difficult to get anybody to go into court against him. One can imagine a judge in a court with a fellow-judge. Not many barristers would be interested in taking that case on. He managed to get \40,000.

An Cathaoirleach: Questions to the Leader, please. That is not relevant to the Order of Business.

Senator David Norris: I warned them I would say it again next week and he took them again for another approximate \40,000. His wife remarked ironically some time later that he should be grateful to the taxpayers for paying for the weddings of two daughters. I was not surprised at the reluctance of their eminences——

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a question to the Leader.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I presume Senator Norris is immune himself.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: In echoing Senator Harris’s call, it is appropriate that we commemor- ate Sea´n Lemass and acknowledge the movement he made in this country. The Government could do likewise and examine how he transformed this country. He would be ashamed and appalled at the policies pursued by former Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern and the Taoiseach, Deputy Cowen, and the legacy they have left to this country. When the rising tide of unemploy- ment is not lifting our country in a proper way and when people are struggling, we need a real debate on job creation. I concur completely with Senator Harris who quoted Dr. Whitaker speaking this morning. It is better to save one job than to lose a job. Many employers are using the recession to cut jobs and cut people’s wages, which is wrong, and they should be asked to stop doing that. We need a debate on the Government’s policy and its directional roadmap for creating employment. We in Fine Gael have published our document, which has been costed, and I invite Senator Hanafin to peruse it. We need to have a debate on bringing more people back into the workforce and creating meaningful employment, not through the large multinational companies but through the small and medium-sized enterprises. 215 Order of Business 23 June 2009. (Resumed)

[Senator Jerry Buttimer.]

I also ask for a debate on the role of the banks. Small and medium-sized enterprises and small mortgage holders are being crucified by the banks and are getting no latitude or leeway. The Leader, as a business person, will know what I am talking about. We need that debate urgently. Whatever the Government has done up to now has not worked and people who want to create employment and are giving employment are now being put to the pin of their collars by banks, which much stop.

Visit of Czech Delegation. An Cathaoirleach: Before I call the next speaker, I am sure Members of the House would join me in welcoming a delegation from the Czech Parliament led by Dr. Hana ηediva´.Onmy behalf and that of my colleagues in Seanad E´ ireann I extend a very warm welcome and sincere good wishes for a very successful visit.

Order of Business (Resumed). Senator Pearse Doherty: Ba mhaith liom cuir leis an me´id ata´ ra´ite ag an Seanado´ ir Fitzgerald. I support the request for a debate on Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. As a father of two children who had to take those children to hospital at a very early stage, I find what the Government is doing appalling.

Senator Liam Twomey: I add my support to the call for a proper debate on what is happening at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. We are getting so fixated with costs for the services provided that we are making a complete mess of this. The Government has no clear idea where it is going. There is a need for a serious debate on the matter. It is damaging the services being provided at the hospital by its behaviour. There is talk of the Government giving an additional \50,000 a year to consultants and recently we heard that it wants to cut fees to pharmacists by up to 40%, effectively bankrupting the community care services pharmacists provide. Regard- less of whether it is right, there seems to be no clear direction. We need a serious debate on the matter. I was interested in what Senator Hanafin said. He wants people to present policies on \20 billion worth of cuts. I never heard anybody talking about \20 billion worth of cuts and I do not know whether this is a pre-budget statement by Fianna Fa´il as to what it will do in November. I was under the impression that there was to be \4 billion in cuts in the next round of budget talks presented by the Government. We have made our statements and would be quite prepared to debate what we feel should be done with the economy. It certainly gives a good indication of the thinking of the Government parties if they are talking about those sorts of draconian measures to cut public spending, which will only make things worse based on what we have heard today.

Senator Ivor Callely: I ask the Leader to arrange a briefing on what are deemed to be savage pharmacy reimbursement cuts which are causing considerable unrest. When this issue was raised a few months ago, the Minister was found wanting in her proposals at that time. From what I am hearing, I could not support the current proposal. I ask the Leader to indicate the progress with regard to finance being made available by the financial institutions and the application of the code of conduct regarding mortgage arrears for the ordinary mortgage holder and the code of conduct for business lending. The money advice and budgeting service, MABS, plays an important role in advising domestic customers, but perhaps the Leader can indicate what is available to small and medium-sized enterprises con- cerning difficulties in dealing with some of the financial institutions. At the time, it was men- 216 Order of Business 23 June 2009. (Resumed) tioned that the banks were committed to public campaigns to actively promote lending. Can the Leader indicate the success of these campaigns and the amount of additional money that is in the system? This is especially given that the banks say that if mortgage lending is not taken up, the extra capacity will be made available to SMEs. This is an important sector. According to feedback I and a number of my colleagues are receiving, the financial institutions are not playing their part.

Senator Eoghan Harris: Hear, hear.

Senator Ivor Callely: They are creating serious difficulties for a large number of SMEs by withdrawing facilities they had provided heretofore, yet the information I am being given is contrary to what is happening on the ground. I am putting a marker down on this and ask the Leader to discuss the issue with the other leaders in the House and come back in the coming days with proposals to monitor this matter continually.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I support Senator Fitzgerald and others who have called for a debate on Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. It is obscene that parents with young children are being forced to take to the public airwaves and raise money from other sources to get necessary operations for their children. I have met some mothers of chronically ill children and have heard their concerns. We all welcome the reports that the hospital is going to reverse some of the proposed ward closures, but clearly there will still be restrictions, particularly on outpatient appointments. It is just not good enough for sick children who should be our first priority. I therefore support the call for that debate. I also support Senator O’Toole’s comments on judges and the voluntary payments they have been asked to make. The sight of Ministers jumping on a bandwagon to attack judges on the basis that they have refused to make payments, when in fact it appears the judges have not yet made payments, is a diversionary tactic. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, who should be looking after children in Crumlin hospital to ensure they receive decent medical care, is using the diversionary tactic of criticising judges when the Government was not honest enough to pass the relevant law on tax.

An Cathaoirleach: A question for the Leader, please.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am calling on the Leader for a debate on the pension levy and on taxation. Clearly, the pension levy is a tax in all but name. If it had been described as a tax there would have been no requirement for judges to go through these hoops of having to make voluntary payments. It would have been a far more honest approach. I am also seeking a debate on Iran. All of us in the House will be deeply concerned at the distressing sight of protestors being killed there, apparently by troops or pro-government mil- itia. We are concerned at the apparent problems with the presidential poll and all of us would want to support any movement for true democracy in Iran. We know it is a repressive regime. Earlier, I was outside Leinster House with a group from the Iranian community in Ireland who are seeking a meeting with the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. They want to express their concerns and see what we in Ireland can do. I ask the Leader to facilitate the Iranian community, which is supporting democracy in Iran, with some sort of cross-party motion or debate.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I want to raise the same issues that have been raised by Senator Bacik and others, beginning with Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. It is indefensible that the Government can deprive a hospital as important as Crumlin of necessary funding. Families with sick children are distressed enough and are going through a horrible time as it 217 Order of Business 23 June 2009. (Resumed)

[Senator Michael McCarthy.] is. There is no justifiable defence for cutting funding for such a hospital. I urge the Leader to arrange for the Minister for Health and Children to attend the House to assure us that dis- tressed families will not suffer further unnecessarily because of cutbacks. We have debated the pension levy at length in this House. When that levy was introduced I called it a tax, which is exactly what it is, nothing else. The Government has been using a diversionary tactic in attacking members of the Judiciary for the past week because it provides a smokescreen. The time of the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, and other Ministers would be better spent in tackling the funding deficit in Crumlin hospital instead of criticising judges unnecessarily.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I join Senator McFadden in seeking a review of procedures to be carried out at the Slane concert. The concert is almost an annual event at this stage, stretch- ing back to the first event in 1981 when Thin Lizzy appeared. That concert went well and there were no problems, but there were riots in Slane village in 1984 as a result of overcrowding when Bob Dylan played there. Is it fair that the people of Slane are effectively prisoners in their own homes due to things like overcrowding? We need to review how we grant and monitor licences and how we ensure the promoters of these concerts look after the interests not just of concert goers but also the interests of people who live in the area where these concerts take place.

Senator Donie Cassidy: Senators Fitzgerald, O’Toole, Alex White, Norris, Doherty, Twomey, Bacik and McCarthy all called for time to discuss the up-to-date situation on Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. I commend the committee on visiting the hospital this morning. It is something we were all delighted to see happening. There is nothing like meeting those on the front line and hearing at first hand what it is like, so I compliment the committee on its initiative in this area. There is a Private Members’ motion in the Da´il this week, so let us hope the Minister may consider additional resources for the hospital. I will not be found wanting in allocating time in the House when we see how matters progress in the Da´il in the next few days. Senator O’Toole spoke about his own remarks on Bishop John Kirby. I respect the Senator and admire him for his honesty, integrity and his truthfulness, and I expected nothing better of him than to lead in the great example he gave today. Senator O’Toole as well as Senators Harris, Mullen, Norris and McCarthy also spoke about the pension levies. No matter what walk of life one comes from in Ireland, everyone must make a contribution. I know the Judiciary will make a contribution in the fullness of time by the end of this year. The lead that has been given by the Government, those in the public service and those in the private sector is reflective of the fact that everyone knows the situation our country faces. We should leave it at that and respect the independence of the Judiciary and the Oireachtas so that each can get on with their work. We do expect everyone to pay their share and play their part in our hour of need. Senator Alex White called for a debate in this House with the Minister of State with responsi- bility for children. I fully agree with this. Senator MacSharry called for an urgent debate on the serious matters he has outlined to the House today. No one could stand behind the facts the Senator outlined to the House. I will consider this matter seriously after the Order of Business. I know that the Minister is coming to the House this week, but the serious issue outlined by Senator MacSharry must be acted upon as soon as possible. I will revert to it on the Order of Business tomorrow. Senators Cannon and Buttimer called for a debate on mortgage difficulties and banking policy in general. All these matters can be raised with the Minister in the House on the Finan- 218 Order of Business 23 June 2009. (Resumed) cial Measures (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2009 next Thursday. I fully agree with the senti- ments expressed by my colleagues here. Senator Glynn again called for a debate on the report on compiling the electoral register. We all have had different experiences from the recent elections. I already have committed to a debate in the House. We will also discuss the Senator’s proposal to make it mandatory for citizens to vote. We can discuss all the proposals the Senator has outlined to the House, and I will allow time for the debate as soon as possible. Senators Ross, Regan and Mullen called for an urgent debate on the Lisbon treaty. I have already outlined that the Taoiseach will attend this House to debate the legislation on Thurs- day, 9 July, immediately after the Order of Business. All colleagues will want to be in the House for the Taoiseach’s address and to discuss the matter. All fair-minded commentators and all of us in public life must say that Senator Ross thoroughly researches most of his comments. He is the longest-standing Member of the House and the second longest Member elected in the Oireachtas. While we may not like what he outlines to the House from time to time, he is quite often correct. What he has outlined to the House about the proposed referendum gives us a stark reality check on what needs to be addressed and the real issue at stake. I commend him for what he has outlined to the House and I look forward to the debate on the legislation on 9 July. Senator Callely outlined his serious concerns about pharmacies. Pharmacy organisations are concerned there could be high unemployment and further job losses. There are serious concerns in this area. I will endeavour to have an up-to-date briefing on this issue from the Minister. Senator Callely also called for progress on banking issues and funding for SMEs. He referred to the challenges for SMEs and the code of conduct on business lending. We fully agree with his utterances and with the Minister present in the House on Thursday for the Finance Bill the Senator can discuss these matters. Senator Bacik called for a debate on Iran. What we see on our television screens is something we would love to debate. I will endeavour to have time set aside before the summer recess to have the debate. Senator Buttimer supported Senator Harris’s call for the spirit of Lemass. Members on this side of the House have been the true champions of the spirit of Lemass from the time he joined in 1917 up to the present.

Senator Liam Twomey: He would be fairly proud of the Government.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: What would he say about the banks?

Senator Donie Cassidy: New, young Members remind me of the old line that it is better to understand a little than misunderstand a lot.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: We are good students of history.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The spirit of Lemass is alive and well and will prevail.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Not in the Government.

Senator Donie Cassidy: We all know what he did when in office. We know the enormous transformation of our country that took place under the former Taoiseach and former leader of Fianna Fa´il, Sea´n Lemass.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is a pity the two boys did not follow him. 219 Order of Business 23 June 2009. (Resumed)

Senator Donie Cassidy: The debate that was called for, in which all parties can debate their policies in the House, may not take two days. Some may not even take two hours. Having said that, every party should be given the opportunity and the Seanad is the ideal forum to tease out and discuss these. I will discuss with the leaders of various groups how this can be debated on a meaningful basis. If it is a matter of an extra day or two before the summer recess, let it be. Then we will see what are the meaningful proposals we will discuss in the House to assist the Government and the Minister on this issue and the challenges that lie ahead. I agree with the sentiments of Senator Mullen and I will pass them onto the Minister. Regard- ing the update on St. Peter’s Hospital, Castlepollard, three beautiful homes were purchased during the time when the Cathaoirleach and I were members of the Midlands Health Board. I welcome colleagues from the Pioneer Total Abstinence Association from Castlepollard who are in the Gallery.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I thought we were not allowed to name anybody.

Senator Donie Cassidy: There are a further 17 patients to be rehoused at the earliest possible time. Senator McFadden and I participated in an Adjournment debate on the matter and I congratulate the Senator for tabling it and the time she allowed me in the debate. On that occasion the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, indicated that 17 more patients are to be rehoused in a further three new houses in Castlepollard at the earliest possible time. I will contact the HSE and the Minister’s office this week to get an update and I will brief the House on the Order of Business next Tuesday.

Senator Nicky McFadden: I thank the Senator.

Senator Donie Cassidy: The concert at Slane Castle over the weekend was a great success and more than 80,000 people turned out to see the magnificent concert staged. There are concerns and improvements are needed but a licence must be acquired to have concerts on a once-off basis. The successful record of concert attendance in Ireland over the past two or three years in particular is above the European average. I was at one or two of the first concerts held at Slane and the issue brought to our attention today may be put to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on his next visit to the House.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Frances Fitzgerald has proposed an amendment to the Order of Business: “That a debate on a the effects of the budgetary cutbacks on front line services at Our Lady’s Children’s Hospital, Crumlin, be taken today.” Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Yes.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Ta´, 20; Nı´l, 23.

Ta´

Bacik, Ivana. McFadden, Nicky. Bradford, Paul. Mullen, Ro´ na´n. Burke, Paddy. Norris, David. Buttimer, Jerry. O’Toole, Joe. Cannon, Ciaran. Quinn, Feargal. Coffey, Paudie. Regan, Eugene. Cummins, Maurice. Ross, Shane. Doherty, Pearse. Twomey, Liam. Fitzgerald, Frances. White, Alex. Hannigan, Dominic. McCarthy, Michael. 220 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

Nı´l

Boyle, Dan. Harris, Eoghan. Brady, Martin. MacSharry, Marc. Butler, Larry. O’Brien, Francis. Callely, Ivor. O’Donovan, Denis. Carty, John. O’Malley, Fiona. Cassidy, Donie. O´ Domhnaill, Brian. Corrigan, Maria. O´ Murchu´ , Labhra´s. Daly, Mark. Ormonde, Ann. de Bu´ rca, De´irdre. Phelan, Kieran. Feeney, Geraldine. Walsh, Jim. Glynn, Camillus. White, Mary M. Hanafin, John.

Tellers: Ta´, Senators Jerry Buttimer and Maurice Cummins; Nı´l, Senators Camillus Glynn and Labhra´sO´ Murchu´ .

Amendment declared lost.

Order of Business agreed to.

Night-time Rural Transport: Statements. Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Ba mhaith liom buı´ochas a ghabha´il leis——

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Is there a copy of the Minister’s speech?

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I do not have a script.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Are there cutbacks in the Department already?

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: No.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister, without interruption.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: We should have a copy of the speech.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: On what basis?

Senator Jerry Buttimer: On the basis that this is statements on night-time rural transport and as a courtesy to the House.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: There is no obligation on the Minister to provide a script.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: I had intended teacht isteach i dtosach ba´ire agus e´isteacht leis na Seanado´ irı´ agus ansin, nuair a bheadh an me´ad a bhı´ le ra´ ra´ite acu, bhı´ se´ i gceist agam mı´niu´ a thabhairt. Ach o´ tharla gur iarradh orm labhairt i dtosach, labhro´ idh me´ i dtosach agus mı´neoidh me´ an sce´al. Several years ago when the changes to the drink driving laws were introduced, there was serious concern about the provision of night-time transport in rural Ireland, especially in areas which did not have a service. At the time, the rural transport initiative did not cover those areas and there was no provision within the scheme for night-time transport. As a result, I decided to set up a pilot scheme for night-time transport which was piloted over seven years. It always amazes me that when one sets up a pilot scheme, and everyone knows it is a tempor- 221 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] ary pilot scheme, the minute one goes to mainstream it, everybody cries foul and claims one is withdrawing something. My understanding of a pilot scheme is that one tries something, works out how one will go forward and decides what the permanent long-term arrangements should be. Those arrangements should not be confined to a small number of areas. When we set up the pilot scheme, we said we would fund it out of the rural development fund. The rural development fund was set up specifically for pilot actions of short duration and for research. The scheme has operated well and has thrown up some very interesting results. For example, the cost per passenger ranges from \1.50 to \12. The first question one would have to ask is why is there such a huge imbalance. My other concern was that the initial case arose from people claiming they could not socialise and get home at night. In other words, the scheme should not be confined to pensioners but include, as it would on a city bus service, wage- earning young people faced with the same physical problem of getting home at night when there is no public transport in their area. It is amazing that when a service is provided in rural areas, some believe it is needed only by the old. I often ask those with this mind set if they have ever considered how hilarious it would be considered to extend such a condition to Dublin, demanding a means test for all those getting on a city bus or that only free travel pass holders could use bus services. Many rural services are focused exclusively at the needs of the older age group. In any future consideration of rural transport schemes they should also be focused at the cohort who may want to socialise at night, irrespective of age or employment status. It should not just be about providing transport for those without a car. It should be about facilitating everyone, who in the past under more liberal laws could go to their local hostelry, have a few drinks and drive home, in leaving their cars at home and getting home safely later. The seven pilot groups did their job well, each taking a different approach with good results. The review found it was a good and necessary scheme. It highlighted that if the scheme were to be run on a mainstream basis, then the free travel pass should be accounted for by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The review also found other areas which had success- ful schemes should have them extended if it were established on a full-time basis. It must be kept in mind that the night-time scheme cost \500,000 a year. When it was estab- lished several years ago, total funding for the rural transport initiative, through the rural trans- port fund from the Department of Transport, was \5 million. This year it will be \9 million. The rural transport initiative is now better funded than it was four years ago. The Department of Transport has made it clear to the companies providing rural transport that evening services, if they are priority, are allowed out of that \9 million funding. Several rural transport initiatives are already providing separate night-time services under a new dispensation from the Depart- ment of Transport. Areas not part of the original pilot project have seen the benefit of the scheme and have changed their rules to accommodate night-time services. The claim that services will not be provided at night is nonsense. Six of the seven groups attended a meeting — I admit short notice was given for it and I regret one group could not attend — with me and Pobal recently in which there was a long discussion on how the scheme may continue. It was felt the rational way would be through the general rural transport initiative. Pobal will be in contact with all the different groups individu- ally. It will then meet them together to facilitate them in this year’s rural transport initiative and to prioritise which night-time services the groups believe should continue. With funding always finite, people will have to make choices. 222 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

When the night-time transport initiative was introduced, I put a limit on administration for the scheme coming to 10% of overall funding. Pobal, however, has informed me the general rural transport initiative has overhead costs of between 25% and 40%. Taking an average of 30% would mean \2,700,000 is going on overheads. Being blunt about it, those extra moneys from my Department could be more than clawed back by examining the need for such large overheads and more efficient ways of administering the scheme. For example, my Department runs 20 island ferry services with overheads amounting to only 1% or 2% of the overall budget. My Department must go into detailed analysis of every service we provide, by entering into reasonably long contracts, using efficient systems of tendering and so on. Priority services in the night-time scheme needed by communities will continue. The rural transport initiative is due for re-organisation next year. The whole question of rural transport will have to be examined then. As the Minister responsible for rural development, I cannot go along with the idea that everything is being done the right or efficient way. The best way of providing good rural services is to have a mix of them. In the case of the 4 o’clock night-time rural transport service, it should not only attract those with a free travel pass but those who could pay for it. The whole success of the island ferry services, for example, is that paying customers carry them considerably so that the subsidies imposed on the islanders are modest. If the services were designed not to have paying customers, the subsidy charge would be so great for the islanders that it would make it unsus- tainable. Unfortunately, when it comes to rural night-time transport services there is a fixation that only one group needs them and they should not be designed for other users. Applying that logic to the provision of urban transport services would mean not one bus in Dublin would be left because all the paying customers would be taken away. The whole basis of public transport would be undermined if one does not attract as a wide a group of users as possible, irrespective of income. The pilot exercise was good and achieved its objective. The rules of the rural transport initiative have been changed. Within the initiative, there are enough funds to maintain those night-time services in the seven areas that have high demand and patronage. Due to the success of the pilot scheme, the Department of Transport changed the rules to accommodate other areas to begin their own night-time services. However, while it was fine to have the pilot scheme in one Department, it would be irrational to have two Departments involved in the rural transport initiative. While it was justifiable to conduct the pilot scheme, as a long-term arrangement it always was intended to integrate this scheme under the remit of a single Department to cut down on overheads and have a co- ordinated approach and so that those who provide rural transport services can choose between day and night-time services, according to the needs in their own localities. Ba mhaith liom buı´ochas a glacadh leis an Chathaoirleach as ucht an deis a thabhairt dom cu´ pla focal a ra´ ar dtu´ s. Ta´ su´ il agam go mbeidh dı´ospo´ ireacht bhrı´omhar faoin gce´ist seo agus ag an deireadh, de´anfaidh me iarracht aon cheist a bheidh ann a fhreagairt.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: In welcoming the Minister, I stress the commonality, in that I agree with him that the pilot scheme has been successful. Good initiatives have been taken and I will not argue that point with the Minister. I will begin with a quotation from a study from July 2000 by Farrell Grant Sparks, Rural Transport: A National Study from a Community Perspective:

Inadequate transport has a particularly adverse impact on those who are disadvantaged in any way and on those in society who are most vulnerable. The impacts appear more marked in rural areas, where even basic services can prove difficult to access. 223 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Senator Jerry Buttimer.]

While the structures of rural Ireland undoubtedly have changed, this still is a predominantly rural country. Many people have a quaint notion of living in Ireland that is associated with fresh air, accessibility to the coast, farming and a great lifestyle. However, this is linked to falls in the size of the average household, increases in the age profile and there has been a profound impact on many older residents. The Minister is correct to note the rural transport scheme is about both the old and the young and does not simply pertain to the elderly. The scheme that operated in west Cork was of benefit by bringing people to bingo, mass, youth clubs, social events and even to the pub. It is important to stress this scheme was not merely a conduit for bringing people out for a drink or anything similar and to pay tribute, as did the Minister, to those who organised the schemes. While this was a pilot scheme, such a scheme must have a replacement or follow-on, rather than face termination. Rural Ireland has suffered the elimin- ation of many key services over the past ten years. Many post offices and banks have moved out of rural Ireland and these statements in the House today are taking place because many people on the Government benches raised this issue last week. The seven schemes operated well, did the job properly and offered a lifeline for people. The cost factor may be offset by the economic benefits and one also can refer to the carbon footprint and so on. However, the role of the Government must be to promote and continue the policies that can bolster effectively life in rural Ireland, which requires rural transport initiatives by night. I lay stress on the night-time scheme because the day-time scheme is to continue.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: The night-time scheme also will continue.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Last year, the Minister stated:

I believe the concept is right. When one compares what is spent by the State on urban transport with rural transport, one finds that the money spent per capita on rural transport is minuscule.

This scheme should be continued with and the timetables arising from this transport scheme, which have provided benefits to many communities, should be examined. Connectivity and accessibility for all citizens must form part of this plan. The figures for west Cork, with which I am familiar, demonstrate a huge increase in volume from the outset to the present position. In 2002, there were 102 passengers in the first month, which climbed to nearly 40,000 passengers in 2008 and the social impact was enormous. Members also should consider the scheme in County Meath, in which people look forward to weekly visits to their local town for whatever purpose they might have. This scheme has been of benefit and more importantly, it collects people at different points and does not preclude the narrow country boreens, with which many Members are familiar. If one considers the social impact of such interaction, that is, having company, meeting people, the chat, comhra´ and banter, as well as fulfilling obli- gations such as banking, visiting the post office, going to mass or other social interactions, it is important to place rural development in the context of this road transport scheme. I am concerned about the direction of the Government and its agencies in respect of basic infrastructure and services. I refer to Bus E´ ireann, the NRA, as well as to Pobal and the Leader programmes, which are under the remit of the Minister’s Department. The trend of centralised services must be examined and I revert to the point that we must create sustainable rural communities. Given the cuts in its routes, is Bus E´ ireann so doing? Is the NRA, which is culling vital road projects, so doing? What is the position regarding the roll-out of broadband? I spoke on the Order of Business regarding job creation for rural Ireland. Members should consider the manner in which agriculture is declining under the Government. Despite the Minister’s 224 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements protestations and eloquent self-defence, the fortunes of rural Ireland have been plummeting. In the renewal of the programme for Government, which probably will take place after the referendum on the Lisbon treaty referendum, the Minister should have a strong rural transport scheme that will take up the vital work that has been done for these seven communities. There should be accessibility and connectivity rather than what would happen were this scheme to be culled, namely, isolation and people being deprived of access to services.

Senator Labhra´sO´ Murchu´ : I dtosach, fa´iltı´m roimh an Aire agus an soile´iriu´ a tho´ gse´ du´ inn ar an gco´ ras iompair tuaithe. De´arfainn gur chuir se´ eolas ar fa´il du´ inn nach raibh b’fhe´idir ann go poiblı´ go dtı´ seo agus b’fhiu´ an t-eolais sin a bheith againn chun bunchloch ceart a thabhairt don dı´ospo´ ireacht seo mar is dı´ospo´ ireacht an-tha´bhactach´ ı. I can recall the famous interview given by Monsignor Horan on “The Late Late Show”, when he was obliged to defend the idea of an airport at Knock. He started by stating he was only a humble parish priest and then suggested the cost of putting in place that airport would be no greater than adding and maintaining a single carriage on the DART in Dublin. The point he was making was that when one helps rural Ireland, people tend to question it although little questioning takes place when the same money is spent in urban areas. President Mary McAleese spoke some time ago about people who are isolated in rural Ireland and on the resulting depression that accompanies it. She appealed to all organisations to do something to ensure that such people would be helped. I can remember some of the jokes that were in circulation when the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, launched his scheme in 2007. Yet the Minister courageously defended an innovative scheme, which did not exist heretofore, to help the very people that Monsignor Horan and President McAleese had in mind. The press release at the time is quite clear that this was a pilot scheme. If I believed this scheme had run into a cul-de-sac, I would address this House in outraged tones, but that is not the case. The pilot scheme has been so successful that the suggestion it now will enter the mainstream has created a major debate. I am glad of that, because Members do not often get to debate issues such as looking after isolated communities. While these issues may not always be huge vote-getters in their own right, Members must think along humani- tarian lines. I agree with Senator Buttimer that one must ensure that services are available for people who find themselves in isolated areas. It is clear that the seven groups in question have done quite a good job. That means the pilot scheme, at a cost of half a million euro, was successful. However, in the context of the \9 million available to the rural transport initiative, it follows logically that having had a successful pilot scheme, it should now be integrated into the rural transport initiative. I was surprised by one of the statistics the Minister provided. I assume it relates to elements of the rural transport initiative. The Minister said administrative costs account for between 25% and 40% of the overall cost. That is totally and utterly untenable at any time, but certainly untenable at a time when there are pressures on finances generally. Everything said during this debate is based on goodwill. Senators are reflecting what they are hearing on the ground. The Minister shares the commitment of Monsignor Horan and President McAleese to the people of rural Ireland. If the House were to start focusing on the rural transport initiative, it would be giving a great sense of support to such people. We need to ask why administration costs are so high. Given that the pilot scheme has been so successful — there is huge demand for its retention — why can it not be brought into the mainstream? If we do not go down that road, there will be a reluctance to undertake any innovative pilot schemes in the future. I would like to praise the Minister in this regard. At a time when everybody else was moaning, the Minister took the bull by the horns and initiated a scheme that had not been contemplated by anyone else. He took a risk. There was a grave danger that 225 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Senator Labhra´sO´ Murchu´ .] the scheme would not work. There were concerns that a white elephant would land back on his desk. We are dealing with a good news story, however. The scheme was successful. Those who are using it want to continue to do so. The budget for the rural transport initiative has increased from \5 million to \9 million. If those who are responsible for the initiative share our concerns about the people of rural Ireland, particularly those who are isolated at night time from a social or sporting point of view, they should listen carefully to what is being said here. If they do not respond generously to our remarks, that will represent a return to the time when certain communities were not considered, regardless of how isolated they were. We have to look after people in such com- munities, some of whom may be suffering from depression. My focus, to that end, is on the rural transport initiative.

Senator Ro´ na´n Mullen: Ba mhaith liom mo chuid ama a roinnt leis an Seanado´ ir Doherty.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Ro´ na´n Mullen: Is mian liom fa´ilte a chur roimh an Aire. Nuair a sheol se´ an sce´im phı´olo´ tach — an sce´im oı´che iompair tuaithe — bhı´ me´ an-to´ gtha le ce´ cho´ mh lı´ofa agus paiseanta a labhair se´ faoin rationale a bhı´ laistiar den sce´im. Du´ irt se´ go raibh se´ ta´bhachtach go mbeadh ceannaireacht ag teacht o´ n phobal chun seirbhı´sı´ taistil a chur ar fa´il chun cabhru´ le daoine dul go dtı´ bingo, aifreann agus clubanna o´ ige, srl. He said the scheme would allow rural people to participate fully in the various community, sporting and social activities that take place in rural areas. He referred to the need to address the market failure that existed at that time. It was a most welcome statement because it clearly recognised that the welfare of the people should not be at the service of the markets, but rather vice versa. If that principle had been applied in the financial sector, we would all be better off. I am disappointed that an annual cut of approximately \650,000 has been provided for. I question whether such a visionary and worthwhile service should be cut. I recognise that we are living in straitened economic times. I wonder whether the welfare of elderly rural people is being vindicated as it should be. I am not sure, having listened to the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, and Senator O´ Murchu´ , whether the services that were made available through the rural transport initiative will continue to benefit such people. When people look back on what has happened, they will examine that question. While I appreciate what has been said about the rural transport initiative, I question whether services will be delivered to marginalised people in places where more commercially viable services are not inclined to run. It has been suggested that local authorities could be given responsibility for providing rural transport services. Perhaps the sustainable travel officer model could be used. I understand that Bus E´ ireann is interested in taking over the scheme. The commitment of Bus E´ ireann to public transport in rural areas is highly questionable, given that it is currently implementing further route cuts. The company is proposing to withdraw totally or drastically reduce 99 routes across the country, which would leave large rural areas with no services. The first phase of route cuts, which will affect 52 routes, was announced last month. The second phase will affect 47 routes. Has the Government considered diverting a fraction of the \30 million subsidy that it is continuing to pay to Bus E´ ireann, which has abandoned its public service obligation, into the running of the pilot night-time rural transport scheme? One part of government wants to reduce carbon emissions, address rural isolation and pro- mote regional connectivity. I commend the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs for his complete commitment and competence in this area. However, another part of government is allowing Bus E´ ireann to dismantle a public transport system that is already 226 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements inadequate at a time when the pilot night-time rural transport scheme is falling by the wayside. A national sustainable rural transport policy is urgently needed. Last year, the cost of school transport doubled in some instances. Some children might not have any bus to school when the new term begins. Third level students will also be affected by these changes, as will the tourism sector. There is a need for a rethink on this, especially as Irish Rural Link has called on the Government to give a public commitment to the future of wider rural transport.

Senator Pearse Doherty: Cuirim fa´ilte roimh an Aire. Ghabh me´ comhghairdeas leis nuair a chuir se´ an sce´im phı´olo´ tach ar bun. The Minister acted courageously when he saw an opening at that time. He understood that the Government needed to do something about public anger in this regard, so he stepped in and took it on. The Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs was given responsibility for it, even though the Department of Transport should have been responsible. While I commend him for the action he took at that time, he should also be commended for the spin he put on his decision to shut the programme down. Although there might be cutbacks at Government level, I do not think any spin doctors have been let go so far. The Government did an excellent job of trying to convince us it is a good thing that seven counties will not have this service after 10 July.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: We will continue——

Senator Pearse Doherty: If the Minister can say that evening services will continue in counties like Donegal, Sligo and Cork——

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: It is up to themselves.

Senator Pearse Doherty: ——and the rural transport initiative will continue to operate as it has done, we will all believe him. The reality is that the Minister cannot say that today. I hope that will be the eventual outcome, but it cannot be achieved today. I commend the Minister and his Department for making this scheme, which was needed, successful. I cannot understand why a successful scheme, 10% of the costs of which are administrative, is to be lumped in with a Department of Transport scheme, up to 40% of the costs of which are administrative. The Minister needs to hold his ground and tell the Taoiseach to get the Minister for Transport to set his own shop in order by sorting out the problems in the rural transport initiative. People in rural communities should be able to avail of the best possible services. I wish to comment on what has been provided over recent years. A 2002 survey found that 380,000 people in rural Ireland believe their transport needs are not being met. It was predicted that the figure would increase to 450,000 over the coming years. Other Senators have mentioned Bus E´ ireann’s 99 route cuts, which will put more pressure on communities in rural Ireland. One of the things I welcomed in the Awakening the West report was the evening service, which was a positive and courageous initiative. Just as I commended the Minister on that, I believe he needs to come up with a better response to the current difficulties. He needs to make it clear not only that the evening services and the rural transport initiative services will remain intact, but also that he will consider how they can be expanded.

Senator Camillus Glynn: Ba mhaith liom fa´ilte a chur roimh an Aire. De´anaim comhghair- deas leis as ucht an dea-obair ata´ de´anta aige ar an sce´im seo. As one who hails from a rural area but now lives in a town, I appreciate, as do many if not all other Members, the great innovative measure the Minister took in introducing this scheme, albeit on a pilot basis. He has established that it has been a success. While some people might say the local public house is not the be all and end all of life, which it is not, nevertheless it plays a pivotal role in a rural area, not in terms of what people might drink but in providing 227 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Senator Camillus Glynn.] an outlet for people to meet and socialise. They do not have to consume alcohol to do that, they could have a mineral, be it an orange,a7UporaCoke. The pilot scheme has established one fact, namely that there is an established service need. This scheme can be developed. I remember when people in certain estates in Mullingar, which is a sizable provincial town, found it difficult to arrange for their children to be transported to and from school and a local businessman laid on a service. Unfortunately the service was not provided for long but the need existed for such a service. There is also a need for this service. I was disappointed to hear of the high administrative costs of operating the service. That is regrettable. If that can be addressed in some shape or form, the scheme could be successfully run again. In the game of politics in which we are engaged, one is damned if one does something and one is damned if one does not do something. If the introduction of a measure is the right thing to do and the setting up of this pilot scheme was the right thing to do, then it is a case of hard cheese for those who do not agree with it. I commend the Minister on setting it up. We must encourage the service users to come centre stage to examine what they can do to encourage the further development of this scheme and, as Senator O´ Murchu´ said, to mainstream the provision of it. The point was made that this service is required by not only the elderly. While the elderly need a transport service, many other groups also need such a service. They are not necessarily the people who want to go for a drink to their local pub in their rural area. They also have an established service need and that must be addressed in some way. Many Members have taken an interest in this as is evidenced by the number of Members in the Chamber and the Members who have yet to contribute. Whatever can be done should be done to mainstream this scheme and put it on a solid footing. I and every other Member appreciates that administrative costs not only in this area but in many areas are way too high. If they are too high and are contributing to the restricting of a service, that has to be addressed. I wish the Minister well in his endeavours and commend him on setting up this pilot scheme.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I welcome the Minister. I am disappointed the analysis and results of the pilot study do not appear to have not been made available. In effect, we are being asked to discuss a service that has been successful in a vacuum. It would have been helpful to have had figures in advance of this debate. It would have also been helpful to have had a copy of the Minister’s speech rather than simply listening to him read it. I am lucky that I have a copy of his previous speech on this issue dating back to 12 March 2007. I would like the Minister to clarify something he said today compared to what said then. I understand from what he said today that this service was set up largely for people who may have had cars but wanted to access local public services. In his 2007 speech he said, “A classic example of the lack of comprehension was the stream of articles and reports about the fact that I was going to set up a fleet of ‘booze buses””. He went on say that regional newspapers “reported accu- rately what I actually said, which was that I was proposing a night-time rural transport system to tackle rural social isolation, which would be community-led and provide transport to social gatherings, bingo, mass, youth clubs etc”. I would like him to clarify that the purpose of this proposal is to cater for people who want to go to youth clubs or to access night-time work and not purely for those who want to go to the local pub, as important a place of meeting as that is. Some clarity is needed on that. The Minister is right to try to mainstream these pilot studies. It is not right to introduce a pilot study and then renew it. A pilot study proves whether something is worthwhile. If the provision of a service is not worthwhile, we need to stop wasting Government money on it, but 228 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements if it is worthwhile, we need to support it. I recognise the merit of that. In the absence of any detailed analysis on this pilot study, it is difficult to establish which of these services were worthwhile. I accept many benefits are derived from the provision of rural transport services. I recently carried out a survey in the rural areas of County Meath to which 900 rural dwellers responded. In the survey I posed questions on how social involvement depends on transport and on rural isolation. It is evident that if public transport services are made available in the day time and at night time, people will use them and this will result in a greater sense of community. Has the analysis of the pilot study considered factors such as the social benefits of such a service and not only the fare box revenue collected by the driver of a vehicle every time he or she picks up a passenger? Does the analysis take account of factors such as the consequent lowering of accident rates on the roads, the social cohesion benefits that will flow from the ability of people to get around more and the better physical and mental health that will result from people being able to mix and mingle and get out more in their communities? We need also to consider the jobs saved by the ability of people to go to their local bingo hall or to their local pub. Have those benefits been taken into account?. Have the benefits of the ability of people to access their local jobs markets in the evening, perhaps to go to work in the local town, been taken into account? I would like to have the details underpinning the results of the pilot study. I am willing to take what the Minister said at face value. If he tells me that any worthwhile schemes will be maintained and will be run under the rural transport initiative, I am happy to accept that, but we need to see that analysis and to have that commitment. Mr. Seamus Boland, the chief executive of Irish Rural Link, said that this is part of the salami slicing of rural transport which sees local communities lose vital services. I hope he is wrong. I hope the Minister does not believe that and that he will make money available for schemes that should be saved. In his speech on this subject two years ago, the Minister said:

It’s up to every person living in a rural area to use their vote so that the voice of rural people can be clearly heard. Vote for whatever party you believe is doing the most for rural development...

If these pilot studies show that they are of benefit, that the services are being used and that the social benefits emanating from them exceed the cost provision, it is vital the Government makes the necessary funding available for them. I would like the Minister to clarify that such funding will be made available and that he will guarantee that funding will be made available for successful pilot schemes. I congratulate him on his initiative. He is correct in saying we cannot continue with pilot schemes; if they are successful, they must be funded and if they are not, they must be cut. We need to have the detailed analysis behind the Minister’s appraisal.

Senator Ann Ormonde: I welcome the Minister. I have taken a great interest in the concept of how we can revive rural community living. I welcomed the Minister when he introduced this pilot night-time transport scheme and thought it was an excellent idea. It has worked well. I knew it was being introduced on a test basis and it has been a success story. It helped to provide a link for people with their local communities. The service brought people to youth clubs, to night classes or to meet people to play a game of cards. It provided an opportunity to revive activity in local communities. When the drink driving law came into force, it changed the concept of living in rural areas. This was a shame. I though it was not good for society and was creating an imbalance between rural and urban communities. I did not want our society to be totally immersed in an urbanised setting. 229 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Senator Ann Ormonde.]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can progress this new idea. It would be great if it was immersed in the rural transport initiative. The costs involved in running that prog- ramme are enormous. The night-time transport service should be community-led and cater for a community way of life and be underpinned by the meitheal thinking which I love. In my youth, we engaged in a way of life whereby advice would be given, problems would be shared and new friendships made. That is the way life should be and I want a return to what I experi- enced in my youth. I hope the Minister will take the lead in respect of this matter and will encourage a joint effort on the part of both Departments. The late Seamus Brennan developed the idea of a rural transport initiative. I am glad the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, has taken on the mantel in that regard because the scheme, which was a pilot project, has worked. I hope we can find a way to merge the scheme with the rural transport initiative in order that we might revive the spirit of rural community. If we do not do so, there will be a complete breakdown in rural life. I would not like to see the latter occur and I will fight against it in every way possible. We have reached a crossroads and the days of greediness and profit before people have gone. We are in a downturn and we must consider alternative ways of living. In that context, we have a golden opportunity to investigate how we might use the rural transport initiative to support the continuance of the night-time rural transport service. If the latter does not remain in place, it will be most unfair to those who live — and who want to live — in rural communities. Taxis and hackney cabs are available in urban areas and we should not, therefore, deprive those in rural areas of a transport service. This service could be paid for by everyone except those who are entitled to the free bus pass. It is paramount, however, that such a service be available at night for those who wish to use it. There are many people who wish to meet their friends in the evening but who do not have the opportunity to do so, particularly during the winter months. The individuals to whom I refer may have some hope of meeting up in the summer but they cannot do so when winter comes. I hope this scheme can move forward. I also hope that the groups with which the Minister met will use their experience etc. to ensure it will continue in whatever form possible. I am sure the costs to which the Minister referred can be reduced in order that we will not deprive those who reside in rural areas of a way of life to which they are used and which they want to continue. We must ensure these people will not be isolated or marginalised, as would be the case if the scheme were discontinued. The pilot project worked well and if we go about matters in the right way, a more extensive scheme will be successful.

Senator Nicky McFadden: One runs a pilot scheme to discover whether something will work. That is what the Minister has done in this instance and I commend him on taking the initiative to put the pilot scheme in place. In view of the fact there have been so many bad schemes that have not worked, I fail to understand why it is not possible to continue with the scheme under discussion, which has been successful. After reviewing the results of the pilot project, the Minister met representatives of the six companies involved last week. Following that meeting, he indicated that Pobal would meet these individuals on 25 June next. Pobal is responsible for administering funding but the Mini- ster indicated that no money will be forthcoming from his Department or from the Department of Transport. In such circumstances, why is the meeting to which I refer taking place? I listened to “Morning Ireland” last week and I heard Delia O’Sullivan, a woman from Bantry, speak very powerfully with regard to people’s social and other needs. Bantry is a rural area and some people are, for example, obliged to travel long distances to do their shopping. 230 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

Ms O’Sullivan stated she and ten of her friends would starve if they did not have access to the type of transport to which we are referring. This matter does not merely revolve around social interaction or being able to attend bingo or youth clubs; it relates to the necessities of ordinary, everyday living. With communities becoming so disconnected from each other and with families too busy to care for their elderly relatives, the night-time rural transport service is a necessity. The Minister visited Glasson, County Westmeath, in my constituency, and launched the rural transport initiative for the area. He spoke very kindly about Mr. George Ledwith, who is still very much involved with the initiative, which means so much to the people of the area. This matter revolves around the individuals to whom I refer and to their ability to coexist in their communities with their friends. The Minister must discover a way in which to reduce the level of inefficiency displayed by Pobal in the way it deals with administering this scheme. Pobal is responsible for incurring the 25% to 40% overhead costs relating to the rural transport initiative.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: That is not the case.

Senator Nicky McFadden: According to my research, Pobal has complete responsibility for administering the scheme.

Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v: Yes, but those responsible for incurring the costs are——

Senator Nicky McFadden: Perhaps the Minister will reply to my points when I have con- cluded. He might also indicate how the costs of administration might be reduced. The latter appears to be a management issue and the Minister is the ultimate manager. I am of the view that he is in a position to take control. He has the ability, initiative and wherewithal to ensure the good aspects of the pilot project are taken on board and incorporated into a new scheme. Bus E´ ireann has announced that it intends to cut some 99 routes. The company receives a subsidy of \30 million but it appears to have abandoned its obligation to the State in the context of providing bus services to third level students, people with disabilities etc. I also downloaded a speech given by the Minister at the launch of the pilot scheme. The Minister spoke eloquently and indicated what I believe to be the right way to proceed and also the way in which we should represent our constituents. He stated the western rail corridor is a good idea and indicated that others are of the view that the metro is more urgent. However, he was strong and categoric in his response and said that it is equally important to cater for and prioritise the needs of people in rural areas. I urge him to continue in that vein. We are all singing from the same hymn sheet. In that context, the Minister should find a way to ensure the scheme is continued.

Senator Brian O´ Domhnaill: Cuirim fa´ilte roimh an dı´ospo´ ireacht seo agus gabhaim buı´ochas den Aire as a bheith linn. Go minic, nuair ata´ ceist fa´ seirbhı´sno´ fa´ airgead, nı´ bhı´onn deis againn labhairt faoi sula nde´antar an cinneadh. Molaim an tAire as teacht anseo roimh an chinneadh agus deis a thabhairt du´ inn pointı´ a ardu´ ar an a´bhar. I thank the Minister for coming before the House to discuss the night-time rural transport service. The current scheme is a pilot project, which has been in place since 2007 and which has been extremely successful in the seven areas to which it relates. The Minister’s Department has provided funding of approximately \950,000 for the scheme since its inception. The scheme has proved extremely beneficial to those who live in rural areas. I also wish to thank the Minister for establishing the scheme and for developing the methodology relating to it. The Minister worked with the Department of Transport to extend the services available under the rural transport initiative into the evening hours. 231 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Senator Brian O´ Domhnaill.]

From the press release issued by the Minister in 2007, it is abundantly clear that this is a pilot project. As a result of the success of that pilot project, we are seeking that it should be extended to other areas. This is a testament to the vision displayed in establishing the service. At the weekend I received numerous calls from people in south-west Donegal, where I reside and where Sı´ob Teoranta is responsible for providing night-time transport in rural and Gael- tacht areas. They all stated that I should talk to the Minister about the matter and ensure that the scheme is retained. These individuals indicated they are delighted with the scheme and that it has been hugely successful. I was informed by certain people that they can go out on a Tuesday evening to play cards. They could go to bingo on a Monday night or the pub on a Saturday night and be collected and brought home safely. Obviously, there is a monetary issue in terms of the financial cost to the State in providing the service. We are living in difficult economic times. Regardless of whether a family is running a house or the Government is running the country, economies of scale will apply. Over the last few years, particularly under the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, rural Ireland has been transformed through schemes such as the CLA´ R programme, the rural social scheme, the community services programme as well as the funding programme for sports clubs and com- munity organisations, new halls or facilities for young or old, and the national rural develop- ment programme, under which there is some \27 million available next year for rural Ireland. Rural Ireland is benefiting from the Government’s expenditure. We are all united in the House in trying to extend the benefits of this particular programme into the future. It will not be easy to do this in the current economic climate, but I know the Minister met with the groups recently. Those groups I have spoken to have expressed satis- faction at that meeting and I hope the meeting with Pobal will prove to be beneficial. However, I stress that the service must be kept in place if at all possible. This service is crucial in preventing rural isolation. The scheme has many advantages, as we have seen. Rural people are benefiting from it. It is giving people who would have traditionally been isolated in terms of getting out and about the opportunity to meet people and I hope we can keep the scheme in place. Some of those who spoke to me over the weekend have availed of the scheme and were able to play cards, attend bingo, go to community meetings and sporting events etc. It was bringing the community together. They were visiting the local pub, playing cards there, chatting to people and going home safely. The scheme is supporting local business as well. I strongly support all my colleagues as regards the positive aspects of the scheme. We need to find a mechanism to keep this service in place. I also agree with the sentiments expressed about Bus E´ ireann, which has questions to answer. It may be losing \500,000 a week, and this will affect many routes in Donegal and in other counties. This is a matter for the Department of Transport and not for the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. However, we are all behind the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v. If he can find a way, we will support him 100%.

Senator Paddy Burke: I welcome the Minister. If any man can put a proper scheme in place in this area it is Deputy O´ Cuı´v, because he has great experience of community work and projects that work in rural areas. I believe the Minister can go back to the drawing board based on what he has heard from the various Senators. It has been a very constructive debate, but ultimately this will all rest on the shoulders of the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v. He has vast experience of rural projects and I believe he can put it all together. I was very disappointed to hear one of the speakers say the administrative costs were of the order of 25%, but I am not surprised. One of the things crippling Ireland at the moment is the 232 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements administrative cost of every aspect of activity in the country, whether it is at local authority level, the HSE or in other aspects involving communities. I believe the administrative costs can be cut, however, as was indicated by several Senators in various ways. The community rural transport initiative is a great scheme. I was one of those who travelled to dances in the 1970s by thumbing lifts.

Senator Nicky McFadden: In the 1950s.

Senator Paddy Burke: It was not the middle ages, although I suppose it was not far off either.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jerry Buttimer): The Senator is showing his age.

Senator Paddy Burke: It was the 1970s and the early 1980s and the only way we could get to places was to thumb. When I got my first car, I said I would never pass anybody who was thumbing at the side of the road, and I always picked up people. I was very grateful for all the lifts I got over a long number of years. However, nowadays nobody gives lifts. For that very reason one never sees anyone thumbing because people know they will not get a lift, society has changed so much over the last 20 or 30 years. People have various reasons for not picking up hitch-hikers, mostly to do with not feeling safe. Then there are other aspects to do with what might happen in a car, whether it is a lady or a man who is driving. The whole aspect of life has changed and then, of course, there are the pub opening hours and drink driving. All of these reasons have led to the pilot scheme that the Minister has put forward, for which there is a great need. That is why I believe if there is any person in Government who can achieve this and pull all those strands together, it is the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v. I urge him to take on board the very constructive proposals that have been put forward because this is an excellent scheme. The school transport scheme has worked enormously well since the mid-1960s, and perhaps the rural transport initiative is based on those routes. I do not mind whether it is a matter of taking people to the pub at night, since there is a great social aspect to be addressed in this regard for rural areas. The pub is rural life; let us face it and not be ashamed to say this. Were it not for rural pubs, there would be virtually total exclusion in rural area. I know the county councils have tried greatly in recent years to include everybody in rural communities, but it is not that easy for local authorities. At least, however, many go to the pub and perhaps meet people there on a weekly or monthly basis. This is a scheme that has worked well. I hope we can all work together and put these things back on track by putting a rural transport initiative in place which will save on carbon emissions and so forth.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I welcome the Minister. As someone who raised this issue last week on the Order of Business I am glad he is here to explain the situation. Whenever the epitaph of the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v, is written I hope the author will acknowledge his tremendous and unstinting support for rural Ireland, both Gaeltacht and non- Gaeltacht areas, remote peninsulas and severely disadvantaged regions in so many ways. Some Senators mentioned the CLA´ R programme, which has been an enormous success, with boreens benefiting as well as peninsulas in west Cork, Kerry, Connemara or wherever, along with the tremendous support given to islands over the years, whether through roads or water services and sewerage works. I express my great appreciation for that and compliment the Minister as regards the whole area involving the rural transport initiative. I believe there were two or three pilot schemes initially, but one was the Bantry rural trans- port area. Originally that carried fewer than 2,000 passengers and now it has expanded all over the west Cork area to cater for 40,000. One of the rural transport buses goes to Bear Island, which is a wonderful service for the islanders. As regards the night services, I recall one of the 233 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Senator Denis O’Donovan.] local radio stations warning about “booze buses” and all that nonsense at the outset. That has turned out to be total rubbish. As many Senators have indicated, in rural Ireland it is a question of social and geographic inclusion. Ms Delia O’Sullivan, who spoke so eloquently on “Morning Ireland” last week lives in Glen- garriff, has used the bus, as have many others. It is a tremendous success. Whether it is used to go to mass, a game of bingo, the local GAA club or, as Senator Burke said, to come in five or six miles on the Sheep’s Head or Mizen peninsula and have a couple of pints on a Friday or Saturday night, so be it. There is nothing wrong about that and we should laud it. I am greatly concerned at the administrative costs outlined. I was stunned when the Minister said that in some cases it was between 25% and 40%. That is not realistic. Maybe he can explain in his response where those costs lie. Maybe he does not want to point the finger, but surely if his initial belief was that they should be approximately 10% to 12%, and they are now in some areas touching 40%, he must wield the axe accordingly. I urge the Minister to support these schemes. They are a wonderful benefit to rural Ireland. I do not want to be parochial but the one in west Cork has extended into the Gaeltacht areas in Ballingeary and gone on to helping in the islands. It is a wonderful scheme and has created jobs in the area. People forget that we are losing jobs and we have part-time bus drivers. There is a buzz in Firies and Bantry when four or five of these buses come into town with many elderly people who might come in to do shopping or visit community centres or hospital, or whatever. It is a wonderful idea and I laud the Minister. I hope by heralding the fact that any administrative overheads and difficulties should be trimmed down accordingly, the scheme can survive. I am deviating slightly from rural transport but I cannot let this opportunity go to compliment something very close to my heart, Slı´ Mhuintir Bha´ire, my home parish for which I played football for junior level for 30 years, although I have not too many medals to show for it, the Sheep’s Head Way. It recently won an EDEN, European Destinations of Excellence award, and will go on to Europe to further that. The award is being presented next Monday in Bantry. I am a director of the Sheep’s Head Way company, a non-profit-making company, for my sins, and have been since its foundation. The people are very uplifted but a little disappointed the Minister, Deputy O´ Cuı´v is not coming. Apparently it comes under the remit of tourism and the Minister, Deputy Cullen, has decided the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Mansergh will come down there. It would be remiss of me on behalf of the committee and the Sheep’s Head Way not to mention that. The theme this year is tourism and protected areas, and it is a phenomenal award. I record my thanks and the thanks of the Sheep’s Head Way, the members of which asked me to do this, to the Minister for all his work in promoting such walkways. There were major issues about farmers’ rights and access rights. The Minister has walked some of these walkways and they are wonderful success story. It is great that in difficult times small farm- 5 o’clock ers in severely disadvantaged areas can get a few bob, thanks to the Minister, for trimming the ways, ensuring the stiles are in place and keeping them viable. With that light note I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for being indulgent and letting me wander. This award was won by a remote, rural community. We take our hats off to the Minister for his support on this issue and others over the last decade. It was tremendous effort and support by all concerned.

Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs (Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v): Glacaim an- bhuı´ochas leis na Seanado´ irı´ ar fad a ghlac pa´irt sa dı´ospo´ ireacht as dı´ospo´ ireacht thar a bheith dearfach a bheith ann. 234 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

I thank all the Senators for their contributions to this very constructive debate. I would like to clarify a number of issues. This was a pilot scheme in seven areas. We must have services available in rural transport morning and evening according to need across all areas where there is no existing public transport service. The only way of doing that into the future is through one rural transport scheme. The idea that in the long term one Department be responsible after 6 p.m. and another before 6 p.m. leads to administrative inefficiencies. I am out of money, because I am using the money I have in that fund, which is not as great, for other purposes. However, I am receiving great support from my colleague, the Minister for Transport, and Pobal. I pay tribute particularly to the chief executive of Pobal, Mr. Denis Leamy, for trying to ensure the continuation of the bus services needed. The Department of Transport has ensured flexibility so that areas that never had the rural evening transport and which were not in the original seven, can elect to have those services at night. We did not put in \900 million per year, but less than \500 million per year, based on the figures I have here. The question is whether that \500 million is in the system and I believe it is. That is why I mentioned overhead costs. Because the night service was piggybacking on an existing service, the overhead cost was 10%. I capped it at 10% and told them to do it at no more than that. I also laid down a minimum fee for those without free travel pass. I said I would not go into this “be´al bocht” syndrome which often deprived rural people of services. If one got a taxi any distance in the city here one would pay \5 and not mind but be glad the service was there. Similarly in many cases in rural Ireland the issue is not the money but the lack of service. For many people who go out at night, to pay \10 — \5 there and \5 back — for public transport would be neither here nor there in a night. The challenge is that there is nothing to get one from here to there no matter what one would pay for it, apart from a taxi out from the town at enormous cost. The minimum \5 fare each way for those with no free travel pass caused no difficulty. I see us being able to continue these services because the main rural transport scheme has the overhead costs to which I alluded. In the way it is organised I have no doubt there are ways of justifying it. One of the problems in Ireland is that if one highlights an issue people think it is a personal criticism. We have seen in Departments this year that when we had to cut the overheads, although we all felt they were fairly well managed up to now, there were ways to do so. An obvious question is whether we really need Rural Transport Initiative offices and staff who are totally separate from the partnerships. As everybody in the Seanad knows I have been working on this for a long time. Would this fit in with the existing partnerships we have estab- lished around the country? They could all be hosted in one office and we could save on rent, overheads, management and financial control. People will come up with 100 reasons that will not happen, such as jobs, but are these services there to give employment or to provide services to people? It reminds me of the railway line that runs trains at hours in which nobody is interested in travelling. There are plenty of station masters and porters but they see customers as an unnecessary inconvenience. We have had much of that syndrome in this country over the years. Are we driven by the concept that the whole idea of a service is to get the maximum usage for the maximum number of people who need the service? It is a valid question and one to which we must open our minds. Over the total ball of wax there for rural transport, I have no doubt that if there is a will for these night time services there is a way. Pobal is committed to working with the groups involved and other groups around the country to ensure if they are willing to work with them, and I 235 Night-time Rural Transport: 23 June 2009. Statements

[Deputy E´ amon O´ Cuı´v.] have no doubt they will, the groups will be able to maintain these services. However, if people put their heads in the sand and claim they need to keep everything as it is, including overheads and everything else, and they need to get more money, it will not be possible to do it. It is not only a question of the Minister having the will. I believe it is possible to do it and Pobal knows it is possible. Rather than getting involved in this customary argument that we cannot consider flexibility and change — it did not happen in the House today — we need the rest of the people to find better ways of doing it to maintain the quality of service and expand it. I believe we can maintain the services. I apologise to Senators for not making a copy of the report available to them. I will make sure each Senator is given a copy. It contains interesting statistics. The cheapest group per head was Sı´ob-MFG which carried 5,590 passengers. Its fare income was tiny at \1,030. However, it managed to do it at a cost per passenger journey of \1.40, which is very relevant because Senator O´ Domhnaill said people were very happy with that service. However, it needed vir- tually no subsidy. Even though it was carrying very few passengers it was doing it in a very efficient way. Avondhu carried 13,000 passengers with a fare income of \10,000. It cost it \2.63. Tumna is a bit like MFG. It carried 2,723 passengers and had \2,824 of fare income. However, the cost per passenger was \12.95. Comparing Tumna with Sı´ob, it is hard to justify one costing \12.95 and the other \1.40. Senator O´ Domhnaill would claim that west Donegal is not so densely populated and that would explain the difference. Similarly West Cork Rural Transport carried 10,000 passengers — not radically different from Avondhu with 13,000. However, it cost \11 per journey to carry them. When Senators get the report they will see the figures. There may be reasons behind the figures. If we were running the scheme again or if it ever transferred to the Department of Transport or Pobal, I would place a limit on the cost per passenger. If people are told to allow for 10% overheads, they live with it. If they are told they are limited to a fixed amount per passenger they will live with it. To a certain extent we must always devise schemes in a way that encourages efficiency and good operation and does not encourage operators to run up enormous costs to justify an ever-increasing subsidy, which has been one of the mistakes in the past. A number of bodies issued statements without ever contacting my Department to find out what was happening. Funnily enough, they are organisations funded by my Department. Rural Link issued a big statement without having checked with us as to what we were doing. Age Action Ireland issued a statement. While they may have contacted the Department, neither group contacted me to find out what arrangements we were being put in place to keep this going. I assure Senators that I take on board the very good points made. We all need to get our heads around this, including the delivery groups and Pobal. It is very simple to say that more for less makes considerable sense because ultimately we have two choices. Given that money is tight, we could proportionately cut every service or decide there is a better way of providing the equivalent or almost equivalent service with less money by looking at ways of doing things more efficiently. Unfortunately the debate in the media is hyped up on cutting the money rather than what we are doing about the service. I will not stray into the realms of the Department of Transport, except to say that a number of Senators mentioned the State bus company. Regarding rural services, people mentioned post offices and so on. Time and again as Minister with responsibility for rural development I have said that if our only focus is on something that does not have a demand because a service is not what the people now want rather than providing the services in rural areas where there is a demand and which people actually want, instead of doing a service we will do a disservice. 236 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

The service will disappear anyway and we will not have pushed for the replacement service. I will give a simple example. If people in rural areas were given the choice between telephone kiosks and broadband, I believe they would all go for broadband. Young and old people have mobile phones in their pockets. I am told there is more than one mobile phone per head of population and kiosks are not used every day. They might all sign a petition to prevent a kiosk being removed. When a kiosk was being removed from my parish, I rang Eircom and the person to whom I spoke was very nice about it. However, I was asked if I realised that three telephone calls were being made from that phone box each week. I admit I was somewhat chastened as I should have been — although it left the box there. In fighting for rural areas it is important to realise that people living there are very modern and adaptable. The Peig Sayers view of rural areas is doing considerable damage. We are talking in rural areas about a modern get-up-and-go people who are organised. They are very quick to adapt to all of the new technology. Therefore we should focus on the things they really need and not on those things that might remain as a historical legacy like the 10 o’clock bus that would not take any commuter to work wandering across the countryside. In working with Pobal and my colleagues to review the scheme, with the money available for rural areas I will be focusing on ensuring we provide the services at the best cost we can with the least subsidy possible that service the needs of the maximum number of people. Ba mhaith liom buı´ochas a ghlacadh leis na Seanado´ irı´.Dı´ospo´ ireacht an-mhaith a bhı´ ann. De´anfaidh me´ cinnte go bhfaighfidh chuile Sheanado´ ir co´ ip den tuarasca´il le go mbeidh siad in ann breithiu´ nas a dhe´anamh iad fe´in. Deimhnı´m anseo go bhfuil se´ i gceist agam gach ar fe´idir liom a dhe´anamh le de´anamh cinnte go leanfaidh seirbhı´sı´ oı´che, ach gur faoin bprı´omh sce´im iompar tuaithe a bheidh siad seachas faoi sce´im phı´olo´ tach.

Sitting suspended at 5.10 p.m. and resumed at 5.15 p.m.

Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Order for Second Stage.

Bill entitled an Act to amend the law relating to the ownership and management of the common areas of multi-unit developments and to facilitate the fair, efficient and effective management of bodies responsible for the management of such common areas, and to provide for related matters.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I move: “That Second Stage be taken today.”

Question put and agreed to.

Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: Second Stage.

Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I am pleased to take this opportunity to introduce the Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 in this House and I look forward to the discussion of its provisions. I thank the Law Reform Commission for its work in this area and, in particular, for its report and reform recommendations. The National Consumer Agency has taken a keen interest in this area and has engaged with many of the relevant bodies with a view to improving consumer protection in advance of this legislation. The Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement has also been active and has produced an excellent publication entitled “Company Law Hand- book for Owners Management Companies”. 237 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.]

The Long Title of the Bill captures precisely the Government’s objective in bringing forward the draft legislation. It is described as “an Act to amend the law relating to the ownership and management of the common areas of multi-unit developments and to facilitate the fair, efficient and effective management of bodies responsible for the management of such common areas, and to provide for related matters”. The Bill forms the centrepiece of the Government’s strategy to deal with multi-unit devel- opments and management companies. Senators will no doubt recall that I introduced the Prop- erty Services (Regulation) Bill in this House last month to put the Property Services Regulatory Authority on a statutory footing and to introduce a comprehensive licensing system for prop- erty services providers, including property management agents. That Bill’s provisions dealing with management agents will therefore complement the provisions of this Bill which deals with the owners’ management companies for whom they provide property services. In its report on multi-unit developments, the Law Reform Commission identified key issues to be addressed in new legislation. These include: when exactly the property management company is to be established, and by whom; the timing of the transfer of ownership of common areas from the developer to the company; the mechanics of taking control of the company by the company members, that is, the apartment owners; internal governance arrangements for owners’ management companies; the basis on which the annual service charge should be calcu- lated and apportioned among members; the issue of whether — and if so, when — to establish a sinking fund; the problems arising when property management companies are struck off the companies register because of non-compliance with company law provisions; and the lack of a mechanism for the resolution of disputes in the multi-unit development sector. These issues, now addressed in the Bill, are very complex. In the preparation of the Bill it was necessary to engage in intensive discussions with several Departments, the Office of the Attorney General and relevant interests to ensure that all issues of concern in this area were being met. The Bill creates a completely new framework for multi-unit developments. As far as possible, its provisions have been designed to apply both to new and existing multi-unit developments. Rather than entering into the detail of the Bill’s provisions, I propose to give an overview of how the proposed new arrangements are intended to operate in practice. Section 1 is a standard provision which contains essential definitions and I will mention a number of them specifically. A “multi-unit development” is defined as land on which there stands erected a building which, or a part of which, is divided into units of which not less than five are designed and intended for residential use. I am aware that there are multi-unit developments with fewer than five units and that provision must also be made for them. For that reason, section 1(3) provides that particular sections which are specified in the Schedule to the Bill will apply to developments with two, three or four apartments. The “common areas” of a development are defined as areas such as access and side roads, architectural features, circulation areas, footpaths, internal common stairways, open spaces, parking areas, utility rooms and that portion of the roof or exterior of any building not intended to form or not forming part of an individual apartment. An “owners’ management company” means a company established for the purposes of becoming the owner of the common areas of a multi-unit development and responsible for the management, maintenance and repair of such areas. Some existing management bodies are not companies under the Companies Acts, so I am providing in section 1(4) that a reference to an owners’ management company shall be construed as including other bodies such as industrial and provident societies, partnerships, unincorporated bodies and so on. 238 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

Section 2 is a key provision. The intention is to ensure that the ownership of the common areas of a development are transferred to the owners’ management company before any apart- ments are sold. This will prevent situations arising where a developer retains control of the common areas long after they should have been transferred to the control of the apartment owners. The section provides that a unit in a new multi-unit development cannot be sold unless an owners’ management company has been established by the developer and ownership of relevant parts of the common areas have been transferred to it. Transfer of the common areas is subject to retention of the beneficial interest by the developer. The extinguishment of the retained beneficial interest upon completion of the development is provided for in section 9. The Bill also deals with situations where some units in a development have been sold prior to enactment of the Bill but the development has not yet been completed, and also where a development has been completed but transfer of the common areas has not yet taken place. Section 3 provides that in cases where some units in a development have already been sold prior to the coming into operation of this section, the developer must transfer ownership of the relevant parts of the common areas to the owners’ management company within six months. The transfer here is also subject to the retention by the developer of the beneficial interest, pending completion of the relevant common areas. In section 4, I have provided that in the case of completed developments the developer must transfer ownership of the common areas to the relevant owners’ management company within six months of the coming into operation of the legislation. In framing the Bill, I was determined to ensure that the transfer of the common areas did not absolve a developer from obligations to complete a development. Therefore, section 5 makes it clear that the transfer of ownership of common areas does not relieve a developer of his or her responsibility for completing the development in compliance with the Planning and Development Acts and the Building Control Acts. I have provided in section 6 that on the sale or assignment of an apartment, the vendor’s membership of the owners’ management company will transfer automatically to the purchaser. The company will be obliged to give the purchaser the share or membership certificate as soon as practicable following notification of the change of ownership. The company must also ensure that the register of members is updated and complies with other relevant requirements under the Companies Acts. Following early transfer of the common areas, section 7 provides that the developer retains rights to pass and re-pass over these areas to complete the development. However, a developer must indemnify the owners’ management company against any claims made in respect of acts or omissions by the developer in the course of completion works. More generally, there will be an obligation on a developer to minimise inconvenience to residents, and to ensure that access is available to them at all reasonable times, and a reciprocal obligation on the owners’ management company not to obstruct the developer in exercising any rights to the development or to adjoining land. It appears that in certain multi-unit developments, especially early developments, the owner- ship of certain parts of the common areas may have been allocated to individual unit owners. For example, owners of apartments on the top floor may also own the roof and be responsible for any repairs that might prove necessary. Section 8 provides that in such cases, the unit owners concerned and the company may agree to transfer the ownership of that interest, and responsibility for it, to the company. Where either party considers that consent to the transfer is being unreasonably withheld, they may make an application to the court under the dispute resolution mechanism in section 18. 239 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.]

The transfer of ownership of the common areas to the owners’ management company is subject to retention of the beneficial interest in the property by the developer. Section 9 pro- vides the mechanism by means of which the beneficial ownership of the common areas is reunited with legal title in the owners’ management company. When a development has been completed, the owner of the beneficial interest in the common areas must, as soon as is practi- cable, make a declaration that such interest stands extinguished for the benefit of the owners’ management company. The declaration must be made with the consent of any mortgagee or owner of a charge on the property, but that the consent may not be unreasonably withheld. Section 10 provides for the extinguishment of beneficial interests where a development has not been completed. It provides that where 60% of the unit owners request the beneficial owner to make a statement that the beneficial interest stands extinguished, the owner must make that declaration unless “good and sufficient cause” is shown. For example, a good and sufficient cause might be that granting the request would interfere in some way with completion of the entire development. In the event of a dispute, an application to court under section 18 may be made. Section 11 makes it clear that an owners’ management company shall have a right to carry out repairs or maintenance on a part of a multi-unit development which is not within its control where the repairs are reasonably necessary to ensure the safe and effective occupation or the peaceful enjoyment of occupation of any apartment. It also provides that the company may recover the costs of carrying out such repairs or maintenance from any person, including the developer, who had responsibility for doing so. Section 12 applies to new multi-unit developments commenced after the coming into oper- ation of the Act. It provides that one vote shall attach to each unit in a development, and that each vote shall be of equal value. To ease identification of such companies, the words “owners’ management company” — which may be abbreviated to “OMC” — must be included in the name of any such owners’ management company. Arrangements for the governance of owners’ management companies constitute an important part of this Bill and they are set out in sections 13 to 17. In framing these provisions, I have been determined to ensure openness, transparency and accountability. Section 13 deals with the holding of annual meetings and the content of annual reports of owners’ management companies. The annual reports of the company must include details of income and expenditure, and assets and liabilities; the annual service charges and sinking fund account; planned expenditure on maintenance and repair; insurance cover and contracts entered into by the company. Advance notice of the annual general meeting must be given to each member 21 days before the meeting and a copy of the annual report must be provided at least ten days beforehand. The annual general meeting must take place within reasonable proximity to the multi-unit development unless otherwise agreed by 75% of the members of the company. These specific obligations are in addition to any other obligation or duty on the company under any Act, statutory instrument or rule of law. One of the major difficulties faced by apartment owners is the lack of transparency surround- ing the annual service charge. In many cases, owners are unsure what services are provided for the payment or are dissatisfied with the service provided. To address this issue, section 14 specifies that the owners’ management company must establish a scheme for annual service charges to fund expenditure on the maintenance, insurance and repair of common areas within its control and for the provision of common services, such as security, legal, accounting and so on. The annual charge must be approved by a general meeting of the members of the company. In any case in which more than 75% of the members do not approve the proposed charge, the 240 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage existing charge shall remain in place until the adoption of a new charge. Where no service charge applies, the directors of the company may determine a scheme to operate for a period of four months. This section also places an obligation on apartment owners to pay the annual service charge. The annual service charge must be calculated and apportioned on a transparent and fair basis. Moreover, proper records of expenditure must be retained by the owners’ man- agement company. Payment for “snagging” of the common areas has arisen as a problem for many devel- opments. Section 14 provides that the service charge must not be used to cover costs which are the responsibility of a developer or builder, unless more than 90% of the members vote in favour of such use. In such cases, the owners’ management company may recover the cost from any person, including the developer. A further issue of widespread concern at the moment is whether to establish a sinking fund. It appears that many developments have not established such a fund, or if established, it may not be adequate to meet the costs of any major repairs or renovations. This can become a very serious problem if, for example, the lift has to be replaced or the roof has to be repaired. Section 15 deals with this issue by providing that an owners’ management company must estab- lish a sinking fund for spending on refurbishment, improvement or maintenance of a non- recurring nature of the multi-unit development. Unit owners will be obliged to make contri- butions to it which will be calculated on the same basis as the annual service charge. All multi- unit developments should have some form of sinking fund and that is why I have provided that a minimum sinking fund contribution of \200 per unit per year will apply to all developments. A higher contribution may be set where members of the company agree. The sinking fund must be established within three years of the transfer of ownership of a unit in the development or, in cases where a development is already in existence when this section comes into operation, within 18 months of that date. Contributions to the sinking fund must be held in a separate identified account. Any disputes about the sinking fund may be the subject of an application to court under the dispute resolution mechanism in section 18. Section 16 provides that the owners’ management company may issue an aggregate request for payment under sections 14 and 15. Such a request must outline the basis for the calculation of each charge. With a view to enhancing the quiet and peaceable occupation of units within multi-unit developments, section 17 permits owners of the management company to make house rules. Such rules must be consistent with the covenants contained in title deeds and must be agreed at a meeting of members of the company. Where an apartment is let, it shall be a term of the letting that it is subject to the observance of the rules by the tenants. The rules may provide for the recovery by the owners’ management company from any person of the reasonable cost of remedying a breach of the rules. Another problem to be addressed is the lack of an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism through which aggrieved unit owners may seek redress when disputes arise. Section 18 estab- lishes a new court jurisdiction for the resolution of disputes in multi-unit developments where attempts at mediation have failed. An application shall state the circumstance giving rise to it and details of the order or orders requested. It must also state whether attempts at mediation have been made. On hearing the application, if the court is satisfied that a right has been infringed or an obligation has not been discharged, it may make such order or orders as it deems appropriate. Such orders may relate to the legal documentation concerning the development, transfer of control issues, issues regarding sinking funds, and completion of the developments. In making an order, the court must be satisfied that all parties likely to be affected by the making of an 241 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.] order have received sufficient notice of the application. The court is also given the power to make such ancillary orders as it considers necessary to give effect to any order or orders made by it under the section. Any person referred to in section 19 may apply to the court for an order to enforce any rights conferred or obligation imposed under the Act. Section 20 provides that the Circuit Court, concurrently with the High Court, will have jurisdiction to hear and determine an appli- cation under section 18. Mediation should be used wherever possible to resolve disputes and that is why I have included sections 21 and 22 in the Bill. Section 21 provides that at the request of any party to an application under section 18, the court may, at any stage during the course of the pro- ceedings, direct all parties concerned in the application to meet in a mediation conference. It further provides that where a mediation conference is directed by the court, all parties must comply with the direction. Other relevant provisions in the section relate to issues such as the time and place for the holding of a mediation conference, the appointment of a chair, confiden- tiality and the costs of the conference. Section 22 provides that the chairperson of a mediation conference must submit a report to the court on the outcome of the conference. A copy of the report must also be given to the parties to the application. Where the court is satisfied a party to the application did not comply with a direction to engage in the mediation process, it may make an order as to costs. Section 23 is a saver provision which provides that nothing in the Act shall derogate from any power vested in any person or court, by statute or otherwise, and the powers conferred in the Act shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any such powers. Another problem that has arisen with multi-unit developments has been the striking off of owners’ management companies from the Companies Registration Office. This can have very serious consequences for apartment owners in the development. It means, for example, that an owner wishing to sell his or her apartment cannot do so until the company is restored to the register. At present, when a company is struck off, there is a one-year period during which the company can apply to the Companies Registration Office for restoration to the register. After one year, the company must apply to the courts for restoration. This is costly and cumbersome. Section 24 addresses this problem by extending to six years the period within which an owners’ management company may be restored to the register without recourse to the courts. Section 25 provides that the benefit of any guarantees or warranties relating to any materials used in the construction, repair or improvement of a multi-unit development shall stand trans- ferred to the owners’ management company on the transfer of the land. Section 26 places restrictions on owners’ management companies entering into long-term contracts with pro- viders of goods and services, for example, insurance contracts or broadband services. Such companies will not be permitted to enter into contracts for a period in excess of three years. In addition, any contract entered into by the company cannot include a clause imposing a penalty on the company if the contract is terminated after a three-year period. Section 27 provides that the regulation-making powers conferred on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in sections 14, 15 and 17 shall be exercised in consultation with the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for the Environment, Heri- tage and Local Government. The Schedule to the Bill specifies provisions which apply to multi- unit developments comprising more than two units but fewer than five units. The relevant sections are sections 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22. The provisions set out in this Bill will, when enacted, provide much improved consumer protection for the owners of apartments in multi-unit developments and will serve to assure 242 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage the public that high standards will be applied and maintained in the sector. I commend the Bill to the House.

Senator Eugene Regan: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction of the Bill. This is welcome and is very much needed. In many ways, it is long overdue. Major problems existed for apartment owners when they could not get ownership of the development from the original developer. Unfair and often exorbitant service charges were imposed and, in many cases, owners were unaware of the basis by which service charges were calculated. The prob- lems created were tolerated and there was a lack of transparency and awareness. The lack of regulation exacerbated this problem. The Bill is designed to address a number of problems faced by apartment owners, such as how the complex is maintained and funded. It reflects a number of policy ideas proposed by Fine Gael in its policy document, A Fairer Deal for Modern Living, published in May 2008. In general the Bill is welcome and is well drafted in broad measure. More than 60% of new residential dwelling units built in Dublin are apartments. The nation- wide figure is 25%. We should not have had to wait until there was such extensive apartment dwelling and ownership before introducing this legislation. There have been many calls for regulation of this sector and it is extraordinary it has taken so long for it to be introduced. More than 500,000 people live in multi-unit developments. Between 50,000 and 100,000 people live in traditional houses in mixed developments which are the subject of management charges in many cases. That is an issue not addressed in the Bill. Why is it not addressed? It could be accommodated in this legislation and it would be appropriate to do so. A total of 4,600 manage- ment companies are registered with the Companies Registration Office and 400 individuals or companies offer property management services. In many cases the latter are unlicensed and unregulated. Combined with the Bill recently introduced by the Minister, the Property Services (Regulation) Bill, and other legislation governing this complex area that involves planning law, land law, conveyancing law and landlord and tenant law, this Bill fits the complex of legislation and ties up many loose ends in property ownership. There are a multitude of problems and some have been outlined by the Minister. These include cases where the management company remains controlled by the developer, services are poor, fees are not paid, the title to common areas is not handed over to the management company, there is no sinking fund to ensure the long-term maintenance and management companies going into debt or being struck off the companies register, leaving the residential units unprotected, uninsured and difficult to sell in many cases. There is also the issue of mixed developments, which I have mentioned. Where there are gated communities, these problems tend not to arise but where there are mixed developments of apartments and normal residential dwellings, we must find an accommodation within this legislation for management companies. A number of features of the Bill have been outlined by the Minister and they are welcome. These include the designation of owner management companies, the provision whereby apart- ments in new developments cannot be sold unless an owners’ management company has been established at the expense of the developer, the obligation on the developer to transfer owner- ship of the common area and that the transfer of same does not relieve the developer of his responsibilities in the completion of the development. There is also the issue of voting rights at annual general meetings, the provision for service charges to be approved at general meet- ings and the basis upon which they are to be calculated, along with the services they cover. The provision for a sinking fund, house rules and so on are all very necessary and welcome. There is a dispute resolution system proposed in the Bill, where there is recourse to the courts — particularly the Circuit Court — and this is a puzzling aspect. In the recent Property Services (Regulation) Bill, we have a different system to regulate that sector and it seems 243 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator Eugene Regan.] incongruous that in this case we do not have recourse to the national property services regulat- ory authority. That body could play a role in resolving many of the disputes that arise in the area and if there are concerns regarding title and so on, they would have to be adjudicated upon by the courts. It does not seem congruous to have a different system of dealing with issues and problems arising under the legislation as opposed to the Property Services (Regulation) Bill. There is a provision for an extended period during which a company may be restored to the companies register and where the contract restrictions controlling owners and management companies entering into long-term contracts with providers of goods and services would not extend beyond three years. All those features are to be welcomed. The questions I have relate to the mixed developments and why these cannot be accommo- dated within this legislation. With regard to the system of resolving disputes, why can the national property services regulatory authority not play a role? I know the Minister has been facilitated by the very comprehensive reports of the Law Reform Commission in this area, and particularly by the draft Bill from the commission. Many features of that draft Bill were very appropriate and I can see certain deviations from the draft in this legislation. I have a number of questions on that. I do not want to go into the detail of the draft Bill from the Law Reform Commission. We are less than emphatic about the responsibilities in section 2, where there is reference to “a person to whom this section applies”. The Law Reform Commission Bill expressly states the responsibilities of the developer and I do not understand why we go about identifying those responsibilities in this circuitous route. There is a definition of completion of a development in the Law Reform Commission Bill, which refers to certification by a professional person. There is no definition in this Bill of substantial completion and it is important that the term, as used in section 4, is defined. The Law Reform Commission recommends the inclusion of several rules in the articles of association of owner management companies, which are not included in this Bill. The com- mission also recommends a proxy for owners at management committee meetings but this recommendation has not been followed. Why is that? The commission wanted the annual directors’ report to include a declaration that the development is fully compliant with fire and safety legislation, and the Bill merely requires that the annual report include whether a fire safety certificate has been issued. The Law Reform Commission report also recommends that units could not be sold in a development where a management committee had not filed returns to the previous 24 months. It would seem that this could be a welcome inclusion in the Bill and the commission’s Bill excludes management agencies from carrying out the function of company secretary of an owners’ management company. I do not see that reflected in the Bill. The commission also recommended that a unit owner needs to seek permission of the board of directors of the owners’ management company before making any external or structural alteration to the unit owner’s unit. This does not appear to be contained in the Bill. These specific questions can be dealt with on Committee Stage and there may be a very good reason they are not included. I welcome the Bill, which will receive the support of this side of the House, although we will put down amendments. I compliment those bodies which have played a big role in researching this issue. The Law Reform Commission’s consultation paper and report have been excellent. The National Consumer Agency produced a report on management fees and service charges levied on owners of property in multi-unit dwellings, which is very important in this regard. The Irish Property and Facility Management Association 244 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage did a position paper in June 2008 and the Office of Director of Corporate Enforcement pro- duced a property owners’ guide to company law. There was also a report from the auctioneer and estate agent review group from 2005. All these reports contributed to a very thorough examination of the entire area and grounded the basis for this Bill very well. I welcome the legislation and thank the Minister for attending the House.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I welcome the Minister to the House and this Bill, which is not before its time. As with Senator Regan, I compliment the Law Reform Commission for much work done in the background, the Minister and his staff. We are entering uncharted waters as 20 years ago this was unheard of. As a result of the Celtic tiger and the building and develop- ment boom, we have a substantial amount of multi-unit developments and not only in Dublin. We sometimes believe this is restricted to the capital but it also applies to developments in Cork, Galway and most towns and some villages around the country. The Bill proposes to provide a statutory framework for several issues, including the obliga- tory establishment of an owners’ management company and the transfer of common areas to same prior to the sale of any units, or within six months of the section coming into force in the case of existing completed or incomplete developments. What is important is that it applies not only to work in progress but also to existing developments. The Bill provides for regulation of the internal governance of owner management companies, providing one vote of equal value per unit, the obligation to hold an annual general meeting and the furnishing of each member with an annual report which will include details of, among other things, the assets and liabilities of the company and statements on service charges, sinking funds and insurance details. That is very important because it means each owner in a 50-unit apartment block, whether student apartments or otherwise, has an equal vote. The Bill also provides for the sinking fund, which is very important. It also covers insurance and so on. There are many owner management companies working within the law and doing very good work but, unfortunately, there are many others which are not complying with the regulation which the Minister is putting on a statutory footing. Service charges, sinking funds, insurance, etc. will be calculated on a fair and transparent basis. The sinking fund will be spent on maintenance or improvements of a non-recurring nature, which is important. I am aware of a block of apartments in which the developer was locked in, as it were, with the builder. In addition, 10% or more of the occupiers were friends or had family links with the developer and they took charge of the apartments with an iron fist. They were student apartments and in the first semester, the developer, through his agents and the so-called company which was not owner representative, collected the fees for the first part of the year but when there were problems in the summer, autumn and winter, there was no sinking fund. In this instance, there was severe flooding caused by a problem with drainage and most of the ground floor apartments were damaged. Some of the students left and there was chaos. However, at all times, the developer was in control of the agency and the so-called management company. As a gesture to placate people, he held emergency general meetings of the company, of which he gave three or four days’ notice. For those with an investment apart- ment and who were living in Kerry or Donegal, the chances were that the meeting was over before they got to it. That is the type of thing which has been going on. That is why this legislation is critical to regularise this area. It was like travelling down the Zambezi River in a canoe in that one did not know where one was going to. This area had to be properly regulated and what the Minister is doing here is of critical importance to the future management and the legal transfer and ownership of such apartments. 245 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator Denis O’Donovan.]

Senator Regan said 4,600 owner management companies are registered in Ireland, which is a phenomenal number. A decade ago, there were probably not even 50 such companies. That indicates where we are. An important plank of this legislation is the making of house rules by agreement of the members of the owners’ management company in furtherance of the effective operation, main- tenance and enjoyment of the development. Some of these work very well. Nearly 20 years ago a colleague of mine in Cork was involved with a small development in the city. The owners managed and regulated rent collection, services, maintenance and so on and they met twice a year. It worked out relatively well and if there were hiccups, there were ways to get over them. Another important part of the legislation is that there is a court-based system of dispute resolution which promotes mediation as a means of resolving disputes. It is important that is being placed on a statutory footing. One can look at different models throughout the world, although I know the Law Reform Commission looked at the situation in New South Wales in Australia. Traditionally, in countries such as Holland and Belgium tenants lived in apartments and the notion of owner occupancy and long leases, which we have in Ireland, was not very prevalent. The legislation provides an extended period from one to six years in which the owners’ management company struck off the companies register for the non-filing of annual reports can be restored to the register. That is significant. One might believe we are falling behind what is happening elsewhere but I recently came across a complaint from constituents about an investment in holiday apartments in the south of France. These were very well-off people who had a few bob to invest. Rogue companies were set up at the end of November with the plan of letting the holiday apartments. In February or March, when the companies had received the deposits, they vanished with them. The owners had neither agents nor deposits and were left with a mess. These holiday apartments cannot be fully let now with the decline in tourism. Apparently, this happens quite frequently because I contacted the French embassy for advice and guidance for my constituents. Problems are not unique to Ireland; there are problems in other parts of Europe as well. The Minister is doing a wonderful job in putting this on a statutory footing. The Bill will transform the regulatory environment of management companies, impose new obligations on developers and empower apartment owners in various ways, for example, in regard to voting and the resolution of disputes. For at least ten or 12 years, some developers have made much money from developments. They had all sorts of means of fleecing owners, many of whom were once-off investors. They used the service charge as a sinking fund or to complete snag lists, maintenance or whatever. Local authorities required service charges to be imposed for very good reasons, including providing parking, footpaths, lighting and ducting for various services. Many developers made significant profits but they were not happy with that and tried to skim off some of the money intended for other purposes. This is significant legislation which, once and for all, will ensure an arms-length relationship between developers, the issues of common ownership of parts of properties and owners. As soon as a development is complete or part complete, the owners will take charge of the develop- ment and free themselves from the bonds and shackles of the developer who will probably want to complete the development and make as much money as quickly as possible. It was a sinister follow-on in those cases where developers wanted to have their cake and eat it when it came to agency fees, collecting deposits and so on. In the apartment block I referred to earlier, one building was used as a commercial laundry, owned by the developer. After several years it was discovered electricity for the launderette and other buildings owned by the devel- 246 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage oper was being sourced from the apartment block. It shows what people will do when they can manipulate the system. I thank the Minister for introducing this legislation and wish it a speedy passage.

Senator David Norris: I wish to share time with Senator Mullen.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator David Norris: This is a technical Bill which was, to a certain extent, reflected in the Minister’s delivery of his speech. Although clear and articulate, he did go through the matter at considerable speed. It is an important Bill and the careful consideration which the Minister’s advisers gave to the speech indicates he understands and respects this. The legislation is important because it goes to the very heart of people’s enjoyment of their homes. There have been considerable problems with management companies in the past. I raised them many times only to find it difficult to get any interest, precisely because it is such a technical area. Senator O’Donovan did the House a service by putting clear case histories on the record and which are very much in accord with the abuses of which I am aware. It is a growing problem because up to 5,000 management companies exist. Until the passage of this Bill, they will remain very largely unregulated. Like Senator Regan, I pay tribute to the Law Reform Commission on its work in this area. In its report it has identified four particular facets in the functions of a management company. The management company usually enjoys a substantial legal interest in the property. First, there is the freehold interest in the common areas of the complex, such as stairwells, entrances and exits, lifts and gardens; and second, the management company is usually the holder of the reversionary interest in the lease of each individual unit. The second key aspect is that its members, usually the owners of each unit within the com- plex, have two different types of ownership rights in respect of the property — the leasehold interest in their own individual units and ownership of the freehold interest in the common areas in the complex through the company. The third factor is that management companies should be subject to company law under which this Bill brings them. Service charges and sinking funds were identified as the fourth aspect. This is an area where there have been many problems, as indicated by Senator O’Donovan. Technical devices have been used, such as the non-transfer of property in which the developer held on to one apart- ment, allowing him the stranglehold of not having to vest in the management 6 o’clock company. Senator O’Donovan spoke about this as a random bohemian approach but some times it was much more cynical, done deliberately as a profit-making exercise. Also, instead of accepting their responsibility as residual owners, the developers spread the charges among the other owners thus inflating their charges. I am glad this is addressed in section 14(9). Other examples of these devices include inappropriate companies appointed to do phantom work which is never done while the unfortunate property-owners are bludgeoned into meeting these requirements. Many purchasers are unaware of the management company charge which can be quite sub- stantial. They may ask themselves for what are they paying \2,000. I am glad section 14(3) requires an estimated breakdown of every service charge. People are entitled to know what they are paying for and to decide whether it is a fair charge. I also welcome the transparency that will entail. The Law Reform Commission has also identified the problems associated with developers’ failure to vest the freehold title of a development in the management company, which has resulted in unit owners unable to sell their apartments. It is a serious problem where a person 247 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator David Norris.] buys an apartment, but because of a technical failure by the developer, is unable to sell it on. I welcome the Minister tackling this problem in the Bill. While I welcome the provisions for resale and transfer of the common areas, I want to get a reading on a specific matter of interest to myself, a situation in which many people find them- selves. Some years ago I acquired a car parking space which is freehold. I enjoyed this car park for quite a number of years having paid for the key. In the past two years, I have received demands for service charges from a management company. I was never given any information about it with no notice of meetings or accounts. I have refused to pay for it because it is on a freehold and I do not have an apartment to which the garage is related. I consider myself within my rights not to pay, particularly without a detailed breakdown. It is a personal matter but many others are in a similar situation. What are my rights? Am I entitled to refuse because I bought it leasehold?

Senator Ro´ na´n Mullen: Cuirim fa´ilte roimh an Aire. I welcome the Multi-Unit Developments Bill to the Seanad. Unfortunately, it is long overdue for many young people who had to suffer the exorbitant costs of apartments over the past six years and who also had to suffer further at the hands of certain unscrupulous developers even after they bought them. Buying a unit in a multi-unit development raises complex legal issues given that the devel- opments feature common areas essential for the enjoyment of the development by all unit owners, especially young children. This gives rise to the need for a body to take responsibility for these areas of common usage. Such a body, known as the management company, owns the entire development. While unit owners enjoy a leasehold estate on the apartment they pur- chased, they cannot hold the freehold. This contrasts with buying a house, so beloved of Irish people, where the property is owned outright. The expansion of the number of multi-unit developments has been a major feature of the property market, especially in the Dublin region. There has been a dramatic trend towards apartment living, with more than half the new housing units built in Dublin in 2005 being apartments. In 2006, apartment building made up 59% of all housing units built in the Dublin region when it only comprised 21% nationally. With this expansion of multi-unit developments has come numerous problems. Great credit is due to the Law Reform Commission for carrying out a review of multi-unit developments in two stages comprising a consultation paper and report. It is worth noting the provisional recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission in December 2006 as well as its final report published in June 2008 and to recall the problems it identified. These included the general and widespread lack of transparency and a deficit in understanding regarding the appropriate roles of those involved in apartment developments, including developers, units owners as members of owners’ management companies, and prop- erty management agencies. Moreover, it observed that developers sometimes held on to effec- tive control of apartment owners’ management companies, even after virtually all apartments had been sold. I have dealt with people in a legal capacity on this issue. A further problem was that property management agencies sometimes had too much administrative control over some owners’ management companies, which caused confusion over their different functions. More- over, annual general meetings of owners’ management companies sometimes were organised at short notice and at inconvenient times and locations. In addition, increases in annual service charges were sometimes not properly explained which therefore led to unit owners not paying them and consequently to the running down of some apartment complexes. Another problem was the absence of a long-term building investment fund, sometimes referred to as the sinking fund, for some apartment complexes. Some appointment developments were not taken in charge by local authorities and there could be a lack of clear arrangements for rescuing apart- ment complexes that were in trouble. 248 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

The consultation paper recognised the difficulties relating to multi-unit living as arising from two main factors, namely, poor governance, including the retention by some developers of inappropriate control over the developments, and a deficit in understanding among apartment purchasers, who seem to be unaware of the consequences of buying an apartment in such a development. The reason this Bill is needed is abundantly clear. As other Members have done, I welcome the various provisions of this Bill and, in particular, section 14 and its provisions on service charges. The current injustices will be tackled by com- pulsory vesting of common areas, automatic ownership of owners’ management companies, the clear presentation of the rights and duties of the owners’ management companies, proper con- trol over service charges as well as fairness regarding sinking funds. Regulation in this area is long overdue and this constitutes a disappointing example of how Government policy has failed to keep track of unjust profiteering. This failure has placed a heavy burden on young people in general and on young families in particular. While this Bill is welcome, its impact will be diluted greatly unless the Government commits itself to ensuring the housing market becomes less developer-centred and more family-centred. The cost of housing over the past ten years has greatly undermined family life as both parents have been obliged to work extensively to pay off exorbitant mortgages. Consequently, children have missed out on family life because the Government has failed to regulate adequately the avarice of developers and banks. I wish to highlight an element of the Bill that is missing. An old ethical adage states that two wrongs do not make a right. It would constitute a further injustice were management fees which were reasonable and which were owed not paid at all. I question whether this Bill addresses adequately this issue and whether the appropriate mechanism exists to extract out- standing fees from unit owners. Perhaps clarification is available in this regard. I will examine the Bill more closely and while Members have Committee Stage to look forward to, they should not lose sight of this issue.

Senator Jim Walsh: I wish to share two minutes with Senator O’Toole.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed?

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I have no objections, assuming I will be allowed to contribute. It means three Independent Members will have spoken before the Labour Party. I agree, so long as I am allowed to contribute.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator is scheduled to speak thereafter.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I thank the Cathaoirleach. I simply wished to make that point.

Senator Jim Walsh: I ask the Cathaoirleach to let me know when one minute remains.

An Cathaoirleach: I will but the Senator’s time is moving on.

Senator Jim Walsh: I welcome the Multi-Unit Developments Bill, which introduces regu- lation in an area in which it is much needed. There have been examples in the recent past of fairly acute problems in this regard, although many of the problems associated with apartment living have arisen from poor design, bad planning and, in particular, a failure to ensure units of adequate size with appropriate open areas and so on. While this issue remains to be attended to, it probably is outside the scope of both this Bill and the Department promoting it. Nevertheless, the provisions of the Bill are to be welcomed. It places responsibilities on the owners of apartments in that they will be obliged to pay service charges, make a contribution to a sinking fund and to observe certain house rules. This is fundamental to enhancing the quality of life of those with whom they share such residential developments. It also sets out 249 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator Jim Walsh.] clearly the responsibilities of developers to establish owners’ management companies in advance of selling any units, which is a worthwhile provision. It also places an obligation to transfer common areas at that point or, if they are in the course of construction, within six months of their completion. I wish to pose a few questions to the Minister of State. First, there is an obligation under section 5 for the developer to complete the development. However, in the current economic downturn many developers will not be in a position to so do because they have become insol- vent. Has any thought been given to the establishment of a bond? That was a method of dealing with such issues in the past when a contractual arrangement existed between a principal and a developer. I am uncertain whether this is the case in this regard. I also wish to raise the issue of voting rights within the management companies. I note there is provision that each unit owner will have one vote, regardless of the size of the cost of the unit. While I may be wrong, I understand this to be at variance with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. Perhaps the reason this provision applies should be spelt out. Why is there not a weighted provision in such a company’s shareholding that is proportionate to the amount people actually have paid? I certainly welcome the provisions in section 14, which spell out clearly the areas for which the service charge is applied. This must be transparent and it is important for each owner to be aware of the costs under each of those headings. I fully accept a sinking fund is highly desirable in respect of a building that will require ongoing maintenance. However, I query it in respect of residential units, houses and so on, where one may not incur similar costs. On reading the definitions, I am unclear whether the Bill covers this area. I welcome the change in respect of strike-off provisions whereby one can apply to have a company that has been struck off by the Companies Registration Office restored within six years. In general however, and this also applies to other companies, this area of striking off companies is highly questionable. The Minister of State should comment on the possibility that in the event of a serious accident resulting in the incurring of a huge public liability settlement, it might have the effect of exposing unit owners, who may be unaware of the strike-off pro- vision, to costs for which they might not be in a position to provide.

Senator Joe O’Toole: I thank Senator Walsh sincerely for the two minutes and promise Senator Hannigan that I will not eat into his time. I welcome the Minister of State to the House and have a number of queries I wish to raise. While I have raised them with the Minister’s office, which is working on them, I wish to put them on the record because I will deal with them on Committee Stage. I welcome the Bill, which is very positive and does things as they should be done. However, although the same issues apply to estates, this Bill only applies to apartment buildings. The definition states: ““multi-unit development” means land on which there stands erected a build- ing which, or a part of which ... is divided into units”. Consequently, houses in housing estates would not be covered by this Bill. This has been brought to my attention by a number of people who believe that situation also should be covered. I acknowledge the Minister’s office is working on this issue and I would appreciate a response from the Minister of State in this regard. The other issue I wish to raise concerns the rules for the management committee and the basis on which they are set up. Are those rules and regulations, or their articles of association or whatever we might call them, lodged in any particular way? That is crucial. I would also like to ask about the process used to establish the fee. The budgeting system is done very well. It is important that it is done in the way that is outlined. I have some experience in this area. I have a property in France. I am a member of a co-proprietorship of eight houses. 250 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

All the things provided for in this legislation are done as part of that. They have additional powers as well. I will bring them into the discussion on Committee Stage. I would like to get some clarification on whether this legislation can be extended to cover ordinary detached or semi-detached houses in housing estates as opposed to apartments in apartment blocks.

Senator Dominic Hannigan: I welcome the Minister. I welcome the general principle of this legislation. It bears testimony to the good work done by agencies such as the Law Reform Commission and the National Consumer Agency. This Bill has been a long time coming. I am glad we are reaching the end of the process of sorting out the mess in our management agencies and companies. It is fair to say that there are many good management companies. That must be recognised. I do not want to tar every company with the same brush. However, it is clear the lack of regulation and legislation in the system allows some bad apples to cause a great deal of trouble for many apartment dwellers and home owners. I refer to a few specific aspects of the Bill. I am glad sinking funds are provided for in the legislation. The figure mentioned in the Bill is \200 per annum per apartment. That will go some way to ensuring sufficient reserves are in place for when things break down. I am aware of apartment blocks in County Meath where the lack of a sinking fund is making it difficult to repair things such as lifts. I know of an apartment block in which the lift has been left unfixed for almost a year, which is intolerable for the many residents who have to pay these charges on an ongoing basis. I am glad sinking funds have been provided for because they are needed. I am pleased a section of the Bill aims to ensure fees are justified rather than excessive and are applied in a manner that is transparent to apartment owners. There have been instances of developers and management companies charging, or seeking to charge, excessive fees with no real justification or explanation of why they are needed. I am glad the Bill proposes to change the existing regime of voting rights. That will go a long way to ensuring people have the ability to run their own apartment blocks as they see fit. I have a query about section 17 which deals with house rules. While I am in favour of house rules, in principle, I have some concerns. Will some kind of appeals process be provided for? Will best practice be followed when decisions are made on what the house rules should cover? It is possible that some over-zealous residents could try to impose house rules that are a little over the top. We need to be cautious in this respect. I would like to see some mechanism for ensuring house rules are measured and cannot be deemed excessive. I signal that the Labour Party may table amendments at a later stage to modify some aspects of this legislation. The first area of concern is the question of voting rights for the residents of apartment complexes that have been completed. I would like some clarification in this respect. Developers sometimes put an unjustly weighted voting system in place before they transfer ownership to residents. I refer specifically to completed apartment blocks. I ask the Minister to address this issue. I would like to pick up on a point about housing estates made by Senators O’Toole and Mullen. Are traditional housing estates covered by this legislation? It appears to me it relates solely to apartment blocks and not to housing estates. Local authorities in many parts of the country have imposed management companies on new housing estates of the traditional kind. There are approximately 1,000 traditional three-bedroom, four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses in the Grange Rath estate outside Drogheda. Everyone who owns a house in the estate has to form part of the estate’s management company. That approach was probably adopted because the local county council does not have a parks department. The local authority may have been keen to ensure the common areas are maintained and a system is put in place to take care of the upkeep of the estate. While many housing estates, including Grange Rath, have excellent management companies, I am aware of problems in other estates caused by a lack of regulation. It would be interesting to ascertain whether this legislation covers traditional 251 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator Dominic Hannigan.] housing estates. If not, when can we expect to see legislation in this area? I am signalling that we may table some amendments on Committee Stage. We welcome this Bill, in principle. We compliment the Minister and his staff on the work they have done on this complex matter. We look forward to seeing the legislation become law.

Senator De´irdre de Bu´ rca: Like other Members of the House, I welcome the opportunity to debate this appropriate legislation. Some Senators have said it is long overdue. There has certainly been a crying need for it. The legislation sets out to regulate new and existing multi- unit developments. That might sound like gobbledygook to most people but it refers generally to apartment living. We all recognise that apartment living has some special features. There is a need for a certain amount of interdependency. Reliable funding streams are needed to provide for the ongoing upkeep and management of common areas. Apartment owners need to participate in appropriate arrangements. Other Senators have referred to the number of apartment units that have been created over recent years. In 2006, apartment building accounted for 56% of all housing units built in the Dublin area, and 21% nationally. In 2007, apartment building accounted for 62% of all dwell- ings completed in the Dublin area, which is a phenomenal number, and 24% nationally. In 2008, apartment building represented 66% of all housing completions in the Dublin area, and almost 25% nationally. It is obvious, therefore, that this legislation is badly needed. The purpose of this Bill is to regulate the entire property management sector and to protect the owners of units in new and existing multi-unit developments. The Law Reform Commission has said that the current system of licensing property service providers is outdated, inap- propriate and inadequate. In its 2008 report on multi-unit developments, the commission pub- lished a series of valuable recommendations. The National Consumer Agency is also to be congratulated on the work it has done in this area, which has contributed hugely to the quality of the legislation we are debating at the moment. The statutory framework that is proposed within the Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 provides for the obligatory establishment of an owners’ management company and the transfer of common areas to that company prior to the sale of any units, or within six months of the section coming into force in the case of existing completed or uncompleted developments. This legislation also provides for regulation of the internal governance of the owners’ management company. It provides for one vote of equal value per unit. It also obliges each company to hold an annual general meeting and to furnish each member of the company with an annual report which will include details of, inter alia, the assets and liabilities of the company, the statements relating to service charges, sinking funds and insurance details. The legislation also contains an obligation to establish and maintain a scheme of annual service charges, to be calculated on a fair and transparent basis, along with a scheme of sinking funds for spending on maintenance or improvements of a non-recurring nature. It also provides for the making of house rules by agreement of the members of the owners’ management company and in furtherance of the effective operation, maintenance and enjoyment of the development. It provides for a court- based system of dispute resolution which promotes mediation. That is a welcome measure in the Bill as a means of resolving disputes. The Bill also provides an extended period from one to six years during which an owners’ management company can be struck off the companies register for the non-filing of annual reports. The Bill addresses a major problem which has existed and has been described by the Law Reform Commission as a defective state of the law. The problems associated with conveying the freehold ownership of individual units was insurmountable as the law stood. The standard approach was to confine ownership of such a unit in multi-unit developments to a leasehold interest with the freehold of the entire building, including both units and common areas, being vested in a landlord, who was usually the developer, and subsequently often being transferred 252 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage to a management body. In that way positive obligations could be enforced against successors in title. Other problems that existed were the disparate legal relationships and obligations that arose from ownership and management of multi-unit developments which meant that many different areas of law were applicable. They included areas of law such as the Companies Act, the Taxes Consolidation Act, various Waste Management Acts, the Litter Pollution Act, the Occupiers’ Liability Act, the Fire Services Act, the Local Government Acts, the Roads Acts, the Data Protection Acts, the Residential Tenancies Act and so on. There was no statutory regulation of property management companies per se with the exception of provisions contained in the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. Many practical problems arose for people who purchased units in these multi-unit devel- opments and the Law Reform Commission defined those very succinctly, one being the general and widespread lack of transparency and a comprehension deficit about the appropriate roles of those involved in apartment developments, especially of developers but also of unit owners as members of owners’ management companies and of property management agents. It was clear that many of those who were purchasing apartments in these developments were unaware of the consequences, particularly the financial consequences, of buying apartments in such developments. Other problems that arose were that developers sometimes held on to effective control of apartment owners’ management companies even after virtually all the apartments had been sold; property management agents had too much administrative control over some owners’ management companies, which caused confusion about their different functions; the annual general meeting of owners’ management companies, to which others have referred, were organ- ised at short notice or at inconvenient times and locations; increasing annual service charges, an important point, not being properly explained and therefore not paid by unit owners which led to the running down of some apartment complexes; no long-term building investment fund or sinking fund for some apartment complexes; some apartment complexes not being taken in charge by local authorities; and a lack of clear arrangements for rescuing apartment complexes in trouble. Other contributors have spoken about the role of the developer. We are aware that some developers attempted to keep control of the property management companies even after the development had been completed and there was no time limit as to when the development was to be handed over to residents. The developer, on many occasions, chose to keep the title to the lands because they hoped to get planning permission for more houses or apartments. This point was made by the National Consumer Agency. The Law Reform Commission also identified problems related to the developer’s failure to vest the freehold title of a development in the management company. That resulted in unit owners being unable to sell their apartments, which was a serious problem. Developers were also accused of trying to maintain control through voting procedures at the annual general meeting and the National Consumer Agency emphasised the importance of the wording of the memorandum and articles of association on how AGM votes were distributed, especially in cases where people were buying or considering buying off the plans. The issue of voting rights is important and determines how the management company would operate and be controlled and what rights the members would have. I welcome the Bill. It has dealt with the important areas, the compulsory vesting of common areas and the role of the developer, the rights and obligations of the owners’ management company, the issue of service charges and sinking funds, the resolution of disputes and the application of the Bill to smaller developments. I join other speakers in asking whether the intention is to allow this legislation also to cover small residential estates or residential devel- 253 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator De´irdre de Bu´ rca.] opments that are not apartment developments or multi-unit developments. It seems the legis- lation would apply equally well to them.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Cuirim fa´ilte roimh an tAire Sta´it. Picking up on Senator de Bu´ rca’s final comment, the legislation should apply in that respect as well as to all residential dwellings in multi-unit developments. Our conventional type of dwelling has changed. It would be a welcome addition to the Bill if that change could be made on Committee Stage. I give the Bill a broad welcome. It is imperative and important we protect home owners, which I hope is the focus of the central thrust of the Bill. Undoubtedly, the legislation has been a long time coming. Apartment dwellings now dot the landscape not only of our two major cities but of all our cities and many of our rural towns. A fundamental issue in regard to residential developments is that the taking in charge of housing estates needs to be more aggressively pursued. I hope the Minister will ensure this is addressed. I believe, as Senator O’Toole said, that this provision should be covered in the Bill. For too long we have had a great deal of obfuscation and developers being let get away with A, B and C in the taking in charge of estates. What is the legal standing of a management company under the legislation? It is important there is proper regulation and greater transparency in the operation of management companies. The issue of voting rights is important, as it is imperative that home owners or apartment dwellers would be allowed self-determination and self-governance under the provisions of this Bill. My party published A Fairer Deal for Modern Living in May 2008. I compliment our envir- onment spokesperson, Deputy Hogan, and our housing spokesperson, Deputy Terence Flanagan, in that respect. I also pay tribute to the Law Reform Commission for the immense work it did which assisted the preparation of this Bill. Apartment living, as the Minister of State will know from Du´ n Laoghaire in his constituency, is a relatively new phenomenon on the Irish landscape. Many issues are faced by apartment owners in terms of the maintenance costs they incur, the upkeep of the common area and the ownership of the development. Thankfully, the rights of the apartment dweller have been recognised. The regulation and law in this area must be adhered to. The explanatory memor- andum to the Bill refers to the weaknesses to which people have been exposed up to now. The Law Reform Commission addressed the issues and problems in this area. I compliment it on the work it has done. The Minister referred to the issues identified by the Law Reform Com- mission. I compliment the Minister on introducing this legislation. According to the 2002 Census, 210,000 people lived in 110,000 apartments and, in the most recent census, it is estimated that approximately 500,000 people will live in multi-unit devel- opments. That is a considerable number of people. It is imperative and important we educate people on the different roles and functions of a management company, the developers and the responsibilities of apartment owners. I welcome the fact that under the legislation obligations will be imposed on developers and the rights of apartment owners will be strengthened. I hope that in time we will examine the planning issue and the location of apartment complexes. In my area of Bishopstown in Cork a blight of apartment complexes has spoiled neighbourhoods. They have not added to the public realm and they have not in any way addressed the real housing needs of the area. I hope universities and other third level institutions take note of the legislation because there is a need for on-site campus accommodation. In addition, there is a major issue, especially in Cork city, with apartment complexes in the areas surrounding these institutions. My one concern in respect of apartment living is that we may be creating new communities which are becoming wastelands. While I have no wish to ghettoise anyone, some apartment 254 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage complexes are lying empty while others are beset with different problems and issues. I hope we can address the latter problem, perhaps by means of the type of house rules to which Senators de Bu´ rca and Hannigan referred. Another issue about which I am concerned relates to the fact, as Senator Regan stated, that many mortgage holders find themselves in negative equity. People have been forced to pay exorbitant service charges or apartment management fees. There is a major need for trans- parency with regard to the amounts people pay in fees, who is responsible for setting such fees and what can be expected in return for paying them. I welcome the fact that management companies will be obliged to establish sinking funds. As everyone who has visited an apartment complex is aware, there is a need to set aside money to pay for the upkeep of common areas and the upgrading or maintenance of the electricity and gas supplies, etc. How will those who do not pay fees be dealt with? The process which the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB, obliges landlords to undergo to try to obtain fees, rent, etc. from tenants who do not pay is quite lengthy. What will be the position with those who do not pay the fees required by their management companies? I agree that fees must be just and fair and that there is a need for greater transparency. I recently dealt with an issue in Cork city in respect of which there was a lack of clarity regarding a common area. I hope the Bill will bring finality to this matter. Will developers who built apartment complexes prior to this legislation coming into effect be actively pursued in respect of the upkeep of common areas? We must be careful with the concept of multi-unit development, particularly in view of the fact that urbanisation has changed the way in which people live. The Bill goes a long way towards attempting to bring about greater clarity and uniformity in this regard. I hope the fundamental problems apartment owners and dwellers encounter and the issue of how com- plexes are managed and funded will be addressed. I commend the Bill to the House.

Senator Maria Corrigan: I welcome the Minister of State and I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009. As previous speakers indicated, the level of apartment and multi-unit development living has increased significantly in recent years, especially in Dublin and other areas. The Central Statistics Office estimates that more than 500,000 people — 10% of the total population — live in apartments. It is quite surprising that this number of citizens live in such accommodation. The Bill is timely, therefore, and it will address the concerns that are being raised by property owners and property manage- ment companies. In the constituency in which I live, Dublin South, there are more than 41,000 private house- holds occupied by almost 116,000 residents. According to the research carried out by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service, which was published in December 2008, people in Dublin South are more likely to live in apartments and 12% of them do. A significant proportion of the queries I, as a public representative, receive from people who live in multi-unit developments relate to issues they have in respect of the management of their complexes or which have arisen with regard to their property management companies. I am fortunate that this year I have the assistance of an intern who is on placement from the masters course in DIT. With her help, I have been in a position to undertake qualitative and quantitat- ive research among the residents of multi-unit developments in Dublin South. Some of the matters on which this research focuses include people’s level of knowledge and awareness with regard to sinking funds, how much they pay in service charges and their levels of satisfaction with their property management companies. The issues that arose subsequently mainly revolved around the general upkeep of the grounds of particular developments, in addition to frustration regarding the level of influence developers had over multi-unit developments. 255 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Senator Maria Corrigan.] The concerns residents in Dublin South have raised echo the statements highlighted in the Law Reform Commission’s reports on such developments which were published in 2006 and 2008, respectively. It is interesting that almost one third of the respondents indicated that they had very little or a poor understanding of property management companies and the way in which they operate. Almost 40% of these people, even those who live in one bedroom apart- ments, indicated that they pay more than \1,500 per year in management fees. In light of the fact that this is a considerable sum of money, the respondents expressed frustration and anger in circumstances where they felt the level of maintenance carried out was unsatisfactory. While I accept that service charges are calculated on the basis of a number of key factors, I am of the view that they must be justified in accordance with the type of amenities available at a develop- ment. Information relating to the latter should be published in an annual report to be published by property management agents. I therefore welcome the fact that the Bill recognises these important issues and the fact that the cost of service charges must be calculated on a fair basis. Section 14 states that if 75% of the members of a development do not approve of a proposed service charge, then existing charges shall remain in place until the adoption of a new charge. This is a move which will be welcomed by owners. However, I suggest that it may be useful to set down criteria which must be satisfied to determine what is a valid charge. While it is positive that 75% of the members will be required to approve of a proposed service charge, it is essential that such charges must be realistic in nature. In the best interests of all of the property owners, there are certain costs which must be covered by the service charge. I am of the view, therefore, that it would be useful to outline criteria the charge must satisfy in order that it might be determined to be valid. For example, insurance and basic maintenance costs come into play in this regard. There are certain charges which, if they are not paid, will impact adversely on the overall value of a complex. As a result, those property owners who take a particular interest would be detrimentally affected. This matter has given rise to concern, especially in circum- stances where developers maintain ownership of units. Previous speakers inquired what will happen when certain owners do not pay service charges. It would be useful, perhaps, to have a less cumbersome process in place to be undertaken initially to try to collect payments. One of the issues owners are concerned about is where developers have maintained ownership of units and are experiencing cash flow difficulties. Where such owners of units do not make the service charge payments, there is a consequent knock-on effect for complexes and people want to know what will happen in such situations and how those charges will be recovered. Section 14(2) addresses the issue of the general meeting. It would be useful to have a mini- mum quorum present for it to be a valid general meeting. The establishment of an owners’ management company is very useful but sometimes there is not the correct level of awareness of the responsibility entailed in becoming a member of such a company. It would be useful where people give voluntarily of their time to become directors that a mechanism be put in place to ensure they receive some level of education or information about such roles, because there are considerable legal responsibilities attached. One thing to emerge from feedback on the survey was that people tended to see the board of property management companies as being more or less in tandem with residents’ associations, and of course that is not the case. There are completely different legal responsibilities involved. There are a number of other issues I would like to have raised. However, the Cathaoirleach is indicating that there is no time. Perhaps I can take them up with the Minister of State outside the House.

Senator Paddy Burke: I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I am glad of the opportunity to say a few words about the proposed legislation, which I welcome as being long overdue. 256 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

When we consider the number of apartment blocks built throughout the country over the past ten or 12 years, it is right and fitting that legislation such as this should be put in place as quickly as possible. Many people have experienced unbelievable problems with apartment liv- ing over recent years. Apartment living will be expensive for people when these management companies are put in place. Those who take charge of such companies will have many rights bestowed upon them, not alone by the legislation but at annual general meetings and so forth. Senator Corrigan mentioned there should be a quorum at such meetings and I agree with that. I believe proxy voting should be used as well. Many countries have similar types of systems to that being proposed in this legislation and have seen that they have worked to great effect. People probably do not realise what the full effect of the legislation will be because it is likely to mean a fairly hefty annual charge for some apartment owners, regardless of whether they are living in Dublin, Galway or wherever. There will be administrative charges imposed by management companies and legal wrangles where people do not pay their dues. In the event, management companies ultimately will have to take such people to court, as provided for in the legislation. In some cases, no doubt, the management company will get a charge on the property. In the event of court proceedings, in some cases there will be a charge on the property from the bank. What is the position of the management company which goes to court to seek money it is owed for the upkeep of the apartment block? Will it only get a second charge if there is a prior charge from a bank or building society? I cannot see where this is spelt out in the legis- lation, as proposed. However, this will cause problems. Ultimately, perhaps, the property can be sold and the various institutions paid off, but this is something people will have to address, as has happened in other countries where people have defaulted on management charges. In such cases the management companies take legal action and put a charge on the property. None the less, I welcome this legislation. While everyone knew a vast number of apartments were being built throughout the country, it was not appreciated fully how many people would be living in them, as has been spelt out in the debate. I wish the Minister of State luck with the Bill. I know he has detailed those areas to which service charges will apply. The Bill is well thought-out, providing as it does for a sinking fund as well as the many other aspects that we can go into in more detail on Committee Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (Deputy Barry Andrews): On behalf of the Minister, I thank Senators for their contributions to the debate and their broad welcome for the provisions and objectives of the Bill. A number of specific and general issues were raised and I hope, in the time available, to go through a number of them. There will, obviously, be an opportunity on Committee Stage to go through them in greater detail. Many Senators expressed a concern that there should be transparency in the calculation of annual service charges, and that is guaranteed by the Bill and in the Government’s approach which requires that there should be an annual service charge scheme. The Bill provides the opportunity to go through a non-exhaustive list of categories of matters that can be the subject to an annual service charge. That will provide some comfort to many owners in multi-unit developments regarding whether they are being charged fairly. Snagging is excluded from that potential list and that will give some comfort. There is also an obligation on unit owners to pay management charges. Many Senators welcomed the provision on sinking funds. Most multi-unit developments have management companies that have sinking funds. Responsible directors should ensure there are sinking funds, but this puts matters on a statutory footing for the first time. Obviously there are developments that do not have sinking funds, so this is most welcome. It also applies to existing developments, so it will have a more comprehensive reach than might have first 257 Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009: 23 June 2009. Second Stage

[Deputy Barry Andrews.] appeared, with a minimum contribution of \200 per unit per annum. Many Senators indicated there were many circumstances in which much higher charges are in place. In my experience, wherever owners take control of a management company the charges tend to be lower and one also finds there is a sinking fund and a more responsible approach. On ownership and the issue of who controls the common area, the Government has taken the view that such areas should be transferred to owners’ management companies at the earliest possible opportunity. The issue of units sold in a development that has not been completed prior to the Bill being enacted is dealt with in the legislation. On dispute resolution, the Minister said we are now dealing with a court-based jurisdiction, which gives more impact. That will apply where mediation fails and there is an enormous appetite now for alternative dispute resolution methods to be employed. That is stitched into this Bill and requires parties to engage to the greatest extent possible. In response to the point raised by Senator Regan, mixed developments involving apartment buildings and houses are covered by the Bill, but not traditional housing estates. One wonders whether things such as house rules would be useful in traditional housing estates, but that is something to be debated on Committee Stage. The property services regulatory authority is a licensing body and has no role in the companies which will have been incorporated under company law and are already subject to the Companies Registration Office and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. On the problems Senator O’Donovan raised, the Bill will ensure an arm’s-length relationship between the developer and the management agent and will ensure service charges cannot be used to complete developments or for snagging. Senator Walsh raised the question of section 5. There is an obligation in that section to complete a development. The Law Reform Commission recommends the use of the bond mechanism by the planning authorities. That is specifically referred to in section 5 and is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. On Senator O’Toole’s question, some similar issues may apply to ordinary housing estates but this applies only to mixed developments and specific apartments. I have lived in an apart- ment and the distinction between this and ordinary housing estates is that one does not know anyone else and there is no sense of community that one might have in an ordinary estate. This is why everyone welcomes this Bill as putting in place a mechanism to ensure these areas affecting them in common are dealt with properly. Some difficulties in extending the Bill to housing estates are the existence of different kinds of estates, such as holiday, retirement, gated and the more traditional developments. The Departments of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government are discussing common problems on this. Senator Hannigan raised house rules and section 17(10) gives the Minister regulation-making powers. These may specify the matters which would be the subject of house rules. To answer Senator Buttimer, section 3 applies to developments in which some units have been sold but the development is not complete, while section 4 applies to completed devel- opments. Those sections will ensure the Bill will apply to both these categories and not just to new developments. Senator Corrigan raised the issue of quora. I do not have an answer to that but it is a welcome proposal that one would have a minimum quorum. I am not sure of the position on that. Regarding the responsibilities of members of management companies, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement has issued very useful guidelines that would be a good follow-up to Senator Corrigan’s very successful survey among her constituents. 258 Health Service 23 June 2009. Staff

I hope that answers some of the questions and I thank the Senators for their contributions and their broad welcome for the provisions in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Senator Denis O’Donovan: Next Tuesday.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 30 June 2009.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Denis O’Donovan: Ag 10.30 maidin ama´rach.

Adjournment Matters.

————

Health Service Staff. Senator Maria Corrigan: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for the opportunity to raise this issue and the Minister for attending. I seek clarification on whether funding will be made available for the provision of what is now mandatory continuing professional development. The Central Remedial Clinic, CRC, is hosting an European seating symposium. I welcome that under the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005 a system of mandatory registration is coming into being for professionals. From a reply I received a number of weeks ago on a different issue I note that it has been decided to commence with two professions, social workers and physiotherapists. One very important aspect of that mandatory registration will be a commitment to continuing professional development and that it will be obligatory for people to attend a minimum of events for continuing professional development. An issue has arisen that in light of the econ- omic situation, it may not be possible for services to provide financial support for professionals working within the public service for continuing professional development. I appreciate there is an obligation on both parties to reach common ground and perhaps some sort of compromise and that financial support may take the form of a partial subsidy. Some of the CPD events are quite costly and if it is not possible to make a financial subsidy available, particularly for those in the public service who are PAYE workers, would it be possible to consider a tax relief? The CRC will host the international European Seating Symposium this September. While it expects more than 500 people to attend, the vast majority will come from abroad and Irish physiotherapists and occupational therapists are indicating generally that they will not be able to attend because their places cannot be funded. I would appreciate any clarity the Minister can provide on this.

Minister of State at the Department of the Health and Children (Deputy A´ ine Brady): Iam taking the Adjournment on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney. I thank Senator Corrigan for raising this issue and for giving me the oppor- tunity to update the House on the regulation of health and social care professions and on continuing professional development for those professions. The Health Service Executive encourages and provides for the continuing professional development of all relevant health and social care professionals employed in the health service. The relevant service managers would determine whether individuals can be released to attend particular events such as that referred to by Senator Corrigan. 259 Water and 23 June 2009. Sewerage Schemes

[Deputy A´ ine Brady.] The Health and Social Care Professionals Act was passed by the Oireachtas in 2005. The Act provides for the establishment of a system of statutory registration for 12 health and social care professions. This new system of statutory registration will apply to the 12 professions regardless of whether they work in the public or private sector or are self-employed, and is the first time that fitness to practise procedures will be put in place for those professionals on a statutory basis. The 12 professions to be regulated under the Act are clinical biochemists, dieticians, medical scientists, occupational therapists, orthoptists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, psychologists, radi- ographers, social care workers, social workers and speech and language therapists. The struc- ture of the system of statutory registration will comprise a registration board for each of the professions to be registered, a Health and Social Care Professionals Council with overall responsibility for the regulatory system and a committee structure to deal with disciplinary matters. As a first step in the implementation of the system of statutory registration, the Health and Social Care Professionals Council was established by the Minister for Health and Children in March 2007. The council recruited a chief executive officer in May of last year and is working to put in place the necessary structures for registration, education and fitness to 7o’clock practise for the 12 health and social care professions designated in the Act. While the proposed system of statutory registration applies, in the first instance, to 12 health and social care professions, the legislation empowers the Minister for Health and Chil- dren to include, on the basis of specific criteria, additional health and social care professions in the regulatory system by regulation over time, as appropriate. Professional development refers to a process whereby individual members of a profession increase their level of knowledge and refine or learn new skills for application in relevant professional practice and the associated workplace. Continuing professional development is the ongoing process of developing and updating the knowledge and skills necessary to ensure competent professional practice. It is recommended that continuing professional development planning ideally should be carried out by therapists with managers or peers to determine pro- fessional objectives relevant to the current work setting. Under section 31(1)(h) of the Health and Social Care Professionals Act 2005, the registration board of a designated profession may, subject to section 32, make by-laws relating to the education, training and continuing professional development of registrants of that profession. Registration boards for each of the designated professions in the 2005 Act are not yet estab- lished. The Health and Social Care Professionals Council has decided that social workers and physiotherapists are the two professions from among the designated 12 which are most suitable for early registration to be established during 2009. Under the 2005 Act, the issue of appropriate continuing professional development for the designated professions concerned will be exam- ined further following the establishment of the registration board for each designated profession.

Senator Maria Corrigan: I thank the Minister of State for that reply. Would it be possible for the Minister of State to clarify with the HSE whether funding is still available? If it is not, it might be possible to explore other supports that might be helpful.

Deputy A´ ine Brady: I will do that.

Water and Sewerage Schemes. Senator Michael McCarthy: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy A´ ine Brady, to the House again. She was in the House for the Adjournment debate last week and it was the same order, with Senator Corrigan speaking before I did. It seems like de´ja` vu. 260 Water and 23 June 2009. Sewerage Schemes

This motion concerns the sewage treatment scheme for Courtmacsherry and Timoleague, two picturesque villages in south-west County Cork, beautifully located between Kinsale and Clonakilty. Courtmacsherry is a very vibrant area with a very vibrant community spirit. It is an area that is pleasant to visit and is very important to tourism in west County Cork and further afield. If the Leas-Chathaoirleach is playing golf in that area he must make sure to call in there at some stage. There is now a Fine Gael county councillor from Courtmacsherry, which would make his visit all the more worthwhile.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: Good man, John O’Sullivan.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator is straying from the point.

Senator Michael McCarthy: This area depends on tourism. This is a very important infrastruc- tural project for the area. A group of people from the area travelled to Dublin and met the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, prior to the local elections. I know the Minister has holidayed in the area and is very aware of the location. He has done the walk from Timoleague to Courtmacsherry. He is very aware of the issue which is dear to his heart. He gave an assurance to the deputation that the issue would get swift action. Regarding the area’s community spirit, a development and festival association organises a number of events throughout the year. I have been there in my capacity as a public representa- tive on many occasions to savour the hospitality and welcome that awaits all visitors to Court- macsherry, whether it be the storytelling festival, the harbour festival or the strand races. This project is very important to these people and we would hope funding will be available. I organ- ised to have a series of parliamentary questions tabled. I have raised the issue with the senior engineers in Cork County Council. With dealings between national and local government, wires tend to get crossed and while commitments may be made by Government, it might be sce´al eile when it comes to the local authority. I would like the Minister of State to indicate when the project will proceed and whether funding has been earmarked for it. I understand we live in straitened times and there are economic difficulties. However, I urge the Government to pay particular attention to this request and to follow up on a commitment given by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to a group of people from the area, whom he met prior to the local elections. The motion is self-explana- tory. It is very important for tourism in west County Cork and for this harbour village that we get this scheme operational as soon as possible.

Deputy A´ ine Brady: I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, and I thank the Senator for raising it. The Courtmacsherry and Timoleague sewerage scheme is included for funding in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government’s water services investment programme 2007-2009. The Minister is aware of the need to improve the waste water infrastructure in the two villages. He is also conscious of the importance of the new scheme to the tourism industry in both locations, especially in Courtmacsherry which has seen significant tourism, residential and other commercial development in recent years. The Department is assessing Cork County Council’s revised design proposals for the scheme which were submitted last month. The works now proposed involve upgrading the waste water collection networks in both villages and providing rising mains to connect the collection systems to a new waste water treatment plant to be built to the west of Courtmacsherry at an estimated cost of \4.3 million. The council had reviewed the scale and scope of the scheme to reduce the proportion of scheme costs that it would need to meet from its own resources under water pricing policy. Under water pricing policy, which is based on the polluter pays principle, the Department generally meets the full capital cost of services for the existing domestic population, with an 261 National Drugs 23 June 2009. Strategy

[Deputy A´ ine Brady.] allowance for organic growth, plus up to 40% of the cost of servicing planned residential development. The marginal additional cost of serving current and future non-domestic activity, such as shops, offices, hotels, restaurants and so on, must be funded locally through a combi- nation of commercial water charges and development levies. Cork County Council’s previous design proposals for the Courtmacsherry and Timoleague scheme cost more than \6.3 million and had included significant additional capacity for new commercial development. The Depart- ment is carefully considering the council’s latest proposals for the Courtmacsherry and Timole- ague scheme and the Minister expects to be in a position to notify the council of the outcome of this process soon. A total of \500 million is available for the water services investment programme for 2009, which is a 1% increase on the record outturn on the programme for last year. The Minister expects that the available resources will allow up to 50 major new schemes to commence this year, some of which have already started. The Department will prioritise the remaining schemes yet to start, including the Courtmacsherry and Timoleague sewerage scheme, having regard to environmental and economic objectives, including schemes required to meet national and EU environmental standards on drinking water and waste water disposal, European Court of Justice cases and works that will support economic development. The Department will be working with local authorities over the coming months to identify the priority projects to form the basis of the next phase of the water services investment prog- ramme. I assure the Senator that the Minister is fully aware of the importance of the Courtmac- sherry and Timoleague sewerage scheme for the localities concerned. The Department and Cork County Council will continue to work closely together to ensure the council is in a posi- tion to advance the scheme should it be approved to start later this year.

Senator Michael McCarthy: I thank the Minister of State for her reply and her attention to the matter. I hope we can look forward to this project getting off the ground later in the year. Regarding the last sentence, we should delete “should it be approved” and insert “when it will be approved”. I hope that will be the case. It is important the Leas-Chathaoirleach would make that visit before the summer is out.

National Drugs Strategy. Senator Jerry Buttimer: I tabled this matter on heroin abuse and the escalation of drug use in Cork city because it has become a major issue in recent years. It is widely recognised that the use of heroin and other classified drugs has increased significantly in Cork and other regional centres in the past two years. What was once considered a problem in Dublin has now become entrenched in other parts of the country, in particular in urban areas such as Cork city. We need a serious debate on why young people in particular are attracted to the use of drugs. What are the factors that make one young person more susceptible to addiction than another? We need to ask who profits from the sale of illegal drugs and the infliction of harm on thousands of young people. Are the people who deal in drugs common criminals or do they have links with paramilitaries? We need to ask through what means drugs enter our country and what are the powers of the State — the Garda and Customs and Excise — to prevent the importation and distribution of drugs. What role does society play in the development of a culture and an environment that is tolerant of a certain type of drug use in excess — prescribed medication, alcohol, hash or cocaine? Is society willing and able to partake in the treatment and management of drug addiction through the development of community-based facilities? We have now reached the stage where heroin is available to buy in broad daylight in our local shopping centres and in many parts of Cork city. This has become an epidemic and something needs to be done to clamp down on the problem. In April this year an inquest heard about a Georgian man who had died after buying heroin in a shopping centre in broad daylight 262 National Drugs 23 June 2009. Strategy in the middle of the afternoon. A family who recently lost their son to this horrendous addiction said the current situation in terms of receiving help was ridiculous. They said, “You have to be clean for six weeks before you can attend Arbour House,” adding, “If they were clean, they wouldn’t need to go there.” I pay tribute to the staff of Arbour House and other addiction counselling centres in Cork for the great work they are doing. In recent weeks we have become aware of drug related deaths in Cork city. Dr. Chris Luke, a leading accident and emergency consultant, has warned that this year at least 12 people from Cork will die from overdoses alone. He has said the problem has spiralled out of control in recent years. At the start of this decade he was seeing one or two cases of heroin addiction every year, whereas now he sees almost one a day. We need to examine what we can do to alleviate the problem of drug addiction. It is time the Minister of State with responsibility for the matter, Deputy Curran, brought together the statutory agencies, including the Garda Sı´ocha´na, the HSE, youth diversion programmes, local drug task forces and local politicians, in order that they can provide better facilities to ensure such persons can have the best chance of recovery. In that way we could counter the growing rise of drug abuse in Cork city and county. Why is there a waiting list to attend Arbour House? Why are centres such as Tabor Lodge having to wait for detox beds? Why do we not have sufficient such beds? Why is there a waiting list for people who wish to access addiction treat- ment, including counselling? Mr. Tony Geoghegan, the chief executive of the Merchant’s Quay Project — the largest voluntary drug treatment centre in Dublin — has called for changes to the mechanisms involved. We need a multi-faceted, multi-agency plan to tackle drug pushing and addiction. There is a need for greater resourcing of treatment places. I compliment the Garda Sı´ocha´na and local drugs task forces on the work they are doing. The authorities, including the Judiciary, need to take on those who deal in drugs and are terrorising communities, especially in Cork city. The Garda needs to be resourced better. It has shown through Operation Reuben that we can have a response to the problem of drug abuse. We cannot wait for the publication of the report of the National Forum on Drugs; we need an action plan now.

Deputy A´ ine Brady: I would like to respond to Senator Buttimer on this matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Curran. Under the national drugs strategy, each of the 14 local drugs task forces, including the one in Cork, has in place an action plan to tackle drugs misuse in its area based on its own identified priorities. Funding for the Cork local drugs task force in 2009 is over \1,760,000. There is also mainstreamed funding available through the HSE and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I understand 35 projects are in place in the local drugs task force area, including mainstreamed and interim funded projects. Of these, 16 are community-based drugs projects, all of which would have one full-time staff member; two of the projects have two full-time workers, that is, 18 full-time community drugs workers in the area. In terms of education and prevention, the following projects were established: Cork com- munity drugs prevention projects, the club Cork project, the Dion project, the youth infor- mation centre and the school support project. In terms of treatment and rehabilitation, the following projects were established: the Cork YMCA youth counselling and support project, the youth health service, the community drugs team, the community-based response to cocaine and Fellowship House, a half-way house for men. Other important initiatives also developed in recent years include: the family support project, the parent support group, the Traveller visibility group, and development and administration support for the task force. With regard to the southern regional drugs task force which is supported by funding in the region of \800,000 for Cork county, there are seven community drugs initiatives helping young 263 The 23 June 2009. Adjournment

[Deputy A´ ine Brady.] people, each supporting at least 30 people. In addition, there is a link worker in the county who supports people coming out of treatment. Also, there are four after-care workers who work with people to prevent relapse. The regional drugs task force also operates the strengthening families programme which supports families that have addiction issues. Local and regional drugs task forces are co- operating in developing a response to the growing heroin problem in the city and county. The response to problem drug use includes the development of a new national drugs strategy for 2009-16 which has just been approved by the Government. Our policy approach to the drugs problem needs to ensure our actions are targeted to achieve the optimum effect. The emphasis has to be on having the appropriate mix of supply reduction, prevention, treatment, rehabilitation and research measures in place to endeavour to deal with problems where they arise and minimise the use of drugs across the country. In regard to treatment and rehabilitation, the new strategy will aim to develop a national integrated treatment and rehabilitation service that provides drug-free and harm reduction approaches for problem substance users; to use a four-tier model approach, underpinned by an appropriate clinical governance regime; to encourage problem drug users to engage with and avail of such services; to maximise operational synergies between drug addiction services, alcohol treatment and rehabilitation services, general hospital services and mental health services; to expand the availability of detox facilities, opiate substitution services, under-18 services and needle exchange services, where required; and to encourage clients and service providers to push towards rehabilitation, with the necessary link-ups to other services. Our work on the new national strategy will focus our efforts at national level and, in turn, help to support the invaluable work being done by the local and regional drugs task forces, including the progress being made by the Cork local drugs task force and the southern regional drugs task force.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I will allow Senator Buttimer to ask a brief supplementary question.

Senator Jerry Buttimer: I will be very brief. I appreciate the Minister of State is taking this matter on behalf of her colleague, but this is a standard format reply, particularly the last half, on aspirational matters. The Minister of State did not say funding for the drugs task forces had been cut, that we had no detox beds and that there were waiting lists for such treatment. We cannot wait for the new national drugs strategy. It has been approved by the Government, but when will it be published? When will we see the action points being delivered upon? A crisis is beginning to brew in Cork again; therefore, the work of the Garda Sı´ocha´na and the relevant agencies needs to be augmented by the Government. However, that is not being done. I am concerned that if we procrastinate on taking action, the problem will escalate. We need to support the Garda and the drugs task forces through a co-ordinated approach taken by all the agencies involved, including Cork City Council, but that is not happening.

Deputy A´ ine Brady: I will take on board what the Senator has said. The idea behind the national drugs strategy is to co-ordinate the work done by all the services mentioned. I will pass on to the Minister of State the points made by the Senator.

The Seanad adjourned at 7.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 24 June 2009.

264