Dáil Éireann

Vol. 724 Friday, No. 4 10 December 2010

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

DÁIL ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Friday, 10 December 2010.

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage (resumed) …………………………… 753 Committee and Remaining Stages ……………………… 765 Handling of Criminal Matter in Longford: Statements ………………… 792 DÁIL ÉIREANN

————

Dé hAoine, 10 Nollaig 2010. Friday, 10 December 2010.

————

Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Second Stage (Resumed)

The following motion was moved by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Brian Lenihan, on Wednesday, 09 December 2010: That the Bill be now read a Second Time. Debate resumed on amendment No. 2: To delete all words after “That” and substitute the following: “Dáil Éireann declines to give a Second Reading to the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 having regard to the proposal to cut the national minimum wage by €1to€7.65.”. — (Deputy Michael Noonan). Deputy Joe Costello: The purpose of this Bill is to cut public services, the pay rates of Government officeholders and to take €1 or 11.5% off the minimum wage. The Bill contains another batch of cuts following on the slash and burn Social Welfare Bill yesterday. This time it is public service pensioners and the minimum wage earners who are hit. A sweetener is thrown in, curtailing the earnings of the Taoiseach by 5% and the Tánaiste and Ministers by 4.5%. While those reductions follow on 20% and 15% reductions respectively last year, they certainly will not put the Taoiseach or his Cabinet on the breadline. The annual remuneration of the Taoiseach will still be a hefty €214,187 while the Tánaiste will still earn €197,486 and each Minister will earn €181,283. The Labour Party believes nobody in the State sector should have a salary of over €200,000. There should be a statutory maximum salary in the public service and €200,000 should be the absolute ceiling, with the Taoiseach leading by example. The Cabinet salaries should be reduced proportionately. The Minister for Finance stated in his budget address:

The Government believes there should be a maximum salary rate of €250,000 in the public sector. Only a few officeholder posts have salaries above this level at present but there is a larger number in the State agencies.

What is the Minister going to do about it? He proceeds, typically, to suggest that we will “enforce the objective of the maximum salary [€250,000] within a reasonable timeframe” but 753 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Joe Costello.] there is no reasonable timeframe for those on social welfare whose income is being reduced to less than €200 weekly. The blind the disabled, the widowed, the lone parent, the unemployed and the carer are not being provided the buffer of a “reasonable timeframe”.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: New Year’s Day.

Deputy Joe Costello: Yesterday’s Social Welfare Bill made all the social welfare cuts oper- ational from the end of December 2010 or the beginning of January 2011. High earners are given time to acclimatise to “adjustments” while so called “social protection adjustments” are immediate and ongoing. It gets even worse for the less well off. The Minister for Finance put it chillingly in his budgetary speech: “Over the next four years, further reductions in social welfare spending are unavoidable if we are to reduce the budget deficit.”

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is what Deputy Costello will be doing.

Deputy Joe Costello: The Fianna Fáil view of the financial crisis is frightening. The sins of the bankers will be visited on social welfare recipients. The less well off must pay for the bailout. The title of this Bill is the laughable Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill. It is a bad political joke from the gombeen party of Ireland. How can it be in the public interest to reduce the minimum wage from €8.65 to €7.65 or by 11.5% and then to cut it further with the universal social charge, an additional tax that will result in a total slice off the minimum wage of at least 14%? Some 50,000 workers on the minimum wage will be hard hit by the provision of this Bill and this budget. The statutory minimum wage is a necessary bulwark against abject poverty and exploitation in the workplace. It should be a core principle in a civilised society. The 11.5 % cut in the minimum wage is not going to add one cent to the Exchequer while it will expose thousands of people to exploitation by unscrupulous employers and to poverty. Moreover, there is a mechanism through the Labour Court that enables an employer to plead inability to pay the national minimum wage. This mechanism has yet to be invoked by any employer. With their across-the-board cuts in social welfare benefits and allowances and now their cut in the minimum wage the Government has begun a new race to the bottom for the most vulnerable people in our society. Already nearly 120,000 workers are deemed to be living below the poverty line in Ireland. This assault on the minimum wage could open the floodgates and sharply increase the numbers of working poor. The budget is about political choices and political priorities. The Labour Party presented a budget of €4.5 billion revenue raising measures divided equally between taxation measures and expenditure cuts. The Labour Party identified new tax measures such as the 48% tax rate; the Government chose not to touch the tax rates. The Labour Party identified major savings in eliminating pension and property-based tax reliefs; the Government chose to nibble lightly at these reliefs, which are enjoyed by the rich and powerful and influential friends of Fianna Fáil. The Labour Party identified 7,000 tax exiles, who are virtually all millionaires, not paying a tax in this country and yet who enjoy all the benefits of being Irish citizens jetting in and out of the country as the fancy takes them. The Minister for Finance mentioned the desirability of taxing them in last year’s budget. It did not happen then and it will not happen now while this Government is in power. These are the political choices that Governments make. Fianna Fáil has too many friends in high places to go after the big earners. Instead, they have disproportionately reduced the incomes of the middle earners and the less well off. The recent announcement that bank executives in AIB, a bank in public ownership, which received €3.5 billion in recapitalisation from the State, which will receive billions more and whose shares have plummeted from €23.95 to 754 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 just 50 cent, will receive €40 million in bonuses is outrageous. How these executives could be entitled to bonuses when the bank was being driven into the ground and incurring astronomical debts is beyond any sane person’s comprehension. There is a Christmas bonus for the executives, but a cold shoulder for wholly innocent front line staff. These are the people who will experience the sharp edge of public anger. The response of the Minister for Finance is typical. He has announced a 90% tax on such bonuses for the future but he is not willing to tax the €40 million at issue now.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is fully taxed.

Deputy Joe Costello: Why will the Minister not table an amendment——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is fully taxed.

Deputy Joe Costello: I ask the Minister to allow me to finish and he can respond then.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: No, the Deputy cannot just come in and talk nonsense all the time.

A Deputy: The Minister does.

Deputy Joe Costello: The Minister has already said he will introduce a 90% tax on future bonuses so it is not fully taxed.

Deputy Finian McGrath: What about the euro off the poor?

Deputy Joe Costello: The Minister’s response is typical. It is like Saint Augustine, it will happen but not yet. It will happen in the future.

An Ceann Comhairle: I warn Deputy Costello that disorder could break out if this persists.

Deputy Joe Costello: The Minister has announced that there will be a 90% tax on such bonuses in the future. He cannot deny that fact. However, he is not willing to do it now with regard to the €40 million that will be paid out. I ask that the Minister table an amendment to the Bill, in keeping with its title of emergency measures in the public interest. Surely this is an emergency measure in the public interest. He should impose a tax of 90% on all bonuses, including the current bonuses. Everybody on this side of the House would support such an amendment unanimously. The bonuses are due to be paid out to the executives by 17 December so this is the only opportunity for Members of this House to take a stand on behalf of the Irish people and to say that we who were elected to represent the people will stand with the people and not tolerate this smash and grab. It is not too late for the Minister to do the right thing and I urge him to do just that. We will support him in every way and there is still time. Unfortunately, this budget protects the elite in our society, many of whom are associated with the financial institutions which have destroyed our economy and are threatening our social cohesion. This is a bad and dangerous budget. It must be opposed and the Government which produced it must be put out of office as quickly as possible.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy O’Dowd. The Minister has indicated the Deputy may speak.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Deputy Brian Hayes may be coming to the Chamber and I will share time with him in that case.

An Ceann Comhairle: Normally I would call the Minister at 10.45 a.m. 755 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I suggest eight minutes.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: That is fine and if Deputy Hayes arrives, I will be happy to share. One of the key issues is the credibility of the public service process when significant pensions, gratuities or bonuses over and above what are normal amounts are awarded to people, amounts more than are usual even in the private sector. When I was party spokesperson on transport I was aware of the pay package of the chief executive of the Dublin Airport Authority which amounted in total to €750,000. This is a significant sum for one person to earn. The scandal in the public sector is that in some cases the Minister’s political control has not been evident. I know attempts are now being made to bring this control into play. There must be control over the bonuses, credibility and accountability of chief executives of certain State commercial firms. It is a national shame that this has not been the case up to now. I received a number of replies to parliamentary questions, including some from the Minister for Finance. In the current financial situation it might be better if special bonuses which may be small in some cases, were not paid until the country is out of this crisis. In the education sector there has been a significant number of reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General with regard to excessive pay or moneys being paid to individuals at the highest level in education which have not been sanctioned by the Minister or by the Higher Education Authority. I refer to the situation in the University of Limerick where over a two- year period, three presidents were all drawing a full presidential salary. A former president of NUI Galway voluntarily repaid over €250,000. There are issues in UCD over pay in excess of €1.3 million. No later than last week, there have been issues arising about the Royal Irish Academy of Music where significant amounts of money seem to have been paid over and above what was the going rate. With regard to FETAC, a number of employees took part in a restructuring programme and received pensions over and above what they would have expected to receive. Control of public sector expenditure is at the heart of these issues with reasonable and moderate bonuses being paid — if at all — in good times while in bad times everybody must put their shoulder to the wheel. I have a query on the situation in FETAC. It is currently carrying out nationwide audits of FÁS courses. What audits have been carried out in the past 12 months since the scandal of the FÁS manipulation of courses has come to public notice? What new information was FETAC given on 10 November and what are the results of the audits? At the heart of the public service is its credibility. FETAC should make a statement today about its actions and the information it has received. We must affirm the audit and the work but the quality of the certification of its courses is paramount and critical because more than 300,000 people per year receive FETAC certification. I refer to FETAC in the context of the credibility and accountability of the public sector. Those at the top in every organisation, particularly in the public sector, must be seen to take their fair share of the burden. There must be an end to these bonuses and the abuses which have been brought to our attention by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Higher Education Authority spent nine years writing to the universities to say these payments must cease as they were not sanctioned by the Minister but nothing happened. There has been a lack of ministerial accountability or vigour in pursuing these issues even though the abuse was clear and moneys were paid without ministerial sanction. This is the weakness at the heart of this Government. We need a general election to put a new team in place who will insist on more accountability and transparency from all these public bodies.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): In responding to the debate, it is important to be very clear about the background to the measures in this Bill. 756 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

The preamble and recitals to the Bill outline the seriousness of the problems Ireland faces. The economic pressures of the last two years, coupled with the turmoil in the financial sector, have produced a significant deterioration in the Government’s budgetary position which must be addressed as a matter of urgency. In a more fundamental sense and irrespective of who forms the next Government, there is no point in deluding ourselves about what must be done to ensure that Ireland emerges from this crisis. The future economic and social well-being of the country is at stake and the Government has acted, must act and will act decisively. We have to accept there are no easy options, although many like to give the impression that they can think of painless alternatives. A responsible Government does not have time to play games of this kind. I can assure the House that this Government has never been under any illusion about the scale of the problem and the very difficult decisions which must be made. We must stabilise the economy and the banking system and then bring forward the measures which will restore Ireland’s economic health. This is what we have done in the plan for economic recovery and that is the cornerstone of the development of this country in the next four years. Any Government that is formed in the next year will depart from it at its peril in terms of the growth prospects for this country. The Government is determined to steer the country through these difficult problems and will do so by implementing the economic and budgetary policies required to put Ireland firmly on course to recovery. Understandably, the reduction in the national minimum wage for new entrants to the labour market has caused much comment in this debate. Ireland has the second-highest national minimum wage rate in the EU.

(Interruptions).

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Members must accept that this is no longer sustainable, given the economic crisis which has pushed unemployment to new levels. The policies introduced in the boom years, which contributed a great deal to pushing up the cost of employment and reducing Ireland’s competitiveness, cannot be maintained. We have to change our approach and tailor what we do to the new economic realities to create more employment. I am sure Deputies will have seen the recent reports——

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Non-executive directors, parasites.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——about the increase in long-term unemployment, something which makes the need for action all the more pressing. The OECD and other international experts have identified a high minimum wage as a real barrier to job creation.

Deputy Joan Burton: Just makes sure they get homes on Connecticut.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Perhaps the Deputies might listen to some economic facts. The OECD and other international experts have identified a high minimum wage as a real barrier to job creation.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: That is an assertion, not an economic fact.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: No doubt if the Labour Party assumes office——

Deputy Joan Burton: The IMF has not.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ---- it will not reverse this decision. Its leader made clear very recently in a prominent television broadcast that he did not intend to reverse any of the cutbacks——

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: He said he would not go around the country making promises. 757 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——or restrictions that were introduced in the past two years.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: The Minister should not be repeating untruths.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins, please.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Studies have clearly pointed to a negative relationship——

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: For all his old pretensions he is peddling his own lie.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins, Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——between minimum wages and employment.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Deputy Gilmore said no such thing.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister has limited time.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Yet the old Fine Gael-Fianna Fáil waffle continues with the untruth.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There is evidence that a 10% increase in the minimum wage typically reduces employment by up to 5%.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: A legacy of bluff and bluster.

Deputy Joan Burton: On a point of order——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Deputies opposite will note this shows that it is only an increase in the minimum wage which causes problems.

An Ceann Comhairle: Excuse me, Minister, the Deputy is raising a point of order.

Deputy Joan Burton: On a point of order, there is no evidence and——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a point of order. I ask the Minister to continue.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Yes, it is.

Deputy Joan Burton: ——I have read all the evidence of the IMF.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: This is just an interruption. There are some people——

Deputy Joan Burton: If there is any evidence——

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume her seat.

Deputy Joan Burton: ——that a reduction in minimum wage of 10% would ease the problems——

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Minister to continue.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister has told the Dáil an untruth.

An Ceann Comhairle: Resume your seat, Deputy Burton. 758 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Why does he not talk about the economy?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is what I am talking about.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: It is not at all clear. He will need to try harder.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There are some Deputies in this House who do not want to face facts, but they might have to face facts very soon.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: That is right.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Deputies opposite said that this shows that it is only an increase in the minimum wage which causes problems——

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: The Minister is not in Athlone now.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——but, of course, this is not the case. It means the evidence shows that if the rate had not been increased, we could expect that employment opportunities would be greater. The effects of a high minimum wage are wide-ranging. It is a barrier to employment in labour-intensive sectors like retailing, hospitality and tourism, where many jobs have been lost. If Ireland is to deal with the unemployment problem, these are precisely the sectors which must be encouraged to create jobs. In particular, I want to underline that a high minimum wage can be real barrier to young and less skilled people getting jobs in these sectors. The House will be aware the unemployment rate for those aged between 20 and 24 is nearly 25%.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: We are painfully aware of it.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: This can be a major problem for people without the necessary skills and experience to get better jobs. With more entry-level employment, the young and the less- skilled do not have the opportunity to improve their skills and then move to better jobs else- where. Deputies should remember that, since it was introduced, the minimum wage increased well beyond the level of inflation; it rose by 55% while inflation only increased by 28%.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: So did directors’ remuneration and the Government did nothing about that.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins, please.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I remind the Deputy that there is plenty of taxation on that. Even with the reduction the Government is making in this legislation, our minimum wage will still be considerably above the level of that in the UK and Northern Ireland. We need to start to face economic facts and become a competitive economy. We in all political parties——

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: So we are all in it together.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——will need to move the political establishment in here from the politics of anger and protest to a politics that will put our economy on a sustainable basis.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Some of us have been talking about the economy for decades.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins, please.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: If the Minister addresses me, I will reply to him every time.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Minister has just five minutes to conclude. 759 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Last night, Deputy Penrose asked whether the Government’s decision to reduce the national minimum wage was required or demanded by the IMF or the EU. I can assure the Deputy that this is not the case. Ireland has agreed a programme with our EU partners and the IMF which offers substantial financial support, amounting to a total of €85 billion through the European Financial Stability Fund and the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism, bilateral loans from the United Kingdom, Sweden and Denmark, and the International Monetary Fund’s extended fund facility. In the course of the discussions any international observer who discussed the Irish economy pointed to the ludicrous aspect of the present position — something that some in this House fail to comprehend.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Who?

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: What is ludicrous about a wage on which one can live?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The funds will be provided to Ireland on the basis of the terms and conditions in the memoranda of understanding and related documents. I can inform the House that it is expected that drawdown of the external financing element will begin early in the new year. The specific policy measures associated——

Deputy Joan Burton: The Government drove our credit rating down to the level of Libya

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——with the programme were decided by the Government.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister must be proud.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The proposal to reduce the minimum wage was examined and a decision arrived at by the Government in the normal way.

Deputy Joan Burton: All those contacts with Libya——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton, please.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I can point out to Deputy Penrose that the decision on the national minimum wage was announced by the Government in the national recovery plan and is clearly set out in pages 35 and 36 of the plan. There was considerable debate last night about the issue of bank bonuses and I take this opportunity to repeat what I said last night. As the House will be aware, the legislation introduced on foot of the bank guarantee specifically prohibits the payment of any performance bonuses to senior bank executives.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: Why does the Government not stop them?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: No bonuses have been paid to bankers for 2009 or for 2010.

Deputy Damien English: What is the tax for?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I welcome the clarification by AIB’s new executive chairman David Hodgkinson who told staff that the payments reflected the past — before 2008 — and that this was not the way the bank intended to conduct itself in the future.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: What does that mean? 760 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Brian Lenihan: What it means is that they went to the High Court and tried to contest them and were legally upheld.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: What the Minister is saying is the inglorious past that brought the economy to its knees.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It should be borne in mind that such bonuses are taxed at the highest rates of income tax.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister is relying on British courts.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is especially important that Members of this House realise that these bonuses are fully taxed.

Deputy Joan Burton: He did not take it to the High Court here.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow the Minister to continue.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: To copper-fasten the existing ban on bonuses to senior and mid- ranking bank officials——

Deputy Joan Burton: Why did he not go to the Irish courts?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: —— I will include a provision in the upcoming Finance Bill to introduce a 90% tax rate on any future banker’s bonus in all guaranteed institutions. In addition, the Government has recently passed new Central Bank legislation, which gives the Central Bank the power to take enforcement action in the event of non-compliance by the banks with remuneration policies. The Central Bank has seen a significant increase in its staff to allow for any necessary enforcement action.

Deputy Joe Costello: That is a cop-out.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The most crucial issue is that these bonuses are fully subject to income taxation and any attempt to single out a group of income taxpayers for penal treatment in a retrospective way would of course be entirely impossible.

Deputy Joan Burton: That is the view of the British High Court and not Irish courts.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Burton, please.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: In the light of the increasing cost of public service pensions, the Government had to reduce spending in this area. This was an extremely difficult decision for the Government to take and as I said at the start of this debate, this was not done lightly without very careful consideration being given to the consequences. However, the Government must have regard to cost and the increasing burden public service pensions place on the Exchequer and the taxpayer. The figures underline the size of the cost. Since 2006 expenditure on public service pensions has increased by 56% from €1,433 million to €2,235 million. Expendi- ture on pensions was approximately 3% of total gross current expenditure in 2006 and is estimated to be approximately 4% in 2010. Pensioner numbers, excluding local authorities, have risen from 76,000 in 2006 to 103,500 in 2010, an increase of 36%. By contrast, average public service numbers increased by approximately 12% during the same period. These costs will rise 761 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Brian Lenihan.] significantly in future. Increased life expectancy will be a major cause of the increase for public sector schemes as well as for other pension schemes. There are also special factors which will affect the public service in Ireland. There was rela- tively high recruitment of public servants in the late 1970s compared with restricted levels in the late 1980s and well into the 1990s. This means that considerable numbers of civil and public servants will retire in the next five years or so, adding significantly to the pool of retirees. Of course, recent moves to reduce public service numbers have brought forward many of these retirements. In common with all employers, the Government is very conscious of the fact that provision must be made to ensure that retirees are properly supported in retirement. Employers have a strong moral obligation to their older, former employees. When people have devoted years of service to the public as public servants, as teachers, nurses, or members of the Garda Síochána, there is a particularly strong duty on the Government to make certain that they have a reasonable level of income in retirement. However, given the huge budgetary challenges we confront, the Government considered that it was right to ask some public service pensioners to make a contribution. There is no point in telling people that the pension reduction is avoidable if it means that the funding of the Exchequer is put at even greater risk than it is at present; avoiding the issue now could make things a lot worse in the longer run. I am glad to see that Deputies noted that the Government decided pensioners on an annual pension of €12,000 or less would be exempted and have acknowledged that the pension reduction is fair and proportionate, with those on higher pensions being asked to make the largest contribution. Deputy Noonan asked why the Judiciary is included in the measure reducing pensions while not being subject to the pension levy and pay reduction. The Government decided to reduce judicial pensions as part of a general measure affecting all public servants on grounds that it was right to do so. All those who can afford to contribute should do so and there 11 o’clock was no reason to exclude the Judiciary. The Constitution is very clear on this matter. Article 35(5) states: “The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office.” Therefore, while the pensions of former members of the Judiciary may be affected by a widely based measure taken in the public interest such as is contained in this Bill, the pay of a judge during the continuation of office is, under the principle of separation of powers, protected from any reduction being imposed by the Government of the day. I can assure the Deputy that what the Government has done on judicial pay and pensions is in complete accordance with the law. The National Recovery Plan 2011-2014 presents in detail the measures that must be taken to put the public finances in order and to secure sustainable, export-led growth in the Irish economy. This week budget 2011 began the process of implementing the expenditure and taxation policies needed to meet the targets by 2014. The budget is a decisive step in this direction. The Bill now before the House implements three of the important measures announced in the plan and the budget. These measures are essential to our recovery. I com- mend the Bill to the House.

An Ceann Comhairle: That concludes the Second Stage debate.

Deputy Joe Costello: On a point of order——

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes, Deputy. 762 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Joe Costello: Can I ask the Minister if he will at this point——

An Ceann Comhairle: No, Deputy.

Deputy Joe Costello: ——introduce an amendment to extend the 90% tax rate——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy will have to await Committee Stage.

Deputy Joe Costello: ——in the current legislation for which there would be full support from all sides of the House?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please resume your seat. Committee Stage of the Bill will be taken shortly.

Deputy Joe Costello: The Minister indicated his intention to introduce a 90% tax rate on all future bonuses.

An Ceann Comhairle: There will be ample opportunity for the Deputy to raise this matter on Committee Stage.

Deputy Joe Costello: Can the Minister not introduce that measure in this legislation?

An Ceann Comhairle: Second Stage has been completed.

Deputy Joe Costello: I really want to hear the Minister’s answer to that question.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am obliged to process Deputy Noonan’s amendment No. 2.

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

The Dáil divided: Tá, 80; Níl, 72.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Finneran, Michael. Ahern, Dermot. Fitzpatrick, Michael. Ahern, Michael. Fleming, Seán. Ahern, Noel. Flynn, Beverley. Andrews, Barry. Gogarty, Paul. Andrews, Chris. Gormley, John. Ardagh, Seán. Hanafin, Mary. Aylward, Bobby. Harney, Mary. Behan, Joe. Haughey, Seán. Blaney, Niall. Healy-Rae, Jackie. Brady, Áine. Hoctor, Máire. Brady, Cyprian. Kelleher, Billy. Brady, Johnny. Kelly, Peter. Browne, John. Kenneally, Brendan. Byrne, Thomas. Kennedy, Michael. Calleary, Dara. Killeen, Tony. Carey, Pat. Kitt, Michael P. Collins, Niall. Kitt, Tom. Conlon, Margaret. Lenihan, Brian. Connick, Seán. Lenihan, Conor. Coughlan, Mary. Lowry, Michael. Cowen, Brian. McEllistrim, Thomas. Cregan, John. McGrath, Mattie. Curran, John. McGrath, Michael. Dempsey, Noel. McGuinness, John. Devins, Jimmy. Mansergh, Martin. Dooley, Timmy. Moloney, John. Fahey, Frank. Moynihan, Michael. 763 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Tá—continued

Mulcahy, Michael. O’Rourke, Mary. Nolan, M.J. Power, Peter. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Power, Seán. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Roche, Dick. Ryan, Eamon. O’Brien, Darragh. Sargent, Trevor. O’Connor, Charlie. Scanlon, Eamon. O’Dea, Willie. Smith, Brendan. O’Donoghue, John. Treacy, Noel. O’Flynn, Noel. Wallace, Mary. O’Hanlon, Rory. White, Mary Alexandra. O’Keeffe, Batt. Woods, Michael. O’Keeffe, Edward.

Níl

Allen, Bernard. Lynch, Ciarán. Bannon, James. Lynch, Kathleen. Barrett, Seán. McCormack, Pádraic. Breen, Pat. McEntee, Shane. Broughan, Thomas P. McGinley, Dinny. Bruton, Richard. McGrath, Finian. Burke, Ulick. McHugh, Joe. Burton, Joan. Mitchell, Olivia. Byrne, Catherine. Morgan, Arthur. Carey, Joe. Naughten, Denis. Connaughton, Paul. Neville, Dan. Coonan, Noel J.. Noonan, Michael. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Costello, Joe. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Coveney, Simon. O’Donnell, Kieran. Crawford, Seymour. O’Dowd, Fergus. Creed, Michael. O’Mahony, John. Creighton, Lucinda. O’Shea, Brian. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Sullivan, Jan. Deasy, John. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Deenihan, Jimmy. Penrose, Willie. Doherty, Pearse. Perry, John. Doyle, Andrew. Quinn, Ruairí. Durkan, Bernard J. Rabbitte, Pat. English, Damien. Reilly, James. Feighan, Frank. Ring, Michael. Ferris, Martin. Shatter, Alan. Flanagan, Charles. Sheahan, Tom. Flanagan, Terence. Sherlock, Seán. Gilmore, Eamon. Shortall, Róisín. Grealish, Noel. Stagg, Emmet. Hayes, Brian. Timmins, Billy. Hayes, Tom. Tuffy, Joanna. Higgins, Michael D. Upton, Mary. Howlin, Brendan. Varadkar, Leo. Kehoe, Paul. Wall, Jack. Kenny, Enda.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle: In accordance with Standing Orders I declare the Bill read a Second Time. In accordance with the Order of yesterday, we will proceed to Committee Stage.

764 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010: Committee and Remaining Stages

SECTION 1

Amendment No. a1 not moved. Deputy Willie Penrose: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 7, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:

“(2) The amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 effected by section 13 does not affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred—

(a) under that Act, or

(b) under any contract of employment entered into before the coming into operation of this Act and to which that Act applied.”.

In view of recent events and their impact across the country, including the disturbance caused to the general public by the banks, I propose the inclusion of this amendment in the interests of certainty. The Minister is aware that the law must be as certain as we can make it. The courts, when interpreting matters, look to the intentions of the legislators as evinced through various debates and consider the Interpretation Act. They also consider various schematic or literal approaches. I am taking a very literal approach so that if the amendment is included, it will ensure any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act or under a contract of employment entered into before the coming into operation of the Act, and to which this Act applies, would be maintained. There would not be an effort by some employers to devise some method or scheme by which they could apply what will be passed later in the Dáil today to current or extant contracts. I am very eager for this to be acceded to. I listened upstairs to the Minister’s contribution this morning, as many Deputies listen to the debates. I raised the recitals to the legislation yesterday in the context of the agreement with the EU and IMF. He indicated that this was the Government’s proposal. That is peculiar and somebody is at cross-purposes. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, made a reply to Deputy Hogan here on 25 November. The Official Report, 25 November 2010, vol. 723, col. 210 reads:

Deputy John Gormley: The party across the way has indicated it will renegotiate the minimum wage.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Yes, we will.

Deputy John Gormley: That is nonsensical as this was the first demand by Commissioner Ollie Rehn and others. It had to be in the plan.

Deputy Phil Hogan: That is where the Government failed.

Deputy John Gormley: The Deputy’s party will not do it.

I know in the cut and thrust of politics things can be said without an awful lot of thought given to them. This was a thoughtful intervention.

I have never come here to raise spurious issues. I sometimes get a bit fed up of this place, to be honest. 765 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Arthur Morgan: I understand that.

Deputy Willie Penrose: There is much drama, theatre and nonsense. I am not into that.

Deputy Enda Kenny: It is an asylum.

Deputy Willie Penrose: I firmly believe in anything I say; I do not speak in the hope the media will pick up on what I say.

Deputy Enda Kenny: That is what Deputy Bannon says as well.

Deputy Willie Penrose: The best I can say is that I am confused if not bemused. I am worried about the recital, which I quoted yesterday. It states, “Whereas the State is availing of financial assistance programmes provided by the European Financial Stabilisation Mechanism and the European Financial Stability Facility and the International Monetary Fund and it is necessary to take the measures in this Act as part of a range of measures provided for in those programmes to address the economic crisis in the State and to restore domestic and international confidence and to prevent a sovereign debt crisis affecting the State;”. Laws are laws and once enacted they circumscribe the ability to act, prescribe the manner in which one must act and contain an obligation to obey. If that is the position, the tram lines are being laid out and it will be difficult to act in a manner other than that set out by the Minister. The rate of the minimum wage does not have any bearing on the Exchequer, will not reduce the national debt by one cent and, as I stated yesterday, the proposed reduction will not create a single new job. It is wholly within the prerogative of the Government to set the rate because the legislation writes out the Labour Court as the court of reference for determin- ing the level at which the minimum wage is set. The Government may still have to take recourse to the Labour Court to identify the factors that will be involved and seek advice. This is a circular bird in the context of legislation. The amendment proposes a belt and braces approach and brings to mind the old story told down the country that if one puts one’s toe in the fire, one might get burned. I do not want to get burned. In light of recent events, it is clear that legislation should be pre-emptive and ensure unintended consequences do not arise. It is a counsel of prudence to pursue the approach I propose. I am probably the most accommodating committee Chairman in the House. I facilitate everybody and show endless patience. While almost everyone who came before the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation referred to the minimum wage, no one argued that reducing it would create large numbers of jobs. Notwithstanding the complete opposition of the Labour Party to section 13, which is based on facts rather than feelings, I have proposed this amendment with a view to ensuring that, should the legislation be passed, employers will at least be prevented from undermining the Minister’s stated intention to preserve existing contractual positions. The Minister should accept it in the interests of clarity and certitude. While I do not know what is the position regarding the amendment as I am not privy to the advice available to him, parliamentary counsel generally kick to touch amendments of this nature. I was struck almost immediately by the need to insert in the Bill a provision of the type proposed in my amendment. I hope the Minister will accept it.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I support the amendment. The case Deputy Penrose makes has considerable merit. As a case has not been made for reducing the minimum wage, my party will oppose section 13. Notwithstanding its opposition, if the legislation is passed by virtue of 766 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 the Government exercising its majority, it is important that the measure does not have unforeseen consequences. This is the issue the Deputy’s amendment addresses. Less than 4% of the labour force is on the minimum wage. With almost 1.9 million people at work, the number involved is not significant — the Minister can do the maths. Those on the minimum wage are, by and large, young people and immigrants working in hospitality and the wider service industry. Most of them do not have formal contracts. While the Minister intends that the measure will not apply to existing employees on the minimum wage and will apply only to new staff taken on by employers, that is not what will happen in the real world. Many of those on the minimum wage work behind the counter in shops, serve in bars and restaurants or are employed in similar casual jobs. Some are students and many work part time. My fear is that they will be let go because it will cost €40 per week more to keep them than it would to employ someone else on the new rate. The rights of existing employees must be protected. Not all employers who employ people on the minimum wage are altruistic. Like all employers they are trying to cut costs. This means Mary may be told she is not needed next week and within three weeks her employer will replace her with another young lady. Given that, under the proposed change in the law, a new employee can be paid €1 an hour less than an existing employee, current employees will be shown the door on some pretext or other. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure an unforeseen consequence would not arise that would affect the privileges or obligations of employees. Specifically, it would preclude “any contract of employment entered into before the coming into operation” of the legislation from being interfered with in any way. There is a difference between the theory and practice. While I do not wish to cast aspersions on any group of employers, there is a genuine fear that people on the existing minimum wage will be let go and replaced by others earning the new minimum wage, which is €40 per week less that the current rate. I ask the Minister to address the issues we have raised.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Minister’s officials gave me a briefing on the legislation at which we discussed whether the current minimum wage would be affected by the proposed reduction in the rate. In fairness to the officials, they stressed that it was their understanding that the measure will affect new entrants rather than existing workers. While I accept they made this statement in good faith, the amendment tabled by my colleague, Deputy William Penrose, is necessary because only limited protection is available in practice for very low paid workers. Who are the people who work on the minimum wage? They are mostly women who are primarily employed as part-time and occasional workers. I do not believe many Members, other than employers, fully understand what it is like to be an employee on the minimum wage. According to the officials, approximately 52,000 workers or 3.4% of the labour force are on the minimum wage. They are largely women and young people of both sexes. They are often women who work weekends in hotels doing functions in the weeks before Christmas. Many of them have been working functions in all the hotels with which Members are familiar for decades. I ask the Minister to think about this. Many of the women in question are parenting on their own or have husbands who are not working. I refer specifically to those of them who come from Dublin city. If they have a contract, it is often with the company which provides the service rather than with the hotel for which they work. First they must try to have their names included in a list and if they are so fortunate, they must make themselves available should the hotel in which the normally work hold a function. If the functions start next year and run into the new year, what protection will such workers have? How many of them will go to a rights commissioner? The contracting 767 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Joan Burton.] companies are structured in a way that offers the minimum obligation to these workers. That is what this is about. It is an whole area of employment contracting activity that has been refined. People are probably most familiar with it in connection with Michael O’Leary but he is not a minimum wage employer. People are aware that in his businesses very often people are not directly employed by the big nameplate but by a contracting company. They may be paid onshore in Ireland or, in some instances, offshore. However, there are no contracts in the minimum wage businesses. Consider a person who does not get a full month’s work, for example, a woman doing banquets and functions in a hotel who gets a telephone call a month later. How can this woman refer to the previous rate at which she was employed? It simply does not happen. In the shop trade in Dublin there is a very good union which organises shop workers and does a great deal of good work with very good employers. They have been the backbone of employment in the city centre for 100 years or more. However, yet again, shops are changing. I do not know how many Members understand the way big shops are organised now. They are made up mainly of concessions with branded products being sold in each concession. The original group of workers used to work an apprenticeship in shop work and then, if they wished, had employment for life and could move up the ranks and become buyers, managers and so on. That set-up is now gone and within the big stores there are boutiques and concessions where, once again, contracts for labour do not exist and other than in the specialty of men’s clothes vast numbers of employees are women, in particular, lone parents. If such a woman has the opportunity to take work in a local shopping centre in or outside Dublin or in any big town, all her hours are contracted and she must be available to work any number of hours she is called to do. The Minister of State and Deputy Penrose are both lawyers and will know this well. It is very difficult to be in that situation. I wish the Minister of State would tell me how in such a situation it is possible for the worker to go to a rights commissioner. In effect, there may be a verbal agreement with the employer offering the possibility of 18 hours per week or, if not, whatever hours are available. The result might be 12 hours per week. That is the way it happens — people are called up. It is not quite casual work but the power rests with the employer. In many Centra-type and garage-type employments certain employers bring in workers from abroad. People will be familiar with this situation. The employers buy a house in a constituency like mine to house people and may even employ a person from the workers’ village or home town to be the housekeeper, buying food en masse for the household. Such contracts are negotiated overseas. One will see people from one area, perhaps India, perhaps China, doing all the shop work in 24-7 type shops and garage outlets. What protection do they have? I cannot see they have any because generally speaking the employers who do this, housing the employees and providing a certain amount of food structure and purchasing capacity, will take people who come here for three to six months. Their work may be renewed. The room for exploitation in this situation is very great. I return to Fianna Fáil and, in particular, the Green Party. Many green voters were young people, who, with women, are most at risk from the measure being introduced. That is the reality. I cannot see that acceptance of this amendment would undermine the structure in any way. At most, it would apply to 52,000 people who are currently on the minimum wage. However, there may be another factor at play — this is what we do not know about the Fianna Fáil plan. It may be the party’s plan that labour contracts which were negotiated based on the minimum wage, with €1.50, €2or€3 added as agreed by a certain number of employers and unions, can now be renegotiated. Deputy Penrose’s amendment would give such workers some level of protection. They would at least be able to go to the appropriate forum and make a 768 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 case that their wage agreement should not be reduced arbitrarily. This is a very reasonable amendment. I would be very shocked if the Green Party does not accept even this very limited and sensible amendment proposed by the Labour Party that would ensure that workers keep their minimum rights. People will remember that. As Deputy Penrose noted, the briefing by the officials and the Minister of State’s speech both state that the measure will not affect existing workers on the minimum wage. The Deputy identified that this is not actually written into the legislation, rather it is an assurance by the Minister and the officials. However, employers could drive a coach and four through that intention with ease. Bear in mind this is a Government that was not able to increase in the 2010 tax year the taxation of bonuses to a current year basis. Any tax lawyer is able to do as much. I do not believe the Irish courts would be bound by a decision of the United Kingdom courts in which I understand a related legal case was taken. In regard to NAMA and other court actions that have been taken, as far as I can make out our judges have been very conscious of the financial emergency the State faces. The Minister of State made a pathetic defence today, stating he cannot tax the bonuses in question here and now. I do not believe that to be the case in tax law. For example, in the case of a teacher who marks leaving certificate papers, a university lecturer or other person who marks college papers or a lawyer or a doctor who is paid a fee the year after he or she supplied the service, the fees received are generally taxed at the current year’s tax rates, especially if the person is in employment as opposed to being self-employed. The Minister of State spoke of a UK High Court judgment being binding in Ireland, in the context of a national emergency where, under the Constitution, judges can take a view of such an emergency and of where public interest overrides practice. At the same time the Minister of State asked us to believe, on his assurances, without anything being written into the legislation such as the Labour Party amendment would supply, that employers will not find a way to break, change or end contracts. The 52,000 people in question are mainly women. This Bill to reduce the minimum wage is about doing down women and young people. It is outrageous that the Green Party would go along with it and fail to accept a reasonable Labour Party amendment. The Minister of State should explain the situation. I could discuss other employments in which the minimum wage applies. I will not even get into the issue of domestic house workers who, by and large and be they Irish or foreign, do not have contracts. They may have implied contracts, but they generally do not have active contracts that could be challenged before a Rights Commissioner. One sees the odd test case, but that is it. Even then, voluntary organisations or the Bar’s pro bono scheme are required to test those cases, since individuals on the minimum wage are not empowered or do not have the resources to pursue them. This legislation has ethical and moral dimensions that the Government has failed to address. Under subsections 13(a)(4)(d)(i) and (ii), the proposed order on the minimum wage can be changed to have regard to the likely effect that it will have on levels of employment and unemployment and the cost of living. The reference used to be to inflation. The change in wording to “cost of living” implies that deflation and decreases in the cost of living are to be included. This subsection takes the legs out from under whatever protection the officials believe the 52,000 workers currently on the minimum wage have. Deputy Penrose’s amendment seeks to provide a small floor of protection. Lawyers might be arguing his proposed section versus subsection (ii). Despite the fact the Green Party gave the green light to the reduction in the minimum wage, it is astonishing that the party would not at least try to enforce the protection for women and young people on the minimum wage from those employers who will be unscrupulous in exploiting this provision. 769 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Arthur Morgan: I support the thrust of what the amendment is trying to do. I hope it will achieve Deputy Penrose’s intention, that is, to try to protect some people on the current minimum wage. Like Deputy Burton, I am concerned that employers will find a coach and four to go through this unless there is a change of mind at Government level to protect people on the minimum wage. Sinn Féin wants a belt and braces approach to protecting the current minimum wage. The amendment tries to protect some people in that category, so let us try to bag it while it lasts. While I appreciate the sentiment of what the Labour Party is trying to achieve, one must ask whether implied contracts as opposed to written contracts are worth the paper on which they are written. Where do people in the catering and hotels sectors who look after occasional weddings stand? They do not have contracts, so what is implied in their case? These are the types of gaping hole in the legislation with which the Government must deal. Something firm must be put in place. The types of worker involved have been alluded to by a number of Deputies. I agree that the workers are invariably women, younger people and, in some cases, older people. In my constituency, people who cater for weddings increasingly tend to be older women who have returned to try to scrape together a few bob to keep their households going. They will not be protected under the Government’s provision or Deputy Penrose’s amendment. They will probably fall between all of the gaps. This week, the newspapers reported on an employment issue in Dundalk. A woman fired by an employer told him she wanted process, to which he replied in unrosy language that he does not do “f’ing process”. This is just one case that has come to light and we all know other cases exist. It is clear what employers with this instinct will do when they get their hands on the Bill after it becomes an Act. While Deputy Gogarty was in the Chamber yesterday, I mentioned how the Green Party was a different party when it was sitting on this side of the House a few years ago and that it would strenuously oppose this Bill if it was still on these benches. This shows how contaminating going into government can be, particularly with Fianna Fáil. We have seen the outcome for other parties and I suspect the Green Party is heading down the same road as the Progressive Democrats. Perhaps it will last for much longer as a party, since its members disagree with what is being done in this Bill and will stay together and try to keep the show on the road. The budget attacks people on the minimum wage. It not only reduces their wages, but also attacks them by levying the universal social charge. If the Bill is passed, I will remember this principle for a long time after I leave the House. There is still time for people on the back- benches and for Green Party Members to examine this provision and call it unfair, unjust, scandalous and unsupportable. Even at this 11th and a half hour, I hope they will see some sort of wisdom.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I do not know whether to start with the bit I agree with or the bit with which I disagree. I will start with the latter. Given the attempt by Deputy Burton’s party leader to grab the rural vote by doing a U-turn on the stag hunting legislation and now his attempt to try to grab the women’s vote by claiming the legislation is an attack on them, I cannot take everything the Labour Party says seriously any more than I can ever take seriously anything Fine Gael or Fianna Fa´il says in light of the issue of corporate donations. I have had a go at Fine Gael and Fianna Fa´il in respect of corporate donations from developers, builders and banks.

Deputy James Reilly: The Deputy is a great fellow.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I have looked through some figures. SIPTU donated €23,000 to the Labour Party in 2007. Deputies Burton, Gilmore and Higgins each received €2,500. I could go on. My old friend Deputy Stagg received €2,500. These are just the personal—— 770 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should come back to section 1 of the Bill.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am making a point about the credibility of their arguments. SIPTU has engaged in a campaign on the minimum wage. The Labour Party’s paymaster is SIPTU. QED. I rest my case.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It is not a good idea for Deputy Gogarty to be discussing credibility.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: There is a valid argument to be made on whether reducing the minimum wage is a good idea. Notwithstanding the motivations of various parties and those who fund them, any reduction in the minimum wage must be considered carefully. I discussed this matter in some detail yesterday evening. Before elaborating, I will discuss the substance of the amendment. Deputy Burton asked whether the Green Party should support this amendment. I support it because there seems to be nothing written in stone to protect workers who need the protection in question. In that context, I ask the Minister to take on board the amendment and accept it.

Deputy Joan Burton: I thank the Deputy.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I support it. However, if there is to be a vote, I will vote against it because of the way the system operates.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy supports it but will not vote for it. There is a fine position of political principle.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Yet Deputy Gogarty talks about credibility.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy talks about credibility.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Deputy Shatter talks about credibility and political principle. It is not credible for Fine Gael to talk about tax decreases and for the Labour Party to talk about having no welfare cuts.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy supports it but will not vote for it.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: They will have to face this conundrum in a couple of months.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy is just proving he is so contaminated by Fianna Fáil that he does not even know what he is saying.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter should allow Deputy Gogarty to continue.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Deputy Shatter is being entirely disingenuous.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Gogarty, through the Chair.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Deputy has adopted the usual Fianna Fáil position on issues from the back bench.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am merely pointing out the fact that going into Government——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter should allow Deputy Gogarty to speak without interruption. 771 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I know Deputy Shatter is being facetious. I take his point and share the joke but realise that when one goes into Government and must negotiate a programme for Government, there are some things one will not necessarily like but with which one must go along.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Was this in the programme?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I support this amendment but if the Whip is applied I, as a member of a Government party that supports having the budget passed in the national interest, will vote with the Government.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Where does principle come into this?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Shortall.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Deputy Shortall refers to principles. If one is morally in turmoil over one aspect——

Deputy Alan Shatter: How about morally bankrupt?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: ——and morally in turmoil over passing the budget in the interest of all citizens so social welfare and wages can be paid, one must choose the lesser of two evils. One will be morally compromised one way or the other so I am prepared to be morally compromised for the benefit of our society.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Deputy has absolutely no credibility.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I have made a point. The Deputy should at least accept that I take on board what she is saying about her amendment.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Big deal. The Deputy has not the courage to vote for it.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: It is not about courage.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It is about courage.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Deputy knows the petty way this will continue.

Deputy James Reilly: It certainly is not about courage where Deputy Gogarty is concerned.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: One cannot have a debate on a specific amendment and then——

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Deputy Gogarty is a fraud.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Shortall should allow Deputy Gogarty to make his contribution without interruption.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: In the most unparliamentary language possible, Deputy Shortall, bless you. Bless you for your kind words.

Deputy James Reilly: Is this a Pauline conversion on the road to Damascus?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am trying to get to the substance of the issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Gogarty to speak. A number of Deputies are offering to contribute. 772 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Paul Gogarty: With regard to the argument being made, I have had correspondence from members of the various unions.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Confessions——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: They point out the pitfalls associated with reducing the minimum wage and the fact that unscrupulous employers——

Deputy Joan Burton: We are going to have——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: ——might take advantage of it.

Deputy Joan Burton: ——Monsignor Gogarty.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Even when the minimum wage was one euro above the current level, construction workers were still being displaced by vulnerable and exploited agency and migrant workers. The issue of employers exploiting workers is not a function of the minimum wage per se but, as I said last night, I recognise the potential for unscrupulous employers to advantage of this. The point is that Germany, our paymaster, does not have a minimum wage and countries with which we are more on par, such as Spain and Portugal, have a much lower minimum wage. It is a question of the overall standard and cost of living. If the price of labour is lower than the minimum wage, one must move closer to the point of equilibrium; otherwise employers will not be able to employ. That is the fundamental issue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am anxious to make progress.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: More jobs could be lost if we did not reduce the minimum wage. Since social welfare rates have been reduced further — we will remember yesterday’s debate on this — and since wages have decreased and the standard of living has decreased for everyone, the minimum wage must also be reduced.

Deputy Joan Burton: Bonuses for bankers have increased.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I agree with the Deputy on that. There are no bonuses now for bankers but a decision on the bonuses of 2008 was made by the courts. Any efforts——

Deputy Joan Burton: No. The British High Court in London——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is Committee Stage and Deputies should speak through the Chair.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I do not mind genuine debate and have already put on record that I support any effort by the Minister to try to claw the money back. However, this is——

Deputy Joan Burton: It is called taxation. This should be achieved today.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: On the substantive issue, Ireland will be a more competitive place once again in four or five years because of measures being introduced in this budget. The standard of living will be a little lower, at 2002 levels, and the cost of living will be a lot lower. This will mean our goods and services, as traded, will be more competitive.

Deputy Joan Burton: Electricity and telephone charges are all higher.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The employment rate will rise once more. The Deputy should look at the consumer price index; that is what I am talking about. 773 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Joan Burton: I do not know what planet the Deputy is living on.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I will sum up. Irrespective of the financial interests pervading much of this House in terms of influencing the way decisions are made — I reiterate that the Green Party does not engage in this practice and no one is paying it or having it compromise in any way to make decisions — we have announced we are leaving Government and will do so, but we must get the budget passed. It is our moral duty to do so.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: When?

Deputy James Reilly: The Deputy should give us a date.

Deputy Joan Burton: Is it true that——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Gogarty to conclude his comments.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Let me clarify the matter because the Deputy raised a valid issue. Our party leader, the Minister, Deputy John Gormley, said we would be leaving Government as soon as the Finance Bill is passed. That remains the case.

Deputy Alan Shatter: How long will that take?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I hope it will be as soon as possible because I would relish an election at this stage so the Opposition Members can argue among themselves and come up with a coherent electoral platform. I support this amendment wholeheartedly.

Deputy Alan Shatter: He will not vote for it.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I ask the Minister to respond to it and ensure that those who are currently working will not be exploited by the measures that I believe, on a very narrow balance, to be necessary to keep this country competitive and ensure jobs continue to be created.

Deputy Joan Burton: This is Flann O’Brien country. The Deputy will have to ask the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gormley, whether he is a man or a bicycle after all these years in government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Reilly should be allowed to make his contribution.

Deputy James Reilly: What we just witnessed in this Chamber is probably one of the main reasons this country is in the mess it is in. The ability of people on the Government side to stand up and wax lyrical in support of an amendment and vote against it——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Like the Fine Gael spokesperson on employment----

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Gogarty.

Deputy James Reilly: It has happened time and again. I support the amendment and congratulate Deputy Penrose on tabling it. The laws of unforeseen consequence will certainly apply if it is not accepted. The 12% cut in the minimum wage is at the core of this issue. The lowest paid workers in the State will be affected. The bonuses for bankers will be greater than the annual income of those on the minimum wage. The Govern- ment has taken money from the lowest paid workers, the blind, the disabled, widows and 774 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 carers. Each carer saves the State tens of thousands of euro by the care given to his or her loved one in the home, to everyone’s benefit. The cut is short-sighted, mean-spirited, cold- hearted and so unnecessary. The Office of the Ceann Comhairle wrote to the Fine Gael Deputies to tell them their amendment was out of order and that it was “outside the scope of the Bill”, yet the name of the Bill is the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010. What public interest is served by omitting this amendment and by paying bonuses to bankers, the money for which bonuses was provided by the taxpayer to support the bank in question? The bank would not have been in a position to pay the money had it not been supported by the taxpayer. Bonuses are paid in December and not earned until that month. One could be performing wonderfully well until September and make a hames of matters in October and November, and thus be entitled to a bonus. Bonuses are not earned until December. The Government brought in the bank guarantee in September 2008. It was a glaring omission not to deal with this issue. That once again highlights the utter incompetence of the Minister for Finance. It is not nice to have to say that about someone but the reality is that this country is in this morass because of the bank guarantee, the manner in which it was 12 o’clock implemented, the scope it covered, and a refusal, until it was obvious to everybody, to wind down Anglo Irish Bank. It was eventually done €30 billion, €40 billion or €50 billion later, and the country now finds itself at a crossroads where tough decisions have to be made. This Government has often prided itself on taking the tough decisions but I have asked time and again why those tough decisions are always tough on the poorest, the most vulnerable, the chronically ill, the disabled, the blind, and now the carers. What moral compass has this Government got? What moral authority has it got? I suggest to the Ministers of State opposite that it has none. It has lost the credibility of the people. It has lost the credibility of the markets, and it has lost the credibility of the international community. It has damaged our country and our reputation. I want to know how it can be that the Government would not have the political courage to defer these payments until such time as an expert group can be put together, with the best minds in the country, to devise a methodology of ensuring this money does not pass from the taxpayer because it is unjust, wrong and unfair. It infuriates people. The Government has destroyed our country and our economy, and now it wants to destroy our society because the effect of these sort of measures on blind people, for example, who will lose €8 per week, might be the difference between them being able to feed their guide dog or not doing so. Their ability to go to the shop independently and live some sort of an independent life will be compromised, all to ensure that bankers can have bonuses to cruise the Caribbean at Christmas time. What in the name of God are the Members opposite thinking? How could they possibly preside over that? In life there are choices. There is law, and sometimes there can be legal niceties and legal difficulties but where there is a will there is a way. That way should be sought and taken. This Government has failed in that regard.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I would remind the Deputy that we have a long list and we are still on the first amendment. It would be great to make progress.

775 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy James Reilly: I accept that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but I sat here and listened to some rather long speeches. I will conclude. I do not want to delay the House but I have some serious questions to ask. First, why is it acceptable for the Government to interfere with the expectations and rights of retired gardaí who put their lives on the line or retired teachers who educated us and future generations? Why is it acceptable to levy a tax on them and to interfere with their expectation, having worked hard all their lives for their pension but it is not acceptable to do it with bonuses for bankers?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: I do not understand that. Second, if the Government refuses to do this and decides to hide behind a technicality of the Dáil to move an amendment to do it, could it please tell the House and tell the people whether these bonuses are to be taxed at the 2008 level, when taxes were lower and levies did not exist, or at the 2010 level? I would appreciate an answer to that question but what I would really appreciate from the Ministers of State opposite is that for once they would legislate in aid of the people instead of always legislating against them.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I fully support the spirit and the principle of Deputy Penrose’s amendment regarding those on the minimum wage. Many of the arguments being made by Deputy Burton and the Labour Party, and by Deputy Gogarty, concern the most vulnerable and the weakest section of our society who are effectively being crucified by this Government. If there is a flaw in the amendment it is that it is trying to protect those who are on contract. The majority of people on the minimum wage are seasonal workers and the majority of them are employed in the hotel sector throughout the summer months. However, the majority of them are now out of contract. This is a cynical exercise because the Government is bringing in this measure knowing full well the majority of people on the minimum wage are not working now. They will be caught by it and will lose €1 an hour as of today. Deputy Gogarty was obviously prompted by his conscience when he asked the Government to support Deputy Penrose’s amendment. I believe one must be always guided by one’s conscience and take a principled stand, if necessary, to protect one’s conscience.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: That is why we voted for the budget.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Society can be judged only on the way——

(Interruptions).

Deputy Martin Ferris: ——it treats the most vulnerable in society. A coalition Government such as we have that is prepared to attack the most vulnerable, irrespective of what one says, is a Government without a social conscience. I know Fianna Fáil supporters, canvassers and so forth and they have always prided themselves on the fact that they have a social conscience but the leadership of Fianna Fáil does not have a social conscience. Unfortunately, the Green Party has been compromised by the lack of a social conscience in this Government. The minimum wage affects non-nationals. As Deputy Burton said, it affects women more than men. It will effectively take more than €40 a week out of the pockets of people on the minimum wage, and the Government is doing that on the pretext that it is to sustain the economy and to create growth and jobs. 776 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

The reality is that people on the minimum wage, low income families and those whom I would call the working poor spend every cent they make in local economies. How can the Government make an argument for creating growth when effectively it is creating unemployment? That is what this Government is doing by attacking the most vulnerable. Members of this House earn more than €90,000 a year. Not one cent has been taken off our wages. Not one cent has been taken off the wages of Ministers of State, yet the poor misfortu- nate woman or man who was on €8.56 an hour now finds himself or herself down €40 a week. Those people are dependent on the minimum wage to feed their children, to put petrol in their cars to get to work, to put food on the table and to clothe their children. That is what this Government has done. This Government does not have a social conscience. I am looking at the officials opposite and I have no doubt many officials are highly embarrassed by the political direction this Government is taking. They are——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is not appropriate to draw officials into the debate.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Effectively, the Government is expanding the working poor. The working poor is becoming the fastest growing sector in society and in the economy. The Government has no moral mandate to do what it is doing. It is disgraceful. I do not know how the Ministers of State can sit there and try to justify it. I look to Deputy Gogarty, who has a conscience. He should be guided by his conscience.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Do not allow this. Deputy Gogarty should be guided by his conscience.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am making sure people have dole in three months’ time. We cannot wait until three months and do nothing in the meantime.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Is Deputy Gogarty following all that?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I have a conscience.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: He is following all that.

Deputy Martin Ferris: If Deputy Gogarty is coming in here and is prepared to take the Whip to penalise the poor and those on the minimum wage, he should be guided by his conscience——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am being guided by my conscience.

Deputy Martin Ferris: ——and be a man of principle.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Not the Whip, Deputy Gogarty’s conscience.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy Shatter.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am guided by my conscience.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Good man, Deputy Gogarty.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am always guided by my conscience, otherwise I would not still be in the Green Party.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Good man, Deputy Gogarty. 777 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter without interruption.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Like colleagues, I rise to support this amendment. It is important that those who are currently benefiting from the existing protection with the minimum wage as it is today pending the enactment of this Bill, should not be put under pressure and should not find themselves unemployed in circumstances in which they do not agree to a reduction based on the legislation that is today before the House. In a moment I want to contrast the Government position on this issue with its position on a related issue that is of relevance to this legislation, but I want, momentarily, despite the fact it is a distraction, make reference to Deputy Gogarty’s contribution. It is important at times of great economic difficulty, when the public is under pressure and when there is much misery in people’s lives, that someone plays the role of national comedian and, generally, gives people the opportunity for a laugh. It is just a pity that they should choose to use this Chamber as the theatre in which to express themselves.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: As Jarvis Cocker might say, I do not see anyone else laughing in here.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Deputy Gogarty amply fulfils the role of national comedian. The tragedy is that it is the judgment of persons like Deputy Gogarty that has resulted in the catastrophic economic collapse of the State. I make a recommendation to Deputy Gogarty. It is that after the election has taken its course and the people have made the judgment that I expect them to make on him and his party, and as I have no wish to see him unemployed, Cirque du Soleil, a successful organisation that provides a great deal of entertainment, no doubt could make use of his talents. I would suggest to him that he send his CV to that company in advance of the election being called for fear that an important opportunity that might be available to him might be taken up by someone else. I want to deal with one issue of relevance to this amendment and to where we are heading. The proposed amendment seeks to protect current workers in receipt of the minimum wage. This legislation makes provision not only for changing the minimum wage, but for various reductions also in public sector wages across the board. Of course, it excludes the variety of State agencies that are detailed in the Schedule. That is something else that needs to be addressed but, I appreciate, if I went into that at this moment, I would be going outside the amendment with which we are dealing. However, I want to make a contrast with regard to those on the minimum wage, the Government’s opposition to this amendment, including the way in which Deputy Gogarty will vote, and another matter. I should say to Deputy Gogarty, in case I forget to do so, that if he is really in favour of this and if his conscience is such that he wants to support it, there are some of us who are Members of this House who on occasions have had the courage to vote with our conscience. I well recall in the early 1990s in this House, at a time when it was a matter of some controversy, supporting legislation to ban live hare coursing in circumstances in which my party was not voting along those lines. Let nobody outside this House think that Deputies are merely little political automatons who have no choice but to obey orders and follow the Whip.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Follow the logic of Deputy Shatter’s argument.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The strange thing is, and it may come as a revelation to Deputy Gogarty, each Deputy in each party in this House is an individual with a conscience and with a capacity to think, and who has the capacity to make choices as to which way he or she should vote. You have that capacity, Deputy Gogarty,—— 778 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Through the Chair.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——and do not pretend otherwise.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: If Deputy Shatter votes for an amendment and the amendment is passed all the same,——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Gogarty.

Deputy Alan Shatter: This presentation of saying one thing——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: ——then it comes to the final legislation.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——and doing the opposite.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask Deputy Shatter to yield for a second. Deputy Gogarty, it is not our practice to shout Members down in the House.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: It is good craic.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: If Deputy Gogarty proceeds with doing that, I will ask him to leave.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I just asked Deputy Shatter to elaborate on the question of voting against the amendment.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As I stated, Deputy Gogarty will not shout Members down. I call Deputy Shatter.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Deputy Gogarty should come over here to the technical group and he will get a proper slot.

Deputy Alan Shatter: This capacity that Members in Fianna Fáil have had in the more than 20 years I have been a Member of this House to say one thing and vote in the opposite direction is a capacity now that, apparently, has been transferred by some form of political osmosis into the Green consciousness.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Only towards the overall legislation, in case Deputy Shatter did not realise.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Just as Deputy Gogarty can express support for this and vote the other way, it is the mirror image of what his colleagues in Cabinet are doing. They are calling for a general election while hanging on with their fingernails to being members of Cabinet and participating in discussions while also seeking to dissolve themselves from collective responsibility for any decision made by Cabinet.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: That has yet to be proven.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is an interesting political high-wire routine. It is the type of politics that totally undermines the credibility of Members of this House. It is the type of politics that we look at from this side with despair because all too frequently the public thinks that we are as bad as the lot opposite us——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: What was Deputy Shatter’s view on stag hunting? 779 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——when there is no valid comparison that can be made.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Deputy Shatter supported it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Gogarty, please do not shout down Members. If he persists, I will ask him to leave.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I want to deal with one issue only and I will try to deal with it with some brevity. This legislation, based on the State being confronted by a financial emergency, seeks to bring about public sector wage decreases that affect the public sector across the board in a broad range of areas. In the context of dealing with the pension issue, there are also deductions for former public sector employees who are now retired, including pensions payable to members of the Judiciary. The big gap here is the type of protection that we would like to apply to those on the minimum wage but which applies in spades to members of the Judiciary. The members of the Judiciary have not been affected by any of the public sector wage decreases that have occurred. Even when it came to the pension levy, they were excluded from it, although as a result of public comment and pressure, the vast majority have now opted into that. There is now a major difficulty in this area, one that I predicted when, on behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I published, in November 2009, the Twenty-ninth Amendment of the Constitution Bill. That Bill contained a provision to facilitate a constitutional referendum being held so as to ensure if there was a general deduction in public sector wages——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Shatter has gone well beyond the terms of the current amendment.

Deputy Alan Shatter: There is a comparison here which I am going to make, and I will be brief on this.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I thank Deputy Shatter.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Bill made provision that if there was a general deduction in public sector wages because of the State suffering a financial emergency, those deductions should apply to members of the Judiciary. There was a simple amendment that I sought to be included in the Constitution, and it reads as follows:

The remuneration of a judge shall not be reduced during his continuance in office save where it is necessary to address a serious threat to the State’s economy, there is a compelling need to stabilise the State’s finances and as a consequence it is necessary to effect a reduction in public service remuneration; in such circumstances any reduction in the remuneration of all public servants or in the remuneration of a class of public servants may be applied to effect a comparable reduction in the remuneration of all members of the Judiciary.

I believe that to maintain public confidence in the Judiciary, it is important it is seen to be part of, not an elite set apart from, the community. If the Government is prepared to address the issue of the minimum wage and to reduce it, I call on it to accept this Private Members’ Bill, to allow for its urgent enactment before the general election occurs and to allow a referendum to take place to coincide with the general election to facilitate a reduction in judicial salaries that is commensurate with the reduction in other public service salaries. So far, the Government has been opposed to this provision. There is no logical reason it should be opposed to it. I believe the general public would support it. It is not about singling out or discriminating against or trying to undermine the Judiciary. It is trying to ensure that 780 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 the public retains its respect for the Judiciary and that members of the Judiciary make the same contribution at a time of public urgency as the rest of the community has been called upon to make. It is completely unacceptable that the Government is willing to tackle this issue but proposes to vote down this amendment, which seeks to protect the very minimal income currently received by those employed who only have available to them the minimum wage. There is an extraordinary contrast to this and when he replies I ask the Minister of State to give a commitment from the Government to support the enactment of this Private Members’ Bill so that a referendum on judicial salaries coincides with the next general election.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy Róisín Shortall. I advise the House that a number of other Deputies wish to speak. These are Deputies Doherty, Varadkar and Barrett.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Before speaking on the amendment, I wish to make a point about the budget which I believe is important. On budget night, it is a tradition that the Departments of Social Protection and Finance produce fact sheets on the budget. All of the politics is contained in the budget speech of the Minister for Finance and then we receive the fact sheets and find out what exactly is the situation. I must state that what is supposed to be a fact sheet, which we received on Tuesday night from the Department of Finance, is a disgrace. No longer is it a fact sheet, it is a piece of propaganda. It is political propaganda. This is a really retrograde step by the Department of Finance. It is important to point out lest anybody is under the wrong impression that Fianna Fáil is not the State; there is a difference between the State and Fianna Fáil and everybody needs to be clear about this, particularly our public servants. The Depart- ment of Finance needs to be clear that there is a difference between Fianna Fáil and the State. If we are promised a fact sheet——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: ——it should be a fact sheet and it should not contain propaganda such as stating that the State cannot afford the current level of social provision. This is a political statement.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Not with the €20 billion deficit, it is not.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It is not a statement of fact; it is a political statement. It also states that taxpayers must contribute according to their means so those who can pay most will pay most. Again, this is a political statement. It is propaganda. It is entirely untrue, by the way, in respect of the budget. It is propaganda, and we should not be getting this type of propaganda from the Department of Finance. As far as I am concerned, this issue will need to be addressed at the earliest possible stage by the new Government. I want to speak about the approach taken in the budget and the issues under discussion in respect of the amendment. The approach taken in the budget has been about making cuts in the economy which in our view will do serious damage. The scale of the cuts and their severity on those who can least afford to take them will be extraordinarily damaging and dangerous to this economy. It is not only the Labour Party which is stating this. Yesterday, the ratings agency Fitch was the first to strip Ireland of its A credit status and this was principally to do with the huge level of bank debt attaching to the Irish State. It also warned that the budget cuts might choke the Irish economy rather than reviving it and this is the big fear. This is what the Labour Party has been warning about; that these cuts would choke the economy and do long-term deep damage to it. It is of great concern that one of the international ratings agencies should be of the same view. This is the danger and this is what we face in the coming months. 781 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Róisín Shortall.]

The amendment relates to the cut in the minimum wage. It is important to point out that at present people working 40 hours a week on the minimum wage earn €346. Under the arrangements to cut the minimum wage they will lose €40 of this, reducing their pay to €306 for a 40- hour week. Under the other budget provision which will prove to be a ticking timebomb, namely, the universal social charge or rather the universal antisocial charge, a person working a 40-hour week on the minimum wage will lose €8.42 through tax. The Minister for Finance told us the reduced minimum wage would not be in the tax net. We know now that this statement is completely untrue. The Department of Finance has stated the universal social charge is a tax; this statement is in the budget book.

Deputy Joan Burton: It is in a resolution.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: People on the reduced level of minimum wage will be brought into the tax net and they will pay €8.42 in tax. This means a person going out to work for 40 hours a week will take home less than €300. I do not know whether Deputy Gogarty is aware of this; probably not, given the other universe in which the Green Party tends to live. Can anybody in the House imagine what it is like to work for 40 hours a week and take home €297 for his or her trouble? Who in this House could survive on €297 a week, particularly after working for 40 hours? This is a scandal; the Govern- ment is now stating that the poor are fair game and that it is okay for somebody to work 40 hours a week and take home €297. Can anybody imagine the indignity of this? People must go out and work 40 hours, probably taking 50 hours out of their week, in what is probably a fairly menial job to come out with this type of money. What has this country come to that we are telling people it is okay to treat them like this? It beggars belief that those in government, who have been swanning around for the past 13 years in their Mercedes oblivious to what is going on in the real world, can say to people that it is okay for them to cut their pay so that after working for 40 hours they will receive €297. It shows how totally out of touch Fianna Fáil has become from people who live in the real world. Of course this is directed at non-nationals, women and young people. To suggest this will not have a knock-on impact on pay or on people working for the existing minimum wage is absolute nonsense. The Government is giving the lead and stating to employers that the poorest people in our society are fair game, that the Government has hammered them and will not stop anyone else from doing so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to allow others to speak also.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: This is precisely the purpose of the amendment. We want to copper- fasten the minimum protection which low-paid workers have at present. We also want to ensure those on low incomes are protected and cannot be abused further. There is no question of this being an issue in the context of competitiveness, a lie which has been peddled in recent times. The average wage in Ireland is €22 per hour and employers are recruiting at that average level. Therefore, the minimum wage has nothing to do with competitiveness. In the budgetary context, cutting the minimum wage will make no difference to Exchequer finances. There will be no savings as a result. The approach taken with regard to the minimum wage is a complete lie, like so many other aspects of the budget. I hope backbenchers here, the Green Party and those three amigos at the back, the Ballymagash politicians, Deputies Jackie Healy-Rae, Michael Lowry and Joe Behan, people who bring this House into total disrepute, realise what this budget will do to their constituents and I hope their constituents will act accordingly. 782 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I now call Deputy Doherty. Deputies Varadkar, Barrett and Creed are still waiting to speak and I would be obliged if we also had time to allow the Minister to respond.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Ní ghlacfaidh mise barraíocht ama mar tá cuid mhórráite ag mo chomhghleacaithe, na Teachtaí Arthur Morgan agus Martin Ferris, cheana féin. I support this amendment. The spirit of the amendment is to protect those already in existing contracts. It has been spelled out that many of that 52,000 would not be able to avail of that protection even if the amendment was accepted. While Sinn Féin opposes section 13 in its entirety, we recognise, given what has been said here today by the likes of Deputy Paul Gogarty, that regardless of what such Members believe or how morally corrupt this measure is, they will still vote with the Government and vote this through.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Deputy is measuring moral corruption. Let us have the economic argument rather than try to raise populist indignation.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It was Deputy Gogarty who started talking about morals.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Yes, it was also ——

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It was he who was asking for forgiveness. It is morally corrupt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, we will not have a shouting match across this national Parliament.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Deputy was saying we were corrupt.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: The measure is morally corrupt.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is making a political contribution on an amendment. Please allow him to do so.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am sure he is sorry he spoke of this document ——

Deputy Pearse Doherty: I am speaking of the measure in this Bill. As we know, the Bill does not just deal with the reduction of €1 in the minimum wage, but the measure in the Bill is morally corrupt. Since the two Ministers of State came into this Chamber two hours ago, they have earned half of what those on the minimum wage will earn in a full week, but not one cent will come from his gross salary as a result of the measures in the Bill. Some €140,000 gross is protected for Ministers of State. This is a scandalous and that is why Sinn Féin has put forward amendments, on which we will hopefully have a chance to vote, which would seriously reduce their payments and ensure that those on the minimum wage are protected. Therefore, the measure is morally corrupt. It is not just a reduction of €1 in the minimum wage but, as has been said by others, it also brings those on the minimum wage into the tax band through the universal social charge. On the night of the budget I spoke with regard to what the universal social charge will do and how it will penalise low paid workers. We are seeing that now in the case of those who earn the minimum wage. I also pointed out that the universal social charge will benefit high earner workers. We know that now because the dirty details have come out that the self- employed and those in band D of the tax net, or anyone earning over €200,000 will benefit as a result of this measure. The millionaire, self-employed person, as a result of the budget and 783 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Pearse Doherty.] the changes in the taxation measures, will earn a net extra €23,000, yet Deputy Gogarty has come in here and expects Deputies to vote for a reduction in the minimum wage of €1 that will bring the lower paid into the tax band and reduce their wages, after 40 working hours, to under €300. If Deputy Gogarty does not think that is morally corrupt, we might need to have a discussion about his morals all over again.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: It is about job creation. We should discuss Deputy Doherty’s morals and those of his party.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please Deputy Gogarty, allow the Deputy continue.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: We need a new type of politics. The idea that a Deputy would say he supports the amendment but will not vote for it is ridiculous. Deputy Gogarty is bringing the House into disrepute. That is why people do not trust politicians. We have heard the Deputy say he agrees with the amendment, but will not support it. He said my paymasters are the unions, but his paymaster is the Government Chief Whip. The Deputy talks about being challenged by two morals. The morals on which he is challenged are whether to keep 15 Mini- sters’ bums in their seats for another couple of months or try to protect the most vulnerable in Irish society. That is not a challenge. It should not be a challenge for anybody who claims to have any type of moral.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I will not vote for the amendment when the country is in crisis.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Gogarty must control himself or leave the House.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am quite in control, believe you me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should not shout Members down.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: He will not shout Deputy Doherty down.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: It should not be a challenge for anybody to decide between those two “evils” as the Deputy called them. They are not evil. One is about standing up for the weakest in society and the other is about protecting the most vulnerable.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: If one has no dole and no wage at all ——

Deputy Pearse Doherty: One of them is also about growing our economy, because if we do not reduce the wages of the lowest income earners in society, we will ensure there is more money in the real economy, more money to spend on businesses and more money to spend in local shops and retail units etc. That is what it is about.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: They will be like people in Romania or Bulgaria instead.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Gogarty, I will not tolerate a shouting match in the House. Please have some respect for the national Parliament of this country.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: Finally, as I mentioned previously on the budget, there is a challenge for all of us. We will face a general election shortly and despite the introduction of this measure, which is one of the worst measures the Government is introducing, I have not yet heard a clear commitment in the Chamber that any party in a position to form the next Government will immediately introduce legislation that will reverse this cut to the minimum wage. I put that challenge down to all parties, including the Green Party, the Labour Party and Fine Gael, 784 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 because Sinn Féin is committed to that and to reversing the other measures that were introduced in the social welfare budget.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Deputy has not been listening to us.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: On a point of order, I would like to say I wish this was a national Parliament and I look forward to the day when it will be.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is not a point of order.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I support this amendment. In many ways, this issue speaks to the values of our society and the values by which we want our economy to operate. One of the basic values of our society must be that work pays. If we want a capitalist economy and society, we must also have social justice and a system in which work pays. If this measure is introduced, work will no longer pay for many of the people now at work in low paid jobs. Many untruths have been uttered about the minimum wage in the course of this debate. The minimum wage applies to a very small number of people, perhaps 4% of the workforce. These are generally people who work very hard for very little money, domestic workers, cleaners and people such as those who work in petrol stations. There is a misconception that we have the second highest minimum wage in Europe. That is not true. Nominally we are third, but in many countries where there is no national minimum wage, like Germany and the Nordic countries which have sectoral minimum wages, those minimum wages by and large are far higher. It is also worth noting that in all those countries where there is a higher minimum wage, unemployment is lower. Therefore, the suggestion that there is some sort of direct correlation between the minimum wage and levels of employment does not pass muster. We must also compare the justice of this measure. A previous speaker pointed out that there has been no nominal cut in Deputies’ pay in this budget, which is true, but between the PRSI and other measures, there is a 9% cut. However, that cut is less than the 12% cut proposed in the minimum wage today. The overall cut has been 25% but that was spread over three years, whereas this measure makes a cut of 12% in one fell swoop. It is unjust. Previous contributors, including Deputy Noonan, have noted the budget’s other unjust measures. Many self-employed people earning high salaries will gain from this budget. I accept this is the result of correcting an anomaly whereby self-employed people paid 56% tax compared to the 52% or 53% paid by employees. I understand why it was considered unfair to tax self-employed people more than those in employment but, in terms of politically proofing the budget, the Government could have waited for another day before correcting the anomaly. High earning self-employed people would have tolerated their income tax rates being frozen rather than cut in a budget that also reduces the minimum wage. It is remarkable that the Government is using financial emergency legislation to cut the pay of private sector workers but it will not use similar means to cut the pay of bank or semi- State company employees who received pay increases over the past two years. How can the Government justify increases of 3% and more to workers in semi-State companies and the banks when it uses emergency legislation to cut the minimum wage? No other country has ever reduced the minimum wage. The leaders who people like to suggest are beˆtes noires, such as Reagan and Thatcher, did not cut the minimum wage. This will be the first Government in the history of the world to reduce the minimum wage, with the possible exception of Pinochet’s Chile. Other than a small number of business organisations, nobody asked the Government to make this cut. In effect it is taking the easy decision while leaving the next Government to address the more complicated and important task of reforming 785 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Leo Varadkar.] the registered employment agreement rates, which are much higher and include numerous restrictive conditions.

Deputy Seán Barrett: This Government clearly lost its sense of fairness when it drafted this budget. In a week when people who earn small weekly incomes are facing further cuts, it was announced that €40 million is to be paid out in bonuses to bank staff. Does anybody in the Government understand how this contrast resonates with the public? Widows, blind people and carers are told they must accept cuts. In ignoring fairness, this Parliament is losing the people. They believe we do not care about them. The Government must not have been thinking when it framed this budget. Why are we imposing these cuts? The Irish people did not cause our problems. Over the past 13 years, our financial institutions drove us into bankruptcy through their irresponsible actions. It was not the fault of the ordinary person. We would not be in this mess but for our banking system and the manner in which our Government dealt with it. That is why the minimum wage is being cut and these hard measures are being introduced. We would not need this budget if the banking crisis had not arisen. In the same week as these hard measures are imposed on the people, it was announced that €40 million is being paid out by a bankrupt financial institution. There is a danger that we will become a begrudging society. The events that took place in London yesterday could have occurred outside the gates of these Houses if we were not fortunate enough to have snow and ice on our streets.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: We did not triple fees.

Deputy Seán Barrett: I ask the Deputy to mind his own business for a while. We need to cop on to ourselves because we are on the edge. I am amazed by the telephone calls I receive from people who want to know why they are required to pay when banks are getting away with it. These are not uneducated people. They are the so-called top people in our society. It does not sound fair because it is not fair. We must reject this proposal if only for the sake of sending a message of fairness. The Government cannot legitimately cut the minimum wage by €1 in the same week that people are being paid bonuses. I do not know whether the bank staff in question are paid on commission but it is crazy that a banking system would pay bonuses for increasing loan vol- umes. Any other business pays bonuses when it makes a profit. For these reasons, I fully support the amendment and ask that we restore a sense of fairness to our society.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Four Deputies have asked to contribute and, with the per- mission of the House, I will call the Minister to reply at 12.55 p.m. I ask, therefore, that the remaining speakers be brief.

Deputy Michael Creed: In deference to the time constraints, I will be brief. Fairness and national solidarity are critical to getting us out of our mire. However, these measures are being introduced in a pressure cooker atmosphere whereby Members are not allowed time to reflect on their implications. Yesterday Deputy Noonan pointed out that self-employed people who earn more than €200,000 will be substantial net beneficiaries of the universal social charge and other budgetary changes. I am sure that was not the Minister for Finance’s original intention but it was a mistake which will benefit high earners at the expense of those who earn the minimum wage. Somebody who earns €200,000 will probably gain €20,000, which is more than can be earned on the minimum wage in one year. That is fundamentally unfair at a time when 786 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 the State is using the money it saves to pay bankers’ bonuses. These measures are generating an unprecedented level of social unrest. Cuts in welfare generally affect the most vulnerable members of society. Yesterday I spoke at length about the unemployed people with children who are the new poor. Bringing people on minimum wage into the tax net exacerbates that trend. We need an enterprise society that values work but we are instead demeaning work and encouraging fraud. If we had more time for reflection we would construct a better Bill.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: In regard to the bonuses paid to bank employees, if the Irish taxpayer had not given the guarantee it is likely AIB would no longer exist. Bonuses are being paid because of the Minister for Finance’s lack of negotiating skills at the time the guarantee was put in place. As people on the minimum wage invariably work in short-term employment and move from job to job, they are likely to be hit by the new rate before too long. An individual earning the current minimum wage will pay an income levy of €360, whereas he or she would pay €436 per year into the universal social charge if he or she earned the new minimum wage. The Minister clearly did not think through that flaw. Weekly take home pay for the minimum wage will decrease from €339.08 to €297.62. There is a fundamental flaw if an individual must pay more tax even though his or her income has decreased. When we are looking for an enterprise culture, we are concerned with the cost to the employer. Many small employers are under pressure. The Minister could have taken away employer’s PRSI at the lower rate, which would affect people on the minimum wage and save €30 per week for the employer. This method saves €43 but many people will not be able to take up employment. I ask the Minister to examine this and make changes. It is fundamentally flawed and unfair.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: The Government has the votes to carry this Bill. The amendment before the House, in the name of Deputy Penrose, merely seeks to ensure the cost of €1inthe national minimum wage does not apply to existing workers. I cannot see why the Minister cannot take that on board. We know what will happen in the real world. Many of these workers are casual workers and are occasionally let go and re-employed on new contracts. We know what the impact will be. Any Government would have to make Exchequer savings in these circumstances, different Governments would make different choices. This does not make any savings for the Exchequer and it will inevitably mean many workers who were previously ineligible for the family income supplement will be eligible for it. Some six out of ten of the 52,000 workers concerned are women. The Minister has the votes to carry the Bill and if he wishes to do some, that is his prerogative. I ask him to accept the amendments to ring-fence wages so that none of the existing workers is affected. I do not like referring to Deputy Paul Gogarty as he only keeps interrupting because he wants attention. He threw around allegations about the venal conduct of Deputies on all sides of the House. I cannot think of anything more morally bankrupt, if not corrupt, than to say that he agrees with the amendment but will be voting against it. That is a new rule in this House.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I speak in support of this amendment and to oppose the Minister’s intention to reduce the minimum wage by €1. The main reason is that it does not make sense on any grounds. The reasoning behind this came from an economist somewhere who said that Ireland needs to reduce the cost of employing people as a way of encouraging employers to take on more employees. The problem is that we need to encourage people on welfare to actively find employment of all sorts, including low paid employment, hopefully as a stepping stone to higher income. If we are taking such an aggressive cut in the minimum wage, I do not see an incentive to encourage tens of thousands of people on social welfare to find reasonably 787 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] paid employment that will pay them considerably more than what they would be paid on welfare. This is in the context of protecting wage rates across the public sector in the Croke Park agreement yet at the same time we are targeting working people on the lowest income in the country. By and large they are in the private sector and they are being targeted by a taxation measure, the universal social charge, as well as lowering their gross pay. It is not incentivising many very low paid people, who will face reductions in salary. I do not accept the Minister’s explanation that people are on contracts and the contract is protected. Those on the minimum wage do not have rock-solid contracts. They were part-time and their contracts are replaced on a regular basis. By and large, these contracts are loose arrangements that will convert into a new arrangement at €7.65 an hour rather than €8.65 an hour. I appeal to the Government to reconsider. In the context of this amendment in particular, I appeal to the minority party in Government to take a stand.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I will respond to this amendment because of the number of issues and concerns about workers rights that have been raised. I appreciate the objective of Deputy Penrose and all other Deputies. The legal advice available to all of us, and confirmed to everyone in the House, is that an employee working under a contract of employment setting wages at or above the national minimum wage is already entitled under that contract to continue to be paid that wage unless the terms of the contract are altered by agreement between both the employer and employee.

Deputy Simon Coveney: What power does the employee have?

Deputy Dara Calleary: If the amendment is accepted, it is likely——

Deputy Joan Burton: Deputy Calleary should tell a cleaning woman she can go to the High Court judge.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I listened for two hours.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Minister of State has limited time. The Minister of State must be allowed to speak. Let us hear it.

Deputy Pearse Doherty: On a point of order, can I ask the Minister of State to clarify——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Can I say to Deputy Doherty——

Deputy Pearse Doherty: ——if the advice came from the same source that said the Donegal South-West by-election did not need to be held?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy will not ignore the Chair. He is new to the House so when the Chair stands, Deputy Doherty should take his seat. We have limited time and I would like to hear the answers from the Minister of State. I ask Deputies to forbear to allow the Minister of State to speak and be heard.

Deputy Dara Calleary: We have advice from many sources that if the amendment is accepted, it is likely it would render unenforceable existing contractual terms that provide for rates of pay to be determined by reference to the prevailing national minimum wage. There is a range of legislation available to an organisation that is subject to more criticism than praise in this House. I refer to NERA, the National Employment Rights Authority. This is not an obsolete or remote organisation, as one Deputy commented last night. It is very active on the ground protecting employee rights. With regard to workers’ contracts referred to by Deputies, staff of the Rights Commissioner Service are experienced and available to handle issues where workers are not getting their rights, which include a written contract regardless of who they work for 788 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010 or how they work. Under the Croke Park agreement, we are making arrangements for greater supports for the employer support organisations such as the Rights Commissioner Service and the Labour Relations Commission so they can be better placed to respond to the increasing volume of cases, particularly from this sector over the past year. There has been a far greater increase in the volume of complaints to the Rights Commissioner Service from this area. Deputy Burton referred to section 13, which concerns a linked amendment, and the wording of the review and the requirement to examine the cost of living instead of inflation. There is no policy change here.

Deputy Joan Burton: There is a big policy change——

Deputy Dara Calleary: The cost of living is included——

Deputy Joan Burton: ——because the cost of living provides for deflation.

Deputy Dara Calleary: ——in the same way in the listing and is not there as a priority but as one of a series of factors to be taken into account. Deputy Penrose raised concerns that we are eliminating the Labour Court from the review function. The Labour Court is centrally involved in the review function. If the review function is initiated by IBEC or 1o’clock ICTU, the Labour Court will do so within 13 weeks. Under the 2000 Act, there was no limit on the consultation period. A review could be sought and then withdrawn and no progress was made. Under this new legislation, the review will be carried out within 13 weeks. This brings certainty and efficiency to the issue. Deputy Shortall commented on the factsheet and I have been asked by the officials to clarify this point. The document was approved by the Minister and reflects Government decisions on budgetary measures. It is not an official Department of Finance document.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It normally is.

Deputy Dara Calleary: It is important to put this on the record.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It normally contains facts rather than political propaganda.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I refer Deputy Shortall to the Department of Social Protection document, which was issued in the traditional format on Tuesday night with just facts. That document is still available to provide information.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The Department of Finance document has changed. That is the point I am making.

Deputy Joan Burton: This is the Fianna Fáil Christmas leaflet masquerading as a document from the Department of Finance.

Deputy Dara Calleary: The House should note that the National Employment Rights Auth- ority is available, resourced and staffed. The Rights Commissioner is being provided with extra resources in order to supply workers in this area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: It is 1 p.m. I remind the House we are still on Committee Stage. Deputy Kenny wishes to make a very brief comment.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I am conscious it is 1 p.m. and that if the Minister stands up I will not be permitted to raise this point or order. I ask him to comment on reports that because of the decision taken by the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party to put the vote on the IMF-ECB agreement to a vote of the Dáil next week, that the IMF has now deferred its own executive board 789 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

[Deputy Enda Kenny.] decision on the agreement originally expected to take place tomorrow. This is causing serious international concern. I ask the Minister to confirm whether the Government has had any discussions with the IMF about this matter. What are the implications for the agreement if the vote is lost?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is not relevant, unfortunately, to the debate. I ask the Minister to make a very brief intervention and if not I must put the question in accordance with the order of the Dáil.

Deputy Enda Kenny: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I wanted to raise the question before the Minister stood up.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: There is no decision of the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party. The Government has decided to submit the general arrangements to political approval next week in the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I must put the question.

(Interruptions).

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Dermot Ahern and Deputy Morgan, I am putting a question to the House.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: I was being provoked.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: As it is now 1 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day.

Question put: “That in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, the section is hereby agreed in Committee, that Schedule 1, the Preamble and the Title are hereby agreed to in Committee, the Bill is accordingly reported to the House without amendment, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed.”

The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 74.

Tá

Ahern, Bertie. Cregan, John. Ahern, Dermot. Curran, John. Ahern, Michael. Dempsey, Noel. Ahern, Noel. Devins, Jimmy. Andrews, Barry. Dooley, Timmy. Andrews, Chris. Fahey, Frank. Ardagh, Seán. Finneran, Michael. Aylward, Bobby. Fitzpatrick, Michael. Behan, Joe. Fleming, Seán. Blaney, Niall. Flynn, Beverley. Brady, Áine. Gogarty, Paul. Brady, Cyprian. Gormley, John. Brady, Johnny. Hanafin, Mary. Browne, John. Harney, Mary. Byrne, Thomas. Haughey, Seán. Calleary, Dara. Healy-Rae, Jackie. Carey, Pat. Hoctor, Máire. Collins, Niall. Kelleher, Billy. Conlon, Margaret. Kelly, Peter. Connick, Seán. Kenneally, Brendan. Coughlan, Mary. Kennedy, Michael. Cowen, Brian. Killeen, Tony. 790 Financial Emergency Measures in the 10 December 2010. Public Interest (No. 2) Bill 2010

Tá—continued

Kitt, Michael P. O’Donoghue, John. Kitt, Tom. O’Flynn, Noel. Lenihan, Brian. O’Hanlon, Rory. Lenihan, Conor. O’Keeffe, Batt. Lowry, Michael. O’Keeffe, Edward. McEllistrim, Thomas. O’Rourke, Mary. McGrath, Michael. Power, Peter. McGuinness, John. Power, Seán. Mansergh, Martin. Roche, Dick. Moloney, John. Ryan, Eamon. Moynihan, Michael. Sargent, Trevor. Mulcahy, Michael. Scanlon, Eamon. Nolan, M.J.. Smith, Brendan. Ó Cuív, Éamon. Treacy, Noel. Ó Fearghaíl, Seán. Wallace, Mary. O’Brien, Darragh. White, Mary Alexandra. O’Connor, Charlie. Woods, Michael. O’Dea, Willie.

Níl

Allen, Bernard. Lynch, Ciarán. Bannon, James. Lynch, Kathleen. Barrett, Seán. McCormack, Pádraic. Breen, Pat. McEntee, Shane. Broughan, Thomas P. McGinley, Dinny. Bruton, Richard. McGrath, Finian. Burke, Ulick. McGrath, Mattie. Burton, Joan. McHugh, Joe. Byrne, Catherine. Mitchell, Olivia. Carey, Joe. Morgan, Arthur. Connaughton, Paul. Naughten, Denis. Coonan, Noel J. Neville, Dan. Costello, Joe. Noonan, Michael. Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín. Coveney, Simon. Ó Snodaigh, Aengus. Crawford, Seymour. O’Donnell, Kieran. Creed, Michael. O’Dowd, Fergus. Creighton, Lucinda. O’Mahony, John. D’Arcy, Michael. O’Shea, Brian. Deasy, John. O’Sullivan, Jan. Deenihan, Jimmy. O’Sullivan, Maureen. Doherty, Pearse. Penrose, Willie. Doyle, Andrew. Perry, John. Durkan, Bernard J. Quinn, Ruairí. English, Damien. Rabbitte, Pat. Feighan, Frank. Reilly, James. Ferris, Martin. Ring, Michael. Flanagan, Charles. Shatter, Alan. Flanagan, Terence. Sheahan, Tom. Gilmore, Eamon. Sherlock, Seán. Grealish, Noel. Shortall, Róisín. Hayes, Brian. Stagg, Emmet. Hayes, Tom. Timmins, Billy. Higgins, Michael D. Tuffy, Joanna. Hogan, Phil. Upton, Mary. Howlin, Brendan. Varadkar, Leo. Kehoe, Paul. Wall, Jack. Kenny, Enda.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe.

Question declared carried.

791 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

Handling of Criminal Matter in Longford: Statements Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I wish to share time with Deputy Kelly.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dermot Ahern: The circumstances of this case are extremely tragic and I have extended my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Marie Keegan and her family on the very sad death of Noel, their husband and father, who was a retired member of the Defence Forces and highly respected in his community. I can assure the House that from the moment this case came to light it has been treated with the utmost gravity by me, my Department and the entire criminal justice system. I pay tribute to Mrs. Keegan and her family for the dignified and admirable way in which they have conducted themselves throughout this incredibly difficult time. No doubt all Deputies will join me in offering the family our sympathy on their terrible loss. I have written to Mrs. Keegan to say how sorry I am for the position in which her family find themselves and expressed the great regret all of the agencies involved for the failures in procedures which took place, and I do so again publicly in this House. Last January, when I first became aware of this matter, I requested Judge Michael Reilly, the Inspector of Prisons, to investigate the circumstances of the case across all of the relevant agencies. At my request, the Keegan family were informed of the facts as we were aware of them and of the investigation that Judge Reilly would be conducting. I also briefed the then spokespersons of the Opposition who acknowledged that we were taking the correct action in response to this situation. Before his appointment as Inspector of Prisons, Judge Reilly was a highly respected and experienced District Court judge and so he was particularly well placed to assess what had occurred. Before his appointment as Inspector of Prisons, Judge Reilly was a highly respected and experienced District Court judge and he was particularly well placed to assess what had occurred. His wide-ranging terms of reference were to investigate the manner of and procedures applicable to the recording and communication of the sentencing of Martin McDonagh in Tullamore Circuit Court on 28 April 2009; to establish, first, whether a warrant recording this sentence was issued by Longford and-or Tullamore Circuit Court Offices and, second, was received by Castlerea Prison; and to make inquiries with any other relevant persons and authorities including the Garda Síochána and the probation service. The judge was also asked to make appropriate recommendations arising from his investigation and requested to report to me as soon as possible. Judge Reilly reported in May and his very clear report highlights a number of very serious failings which took place in this case across all the agencies concerned. This matter arose following the sentencing in absentia of Martin McDonagh to four years imprisonment at Tullamore Circuit Court on 28 April 2009. Several of the failures resulted from human error and others occurred because of the lack of systematic procedures to pick up on these errors when they had occurred. The judge makes it clear that the errors occurred not through any malicious intent but because there were insufficient checks and oversight arrangements in place within the offices and agencies concerned. Having said that, senior Courts Service management has met the individuals concerned to remind them of the necessity, as highlighted by Judge Reilly, of careful and scrupulous attention to detail when attending to its public duties. The Secretary General of my Department has met the heads of all the agencies concerned to emphasise the seriousness with which this matter 792 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements should be treated and the necessary priority afforded to putting in place the necessary solutions. I have also arranged for a copy of this report to be transmitted to the President of the Circuit Court and, I understand, he has drawn the importance of the relevant recommendations to the attention of the judges of the Circuit Court. Obviously all the agencies concerned have co- operated fully in implementing the recommendations Judge Reilly made and significant lessons have been learned. In order to ensure the speedy implementation of the Reilly report, I then appointed Mr. Pat Folan, a former director general of the immigration services, to oversee the implementation process. Mr. Folan convened an inter-agency group of senior officials, which undertook a detailed work process and reported to me in September that all of the judge’s recommendations identified for immediate action have now been fully implemented. The group also set out a clear strategy to implement the medium-term recommendations — several of which involve information communication technology, ICT, infrastructure projects — within a three year timeframe. Three main areas were identified where failures had occurred: the process and procedures in relation to the issuing of warrants; the process and procedures relating to notifications of the temporary release of prisoners; and communication between the relevant justice sector agencies. Since then, each of the agencies, both individually and collectively, has examined its part in the processes concerned and, as the Folan Group reports, changes in work practices and systems aimed at rectifying the identified failings have been implemented. For example, verification procedures have been included in the preparation, checking and issuing of warrants in court offices. I should point out that many of these practices were already followed in courts all around the country. The new protocols simply involve a consistent application of best practice and clear lines of accountability. The measures include a second official double checking the details of any warrant prepared before it is signed by the relevant senior official. From now on, if posted, warrants will be issued by registered post thus affording a record of postage and receipt. Where a committal warrant is issued on the day of court, a new process has been introduced to acknowledge receipt of a warrant in writing by a prison officer and likewise acknowledgement by receipt by the Garda Síochána or the Irish Prison Service where a warrant is received directly by a prison or the Garda. The Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service have issued instructions within their respective organisations in relation to these new procedures. Protocols both withinindividual agencies and, especially, betweenthe agencies dealing with warrants have been put in place to further enhance the measures introduced. The new procedures will serve to increase efficiency and effectiveness and enhance the overall accountability requirements on agencies and individual officials to certify their specific element of the process, thereby reducing significantly the risk of a warrant being overlooked. The series of recommendations requiring immediate action in the Reilly report relating to temporary release have been implemented and will enable the responsible agencies to more effectively manage the process. The Irish Prison Service has examined the terms and conditions which are included on the temporary release form and, where appropriate, has amended the wording to provide an unam- biguous and clear statement of the terms of a prisoner’s release. This will facilitate each of the agencies involved in the temporary release process to more accurately assess when a breach of temporary release has occurred. Details of all temporary releases are notified by the Irish Prison Service to all of the agencies concerned with the release of prisoners. A joint protocol has been agreed between the Garda Síochána and the Irish Prison Service in regard to the co-ordination of the receipt and onward transmission of temporary release 793 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.] notifications and the Irish Prison Service and the probation service have put in place joint protocols for the management of prisoners on temporary release who are also subject to probation supervision. The Garda Síochána will maintain a register of prisoners on temporary release in all relevant Garda stations. The register will include the terms of the prisoner’s temporary release in addition to the signature of the prisoner and the times and dates of signing on. Again this represents an enhancement of the existing procedures. The Garda authorities have confirmed that the apprehension of persons unlawfully at large is, and will continue to be, a priority for them. The arrangements for notifying the gardaí when a person is unlawfully at large have been significantly strengthened as a result of the joint protocol they have entered into with the Irish Prison Service. This protocol makes provision, in particular, for the Irish Prison Service to notify the relevant garda superintendent when a person is unlawfully at large. The notification will be undertaken in both electronic and hard copy form. In addition, the appropriate Garda station will be contacted by telephone by the Irish Prison Service. An important element of the protocol is to ensure that regular reviews of prisoners deemed unlawfully at large will have taken place involving the Garda authorities and the Irish Prison Service. This is a process that has commenced and I have no doubt it will help to ensure that effective measures are in place to deal with situations where a prisoner is unlawfully at large. I am assured the introduction of all of the above measures will contribute significantly to the reduction of risk in the management of offenders. Communication, information exchange and cohesion between the relevant agencies are identified by Judge Reilly as being central in addressing the particular weaknesses identified in the agencies’ systems and processes. The recommendations in Judge Reilly’s report which were designated as “immediate” and have been implemented have significantly advanced the sharing of data and information across the relevant justice sector agencies. However, a number of recommendations will more effectively be implemented over the medium term as they require enhancements to the existing ICT in the individual agencies and enhancement of the ICT inter- connectivity between agencies. The criminal justice interoperability project, CJIP, was developed in recent years between the Garda and courts and facilitates the exchange of summonses and court outcomes in regard to all criminal offencesbefore the District Court. This system has been operating successfully for more than two years and as well as reducing errors and risks, it has also had a very positive impact in reducing duplication of input and thereby saving staff time. This system will now be expanded to include links with the Irish Prison Service and probation service. A feasibility study to consider scope, functionality, implementation timeline and costs has already commenced and the initial phase will be completed in the New Year. The enhancements to the Garda PULSE system and the extension of the Courts Service criminal case tracking system from the District Court to the Circuit Criminal Court, which Judge Reilly identified are desirable, will be also advanced in the medium term. The recommendations Judge Reilly made are now largely in place. The ICT developments being progressed will underpin the manual processes. While not seeking to minimise the failures which occurred, I would point out that thousands of cases are dealt with every day in the courts without difficulty. I would also point out that, far from any attempt to conceal these events, as long ago as last January when I was first made aware of this, I made a public statement outlining the fact that I had appointed Judge Reilly to investigate a matter of grave concern which for legal reasons could not yet be made public. As I said earlier, I also privately briefed the then Opposition spokespersons on the circumstances which were then known to use. I then published the reports 794 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements at the earliest opportunity following the conclusion of the trial last Tuesday. I knew the outcome of the case was going to be decided on Tuesday, which coincided with it being budget day. I had originally intended to publish this report the following day so that it would not coincide with the budget, but because some members of the media already had details of the report on budget day, the day the case concluded, I had no option but to put the reports out on budget day. Following the conclusion of the trial of Martin McDonagh last Tuesday, I arranged to have copies of both of the reports furnished to the Keegan family in advance of publication. By appointing Judge Reilly to independently investigate the circumstances of this case and by quickly establishing the implementation group to oversee the implementation of Judge Reilly’s recommendations, I am satisfied that rigorous measures are now in place aimed at ensuring that a breakdown in procedures, such as occurred in this case, does not happen again. No Minister can stand before this House and give guarantees that systems will not fail — people will always make mistakes. However, very serious errors were made in this case — there is no doubt that is the case. It is our responsibility to ensure safeguards are now in place to reduce the risks involved in a system which processes up to 400,000 criminal prosecutions every year. I can assure the House that my Department is doing everything in its power to address these failings across the criminal justice system.

Deputy Peter Kelly: Mr. Noel Keegan, rest in peace. I would like to say a few words on the tragic death of Mr. Noel Keegan, which occurred almost a year ago. The dreadful circumstances surrounding his death have been well documented in the press and what happened on last New Year’s Eve was a dreadful tragedy and has robbed a wife and family of a loving husband and father. I went to see Marie, Noel’s widow, last New Year’s Day to pay my respects and hear what happened. I was appalled and very saddened when I learned of the details surrounding his death. I knew Noel, a retired member of the Army, for many years. He was an honest, decent and hard-working man, and the Keegan family is highly respected in Longford. Noel’s primary interest and motivation in life was looking after his family, and they, with his wife, were his life. Our sympathy goes to Noel’s wife Marie, his mother, Kathleen, his children, Lisa, Nicola, John, Claire and Sinéad, grandchildren, Cameron and Ben, his brothers and sisters, John, Séamus, Catherine and Bernie, his aunt, Nell, and all his relatives and friends. His death has left these people bereft and the last year has been hellish for them. Noel’s death should never have happened and the fact that it was avoidable is what it makes it very hard to accept. What happened to Noel was an outrage. Following Noel’s death, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, Deputy Dermot Ahern, commissioned a report into how this could have happened. The findings of the report by Judge Michael Reilly speaks for itself, and we must ensure this never happens again. No other loving and peaceful family should have to endure anything similar. Today is not a day for recrimi- nations but for apologies. Noel Keegan, his wife Marie and their children have been let down significantly by the system and the events of last New Year’s Eve were a tragedy. I extend a sincere apology to the Keegan family for their loss.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I wish to share time with Deputy James Bannon.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is appropriate that we discuss the tragic events which occurred on 31 December last year, when Mr. Noel Keegan lost his life, and the report that has been produced by Judge Reilly. I want to start by expressing the condolences of the Fine Gael Party 795 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] to Marie Keegan and her family on the very tragic loss they suffered. This is a loss that should never have occurred and the assault which led to Noel Keegan’s death should never have happened. The tragedy is that the person who perpetrated that assault, Mr. Martin McDonagh, who has been convicted of the offence, should have been in Castlerea Prison on the night he was at large and this appalling event took place. It is right that the Minister has expressed sympathy and condolences to the Keegan family and that he has stated that they should never have been put in the position that they were put in. I do think, however, that the Minister needs to do more than that. This was a catastrophic failure of State agencies right across the board, State agencies for which the Government and Minister are responsible and accountable. The Minister, as opposed to simply giving his own personal condolences, should make an apology to the family on behalf of the State. It is the State’s failure that resulted in the death of Noel Keegan. The Minister did not go that far in his statement to the House and I ask him to explain why he did not do so. When he is responding, I ask him to give an unequivocal apology on behalf of the State for its failings, which resulted in the death of Noel Keegan. I also ask the Minister to address an issue he has failed to deal with so far. We know the Keegan family is seeking compensation arising out of the circumstances relating to Noel’s death. I am sure they would be the first to say that no amount of money will adequately compensate them but in so far as they have a claim they can properly bring, they should not be put through, in my view, the additional stress that results from having to take court proceedings against the State. Will arrangements be put in place to ensure that agreed compensation will be paid to the Keegan family arising from this appalling tragedy that should never have occurred? I want to say something about the report that is before the House and what the Minister has to say about it. I want to start in that context by praising Judge Michael Reilly, who, in a very short period of time, comprehensively addressed the background circumstances which led to Noel Keegan’s death and made a broad series of recommendations. It is important to put on the record of the House the opening paragraph in the introduction to his report. It states: “This report identifies a litany of flawed systems, outmoded work practices and the failure of organs of the ‘justice family’ to communicate with each other which combined with lapses of judgment, misjudgements and inattention to detail ended in tragic consequences, namely, the death of Mr. Noel Keegan.” The second paragraph of his report makes reference to a lack of oversight by superiors and to public servants not adhering to the highest standards. This report is a damning indictment of the failures within our justice service. The report details a catalogue of failures. A court imposed a sentence on Mr. McDonagh which was never communicated to the Prison Service by the courts system. There was a failure by the Garda Síochána to communicate this to the Prison Service. The Prison Service released Mr. McDon- agh by way of temporary release having had a meeting on the issue in respect to a previous sentence he was to serve of two years, blissfully unaware there was another sentence yet of four years to be served. Conditions were imposed on his temporary release that were not adequately put down in writing and which were not communicated to the probation service, so when he failed to comply with those conditions, no one knew and no action was taken. On 4 December 2009, Mr. McDonagh was supposed to return to Castlerea Prison as part of the condition of his temporary release, but he failed to turn up. It took until 14 December for any action to be taken by the prison and then instead of communicating with the local gardaí in Longford, it communicated with Garda headquarters, which failed to adequately and rapidly 796 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements communicate with local gardaí. On 27 December 2009, just four days before Noel Keegan’s death, McDonagh was arrested for a public order offence before being released by gardaí, who apparently did not know he was in violation of conditions of his temporary release, or that he had another sentence of four years to serve. He was returned to appear at a District Court on 1 January but the day before he did so, this fateful and tragic event occurred. In the context of the justice system, the Courts Service, probation service, the Prison Service and the Garda Síochána failed. If a Minister for Justice and Law Reform has a function of any nature, it is to ensure, at the very minimum, that justice services properly co-ordinate and communicate with each other so that tragedies of this nature do not occur. There were four separate opportunities during this series of events — from 28 April 2009, when McDonagh was sentenced to four years of imprisonment in a Tullamore court, to the death of Noel Keegan in December — for the justice services to get it right and for this man to be either retained in prison or returned to prison. On four occasions there was a total failure. I welcome the report of Judge Reilly and his recommendations that protocols be put in place. I welcome the fact that we know by way of implementation of this report on 23 September 2010 that the protocols were published. However, why did it take the tragic death of Noel Keegan for action to be taken by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to ensure that within the justice system such protocols existed, such disasters could not occur and to ensure that the right hand knew what the left hand was doing? It is a damning indictment of a catastrophic failure, one which we like to describe as “systemic” because it sounds as if no one is responsible. There is responsibility and accountability in this case and it rests on the shoulders of the Minister. We used, and saw, the same terminology in the reports published on child abuse, which referred to “system failure” and did not hold anyone accountable or responsible. There is a responsibility and I want the Minister to address the reason such protocols were not in place before 23 September 2010. I ask him to inform the House whether such protocols are being fully operated to ensure another similar tragedy does not occur and the extent to which those involved in the justice system — the Courts Service and Garda — have been trained in these protocols or have had them brought to their attention. What efforts have been made to ensure the content of these protocols is truly known? Judge Reilly also addressed another issue, namely, the need for new computer programmes to be introduced to ensure there is direct communication, using the most modern technology, about events within the justice system, as between the different justice agencies. While the implementation report indicates this is an issue being examined and progressed, it does not refer to a timeline. What is the timeline for implementing this recommendation? What assurance can the Minister give the House that there are not currently individuals on temporary release who are violating their conditions of release and may perpetrate a similar crime, one that could result in the loss of life or serious injury? The report Judge Reilly produced features an important sentence on page 29. He states: “I can only conclude that the apprehension of persons unlawfully at large is not given the priority it merits at senior management level”. This means that the apprehension of people unlawfully at large, that is, individuals who should be in prison, is not given the priority it deserves by the Minister. We know of 518 prisoners who have absconded and should be returned to jail. Despite having failed to comply with their release provisions, it seem not much is being done about them. I ask the Minister to explain how, in the context of the existence of the new protocols, 518 people are violating the conditions of temporary release? At least 50 of these individuals have been convicted of attempted murder, making threats to murder or assault and 31 have been convicted of weapons and explosives offences. They should be returned to prison. 797 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

I am not sanguine in the belief that the action that has been taken to date provides adequate protection to the community. I do not want another death to occur such as occurred in the circumstances we are discussing. I want the Minister to be unequivocal in apologising to the Keegan family on behalf of the State and to address the issue of the compensation to which the family are entitled. This issue should be dealt with in a considered and humane manner, without the necessity of court proceedings.

Deputy James Bannon: My constituency of Longford-Westmeath is mourning the senseless loss of a man who was not only a family man, neighbour and friend but was also a someone whose record in the Defence Forces made his family justifiably proud. It is shocking that such a man should have died, not on military service but in what one would expect to be the peace and safety of his town. His family are not mourning a recent loss but one that tragically occurred during the festive season one year ago. A year may have passed but the pain is ongoing. That the family of Noel Keegan are facing their first Christmas without him, is extremely sad and heartbreaking for them and County Longford. The knowledge that if it were not for a breakdown in the criminal justice system, Noel would be with them today is doubly distressing. The buck stops with the Minister for Justice and Law Reform and he must acknowledge this today, however belatedly. I knew Noel Keegan well. He was a devoted family man and his loss has shattered the lives of his wife Marie, his five children, Lisa, Nicola, John, Clare and Sinead, his mother, Kathleen, his brother, many other family members and the local community. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to them. They are at the heart of their community which shares their pain. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the Minister and his Government. Actions speak louder than words and it is time the Minister offered Marie Keegan and her family sincere apologies for the loss of Noel. In explaining to the Dáil and Noel Keegan’s family the reason the criminal justice system, for which he is responsible, was so lax as to result in a communications breakdown that played a major role in the death of Noel Keegan, the Minister must also offer sincere apologies to the family on behalf of the State. While no words can ease the pain they are suffering, such an apology is the least the family deserve. The Minister should explain the reason the Department for which he has ultimate responsibility did not have in place communication protocols for the various services prior to September this year. He must give the House a definitive date for the roll-out of the integrated and upgraded computer programmes recommended by Judge Reilly. The Keegan family have suffered a heartbreaking and senseless bereavement as a direct consequence of systemic failures by the State and its agencies, which essentially aided and abetted a criminal in carrying out an assault on Noel Keegan that resulted in his death. At the time of the assault, the criminal in question should have been in Castlerea Prison. It is incumbent on the Minister not only to apologise to the Keegan family but also, as Deputy Shatter noted, to assure them that arrangements will be made for the payment to them by the State of the compensation to which they are entitled. This must be done in a manner that avoids Marie and her family having to suffer the further trauma of court proceedings. The family have endured enough. As the victims of a terrible crime, they must be protected from further heartbreak. Judge Reilly concluded in his report that Noel Keegan’s untimely and tragic death partly resulted from “a lack of oversight by superiors” within the various justice services and that “the apprehension of persons unlawfully at large is not given the priority it merits at senior management level”. The price of this lack of care is human suffering. It is for the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to ensure that the apprehension of persons unlawfully at large is 798 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements prioritised to uphold the integrity of our criminal justice system. He should explain the reason he failed to do this. We know an estimated 518 prisoners on temporary release have absconded and should be returned to prison by the Garda. What action is the Minister taking to rectify this matter? Where is the sense that Noel Keegan’s death was not in vain but will bring about essential change? The Minister must inform the Dáil what action, if any, he has taken since the death of Noel Keegan to ensure there is no repetition of this tragedy. He must explain why more than 500 prisoners remain unlawfully at large. It is said that one learns by one’s mistakes. These figures prove that this does not apply to the Minister. The Minister should inform the House of the steps that are being taken to effect the return to prison of prisoners who have absconded to complete the sentences properly imposed by the courts. He must also give an assurance that no prisoner approaching the end of his or her sentence will be granted temporary release in circumstances in which an additional sentence must be served following a conviction for another offence. He must put aside self-justification and apologise for the failures of the system for which he had ultimate control. He must ensure, in prioritising the loss suffered by Marie and her children, that such a tragedy is never visited on another family in the midlands, or anywhere else in the country.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: On my own behalf and that of the Labour Party, I join colleagues in the House to express sympathy to Marie Keegan and her children and their wider circle of family and friends at the loss of Mr. Noel Keegan in such tragic circumstances last New Year’s Eve. The report by the prisons inspector concerns the most serious failings of our criminal justice system. I join the Keegan family in describing what happened as inexcusable and catastrophic failings and administrative errors on the part of the State. We know that when crimes are committed there must be investigations, arrests, charges and trials. If a conviction follows, there must be a sentence. We can understand errors during investigations and trials and we have procedures of oversight to deal with these. However, we expect the basic administrative paper- work to be done. This case shows that a person arrested and charged with a serious assault, with fatal consequences, was at liberty to commit that crime at a time when he should already have been in prison. He had been already sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment, in respect of a prior and separate conviction. Judge Reilly’s investigation and his report into this affair were completed in just four months. He identified what he described as a litany of flawed systems, outmoded work practices and the failure of organs of the “justice family” to communicate with each other. These failures, combined with lapses of judgment, misjudgments and inattention to detail, ended in the tragic death of Noel Keegan. Judge Reilly reported that because of systemic failures in systems and a lack of oversight by superiors public servants did not adhere to the highest standards. He expressed his hope that the report will be used to address such failures, provide appropriate oversight and act as a warning to public servants at all grades that they must be careful and scrupulous when attending to their public duties in order that the general public can have complete confidence in the system. In regard to Martin McDonagh, there were two prior convictions and two major failures. First, a warrant for Martin McDonagh was not issued by the Circuit Court office in Longford between 1 May 2009 and 5 January 2010, more than eight months later. His sentence should have commenced on 1 May 2009 but the combination of this failure by Longford Circuit Court office to issue the warrant and the absence of appropriate checks and balances meant that Martin McDonagh did not begin to serve a sentence imposed on 28 April 2009 until 5 January 799 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] this year. Mr Noel Keegan was walking from his home with his wife, to meet friends for a drink on New Year’s Eve, when he was attacked by Martin McDonagh and later died. The second failure relates to an earlier sentence imposed on Martin McDonagh on 22 April 2009 and is perhaps the more serious because it involves more personnel and more agencies. Martin McDonagh had been granted temporary release in November 2009, subject to conditions, as he was nearing the end of such sentence. If proper procedures had been in place and adhered to, Martin McDonagh would have been deemed “unlawfully at large” since 28 November 2009. As Judge Reilly pointed out, procedures could then have been put in place to effect his apprehension subsequent to 28 November 2009. That this did not happen is as a result, according to the judge, of “many failures across three agencies, namely, the Irish Prison Service, An Garda Síochána and the Probation Service”. Of these he stated: “These failures cannot be explained away by reference to inattention to detail by junior members of these services, rather, management should have been aware of the deficiencies in such systems.” Not alone was relevant information not shared between these agencies but, according to Judge Reilly, it is also clear that certain information was not shared within agencies. He concluded that this lack of sharing of information contributed to Martin McDonagh being unlawfully at large and to the fact that he did not commence his second sentence for eight months after it had been imposed. The startling aspect of this case is that so many failures combined together. However, this does not provide reassurance that it was an isolated, once-off, incident, rather it does the opposite because any one of these errors could have led to the same result. We have tried repeatedly through the parliamentary process to get details about the number of unexecuted warrants, the number of prisoners unlawfully at large and the operation of the temporary release system. We have tried to get some picture of how the system works in practice. However, we are none the wiser. As Judge Reilly put it: “During the course of my investigation surrounding the release of Martin McDonagh on the 27th November 2009 I dis- covered many inadequacies in the temporary release procedure which, while applicable in this investigation, are inadequacies generally within the criminal justice system”. At one level, one can blame IT systems and the fact that they are not integrated — the Garda’s PULSE system does not liaise with the Prison Service’s electronic records system. There also seems to be a reluctance to share information that may be inaccurate or out of date, for fear of litigation. However, even allowing for these points, the Judge Reilly found that in excess of 25 members of varying ranks of the station party in Longford Garda station knew, or should have known if they were reading their bulletins, that Martin McDonagh was unlawfully at large. He stated he can only conclude that the apprehension of persons unlawfully at large is not given the priority it merits at senior management level. Judge Reilly’s recommendations came under two headings, namely, those that required immediate implementation, and those that should be worked on in the longer term. The immediate recommendations concern tighter control on how warrants are executed, on temporary release conditions and on maintaining a register of released prisoners. Longer-term recommendations include measures to enhance communication between agencies. We are told that all of the judge’s recommendations identified for immediate action have now been fully implemented. I hope that statement is accurate. We are also told there is a strategy to implement the medium-term recommendations within a three year timeframe. I am not sure why the Minister believes we need a three year timeframe to implement all of these medium term recommendations. They are few in number and pretty basic. For the record, I will list them. 800 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

First, when a criminal case is adjourned in the Circuit Criminal Court it should be made clear by the court as to whether an accused is remanded in custody, remanded on bail or that his or her case is simply adjourned. This order should be noted and if appropriate should form part of the transcript. Second, information relating to important directives to all members of the Garda Síochána, which currently appears on the portal of the Garda website, should be incorporated into a specific section of the PULSE system. Third, there should be an interface between the Irish Prison Service computer system, particularly the prisoner log, and the PULSE system operated by then Garda Síochána. Appropriate protocols should be introduced. Fourth, relevant information should be shared between appropriate sections of all State agencies. Fifth, the personal details screen’ on the PULSE system should be extended to indicate whether a suspect is in custody, unlawfully at large, on day release, attending court while in prison custody, in hospital while in prison custody’, or on temporary release. Sixth, the criminal case tracking system that operates in the District Court should be rolled out in the Circuit Criminal Court. The Minister, Deputy Ahern, and I can both remember the childish and vindictive way in which his party, when in Opposition, reacted to an equally significant administrative error in the Department of Justice and Law Reform, when a judge who had been delisted from mem- bership of the Special Criminal Court was not told of that fact and was permitted 2o’clock to continue to sit without authority. As a result 16 high security prisoners remanded in custody had to be released, although they were immediately re- arrested and detained. The Minister’s party sought to take party political advantage and to heap personal blame on the then Minister, Nora Owen. It demanded her resignation. The Minister, then Deputy Dermot Ahern, accused Nora Owen of “flying blind” in office and of “passing the buck”. He accused the Government of trying to “blame the civil servants”.In particular, I found a passage in the speech of the future Minister on 13 November 1996 interesting. Due to a letter not being posted in the Department of Justice, Deputy Dermot Ahern stated:

The Government is a sham and has forfeited any right it had to govern. It is time its members did the honourable thing and accepted that the security system, its first and fore- most duty, is an absolute shambles. Deputy Owen has yet again surpassed herself as a hapless and hopeless Minister... Fianna Fáil has a good history in the Department of Justice and there can be no learning curve when one is dealing with the security of the State. There is no place in the Department of Justice for inexperienced people... Ministers must be com- petent and capable of handling their briefs. They must lead, take responsibility for their decisions and abide by the law of the land as set out in the Ministers and Secretaries Act 1924. As regards the Taoiseach and the Minister for Justice, the least we can expect is that the Government will not damage public confidence in the ability of the judicial system to deal with people accused of heinous crimes... The failure of the Minister for Justice and others to resign in these serious circumstances has set a precedent which makes a sham of the doctrine of collective and ministerial responsibility. Accountability in the political lexicon will have to be replaced by the doctrine of political survival, whatever the cost to the public.

Although the parallels are clear, I do not wish to use this opportunity to retaliate in kind. The handling of warrants in Circuit Court offices is not the Minister’s personal responsibility, but this is yet another monumental administrative cock-up within the most secretive and hide- bound Department of State and with the most serious consequences. Ministerial accountability means not just taking responsibility for matters that are under one’s control. It means taking control of matters that are one’s responsibility. The Minister has not exerted any influence, let 801 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

[Deputy Pat Rabbitte.] alone control, over the agencies the deficiencies of which are so starkly highlighted in Judge Reilly’s report. Judge Reilly has conducted this investigation with his customary thoroughness. Since his appointment, he has shown a commitment to his mandate and an independence of mind that is immensely refreshing and also unusual within what is referred to here as the justice “family”. We can only hope, but not expect, that the other reports published by Judge Reilly in his capacity as Inspector of Prisons and Places of Detention will receive the same necessary immediate attention as this one. Since his appointment, he has detailed in annual and special reports his concerns regarding overcrowding, the health of prisoners, the use of “special” cells, the procedure for dealing with prisoner complaints, the procedure for dealing with the disciplin- ing of prisoners, the prevalence of drugs and the investigations of and reporting on deaths in custody. He has published standards for the inspection of prisons and reports on the duties and obligations owed to prisoners, specifically dealing with overcrowding of prisons and the use of “special” cells. He has given guidance on best practice relating to prisoners’ complaints and prison discipline. His report in August 2009 dealt with the history and design capacity of Mountjoy Prison and its programmes, facilities and deficiencies. It seems clear that, with so many systemic and chronic issues on its plate, the Prison Service is operating on a dysfunctional basis. This report highlights that basic standards of communication of information vital to its functioning are not met by the Prison Service, the probation service, the Courts Service and the Garda Síochána. The fear must be that basic errors with the most serious consequences, such as the one highlighted in this report, will only be repeated.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Mar aon le Teachtaí eile, ba mhaith liom comhbhrón ó chroí a leathadh le Marie Keegan, a clann ar fad, a cáirde, a comharsana agus dóibh siúd uilig a raibh aithne acu ar Noel Keegan, fear céile, mac, athair agus cara nárcóir a bheith marbh. Fuair sé bás de thairbhe ionsaí marfach a rinne Martin McDonagh air, oíche an 31 Nollaig, am a bhíonn daoine ag ceiliúradh agus am a ba chóir go mbeadh áthas ar chuile duine. Sa chás seo áfach, ní mar sin a bhí sé. Ceann de na fáthanna go bhfuil muid ag déileáil le seo ná go bhfuair Noel bás de thairbhe teip iomlánanchórais dlí agus cirt, teip a d’fhág Martin McDonagh saor in ainneoin gur cóir dó a bheith i bpriosún. Tá sé ceart go bhfuil muid anseo inniu ag gabháil comhbhróin. Chomh maith le sin, tá sé ceart go bhfuil muid anseo ag déanamh cinnte de, más féidir sin a dhéanamh in aon chor, nach dtarlóidh a leithéid de rud riamh arís. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform has expressed his sympathy with the Keegan family over the shocking failure that led to Martin McDonagh’s perpetration of an assault on Noel Keegan on New Year’s Eve in 2009. It was a time when McDonagh should have been behind bars in Castlerea Prison on foot of a four-year sentence for stabbing a man in the leg with a pitchfork. I thank the Minister for the briefing he provided on this case early this year. I also thank Judge Reilly, who put this report together rapidly compared to other reports. He has done a tremendous job in isolating the changes and faults that need to be addressed in the shortest possible time. I recognise that some changes have already been completed and urge that the other recommendations contained in the report be addressed as quickly as humanly possible to ensure there is no repeat of such an incident. The report published this week is a damning indictment of the communication systems between the Courts Service, the Prison Service, the probation service and An Garda Síochána. The report also found failures in the process and procedures in the issuing of warrants, as well as failures in the process and procedures in the notification of the temporary release of prisoners. I understand the Keegan family plans to sue the State. Clearly, the family has suffered greatly at the State’s hands. More than a full apology from the Minister on behalf of the State, 802 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements what is required is that the family of Noel Keegan should not need to go through the further trauma of court proceedings. The Minister should ensure that arrangements are made to compensate the family adequately without its members needing to bring the State before the courts. Such action should be done forthwith. From reading the report of the implementation group, I understand that many of the recommendations have already been implemented. However, many of them were basic common sense, for example, the need for communication protocols applying to the various agencies in the justice area. Why did it take this appalling tragedy to achieve progress on these recommendations? Other recommendations have not yet been completed, for example, the enhancements required to achieve better linkages between the relevant agencies’ ICT platforms. These linkages were commonsensical and have been flagged. It is imperative that, as we approach the anniversary of the death of Mr. Keegan, we ensure progress is made. One recommendation was on the need for an interface between the Prison Service computer system, including the prisoner log, and the PULSE system operated by the Garda. This is a vital development if we are to avoid a recurrence of such an incident. Much is wrong with the PULSE system. It is in need of an upgrade and this is recognised by the Minister and in the report. Work is ongoing on the system. Although the system was lauded when introduced, it had many glitches and blind spots from the start. It had a very problematic first few years and it was difficult to adapt it to the requirements of a modern-day justice system, particularly a police service. I hope the enhancements made to the system make it more user-friendly for members of an Garda Síochána and that it is adapted to take cognisance of the new TETRA system. One of the key concerns over this tragedy is that Mr. McDonagh was unlawfully at large. With regard to the system of temporary release, it seems the PULSE system did not have a mechanism to indicate whether a particular individual was unlawfully at large. This seems to be a very basic requirement of any such system. The failure may partly account for the fact that in excess of 500 people have absconded while on temporary release. It seems to be an incredible systems failure. Judge Michael Reilly refers in his report to a litany of failed or flawed systems, outmoded work practices and the failure of organs of the justice family to communicate with each other, all leading to the tragic death of Mr. Keegan. The report clearly outlines that, on 22 April 2009, Mr. Martin McDonagh was sentenced to two years in prison for striking a man with a bottle. Just under a week later, he was sentenced to four years for a separate offence. He was not in court to receive the second sentence due to his serving the first sentence, although he could have been. The additional sentence was not recorded properly by the Irish Prison Service. Had the prison authorities been aware of it, Mr. McDonagh would not have been granted temporary release on 27 November. Certain conditions were attached to his temporary release but they were not communicated to the local gardaí in Longford. One of the conditions of Mr. McDon- agh’s release was that he was to sign on daily at Longford Garda station but it was not for another two weeks, or more, that Garda headquarters were informed Mr. McDonagh was unlawfully at large. It was another three days before the gardaí in Longford were informed of this. So much for e-mails, faxes, telephone calls and the PULSE system. We are present to encourage the Minister to ensure that the passage of information between various levels of An Garda and areas of the justice system can be achieved as quickly and accurately as possible. With the advent of telecommunications, this should be a lot easier than it used to be. In the case in question, this was not evident. That is why changes made to the PULSE system should 803 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

[Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh.] be made known to the Irish Prison Service and Courts Service of Ireland to ensure all the data required are made accessible as quickly as possible to those who should have access to them. Citizens need to feel safe and it is incumbent on the justice system to uphold the right of citizens to feel safe. They have a right to feel confident about the justice system and to know it will work efficiently and effectively. This has not been the case in the circumstances in question. While Sinn Féin has argued prison is not the solution for the problem of crime in many cases, especially given that more than eight out of ten prisoners are incarcerated for non-violent minor offences, violent offenders should serve their sentence in prison if the court deems they should be in prison. Temporary release can be a positive means of reintegrating prisoners into society but if a prisoner flagrantly disregards the conditions of his release he should be rear- rested immediately. In the Longford case, it was totally unjustifiable for the conditions of release not to be notified to the gardaí. I presume this is also the case in respect of other incidents. If it were not, so many people would not have absconded while on temporary release. An Garda needs to ensure higher priority is attached to ensuring those who are unlawfully at large or who absconded on temporary release are returned to serve the remainder of their sentences. In the case in question, all the different sentences were not taken into account. The litany of errors was extremely worrying. I welcome the report of the Inspector of Prisons. It indicates progress has been made but it is a pity it took the appalling death of Mr. Noel Keegan for changes to be made. Gabhaim comhbhrón le clann Noel Keegan. Tá súil agam nach mbeimid ar ais anseo ag déileáil le tuarisc mar seo arís agus go mbeidh na moltaí go léir atá sa tuairisc seo curtha i grích chomh tapaidh agus is féidir agus go mbeidh siad ar fáil in aon tuairisc a thiocfaidh ón Aire as seo amach.

Minister for Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Dermot Ahern): I thank the Deputies for their expressions of sympathy in regard to this appalling event. When I first became aware of it, I was appalled at the way in which the system failed the Keegan family. I thank the Deputies, particularly Deputy Ó Snodaigh, who acknowledged publicly and privately the way in which this was dealt with by me once I became aware of the facts at the time in question. I thank the Opposition spokespersons for their understanding of our effort to find out what went wrong and how to cure it. I thank Judge Michael Reilly for his report. I agree with Deputy Rabbitte that he has always produced very clear and concise reports in a very speedy fashion. I could not publish the report when I received it. My advice from the Attorney General was that there was a subsisting criminal investigation and since Mr. McDonagh was not tried at the time for the assault on Mr. Keegan, it would have endangered the proceedings to put the facts into the public domain. If Mr. McDonagh’s prior record had become known or it was publicly implied that he was responsible for the assault on Mr. Keegan, it would have jeopardised the case. It was vital that we did nothing to inhibit the trial. However, I did ask a former director general of the Department, Mr. Pat Folan, to produce an implementation report while the case was proceeding, but before we published the judge’s report. I thank Mr. Folan for the work he did with the senior officials in the various agencies to ensure procedures and protocols were put in place, or enhanced, as quickly as possible to ensure such an event would not recur in so far as that was possible. In January, I arranged immediately to inform the Keegan family of the suspected failures. I endeavoured to explain why it was not possible to put the facts of the case into the public domain until the trial was completed. I thank the Keegan family for the very understanding way in which it has dealt with this issue. I want to thank also the local gardaí who liaised on our behalf with the Keegan family in that respect. 804 Handling of Criminal Matter 10 December 2010. in Longford: Statements

Copies of both Judge Reilly’s report and Mr. Folan’s report were given to the family and their legal representatives in advance of publication. The chief executive officer of the Courts Service attended in Longford on Tuesday last and apologised personally to Mrs. Keegan for what happened. The gardaí have also apologised for the failures which took place. I have already apologised on behalf of the State to the family regarding the failures of the State agencies and I do so again today. The fact that I did has already been acknowledged by the solicitor for the family. On the issue of compensation which has been raised, it has been reported to me that a civil action may be taken by the Keegan family. I am not aware of what that claim is but obviously it is a matter for dialogue between the Keegan family’s representatives and the State’s legal representatives, and it is not appropriate that we should negotiate that matter via comments here in the Chamber. The inspector’s report highlights areas in which systems can be improved, especially in terms of communication between the Irish Prison Service and the Garda Síochána and to that end, both parties have agreed a protocol which I have already outlined to the House. This protocol will specifically incorporate the following: notification of prisoners’ temporary release terms and conditions to the Garda Síochána; notification of a breach of prisoners’ temporary release condition, in particular the requirement to sign on at the nominated Garda station, to the Irish Prison Service by the gardaí; the procedure to be followed in order for a prisoner who has allegedly breached his or her temporary release conditions to be deemed unlawfully at large; and notification and review of all prisoners deemed to be unlawfully at large by the Irish Prison Service to the Garda Síochána. Reference has been made here somewhat disparagingly to the issue of temporary release. Temporary release is a method whereby prisoners can be reintegrated with society in a monitored way rather than throwing them out onto the street when they finish their sentence without any effort to reintegrate. In fairness, temporary release has been used over the decades, and I see it on a daily basis, to ensure that prisoners who have been incarcerated for long periods are given temporary release. In some instances they are monitored and in other instances, depending on the circumstances and depending on how they behaved when they were on monitored release, they would give longer terms of temporary release to allow them properly reintegrate with society, and to monitor those people during that time. I do not accept that there is no monitoring of people on temporary release or that individuals who should remain in prison are being inappropriately released. It must be said that the prisons are in a very difficult position. I have brought forward legislative measures to try to alleviate that, particularly in respect of fines and civil debt. It must be remembered that temporary release systems are an important vehicle for reintegrating an offender into the community in a planned way. The generally accepted view is that the risk to the community is reduced by planned reintegration of offenders compared with the return to the community literally on the completion of their full sentence. Each candidate for temporary release is examined on their own merits and obviously the safety of the public is paramount when any decision is made in that respect. When prisoners are granted temporary release it is for a set and determinate period. In most cases this would be for a maximum of two weeks. A fresh decision to grant temporary release is required every time a person returns to prison. In cases where there are serious concerns relating to the prisoner’s behaviour the decision is then made not to grant a further period of temporary release. 805 The 10 December 2010. Adjournment

[Deputy Dermot Ahern.]

Some Members have raised the issue of the ICT system. I accept it is necessary to put that interoperable ICT system among the various agencies. That will take time. That system is being developed. I would like to think it will occur sooner rather than later but when the scoping out exercise in regard to that being carried out among the agencies is completed, we will have a better view on the time but these systems cannot be produced overnight. Judge Reilly makes it clear in his report that the failures occurred because there were insufficient checks and oversight arrangements in the existing system. It is important to recognise, therefore, that much of the action Judge Reilly recommended is happening already but that the processes and procedures were not formalised in detailed agreements and protocols between the relevant agencies. Those will now be implemented in that respect. Thousands of people throughout the courts are dealt with every year, somewhere in the region of 400,000 to 500,000 cases in the District Court alone. These procedures work in the vast majority of cases but as I said earlier, no Minister can stand up in the House and say that errors will not occur in the future. What is essential is that we learn from the mistakes that took place in this particular instance and to ensure that everyone is clear about their role and that they can be accountable for what is done and not done. I know it is of little consolation to the Keegan family but thankfully the failures that occurred in this case will make the officials and people involved in the system learn from the mistakes that were made to ensure that something like this does not happen again. What I can say is that we can ensure there will be accountability in the future, and that what is achieved by the implementation of these recommendations will ensure that this type of incident does not happen again.

The Dáil adjourned at 2.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 December 2010.

806