Seanad Éireann

Vol. 216 Wednesday, No. 2 20 June 2012

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Dé Céadaoin, 20 Meitheamh 2012.

Business of Seanad ………………………………29 Order of Business …………………………………29 Business of Seanad ………………………………46 Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion …………………50 Business of Seanad ………………………………57 Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motion ……………………58 Business of Seanad ………………………………65 Seanad Reform: Motion ………………………………66 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage (resumed)………………94 Adjournment Matters Fisheries Protection ………………………………114 School Patronage ………………………………118 Road Signage …………………………………120 Garda Stations ………………………………122 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé Céadaoin, 20 Meitheamh 2012. Wednesday, 20 June 2012.

————

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10.30 a.m.

————

Machnamh agus Paidir.

Reflection and Prayer.

————

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

The need for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to review the ban on drift net fishing for wild Atlantic salmon and if he will consider providing a limited licensing regiment for island and coastal communities in view of the recovery of the wild salmon stocks.

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

The need for the Minister for Education and Skills to provide an update on the provision of additional multidenominational school places in the Portobello area on the basis of recommendation A4 of the report of the advisory group to the national forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary sector; and if any progress has been made on the delivery of a new multidenominational school in the Portobello area for September 2013, either through the transformation of patronage or divestment model, or through recognition of the Portobello group as a new multidenominational school.

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

The need for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, as a matter of policy, to direct a one-off national audit as well as a detailed proofing mechanism to be carried out to ensure in future that no incorrectly spelt bilingual road signs are erected by road authorities.

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

The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to ensure the retention of the district headquarter status of Glenties Garda station, County Donegal, and if he will give an assurance that there will be no further station closures in the county.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment and they will be taken at the conclusion of business.

Order of Business Senator Maurice Cummins: It is proposed to take No. 1, motion re the renewal of certain provisions of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act to be taken on the conclusion 29 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Maurice Cummins.] of the Order of Business and to conclude within 45 minutes, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed five minutes each and the Minister to be given five minutes to reply; No. 2, motion re the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 1 and to conclude within 45 minutes, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed five minutes each and the Minister to be given five minutes to reply; No. 3, Criminal Justice (Withholding of Information on Offences Against Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012 — Report and Final Stages, to be taken at 1.15 p.m and to conclude not later than 2 p.m.; and No. 4, Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012 — Committee Stage (Resumed), to be taken at 3.15 p.m. and to conclude not later than 6 p.m. For the information of the House, tomorrow afternoon I propose to schedule the Committee and Remaining Stages of the Criminal Justice (Search Warrants) Bill 2012 as there will be no Government amendments and I understand from the Bills Office that we have not received any Opposition amendments. That is the reason I intend taking the Remaining Stages tomorrow.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I ask the Government to confirm its position with regard to the proposed takeover of Aer Lingus. I record that for the past number of years my party has been opposed to the sale to Ryanair of the remaining stakeholding in Aer Lingus on the grounds that it would not be good for the consumer, and it is certainly not good for competition. We believe the stake the Government holds is a strategic stake held on behalf of the people. I would like to know when the Government will make a statement on its position. I ask that we arrange for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Govern- ment, Deputy Phil Hogan, to come to the House before the summer recess to discuss a number of issues on the environment side, not just the household charge and how the Government intends to proceed with the collection of non-payments. I understand the report on the Govern- ment proposals on the new property tax will be published next week. Those must be teased out here in great detail with the understanding that the vast majority of people cannot afford a property tax that would run to thousands of euro per annum, but it would be useful to have that debate. The debate should be broad ranging because I want to ask the Minister about his plans in the next two years for water and environmental infrastructure. This year, the Depart- ment has set aside €386 million towards the provision of additional wastewater treatment. I have been trying to tie the Minister down with regard to why we have wasted €17 million so far on consultants’ fees for the imposition of a monster wastewater treatment plant in north County Dublin to service the greater Dublin area and why a strategic environmental assessment, SEA, was not part of the consultation process. It would be useful to have the Minister, Deputy Hogan, come to the House for a broad-ranging debate on these issues. I believe the report of the Constituency Commission will be available tomorrow, so that debate would also provide an opportunity. We gave a guarded welcome to the announcement the week before last that the Government intends to proceed with the constitutional convention. However, the convention will only deal with two issues, first, the proposed reduction in the term of the President from seven to five years, which I do not view as major political reform, and, second, an assessment of whether the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 17. All of us would agree that is not a heavy load of work for the convention. The most significant political reform the Government has proposed is the abolition of the Seanad. Any right-minded person in or outside this House believes this issue must be teased out in greater detail. With that in mind, I propose an amendment to the Order of Business today that motion No. 9, which was tabled by me and signed by the leaders of all groups, apart from the Labour Party and Fine Gael, be taken first. This motion calls for Seanad Éireann to call on the Government to include Seanad reform in the constitutional 30 Order of 20 June 2012. Business convention. We have discussed this issue at length as colleagues across the House. I am not making a political point on this, but the Seanad should stand up and insist that a major reform such as the proposal to abolish the second House of the Oireachtas should, at least, be discussed in the constitutional convention.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Stakeholders from political parties and the general public will be there. This House has shown in this term the changes that can be made to the Seanad under existing Standing Orders and has demonstrated the relevant role the Seanad has in the legislative process. It is timely to have this debate now before the constitutional convention starts. If the convention starts without Seanad reform included as part of it, Seanad reform will not happen and we will move towards a referendum next year which will simply require a “Yes” or “No” response on the question of the abolition of the House. I ask colleagues from across the House to show confidence and support the Seanad standing up for itself and to call on the Government to include Seanad reform in the constitutional convention. I propose that motion No. 9 be taken before the first business today.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It is not the case that the constitutional convention will only deal with two issues. Those two issues are to be covered in the first phase of the convention, but a range of other issues is due to be discussed under the auspices of the constitutional convention in the programme for Government and those issues will be considered. Many of us will press hard for the convention to be effective and not limited to the two, relatively uncontroversial, matters that, as Senator O’Brien said, will be dealt with first. I hope to see a strengthened and effective convention in place. With regard to Seanad reform, I am on record as saying I would favour reform over abolition and I have no issue about that. I hope we will have an opportunity to debate that in the House. I also hope we can debate the constitutional convention here. That should be a two way process. I welcome the fact that this morning the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, will set out his response to the report of the advisory group on the national forum on patronage and pluralism in the primary school sector. The advisory group report, issued a couple of months ago, makes some important recommendations with regard to ensuring greater recognition of diversity in our primary school system. I hope the Minister will grasp the nettle on this and that he will take up the recommendations set out in the report, which are relatively moder- ate, but which recognise that it is no longer tenable for 90% of our 3,200 national schools to remain under Catholic patronage and that some changes need to be made to ensure greater accommodation of parental choice where parents wish to see children educated in a multidenominational manner. Currently, only 60 out of 3,200 schools are multidenominational. I have a matter on the Adjournment on this issue. I welcome national bike week which is on this week and will include a number of interesting events, including a conference in Trinity College on Friday on growing cycling participation and closing the gender gap. Currently, only approximately 25% of cyclists in Dublin are women so we are trying to look at ways to increase the numbers of women cycling. I will participate in that and I also urge colleagues in the Oireachtas to take up the challenge of national bike week and get on their bikes and start cycling. I intend to set up an all-party Oireachtas cycling group to encourage Senators and Deputies to take up cycling.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Cycle in from Malahide. Is the Senator joking?

31 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

Senator Terry Leyden: The sooner Members on that side are all on bikes, the better, as far as we are concerned, so they can bike out of here.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Bacik, without interruption

Senator Ivana Bacik: There has been plenty of political commentary about people getting on their bikes and spokespersons. I would prefer to be referred to as a spokesperson rather than a spokesman. I urge colleagues to take up cycling as it is the best way to get around. Apart from keeping a person fit, cycling is the best and most efficient way of getting around and national bike week is an ideal opportunity to start cycling.

Senator Terry Leyden: It is hard to get from Roscommon to Dublin on a bike.

Senator Ivana Bacik: The Senator could cycle from his Dublin base to here.

Senator Jillian van Turnhout: I support Senator O’Brien’s proposal to deal with motion No. 9 today. It has been widely reported that the report of the independent review group on child deaths will be published later today. I greet this report with profound sadness and with a sense of responsibility and shame I bear as a member of a society that has systemically failed to protect our most vulnerable children. I commend the dedicated work and the sensitivity with which the report’s authors met this agonising task and I sympathise with the family and friends of each of the children and young people documented in the report. Their stories have been told anonymously, but those who love them know who they are. The report examines the death of 196 children and young adults, either in the care of the State or known to the State between the years 2000 and 2010. Some 112 of these died from non-natural causes, ranging from suicide to drug abuse. Each and every one of these was a child The review group was established in 2010 by the former Minister with responsibility for children, Barry Andrews, due to concern about the HSE’s inability to provide accurate figures on the number of deaths of children in State care. The reported findings seem to point to systemic failure within the HSE child protection system and documents many deaths that could and should have been prevented. The majority of children did not receive adequate child protection services. This is a damning report for all of us. We are all part of society and I see it as damning. I have asked on several occasions over recent weeks, but now with urgency, for the Leader to invite the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to the House to discuss this report and to set out her Department’s response. This is not day one of the reform process. This report has been with the Minister for several months. I have questions for the Minister that I hope the Leader will put. Will there be an independent investigation into several high profile deaths of children in the care of the HSE or known to the agency? Will the State put on a statutory basis a provision of care for children when they reach the age of 18? What are the plans for the new, much mooted child and family support agency? What are the plans to strengthen children’s rights in the Constitution? All too often children have been moved to the bottom of the priority list. This report signals the need for a system through which we will act early and decisively to protect children. Every child must and should count. We cannot have different standards for children in care and children in families. I call for the Seanad to take the leading role in part of this reform.

Senator David Norris: I would like to second Senator O’Brien’s suggestion that we take motion No. 9 today. Not including the question of the abolition of the Seanad in the constitutional convention would make the convention an absolute farce. I am a little worried by the way the Seanad is going. Yesterday again, we had no Order of Business and today, again, we 32 Order of 20 June 2012. Business have no Private Members’ business. It is almost as if elements in this House were deliberately winding Seanad Éireann down, but I hope we will all fight against this and that people on the Government side will show their support on this matter. I asked the Leader last week about the communiqué from the deputy Israeli ambassador and ask now whether there is a further update on that. I understand he has just transmitted the material I passed on to him. Perhaps he will add to that material a query as to whether the policy on these actions on the part of certain elements within the Israeli embassy extended also to Irish citizens. If so, that would be a very serious matter. I would like to raise the issue of fishing and I am glad Senator O’Donovan has put down a matter for the Adjournment on this. The recent statistics that have emerged on this are a serious concern. The total catch in Irish waters last year was estimated to be worth €1.18 billion, of which we received about €180 million — in other words, the scraps from the European table. We have the richest fishing grounds in Europe, yet foreign vessels take the majority of the catch. Every year we are handing over €1 billion worth of fish, while our own coastal fishing communities are being deliberately deprived of the opportunity to make use of this resource. They must stand idly by and watch these enormous catches being landed by Spanish and other trawlers. I am relying for this information on an interesting article in the Cork Evening Echo by Tom MacSweeney, who has done such wonderful work on behalf of the fishing community. Finally, I welcome, if that is the appropriate word for such a very sad document, the publication later today of the report on missing children and the HSE and the State’s responsibility in this regard. I and a number of others, over many years, have raised not only this general issue but also specific cases in this House. It is a developing situation and one in which Seanad Éireann has played a significant role. The stories are extremely harrowing. There is a clear problem with regard to the guardianship by the State of these sometimes very troubled young people.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Mullins.

Senator David Norris: I am sorry; there is one other thing I wanted to mention. The constitutional convention should also examine not just the term of the Presidency, but, as every party in this House has said historically, the method of election. We are avoiding the real issues and just dealing with side issues. It is a farce.

An Cathaoirleach: Those are points that can be made during the debate. Before I call Senator Mullins, I remind Senators that the House has decided that only one issue may be raised per Senator, other than party leaders and group leaders.

Senator Michael Mullins: I am sure the Cathaoirleach will not prevent me from supporting Senator van Turnhout’s call for a full debate in the Seanad on the report on children who died while in the care of the State, which is to be published this afternoon. As the Senator rightly said, it is a damning report and an indictment of all of us and of society. A debate is required, and processes need to be established to ensure this never happens again. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Bruton, a few days ago of the establishment of a new website to help businesses cut costs and, hopefully, create jobs. As Senators know, a commitment was given by the Minister some time ago to make a serious attempt to cut red tape and make it easier for businesses to start up and to do their business on an ongoing basis. This new website will cut red tape in a significant way, as information on regulations imposed by more than 30 Government bodies will now be available in one place. It is important that this website be publicised in a meaningful way. The Leader might consider requesting that the Minister ask his officials to demonstrate the website 33 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Michael Mullins.] to us in the AV room in the near future, so that we can all publicise it to our constituents and to businesses throughout the country. A commitment was made that red tape would be reduced by 25% as a matter of urgency, but it is important that all businesses are aware of this new streamlined service, which will make it easier for them to comply with regulations, start up new businesses and maintain existing businesses.

Senator Paschal Mooney: The House regularly and justifiably comments on and compliments members of the diplomatic staff across the world. In the last few weeks, some correspondents in the national media have referred to the retirement of an honorary consul. There are honorary consuls across the world who do an extraordinary job in promoting the interests of Ireland. They are, in a sense, unsung heroes. I ask the Leader to respond to the House acknowledging the recent retirement of the honorary consul in the Channel Islands, Ms Pamela O’Neill. I do not know Ms O’Neill personally but, wearing my other hat as a broadcaster, I am in regular contact with the Irish diaspora and I am perhaps more aware than one would normally be of the outstanding work that honorary consuls carry out, mostly in unpaid positions, in promoting the interests of Ireland abroad across a wide range of social and economic activities and particularly in the tourism area. Perhaps the House will join with me in wishing Ms O’Neill well in her retirement and thanking her officially for the outstanding contribution she has made to promoting the interests of Ireland in the Channel Islands.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Aideen Hayden: I support Senator van Turnhout in her call for the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, to come to the House as a matter of urgency to discuss the report of the independent review group that was set up to investigate the deaths of almost 200 children in State care. This report is evidence that we do not treat all of the children in this country equally. However, I do not think it tells the whole story. Harrowing and all as these stories are, any study of the deaths of people who had accessed homeless services or drug abuse services or been in the prison system would show that there has been a far greater number of deaths among those who have experienced State care. We know, for example, that two thirds of all children who leave State care end up homeless. We know the connection between homelessness and prison, drug abuse and early death. I call on the Minister to go further than simply examining the deaths of those children who are clearly part of the system and to engage in a longitudinal study investigating those children who have been in care and who end up homeless, involved in drug abuse or with the prison system.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Aideen Hayden: In this way we can obtain a true and accurate reflection of the way in which we are not caring for the children in this society.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: I call on the Leader to lobby the Minister of State at the Depart- ment of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, to publish the Laurence Crowley value for money report and policy review of the HSE’s disability services as a matter of urgency. If we cast our minds back to last January, when I introduced a Private Members’ motion in the House that highlighted the glaring flaws in disability spending, we will recall that the debate on that gloomy Wednesday evening was one of the most productive discussions in the Chamber this past year. The session was lit up by the Minister of State’s powerful and passionate contribution on disability. Nevertheless, it is now time for her to step up to the plate and act on that passion she displayed so strongly. At that time, the Minister of State informed the House that the area of disability funding needed much reform, and this reform cannot be carried out without the 34 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

Laurence Crowley report. Having spoken to many groups and people in recent months, I sense that the feeling is that the sector is in a state of limbo until the report is published. Most worrying of all, cuts are still being made with little regard for individual needs or circumstances. The Minister has had the report on her desk since 31 May last. She needs to publish it for all of us as soon as possible. Many of the report’s findings, I believe, will not make pleasant reading, but we need to expose the waste and plot a way forward that provides value, is person- focused and allows us to free up capital in advance of the budget next December to protect services in this sector. A mature conversation in this House and among the public is now required if we are truly to protect the most vulnerable in society, which I am sure we will all strive to do. I call on the Leader to seek clarification from the Minister on when she intends to publish this report, because our break is only a month away. The report was originally commissioned in 2008. I emphasise how important it is that we have time to consider the report’s recommendations well in advance of the budget.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The setting up of a constitutional convention is a wise and sensible move by the Government, and discussion of Seanad reform should form part of this. Before there is any referendum on the existence of this House — one of the houses of democracy in this country — there needs to be a thorough study and consultation with the people of Ireland about what that means. I do not need to vote on it today but I call on the Leader to provide time for a debate in the future. In ten days’ time the Volvo Ocean Race will commence in Galway. This is Ireland’s Olympic Games. It is the third largest event in Europe this year, after the Olympic Games in London and Euro 2012. It is more than a major sporting event, however, because for the first time Galway will host a global trade village featuring the nine countries in which the 11 o’clock race has stopped. I ask the Leader to use his good office to persuade the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, and Enterprise Ireland companies to support this event. The closing ceremony alone will cost the Let’s Do It Global group €100,000. It is to the credit of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht Affairs that he is contributing €20,000 to a philanthropy scheme which requires Galway to come up with €5 for every €1 he contributes. We are still €80,000 short, however, and this is an opportunity for Enterprise Ireland companies to showcase their products to the world. Approximately 500 media outlets will be covering the event and one third will come from China. Our biggest markets will be there, as will emerging markets such as Brazil and China. We will be on show from coast to coast in the United States and the US embassy will be hosting an event on 4 July. I want Enterprise Ireland companies to step up to the plate with contributions in order to realise the value of brand recognition and show casing our strengths to the rest of the world. I have spoken with the Minister, Deputy Bruton, on the issue and I ask the Leader to seek his support.

Senator David Norris: On a point of order, I ask the Cathaoirleach to show leniency to Senator Healy Eames, who apparently called publicly for anyone who is not a leader and who speaks on more than one issue to be silenced for one month.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I support Senator van Turnhout’s call for a debate on the report into the deaths of children while in the custody of the social services of this State. I am somewhat puzzled by the statistics which indicate that 84 of the 196 deaths over the ten period in question were due to natural causes. I find this difficult to understand and would like to learn more about it in the course of a debate. It is important that we approach the issue with real truthfulness. I realise that some people are linking it to a referendum on children’s rights but, while I am 35 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Rónán Mullen.] reserving my position on such a referendum until I see the wording on offer, those who believe it is a part of the response need to demonstrate their case with clarity. As it appears that the failures set out in the report can be blamed on a failure to apply existing legislation and norms, we would be passing the buck if we laid the blame primarily on the Constitution. This is a time in Ireland when church and State are required to admit responsibility for past failings and to learn from them in order to do better in future. It is interesting to contrast the scapegoating that occurs in respect of abuses within the church, whereby individuals are identified, their failures are raked over and certain demands are made of them, with the death of children in State care, which we appear to be able to discuss at the level of generality and the failure of the State and the HSE. Nobody seems to be calling for reports on who did what or individual accountability from individuals who worked on behalf of the State. Is anybody responsible for allowing these files to descend into rag order? The report refers to good prac- tices but noted that they were sporadic and inconsistent. Will anybody seek accountability from individuals? I have previously stated that I do not favour a culture of resignation because I prefer accountability and reform. However, a double standard is on display. There will be a generalised discussion and a certain amount of media coverage but little outrage or desire to find out who exactly was responsible. That is before we even begin to discuss the individuals with ministerial office who should carry the can. Perhaps these issues can form part of our debate in due course and I hope such a debate will not be long in coming.

Senator Marie Moloney: This week is national carers’ week. What better time to highlight the good work being done by carers all over the country by publishing and implementing the national carer strategy? Last week the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, indicated that she would publish the strategy prior to the summer. I wish to speak about the changes that were introduced in a budget several years ago to the effect that individuals may only receive illness benefit for a period of two years. When I raised this issue just after my election last year I pointed out that it was causing confusion among the public. One year on, it is causing mayhem because recipients are being told to apply for invalidity pension or disability allowance when their illness benefits run out. The processing of these payments is taking a considerable amount of time, with processing times of up to one year for invalidity pensions. Many of these people to not want to depend on invalidity pensions if it means giving up their jobs because they do not want to be considered as invalids. They simply want to draw the benefits for which they have contributed throughout their lives. I do not see anything wrong with that. If they receive invalidity pensions, it is at a higher rate and they qualify for free travel and household benefits packages. Where is the cost saving in such a measure? The ongoing delays in the Department must be investigated and the Minister for Social Protection should come before the House for a full and open debate on her proposals for dealing with these matters.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Aontaím leis an ghlaoch a rinneadh maidir leis an tuarascáil faoi leanaí atá faoi chúram an Stáit ach ba cheart dúinn an tuarascáil a fheiceáil agus a léamh ar dtús sula ndéanfaimid breith iomlán uirthi mar beidh go leor le rá faoi sin. I was honoured to travel to Lisbon over the weekend to stand shoulder to shoulder with 20,000 trade unionists who were campaigning against the austerity measures introduced in that country. Colleagues spoke about the situation in Greece, Spain, France and Germany, where people are feeling the brunt of austerity measures. We seem to be preoccupied with the Houses of the Oireachtas this morning. It is ironic that in the week when the Volvo Ocean Race is coming to Galway with great razzmatazz, people 36 Order of 20 June 2012. Business in that city are afraid they will be evicted from their houses because of changes to the rent supplement regime. Approximately 96,000 people are on the scheme across the State. The ceiling for rent supplement has been reduced but, instead of the State negotiating with land- lords to force down rents, tenants are being forced to renegotiate their rents or find alternative accommodation if they are unable to do so. This issue calls for a broader debate on housing because the link between the functions of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and the county councils in terms of providing social housing and the Department of Social Protection’s responsibility for the rent supplement, which is supposed to be a short-term solution to accommodation needs, appears to be broken. Local authority RAS schemes are no longer taking applications and the director of services in my own county council has stated that only two local authority houses will be built in County Galway this or next year. Furthermore, we still do not know what is happening to NAMA’s housing stock. This is a serious issue and a full debate on housing should also consider social protections and rent supplement payments.

Senator Jim D’Arcy: I ask the Leader to invite the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to the House to make a statement on the progress being made on diesel laundering. The Minister of State met Louth County Council officials and Oireachtas Members from Louth. He said legislative changes were planned to enable more effective controls and that steps would be taken to acquire a more effective marker. I would like to know what has been done since. The latest figures from Louth County Council show that an average of 50 tonnes of diesel laundering waste quantities are being recovered by the council each month for hazardous waste disposal abroad. This has increased from six tonnes per month in 2009. It is a serious issue. Anecdotal evidence is that the washed diesel is being exported to the UK for sale at the pumps. I would be grateful if the Leader would invite the Minister of State because this involves crime and the loss of revenue and people are losing their jobs in County Louth because of this.

Senator Thomas Byrne: I give notice to the Government that the Fianna Fáil Party will adamantly oppose the Gaeltacht Bill. It is the latest example of cronyism and jobbery from the Fine Gael Party. Members opposite can laugh.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: We are laughing at where it is coming from.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Where once we had democracy, Gaeltacht residents in County Meath will have their representatives on Údarás na Gaeltachta appointed by county councillors in Waterford and Cork. It is cronyism and jobbery of the worst kind.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Hear, hear.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The councils are controlled, on the whole, by the Fine Gael and Labour parties. The democratic element of Údarás na Gaeltachta is being abolished by this Bill, which is a half measure for the Irish language and shows the contempt the Fine Gael Party has for the Irish language. The central plank of the Bill is to remove the democratically elected members of Údarás na Gaeltachta and have them appointed by Fine Gael and Labour councillors.

An Cathaoirleach: The Bill will be debated tomorrow.

Senator Thomas Byrne: I call on the Leader to make arrangements with the Minister to have this Bill taken off the agenda for tomorrow. He did not expect us to oppose it. Members from the west and Tipperary who had planned to tour new constituencies and new areas and shed crocodile tears about lost areas can think again. They will have to be present in the House to 37 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Thomas Byrne.] vote if they want the Bill to pass because Fianna Fáil will vote against it. We think the Bill should be delayed. It should not be passed because it is anti-democratic. We must put democracy first and forget about cronyism and jobbery.

Senator Denis Landy: On a more pleasant note following Senator Thomas Byrne, who seems exercised, I welcome two former public representatives to the Visitors Gallery, Jim Drohan and Jack Lalor, from my home town of Carrick-on-Suir. The House acknowledges international dignitaries and it is important also to acknowledge local public representatives. Does the Leader have an update on any appearance by the two pillar banks at the Oireachtas with regard to the availability of loans to small businesses? ISME published its quarterly report yesterday, showing that 54% of SMEs were refused bank loans in the past quarter. On the other side, the banks say money is available. Something does not add up and we need to address this urgent matter. I raised it a number of weeks ago and last week. I would like the Leader to give us an update on the announcement in February by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, that the registration charge for septic tank users was to be reduced from €50 to €5. It was to happen in the months of April, May and June. We are almost at the end of June and, in the past week, four people contacted me.

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

Senator Denis Landy: One of these people went into the local authority in Kerry and staff at the local authority know nothing about registering. No process has been set up. I want the Leader to find out from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government whether there will be an extension of the time. Will it cost €5 for the first three months? How will this issue be dealt with, seeing as we are coming close to the end of June? The process has not yet started.

Senator Terry Leyden: I regret the crash of the air ambulance and I hope no one was injured. I hope it is working again quickly because it is vital, although it is no replacement for an accident and emergency unit in Roscommon. I ask the Leader to set aside time next week to consider the report of the Constituency Commission, which is reviewing Dáil and European Parliament constituencies. The report will be presented to the Ceann Comhairle tomorrow by the chairman of the Constituency Com- mission, the Honourable Mr. Justice John Cooke. It is an important document and many Members have a direct interest in it. Some 533 submissions were received, including six from current Members of the House. Members in this House will also contest European Parliament and Dáil elections and I wish them well. The reduction in the number of Deputies from 166 to 153 was understood to be a Govern- ment proposal. It will now be reduced to 158, some 12 fewer than the promise of the Fine Gael Government when it said it would reduce the number by 20. The Seanad may not be there and eight Members are dead men and women walking because they will not have seats after the next election. The Seanad offered an opportunity for them to remain in public life. It will be a big loss for experienced Members, who have served in the Dáil——

An Cathaoirleach: Does Senator Leyden have a question?

Senator Michael Mullins: He is worried about his seat. 38 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

Senator Terry Leyden: I ask the Leader of the House to give this careful consideration. As six Senators made submissions, it is important to see the outcome of their submissions. The Taoiseach said that no Government in Irish history has ever altered such a report, that this is a completely and utterly independent commission and that, since commissions were set up, none has ever been changed or altered by Government. We will see tomorrow whether Mayo is a five-seat constituency or is reduced to a four-seat constituency.

An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Leyden concerned?

Senator Terry Leyden: The Cathaoirleach has an interest in this matter. It will be interesting to see the redrawing of the constituencies, which is very important. I was the victim of a gerrymandered constituency when my constituency joined Longford. It broke all the rules and I am glad Deputy James Bannon——

Senator Maurice Cummins: Are we having a debate now?

Senator Terry Leyden: I am glad that Deputy James Bannon made a good case that Longford and Roscommon should not be reunited. I wish the upcoming Deputies well. In constituencies where there are two Labour Deputies, only one will return if they are lucky. There will be changes ahead and Members should enjoy the next few years because they will be short.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I am amused at Senator Darragh O’Brien seeking instant answers on the Ryanair bid for Aer Lingus. It has not yet been discussed by Cabinet and it involves serious matters of national policy and competition that must be examined in great detail. The European Commission ruled out a previous attempt by Ryanair to acquire Aer Lingus. We had better wait a little. Today’s amendment to the Order of Business is opportunist. Let us exercise more caution and less haste. It is an important subject and the groups should discuss it in detail first. Nothing will happen overnight. I appeal for calm and I do not see the need for that amendment to the Order of Business. It will be misinterpreted. I am sure the Leader will endorse that line.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Following on from the comments of others I call for a debate on the constitutional convention that the Government plans to establish. I have concerns as to the superficiality of the issues to be discussed, including the reduction of the age for voting and the reduction of the term of the President. It is not that these are not important issues but if we are to go to the trouble, cost, expense and effort of establishing such a convention, several serious issues should be considered. It would be ridiculous in the extreme if Government policy were to be seen to undermine democracy by removing the Seanad without putting the matter to such a valuable forum as the constitutional convention. Other issues arise and could be considered as well including the size of the Oireachtas in future and whether it should include the Dáil and the Seanad or only the Dáil. It does not apply solely to this Administration but it is a good example of where we see the Parliament and the Oireachtas as mere servants of the Government rather than how it ought to be, that is to say, that Governments should be servants of the Parliament, which represents the people. I call on the Leader to do all he can to ensure that the Seanad, its future and many other issues are included for consideration in the convention. I have given praise to the Leader of the House for how he has tried to change the way we do business and I support him in this regard. However, his political masters within Cabinet are not being fair to him by railroading Government policy on such matters as the proposed abolition of the Seanad. They seem to be able to ensure that the process being followed assists the policy of Seanad abolition rather than a fair process which would consider all people’s points of view. Since we are going to the 39 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Marc MacSharry.] expense of establishing a convention it defies logic not to include these views in the remit for consideration and discussion.

Senator Lorraine Higgins: I note that the submissions of the Galway Senators refer to the Volvo Ocean Race which is taking place in Galway in July. Consistent with the talk of water, I call for a debate on the setting up of a single inspectorate for water quality. The position now is that the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Environmental Protection Agency, the local authorities, the HSE and Inland Fisheries Ireland all police our water quality. Different criteria apply, however, to the integrity of this natural resource in the case of each body. For the purposes of simplicity and a unified approach to water quality there should be a single standardised inspectorate. I call for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to come to the House to debate the matter on this basis.

Senator Jim Walsh: I call on the Leader for a debate on the appalling report on the number of children who have lost their lives in the care of the HSE. Other Senators have referred to the matter and it is appropriate for the Minister to be in the House to address it. Some 90% of the abuse cases come under the remit of the health services. It is important that they are fit for purpose and it is appropriate to have the Minister here to address the matter. I am keen to hear the comments of the Taoiseach about pin-pointing responsibility when he addresses the Dáil on the matter given that 196 children died between 2000 and 2010. It is essential that people working within our public services are held accountable for shortcomings. I heard again this morning that all the blame is being put on systems, but systems are operated by personnel. In the private sector if one fails to function responsibly and as one should, then one carries the responsibility for doing that. It should be the same in this case. I look forward to the Taoiseach’s comments in this regard. I imagine the Leader will join me in expressing our sympathy to the family of Ned Roice. He came before the committees in the House established to inquire into Mr. Justice Barron’s report on the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and other atrocities committed in the State. I recall him coming — the Leader may recall it too — before us to give evidence and to ask us to try to find out the truth about his 19 year old daughter, who had just started working in the public service and who was killed in the Talbot Street bomb, before he and his wife closed their eyes. Unfortunately, he was buried with his daughter in Wexford last Monday in Castlebridge. I imagine the Leader will be keen to enjoin me in expressing our sympathy to the family and our regret for the fact that, despite all the hard work that was undertaken by many Members, we have failed to secure any progress from the British authorities with regard to the collusive elements involved in those murders.

Senator Terry Brennan: I support my colleague in the call for a debate with the Minister of State, Deputy Hayes, on diesel laundering in the House. I spoke on the issue before and I would welcome a further discussion on it. Some 15 countries participating in the London Olympic and Paralympic Games have chosen Ireland as a location to train for the games. Vietnam and Zambia are the two most recent countries to accept invitations to avail of training camps and facilities in Dublin and Limerick in preparation for the games. The Zambian team and their officials will be based at Morton Stadium in Dublin for approximately three weeks. The Vietnam paralympic team will be based at the University of Limerick. This is a major tourism boost for Ireland this year. The project was originally proposed by the Irish Sports Council and was developed through the London 2012 co-ordinating committee chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring. I recognise and congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ring, the 2012 co-ordinating com- 40 Order of 20 June 2012. Business mittee and the Irish Sports Council on this major achievement of successfully inviting15 countries from throughout the world to use our great sporting facilities in preparation for the forthcoming London Olympic Games. Gabhaim comhghairdeas leo go léir.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe: I join others in calling on the Leader to ask the Minister for Chil- dren and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, to come to the House to discuss today’s report. Others have stated how important and urgent it is to have the debate and I imagine the Leader will do his best to facilitate it. I call on the Leader to ensure that we keep the issue of the independence of our cultural institutions on our minds in the Seanad. I had the pleasure of meeting representatives from the National Gallery of Ireland, the Abbey Theatre and the National Library of Ireland in Sligo last week for Yeats day. Through their capacity to reach out to communities locally they showed the importance of their independence and how important they are in our lives when we reach out to them. Given that Senator Mac Conghail was so helpful and co-operative in the matter it is important that we keep the independence of these institutions to the fore of our debate.

Senator Colm Burke: The Chairperson of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children has advised me that the report to be published today on children in care will be debated in full in the committee tomorrow. That will give an opportunity for Members of the House who sit on the committee to take part in that debate. I wish to raise a matter relating to the constitutional debate. A decision has been taken that a referendum will be held on whether we retain or abolish the Seanad. I do not necessarily believe this matter should be referred to the constitutional convention. There are 11 reports on Seanad reform, however, but few or none of the proposals in those reports have been implemented. Before we hold the referendum on the Seanad it may be useful for a small group to be established to produce a report on the possible options for retention of the Seanad as it is, its abolition or reform in order that the electorate could make a judgment when it comes to the referendum and in order that options are in place. We cannot put the options in the referendum. At least there would be information for the general public about the possible reforms that could take place in regard to how the Seanad is elected, its composition, its numbers and the constructive role it plays and will continue to play if the necessary reforms are brought about. That would be a useful exercise. If such a group is set up, it should be given a timescale in which to produce the report. There is no reason it could not be produced within six months, which would then allow a very informed debate to take place during the referendum on this matter. I ask the Leader to take this on board.

Senator Martin Conway: I would not at all disagree with the sentiments of Senator Colm Burke. I commend the Leader. My experience in the last 14 months in this House has been very positive. Within the constraints the Leader is facing, he has done a remarkable job in making the House extremely relevant in terms of the public consultation process. We saw a very good example of this yesterday.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: Hear, hear.

Senator Martin Conway: I suggest that if a working group is to be set up, it could look at how we can make this Seanad, which will run for the period of this Government, even more successful. If this is to be the last Seanad, and I hope it is not, let it be the best by a mile, not just by an inch or two. We have a wonderful Leader in Senator Cummins and we have a great team on all sides of the House. We can certainly go out with a bang, if that is to happen. 41 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Martin Conway.]

More fundamentally in many ways, I was on Facebook on my way to the House today and I posted a comment about tomorrow being the longest day of the year. A comment came back that it is going to be the shortest day of the year in Australia. The reality is that thousands of our young people are in Australia because they cannot get work in this country. We had a very successful initiative on job creation some time ago from Senator Mullins and it is an issue that is worth putting on the agenda on a permanent basis. We should put time aside to gather ideas from the general public, who could come to the House to air their views from time to time, perhaps once every three or six months, on how jobs can be created in what is an evolving and, hopefully, improving economic environment. There is merit in having a jobs initiative day once every three months in the House where we would look at the fundamentals of job creation. In my view, the only way we will get this country back on its feet is by getting people back to work.

An Cathaoirleach: I call the Leader to reply.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Darragh O’Brien raised the question of Aer Lingus. The Cabinet has not had an opportunity to discuss that matter yet, which the Leader of the Oppo- sition will appreciate given the announcement in regard to Ryanair was only made yesterday. I am sure that when the Cabinet has considered the matter, it will outline its position on it. With regard to the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government coming to the House for a general debate or with specific reference to property tax, we will certainly try to arrange that debate. Fianna Fáil signed up to a property tax and I find it strange it is now talking about people not being able to afford tax and everything else.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Times have changed.

Senator Terry Leyden: That was then; this is now.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader without interruption.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Their mess is still with us.

Senator Maurice Cummins: With regard to the constitutional convention and Seanad reform, I do not propose to pick motion No. 9 before No. 1. I consider it unrealistic to expect that this can be discussed today at such short notice. The Government has made its position on the Seanad abundantly clear and I have mentioned on several occasions in the House that a referendum will be held next year on the subject.

Senator Terry Leyden: He might change it after tomorrow.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Bacik referred to patronage in schools. The Minister has stated this will take some time. We had a debate in the House recently on patronage and pluralism in schools. Senator van Turnhout raised the question of the report of the child death review group and that matter was taken up by Senators Hayden, Mullen, Walsh, Ó Clochartaigh, O’Keeffe and others. The report was established in March 2010 and has been published today. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs welcomes the findings and recommendations of the report. She accepts fully the need for actions in the areas identified in the recommendations and many of the actions and service reforms were already under way ahead of the publication of this report as they form part of the ongoing agenda in child and family services. The Minister is confident the ongoing change agenda led by the HSE national director, Mr. Gordon Jeyes, which has seen a focus on improved processes, capacity and consistency, coupled with the recruitment of 42 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

260 additional social workers, has resulted in an enhanced service for children and families. Some 258 of the 260 additional posts have been recruited since 2010 in line with the recommendations of the Ryan report. The need for action is of paramount importance. I agree with Members that we should have a debate on the report. I have already requested the Minister to come to the House on a number of issues dealing with child protection and the rights of children. As Senator Burke mentioned, the report will be considered by the health committee tomorrow morning. I will certainly endeavour to have the Minister come to the House and I am sure she will accede to the request for a debate in the House on that matter in early course. With regard to Private Members’ business, which was raised by Senator Norris, it is up to each group to decide whether it wishes to take up its Private Members’ time or not. That is the situation in regard to private business. If a group decides it does not want to take up its time, that is its prerogative. With regard to the matter relating to the deputy Israeli ambassador, I referred that matter yesterday to the Tánaiste’s office and I await a reply. With regard to fisheries, I am surprised by Senator Norris’ point. This Minister has just negotiated probably one of the best deals ever for Irish fisheries.

Senator Martin Conway: Well said.

Senator Maurice Cummins: He also negotiated the question of discards, which has been addressed for many years and which is a matter of contention for many fishermen throughout the length and breath of the country.

Senator David Norris: I give him due praise for that. I raised a different question.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine is one of the best Ministers for fisheries we ever had in this country. He has negotiated and will continue to negotiate for fishermen throughout the length and breadth of this country.

Senator David Norris: That is a propaganda statement. I want an answer to my question.

Senator Terry Leyden: He has a good PR company behind him. It is good spin.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Mullins welcomed the new website launched by the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to cut the costs of business and to eliminate red tape. I will certainly ask the Minister to arrange that his officials make a presentation on this matter in the AV room at a later stage. Senator Mooney noted the retirement of the honorary consul in the Channel Islands. We would all wish Ms O’Neill a very happy retirement and compliment her on promoting issues relating to Ireland over many years. Senator Hayden referred to the child death review group. As I said, the Minister can come to the House. Senator Hayden made some very good points which can and should be addressed during that debate. Senator Mary Ann O’Brien raised the issue of the Crowley report on disability spending. As she said, the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, was in this House and made a very good contribution on this subject earlier in the year. The report has only been with the Minister of State since 31 May. I am sure she will be quite willing to come to the House when this report is published and I will bring the matter to her attention again. Senator Healy Eames referred to the Volvo Ocean Race and appealed for funding from various industries for an initiative in Galway. As she stated, she has already raised this matter 43 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

[Senator Maurice Cummins.] with the Minister, Deputy Bruton. Senators Mullen and Walsh referred to the difference in the way that church and State are being mentioned with regard to accountability in various reports. That is a matter that can be raised when we have a debate with the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald. Senator Moloney referred to national carers’ week, which we all welcome. We wish all carers who do such wonderful work throughout the length and breadth of the country, well in their endeavours. I am aware of delays in the receipt of illness benefit and I am sure Senator Moloney will raise the matter herself with the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton. I will also raise the matter with the Minister. Senator Ó Clochartaigh mentioned rent supplements and called for a debate on housing. We had a comprehensive debate on housing for two and a half hours on 28 March, so I do not propose to have another one after such a short period. We can, however, come back to it in the next term without a doubt. Senators D’Arcy and Brennan called for the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, to attend the House to report on proposed legislation to curb diesel laundering. This illegal practice is causing a loss of revenue for the Exchequer but is also posing a danger to the environment in many parts of the country. We will certainly ask the Minister of State to address that matter here. Senator Byrne referred to An Bille na Gaeltachta and we will have ample opportunity to discuss that legislation tomorrow. We will welcome Senator Byrne’s comments at that particular time. Senator Landy suggested inviting the banks into the audio-visual room. The Deputy Leader has informed me that she has written to the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, on that matter requesting that to be arranged. I therefore hope that it can be arranged in early course. In addition, we will find out from the relevant Minister what the situation is concerning the registration of septic tanks. I thought it was fairly clear on the website, but if not we will urge the Minister to have that matter clarified. Senator Leyden mentioned the report of the review of Dáil and European Parliament constituencies, which is due out in the next day or so. We will endeavour to have a debate on that subject, which seems to be a matter of grave concern to Senator Leyden.

Senator Terry Leyden: I am much obliged and thank the Leader.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senators Paul Coghlan and Marc MacSharry referred to the constitutional convention, which I have addressed. Senator Higgins called for an inspectorate for water quality. I will raise that matter with the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. Senator Brennan mentioned that athletes from 15 countries are coming here to prepare for the Olympics and the Paralympics. The Minister and the committee should be complimented on attracting those athletes here to prepare for the London Olympics. Senator O’Keeffe raised the report on the deaths of children in State care. We will invite the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs to the House to discuss that matter. I also note Senator O’Keeffe’s point about the National Museum and other cultural matters which can be addressed with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Deputy Deenihan. Senator Burke raised points concerning Seanad reform, including convening a working group. While that is not my responsibility, I would hope that such a group could be formed in order to address the points raised both by Senator Burke and Senator Conway. 44 Order of 20 June 2012. Business

Senator Conway also referred to the public consultation process. We had an excellent process at yesterday’s sitting of the Seanad Public Consultation Committee. Quite a number of Members attended from time to time throughout the day.

Senator Terry Leyden: Are we invited to those meetings?

Senator Maurice Cummins: If Senator Leyden was listening to the Order of Business last week, he would have heard me inviting each and every Member to attend that committee. They had an opportunity to do so. If Senator Leyden cannot hear what I am saying, I cannot legislate for that.

Senator Terry Leyden: I do not think the Chamber should be used for that purpose, by the way.

Senator Terry Brennan: The Senator should check the record.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader without interruption.

Senator Maurice Cummins: We had wonderful contributions from ten different organisations on how lifestyle changes can help to prevent cancer. It is a subject which is of importance to each and every family in the country. We hope that report can be finalised and presented to the Minister with strong recommendations. One man mentioned that, on average, 12 o’clock 14-year-olds are now three stone heavier than their grandparents would have been. That is a damning statistic on obesity, which shows the need for lifestyle changes to address weight-related illnesses and prevent cancer. The full report will be made available, hopefully by the end of the term. It certainly was a valuable exercise and I wish to compliment every one of the groups that participated, and in particular Dr. Kate Allen who came from the UK to make a presentation. Senator Conway also spoke about job creation. We have had a full day’s debate on that topic, including recommendations and initiatives, which was well received by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton. Perhaps we can reactivate that debate on another occasion, as the Senator has suggested.

Senator David Norris: On a point of clarification, the record should show that once again it was the Government side that failed to take up Private Members’ time, lending credence to my suggestion that elements on that side of the House are determined to wind down Seanad Éireann.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should resume his seat.

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not a point of order at all.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Darragh O’Brien has moved an amendment to the Order of Business, “That No. 21, motion 9, be taken today”. Is the amendment being pressed?

Senator Terry Leyden: Yes.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: It is.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided by electronic means. 45 Business 20 June 2012. of Seanad.

An Cathaoirleach: There is an equality of votes. Therefore pursuant to Article 15.11.2° of the Constitution, I must exercise my casting vote.

Senator David Norris: Strike a blow for Seanad Éireann.

An Cathaoirleach: I vote against the amendment in this case, the result of the vote now being: Tá, 22; Níl, 23.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: Under Standing Order 62(3)(b) I request that the division be taken again other than by electronic means.

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 22.

Tá

Barrett, Sean D. O’Sullivan, Ned. Byrne, Thomas. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Crown, John. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Cullinane, David. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Leyden, Terry. Power, Averil. MacSharry, Marc. Quinn, Feargal. Mooney, Paschal. Reilly, Kathryn. Mullen, Rónán. van Turnhout, Jillian. Norris, David. Walsh, Jim. O’Brien, Darragh. White, Mary M. O’Brien, Mary Ann. Wilson, Diarmuid. O’Donovan, Denis.

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Hayden, Aideen. Bradford, Paul. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Brennan, Terry. Higgins, Lorraine. Burke, Colm. Keane, Cáit. Kelly, John. Coghlan, Eamonn. Landy, Denis. Coghlan, Paul. Moloney, Marie. Comiskey, Michael. Mullins, Michael. Conway, Martin. O’Keeffe, Susan. Cummins, Maurice. O’Neill, Pat. D’Arcy, Jim. Sheahan, Tom. D’Arcy, Michael.

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

Amendment declared carried.

Order of Business, as amended, agreed to.

Business of Seanad Senator Maurice Cummins: In view of the decision of the House I propose that the discussion on Seanad reform shall be taken now and shall conclude at 2.30 p.m. and that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be taken at another time. I may propose an amendment to the Order of Business later if we can get the Minister to attend at a different time today to discuss them. The Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed) shall be taken at 3.15 p.m.

46 Business 20 June 2012. of Seanad.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: First, I commend the House on taking a significant decision.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, we are not discussing the Order of Business now.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Tuigim. However, I ask the Leader to arrange that a Minister be present to take this important debate. As the House has decided, correctly in my view, that this significant motion be taken, I request that a Minister be present. If it is necessary to suspend the sitting for 20 to 30 minutes to facilitate a Minister to come in to take this debate, that should happen. The Seanad took an important decision today and that should happen. I ask the Leader to accede to that request.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I have no intention of acceding to that request. The motion, as put, was that the matter would be dealt with before No. 1. I am agreeing to the decision that it be taken. I had no prior notice and I cannot get a Minister to attend the House at this time. Members will take the matter without a Minister being present.

Senator David Norris: There is a Minister waiting.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I seek clarification on a point from the Cathaoirleach. The Leader obviously must accept the motion as tabled, on the basis of the vote of the House. However, if the Opposition’s position is that it does not accept the amended Order of Business, on the basis that the Leader will not facilitate the attendance of a Minister to take this important debate, how would the motion stand in that regard, now that it has passed? What if the Oppo- sition was to oppose the amended Order of Business on the basis that no Minister will be present?

An Cathaoirleach: The motion must be taken.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Is it correct that the motion must be taken one way or the other?

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has made a proposal. He has made an amendment to the Order of Business to delete Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Are Members agreed?

Senator David Norris: On a point of order, I believe that wittingly or unwittingly, the Leader has misled the House. A Minister is available. There must be, because there must be a Minister to take the debate that had been scheduled.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The relevant Minister is unavailable.

An Cathaoirleach: Does the House——

Senator David Norris: Debates often have been taken when the relevant Minister is not available with no response from the Leader.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The relevant Minister is not available to take this matter.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, resume your seat.

Senator David Norris: This is not true and the record will show there is no obstacle to this but the Leader now is trying to frighten——

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator constantly stands up with points of order that are not points of order at all. 47 Business 20 June 2012. of Seanad.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator, resume your seat. Does the House——

Senator Darragh O’Brien: While I am not trying to complicate matters, I seek a point of clarification. Should Members oppose the Order of Business today, the motion must still be taken first before any other business because this is what the House has agreed. I note the presence of a Minister outside the Chamber, who was due to take the business and I ask the Leader that this Minister or another should attend. I propose the suspension of the House until 12.30 p.m. to allow a Minister to come in here.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has proposed an amendment to the order of the House——

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Members on this side will oppose it.

An Cathaoirleach: ——that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 be deleted. Does the House agree?

Senator Darragh O’Brien: No.

Senator David Norris: Does he have the power to exclude the Minister if the latter is willing to take part in the debate?

An Cathaoirleach: Can we have silence please? The question is that the amendment to the Order of Business be agreed to.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: We will oppose it.

An Cathaoirleach: An amendment has been proposed to the resolution of the House on the arrangement for taking business, “That the discussion on Seanad reform shall be taken now and shall conclude at 2.30 p.m. and that Nos. 1, 2 and 3 shall be taken at another time.”

Amendment put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 24; Níl, 25.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Bradford, Paul. Heffernan, James. Brennan, Terry. Higgins, Lorraine. Burke, Colm. Keane, Cáit. Kelly, John. Coghlan, Eamonn. Landy, Denis. Coghlan, Paul. Moloney, Marie. Comiskey, Michael. Mullins, Michael. Conway, Martin. Noone, Catherine. Cummins, Maurice. O’Keeffe, Susan. D’Arcy, Jim. O’Neill, Pat. D’Arcy, Michael. Sheahan, Tom. Hayden, Aideen.

Níl

Barrett, Sean D. Norris, David. Byrne, Thomas. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Crown, John. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Cullinane, David. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Leyden, Terry. O’Brien, Darragh. Mac Conghail, Fiach. O’Brien, Mary Ann. MacSharry, Marc. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. Mooney, Paschal. O’Donovan, Denis. Mullen, Rónán. O’Sullivan, Ned. 48 Business 20 June 2012. of Seanad.

Níl—continued

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

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Leader to outline to the House the arrangements for business today.

Senator Maurice Cummins: In view of the vote of the House, I propose that Nos. 1 and 2 be taken and allocated 45 minutes, as stated, with the contributions of spokespersons not to exceed five minutes and that the Minister be given five minutes to reply. I propose we delete No. 3 and deal with that matter tomorrow, that the Animal Health and Welfare Bill be taken, as stated, from 3.15 p.m. to 6 p.m. and that we deal thereafter with motion No. 9 on Seanad reform, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. I will endeavour to have a Minister attend the House at that time, if possible.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Leader for his suggestion. May I propose that the House sitting be suspended for 15 minutes to allow the Whips to discuss what he has outlined? It would be our preference to have a Minister in the House for this very important debate, given that Seanad reform is included in the constitutional convention. With respect for the House, I do not wish to disrupt the business of the day; that is not what we are about. The Leader respects the vote of the House but I propose a suspension until 12.45 p.m. to allow the Whips and the leaders of the group to discuss this. Our original proposal was that No 1 be taken first, which was passed, or that No. 9 be taken before No. 1. That is a slight change——

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader is the only Member who can make such a proposal.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Will the Leader propose this?

Senator Maurice Cummins: With the indulgence of the House, I propose that we proceed with Nos. 1 and 2, during which time the Whips can meet in regard to this matter. We can proceed with the business of the House in regard to these motions and I will return before No. 2 is concluded, as a result of the meeting with the Whips.

Senator David Cullinane: On a point of order, I seek clarification as to whether a Sinn Féin representative will have any speaking time on Nos. 1 and 2.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I stated that spokespersons would have time, not group spokespersons. The Senator will have an opportunity.

Senator David Norris: If there is no other Minister available, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, could not be more suitable.

An Cathaoirleach: What is the situation in relation to No. 3?

Senator Maurice Cummins: I am proposing to delete it. We will take it tomorrow. 49 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

An Cathaoirleach: Okay.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Is the Leader proposing that we proceed with Nos. 1 and 2 and that the debate on Seanad reform will take place after that, following the meeting of the Whips?

Senator Maurice Cummins: I will come in after the Whips have met to notify the House of when the debate on Seanad reform will take place.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Okay.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader has proposed the deletion of No. 3 from the resolution. Does the House agree with that? Agreed. No. 3 is deleted.

Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): I welcome the Minister, Deputy Shatter.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998 (No. 39 of 1998) shall continue in operation for the period of 12 months beginning on 30 June 2012.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): It seems to have been an exciting morning in this Chamber. I do not know what is going on at all. The House will be aware of the background to the Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998. It was enacted in the aftermath of the Omagh bombing of August 1998, in which 29 people were murdered in an indiscriminate and barbarous bomb attack. Those innocent lives were lost as a consequence of a futile and senseless gesture by individuals who refuse to live by the will of the majority of people on this island. The Act, which was drawn up to meet the threat posed by these individuals, contains a series of amendments to the Offences against the State Acts 1939 to 1985. The amendments principally concern changes in the rules of evidence for certain offences under the Acts, including the drawing of inferences in certain circumstances; the creation of new offences, such as directing an unlawful organisation, possessing certain articles and collecting information; and the extension to 72 hours of the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the 1939 Act. Section 18 of the 1998 Act, as amended by section 37 of the Criminal Justice Act 1999, provides that sections 2 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 and 17 of the Act may continue in operation for a specified period only if the Oireachtas passes a resolution to that effect. By virtue of resolutions passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas in June 2011, these sections were continued in force until 30 June 2012. Prior to moving any motion for renewal, the Act requires me to lay before the Oireachtas a report on the operation of the relevant provisions. The present report, which was laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 8 June 2012, covers the period from 1 June 2011, which was the end date of the previous report, to 31 May 2012. Following a commitment I gave this House when I sought the renewal of these sections of the 1998 Act this time last year, a table showing certain figures for each of the years since the Act came into operation is included with the documentation that has been furnished to Senators. This is helpful in demonstrating the importance of the Act in equipping the Garda to detect and prevent terrorist actions. I say with all sincerity that my fervent wish is that the time will come when these provisions will no longer be required. As Minister for Justice and Equality, I must have regard to the unfortunate reality of the current situation. I cannot ignore the Garda assessment of the terrorist threat level in Northern Ireland, which is that it is severe. This assessment, which is shared by the PSNI, 50 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion clearly demonstrates the need for the continuance of these provisions. If Senators needed reminding of that need, it was clearly and tragically evidenced by the murder of PSNI Constable Ronan Kerr on 2 April 2011 and the earlier murders of Constable Stephen Carroll and members of the British Army. I am not forgetting the numerous other attacks on PSNI and security personnel. If any further evidence of the threat from such groups was required, it was provided a few days ago — on Saturday, 9 June last — when a quantity of explosives was found during a search in County Mayo. Two individuals have been arrested and charged as a result. North-South co-operation in the area of security is vital. I can assure the House that it has never been better. I keep in close contact with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson, and my colleague and opposite number, the Northern Ireland Minister for Justice, David Ford. I know the Garda Commissioner maintains close and frequent contact with the Chief Constable of the PSNI, Matt Baggott. This is mirrored by contacts between the two forces at every level. While it is important to counter the threat posed by dissident groups, we must not lose sight of the threat from international terrorism. While the 1998 Act grew out of our own domestic troubles, its provisions form an essential element of the State’s response to the threat of terrorism from any source. We cannot ignore the growth of the international terrorist threat in recent years. In co-operation with our EU partners, we must continue to counteract any threat from such sources. The 1998 Act forms part of the response to that threat. The firm view of the Garda Síochána is that the Act continues to be a most important tool in its ongoing efforts in the fight against terrorism. The Garda authorities have said that the provisions of the Act are used regularly, which is evident from the report which I have laid before the House. In view of the Garda assessment and given the considerable threat posed by some dissident groups,it is essential that the provisions of the Act should continue in force to support the ongoing investigation and disruption of terrorist activity. I would like to turn to the provisions of the 1998 Act which are the subject of the resolution. As I mentioned, I have laid before the Houses a report on the operation of the relevant sections of the Act between 1 June 2011 and 31 May 2012. The report demonstrates the value of the relevant sections to the Garda and the need for them to continue to be available when tackling the terrorist threat. Turning to the sections themselves, section 2 allows a court, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to draw appropriate inferences where an accused person fails to answer or gives false or misleading answers to questions. However, a person cannot be convicted of the offence solely on the basis of such inference. There must be some other evidence which points towards a person’s guilt. The section was used on 47 occasions in the period covered by the report. Section 3 requires an accused, in proceedings for membership of an unlawful organisation, to give notification of an intention to call a person to give evidence on his behalf. The section was used on four occasions. Section 4 provides that evidence of membership of an unlawful organisation can be inferred from certain conduct, including matters such as “movements, actions, activities, or associations on the part of the accused”. The section was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 6 creates the offence of directing the activities of an organisation in respect of which a suppression order has been made under the Offences against the State Act 1939. The section was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 7 makes it an offence to possess articles in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that the article is in possession for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of specified firearms or explosives offences. It was used on 15 occasions. 51 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Alan Shatter.]

Section 8 makes it an offence to collect, record or possess information which is likely to be useful to members of an unlawful organisation in the commission of serious offences. It was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 9 makes it an offence to withhold certain information which might be of material assistance in preventing the commission of a serious offence or securing the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of a person for such an offence. It was used on 83 occasions. Section 10 extends the maximum period of detention permitted under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act from 48 hours to 72 hours, but only on the express authorisation of a judge of the District Court following an application by a garda of at least superintendent rank. Furthermore, the person being detained is entitled to be present in court during the application and to make, or to have made, submissions on his behalf. An extension was granted in 11 cases. Section 11 allows a judge of the District Court to permit the re-arrest and detention of a person in respect of an offence for which he was previously detained under section 30 of the Offences against the State Act but released without charge. The further period must not exceed 24 hours and can only be authorised where the judge is satisfied on information supplied on oath by a member of the Garda Síochána that further information has come to the knowledge of the Garda Síochána about that person’s suspected participation in the offence. It was used on 17 occasions. Section 12 makes it an offence for a person to instruct or train another person in the making or use of firearms or explosives or to receive such training without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. It was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 15 is, in effect, a procedural section which makes the offences created under sections 6 to 9 and 12 of the 1998 Act scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the 1939 Act. This means that persons suspected of committing these offences may be arrested under Section 30 of the 1939 Act. It was used on 98 occasions during the period under report. Section 17 builds on the provision in the Criminal Justice Act 1994 providing for the forfeiture of property. Where a person is convicted of offences relating to the possession of firearms or explosives, and where there is property liable to forfeiture under the 1994 Act, the court is required to order the forfeiture of such property unless it is satisfied that there would be a serious risk of injustice if it made such an order. The section was used on three occasions during the period covered by the report. Senators will note, by reference to the table, that this is the first reporting period that has recorded a usage of this most valuable provision. I very much welcome this development. As I have already stated, terrorist groups remain a threat to the existence of the State. They are opposed to the benefits that have flowed from the peace process and are determined to undermine it. The State, I believe, must retain, in its laws, the capacity to defeat them. On the basis of the information set out in the report, and on the advice of the Garda authorities, I consider that the relevant provisions of the 1998 Act should remain in operation for a further 12 months and I so recommend to the House.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): I thank the Minister. The debate will proceed with spokespersons having five minutes each for their contribution. I call on Senator Thomas Byrne first.

Senator Thomas Byrne: I assure the Minister that despite the Opposition defeating the Government twice in the Seanad this morning, the Fianna Fáil side wholeheartedly supports 52 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion the Bill and will ensure that it is passed. I find very little done by the Government to be persuasive but the Minister’s speech here has been extremely persuasive, not that we need persuading. He clearly outlined the security situation in the State and in the adjoining state. He also clearly explained the sections of the Act that need to be renewed in order to have full force and effect. I am persuaded by the evidence provided by him of the usage of the various sections of the Offences Against the State Act on multiple occasions throughout the year. The provisions have not been used on a daily basis but more than a weekly basis. That detail would persuade anyone that needs such evidence or anyone tempted to oppose these provisions. While these provisions are draconian they relate to the fundamental security of the State and are used by the Garda authorities and the gardaí in the course of their duties. The provisions are necessary to protect the State and its foundations and we support it. We agree with the Minister that dissident groups remain a huge threat to the existence of the State and the peace process. The legislation is crucial and my party supports it.

Senator Paul Bradford: Once again I welcome the Minister to the House. As his speech indicated, he would prefer not to be here seeking the continuation of this particular Order but circumstances dictate otherwise. I agree with the assessment of the previous speaker, Senator Byrne, that the production of facts and figures by the Minister, particularly the necessity, on many occasions over the past 12 months, to use the powers provided by the Oireachtas prove once again that the legislation, while not something we generally welcome, is still necessary. When one reflects on the Minister’s speech one realises that since 1939 we have had various governments of different hues and shapes that introduced legislation on offences against the State. This shows that there is an ongoing battle against the people who would try to bring disorder where there is order. The year 1939 was a very different world and a very different Ireland. The Taoiseach at that time, Mr. de Valera, and his colleagues introduced the Offences Against the State Act in 1939. Ten years earlier they would have thought differently about the Act’s provisions but politics evolves. Today people might oppose this type of legislation but once circumstances change and they assume political power and responsibility they would see a need for it. The Minister may wonder where my next comment is leading but in John F. Kennedy’s famous speech he told the people of Berlin that they lived in “a defended island of freedom”. We live on an island of freedom but that island must be defended and have the powers and resources to defend itself against those people who would wish to take our freedoms away. I join with the Minister in hoping that the day will come when this legislation is no longer necessary but that time has not arrived. The legislation is a result of the Omagh bombing that, sadly, is still fresh in the minds of virtually every member of the House and every person on this island. It was another horrendous act of violence, in the litany of horrendous acts, per- petrated North and South of the Border. I thank the Minister for his clarification. I also thank him for pointing out how frequently the legislation or order has been used and hope that the provision has saved lives. It has prevented people from being killed and prevented people from killing others and spending a lifetime in jail. As the Minister has said, I hope that there will come a time when it will not be necessary but we have to take his advice, and that of his officials, that it needs to be kept on the books. I support the Minister’s request in that regard.

Senator David Cullinane: Given that organised crime is a serious issue in the State it is worth reflecting on the damage it does to communities and individuals who are victims. Many of the criminals have no respect for law and order or citizens and citizens’ rights. However, that is no excuse for abuse of human rights by the State or draconian legislation. We do not support the 53 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Senator David Cullinane.] renewal of this legislation. The Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 is wide open to abuse. It is an affirmation that the Special Criminal Court is a normal part of the legal system. I cannot accept that the Special Criminal Court is that — it is a damning indictment of the system that we have an emergency non-jury court which was supposedly set up to deal with a particular emergency, but which has become normal. Is the Government saying we live in a State that is permanently on an emergency setting and, if so, how long does the Minister expect that to continue? I refer to last year’s debate because a number of important contributions were made, one by Senator Bacik who is present. Speaking about section 8 she said that if it is to be retained for a further 12 months then when the Minister comes to the House and it has not been used within that further 12 month period we must take a serious step towards changing the nature of section 8 to ensure we no longer have draconian measures in place unless we can be sure that they are effective in the fight against organised crime. I too note the Minister’s report. No convictions have been sent for trial under section 8, yet it is being renewed again. That is outrageous and the party of which I am a member has consistently called for its repeal. It is clear from our perspective that the powers and provisions provided for in the criminal law books are more than sufficient for the purposes the Government suggests. The Minister said a number of investigations have recently been conducted by the Garda. Those investigations can be carried out under the plethora of legislation in place without recourse to this legislation. Given the poor rate of convictions it is our firm view that the legislation is simply being used for trawling and emergency gathering. Clearly, that is an abuse of the legislation and is not for what emergency powers should be used. Certainly, we will not support the motion and, accord- ingly, will call for a vote.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister to the House and the opportunity to debate again the review of the continuance in operation of the relevant provisions of the Offences against the Stage (Amendment) Act 1998. I declare an interest, having appeared in court representing people in connection with the legislation. I did speak on it last year and on every previous occasion. I said then and I say it again that we all appreciate the ongoing nature of the terrorist threat. The Minister spelt that our clearly in this contribution, not only in his reference to the appalling atrocity in Omagh 14 years ago but also to serious attacks, particularly the murders he mentioned of PSNI Constable Ronan Kerr last year and the ongoing intimidation, particularly of Catholic members of the PSNI, which is an appalling occurrence witnessed on an ongoing basis. It is on that basis that those of us who have spoken in support of the continuance of the legislation do so. We must always balance legislation of this nature and ensure there is a balance within it as well as adequate protections and safeguards. I said last year that it is helpful to have figures from the Minister on how frequently each section has been used. Heightened levels of scrutiny must be given to sections that are not used within a previous 12 month period. Senator Cullin- ane referred to section 8 which was not used in the period covered by the report. Section 4 effectively refers to guilt by association and how evidence of membership may be inferred from certain matters. That section was not used in the past 12 months and, I think I am correct in saying, not in the previous 12 months either. It would be useful to have some sense of the likely future use of such sections, where they have not been used in the past year, and why they should remain in force. I note from the Minister’s contribution that section 17, which had not been used in any reporting period previously, has, in the past 12 months, been used on three occasions. I note there are sections that may, effectively, remain dormant for some years and which then become 54 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion of use. It is important to note where a section has been used for the first time. We all appreciate that the Minister referred to this as the first reporting period where section 17 has been used. It would be helpful to get a sense of likely future usage or on what basis the section should remain in force where it has not been used. That is, perhaps, the only information that would be useful in respect of certain sections. It is a matter of ensuring balance, that adequate safeguards are in place and that the Oireachtas has a role in monitoring the continuance in force of these provisions, which we are doing and have done in previous years.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): As no other Senators have indicated they wish to speak——

Senator David Cullinane: I apologise, I understood we were debating the two motions together and had referred to the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. It was my mistake.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I thank the Senators who have expressed support for this important measure. I acknowledge what Senator Thomas Byrne said. It is appropriate and right that Members of both Houses have the most detailed information that can be furnished on the use of the provisions. The provisions, as we have correctly stated, relate to the fundamental security of the State, a matter of very substantial importance, and of direct concern and obligation of government and Members of the House. The intent was to provide as much information as possible in the utilisation of the various sections. I hope I did that. In so far as there are some sections, two have been mentioned that have not been utilised, nevertheless, they are part of the backdrop legislative armoury that can be used by the Garda Síochána in protecting the security of the State. Circumstances may well arise in which resort may need to be made to them. In circumstances where the Garda Commissioner is of the view that these provisions should remain in force, it is appropriate that we take his expert advice in that context. It is worth noting that one of the sections referred to last year that had not been utilised has been utilised on four occasions in the past 12 months. I thank Senators Bradford and Bacik for their support. On the issue Senator Bacik raised as to why two sections have not been used or will they be used, it is matter for the Garda Síochána in making operational decisions to determine the appropriateness of utilising a particular section. I see the various provisions which are the subject matter of the motion, 1o’clock as part of the architecture necessary to provide the Garda with the essential tools and the courts with the essential law to facilitate the court to deal with the terrorist threat. I listened with respect to what Senator Cullinane had to say but is it not time that Sinn Féin smelt the roses and came to terms with reality. I listened with some amusement to him say there is no excuse for this legislation as essentially it is an abuse of human rights and the measures are draconian. The basic and most fundamental human right on this island is to go about one’s life in peace and without it being threatened and to go about one’s business without being targeted by terrorist groups who may attempt to murder one or a member of one’s family or which may result in one suffering such serious injury as to substantially destroy the quality of one’s life. In the past 12 months there has been a range of incidents of bombs being placed in particular locations and of individuals being targeted. I mentioned in this House relatively recently, and another contributor mentioned earlier, the extraordinary perversion of so-called dissident Nationalists or terrorist Nationalists targeting members of the Catholic community who have joined the Police Service of Northern Ireland and contributed to making it a cross-representative force of the different communities in Northern Ireland and substantially reflects the reality of the population in Northern Ireland. Could there be a greater perversion of people presenting themselves as republican Nationalists in favour of the unity of this island than their targeting 55 Offences against the State 20 June 2012. (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] members of the Catholic community who have joined what is now a cross-community police force? What warped mentality has led individuals down that road? What peculiarity in the history of Sinn Féin, and its former engagement as Provisional Sinn Féin in violent activities in this island, has created such ambivalence to the Offences against the State Act, such double standards? We are carrying the baggage of it having been utilised in respect of some of its members in years gone by who were engaged in violence. They still fail to recognise the need for this democracy to protect itself against individuals who would subvert democracy and whose objective is to destroy the peace process, which Sinn Féin constantly states it supports, and ignore the democratic will of the overwhelming majority of people on this island that we do not return to violence and that individuals in all communities on this island lead a life of peace.

Senator David Cullinane: The Minister is making a political speech. You can leave your political speeches outside the door.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It has reached the point where Sinn Féin——

Senator David Cullinane: I will come back to your point.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——should stop engaging in ambivalent language——

Senator David Cullinane: There was no ambivalence.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——dancing on the head of a pin and talking about——

Senator David Cullinane: You should properly resource the Garda to allow gardaí do their jobs and not come in here with optics——

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): The Minister without interruption.

Senator Tom Sheahan: The Senator should speak through the Chair.

Senator David Cullinane: The Minister is engaging in political posturing.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): Senator, the Minister without interruption.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I have obviously hit a particularly vulnerable point in the positioning Sinn Féin has taken——

Senator David Cullinane: Absolutely not.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——because it is a falsehood. The positioning is a falsehood.

Senator David Cullinane: The Minister’s position is a falsehood.

Deputy Alan Shatter: If it favours the peace process, if it is opposed to terrorist organisations targeting individuals, if it is opposed to individuals being shot or maimed, if it supports the cross-community police force——

Senator David Cullinane: The Minister should properly resource the Garda. Those are real policies.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——in the PSNI, if the Senator believes that people who live in this State—— 56 Business 20 June 2012. of Seanad

Senator David Cullinane: He should not cut the numbers in the Garda.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Perhaps I could continue my contribution without interruption.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy Alan Shatter: If Sinn Féin is opposed to individuals in this State targeting other individuals, if it recognises that this democracy, like every other democracy, is entitled to have in place legislation which protects democracy and ensures it is not subverted and that those still committed to murder and mayhem are brought before our courts, there is no answer other than to support the continuation of this legislation. The only reason for not continuing it in the context of Sinn Féin is the historical baggage that besets that party.

Senator David Cullinane: That is outrageous. It is nonsense.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It also indicates very clearly that Sinn Féin still has not——

Senator David Cullinane: The Minister does not understand our position.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——sufficiently matured to play any serious role in the governance of this country——

Senator David Cullinane: Is our civil rights based Judiciary system now immature?

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): Senator, allow the Minister speak.

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——because if Sinn Féin is incapable of recognising that the crucial civil right is to recognise that democracies can protect themselves, that governments and indeed this House, like Dáil Éireann, have an obligation to protect the people on this island from the violence and mayhem that the terrorists we tragically still have are intent on perpetrating, Sinn Féin has not yet got it. Question put.

Senators: Votáil.

An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senators claiming a division please rise?

Senators David Cullinane, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh, David Norris and Kathryn Reilly rose.

An Cathaoirleach: As fewer than five Senators have risen, I declare the question carried. The names of the Senators who rose will be recorded in the Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Seanad.

Question declared carried.

Business of Seanad Senator Maurice Cummins: I wish to amend the Order of Business. It is proposed to provide that motion No. 9, agreed for debate, which seeks to refer Seanad reform to the constitutional convention, will be taken from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. Contributions of spokespersons will not exceed ten minutes and those of all other Senators will not exceed eight minutes. A Minister will be present for the debate. The Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012 — Committee Stage, will be taken from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed. 57 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion

Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009: Motion Senator Ivana Bacik: I move:

That Seanad Éireann resolves that section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 (No. 32 of 2009) shall continue in operation for the period of 12 months beginning on 30th June, 2012.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): This motion will provide for the continuation and operation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 for a period of 12 months, from 30 June 2012. The purpose of section 8 is to ensure that organised criminal gangs cannot interfere with the criminal process to determine the outcome of cases. To this end, the section declares that for certain offences, the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice and the preservation of public peace and order. Lest anyone believe the 2009 Act was an overreaction to a non-existent threat, I will briefly remind Senators of its background. At the time, the level of organised crime had been on the increase. Organised gangs had shown a particular ruthlessness in their activities, including attacks on witnesses and intimidation of jurors. As a result, the Garda was encountering difficulties in persuading people to give assistance in their investigations. The complete disregard these gangs showed for human lives threatened to subvert the entire justice system. In the circumstances, it was imperative that the State take the necessary steps to ensure the criminal justice system was robust enough to withstand the assault that was launched upon it through intimidation of and violence towards witnesses and jurors. It was also necessary to assure witnesses and jurors that the State was ready to take the appropriate steps to protect them. The measures contained in the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 were designed to tilt the balance firmly in favour of the rule of law. They was also designed to instil confidence in everyone that criminal gangs would not be permitted to frustrate criminal investigations or prosecutions of their activities. They would not be permitted to believe that they could operate with impunity and with total disregard for the rights of others and the institutions of the State. Due to the real threat these gangs posed, the Act provided for a limited number of specific organised crime offences to be prosecuted in the Special Criminal Court. The proposal to use the Special Criminal Court for a limited number of such offences removed the possibility of jury tampering or intimidation of jurors. The offences in question are the organised crime offences under Part 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Briefly, these offences are those created by the following sections of the 2006 Act: section 71A of the 2006 Act, which creates the offence of directing the activities of a criminal organisation; section 72, which makes it an offence to participate in or contribute to certain activities of a criminal organisation; section 73, which addresses the commission of a serious offence for a criminal organisation; and section 76, which deals with liability for offences committed by a body corporate. Section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009 makes these scheduled offences for the purposes of Part V of the Offences against the State Act 1939. While this means that these offences are to be heard by the Special Criminal Court, the Director of Public Prosecutions may still exercise her power to direct that such offences be tried in the ordinary courts. I believe that permitting the Director of Public Prosecutions this discretion maintains the fundamental balance in deciding which cases are appropriate to be tried in the Special Criminal Court. It is clear that section 8 of the 2009 Act is aimed at particular cases and that the centrality of the jury trial to our system remains intact. A further bulwark in maintaining this balance is provided in section 8(4) of the 2009 Act, which provides that the section shall cease to be in operation unless a resolution has been 58 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion passed by each House of the Oireachtas resolving that it should continue in operation for a further period to be decided by the Oireachtas. As I have already said, that is the purpose of the motion before the House. In order to enable the House to assess the need for the continuation of section 8, subsection (6) provides that before a resolution to continue section 8 in operation is passed, the Minister for Justice and Equality shall prepare a report, which shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas, on the operation of the section in the period under report. The report, covering the period from 1 June 2011 to 31 May 2012, was laid before both Houses on 8 June 2012. The reasons for seeking the renewal of section 8 should be clear. Organised crime continues to present a significant law enforcement issue, with a number of criminal gangs continuing to engage in serious crimes. In addition, there is, unfortunately, plenty of evidence of the willingness of these gangs to engage in murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and other serious offences. Given the nature of organised crime, the investigation and prosecution process can be lengthy and difficult. This is particularly so given the insidious power that criminal gangs hold over their members and, regrettably, within the communities in which they live and operate. The 2009 Act has been in operation for over three years, and while there have been arrests under the relevant sections of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, no cases have yet come before the Special Criminal Court in accordance with section 8. This does not, however, invalidate the reasoning for having such a provision available for use in appropriate circumstances. The use of the Act to date serves to highlight the considered approach of the Director of Public Prosecutions. It vindicates the way in which the provision is constructed, allowing the director to exercise her discretion to direct that offences under the relevant sections should nevertheless be tried in the ordinary courts. It also makes it absolutely incontrovertible that there is no question of the provisions of the Act being in any way misused or abused. In his report to me on the operation of section 8, the Garda Commissioner is of the clear view that this provision is likely to be required for some time to come. As Minister for Justice and Equality I must have the utmost regard for the views of the Garda authorities in matters such as this. It is absolutely essential to ensure that the Garda and the prosecution service have at their disposal the best possible range of powers to face up to organised criminal gangs. In the period under report, there have been a total of 38 arrests under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2006. Three arrests were made under section 71A, directing the activities of a criminal organisation, and the remaining 35 were made under section 72, participating in or contributing to certain activities of a criminal organisation. As a result of these arrests, a total of 19 other charges have been preferred against various individuals, including 18 relating to burglary and one relating to robbery, contrary to sections 12 and 14 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001, respectively. Members of the House will recall that very recently two men from Galway were each sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, having pleaded guilty to offences under section 72 — namely, participation in the activities of a criminal organisation. The Garda authorities devote considerable resources from across the Garda organisation to their efforts to tackle organised crime, and they deserve our praise for the successes they have had against a number of those involved in these criminal gangs. Furthermore, the Com- missioner has made it clear time and again that there will be no let-up in the action taken against these gangs. He has the Government’s full support in that approach. To be blunt, the individuals involved in organised crime are ruthless people who will stop at nothing to avoid being brought to account for their crimes. Violence and intimidation are a way of life for these people. There is no question of their having any respect for individuals’ lives or indeed for the human rights of others. We — that is, the Government and the Oireachtas — have a duty to 59 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] make sure the criminal justice system is equipped to prevent them from undermining our core values. To that end, we must ensure that in the most serious of cases, where jury intimidation is a real possibility, the law has a means available to bring serious criminals to account. I should mention at this juncture that, in keeping with an undertaking I gave last year when this matter was being considered, I have asked my officials, in co-operation with An Garda Síochána, to examine ways in which the legislation might be improved. On balance, therefore, I consider that it is necessary to continue section 8 in operation for a further period. As I have said, the period now proposed will run for 12 months from 30 June 2012. I hope this motion will have the support of Members of the House.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Again, I rise in this House to offer the full support of the Fianna Fáil Party for the motion to continue the operation of section 8 of the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Act 2009. I say that in light of our majority here today, but also in light of the fact that the Labour Party opposed this legislation in 2009. In fact, Deputy Tommy Broughan lost the party whip for voting with the then Fianna Fáil Government on this gangland legislation. The Bill was considered necessary by many victims of gangland crime — I will not name them here — who were vociferous about the need for this type of legislation. There was a lot of speculation that these provisions would never be used, although that did not mean they were not necessary. However, I was heartened by the conviction under this Act which took place in Galway last week or the week before. That was certainly welcome. Gangs are operating insidiously around the country, and we in the commuter belt are becoming more and more exposed to gangland activities. Many of those involved in organised crime have come to live in County Meath and other counties that have easy road access to Dublin, and the unfortunate result is that many people are living in fear. There is one particular parish in east Meath to which a gangland family moved, and it is noticeable, if one walks down the roads around where they live, that almost every house and cottage has electronic gates. It is an extraordinary sight in the middle of rural County Meath. From Land Commission cottages to big mansions, everybody has electronic gates because people are living in fear of individuals who have moved into the area. In other cases specific individuals are being targeted by organised criminals, including a good friend of mine who had the traumatic experience of being visited in the dead of night by a gang dressed as gardaí. We need to introduce the toughest legislation possible and the Garda will have to deploy sufficient resources to the commuter belt to respond effectively to threats. The people who are involved in crime are using our excellent road network to get in and out of these areas quickly in order to avoid detection. It is noticeable that many of the robberies occur in locations that are relatively accessible from national primary routes and motorways. The problem has to be addressed in our area before crime reaches the levels that obtain in parts of Dublin and Limerick. While I hope the Labour Party has had a change of heart on this legislation, we are prepared to support the Government if it decides to pull a wobbly.

Senator Paul Bradford: I welcome the Minister and agree with his assessment of the need to keep this legislation in place. The debate on the 2009 Act took place in an atmosphere of deep public concern about criminal gangs and activity throughout the country. The Government responded in accordance with the will of the people by putting in place tough legislation to stem the tide of criminality. Unfortunately, there are no-go areas in this country as a result of criminal activity. We must attempt to tackle that problem. Over the past several months we have had the unfortunate experience of agitators trading under the name, Reclaim the Streets. We must speak about reclaiming communities and hous- 60 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion ing estates from criminality. This legislation reclaims people’s right to live in peace and security without having to fear criminal activity. The previous speaker described the problems that have arisen in his own area which, unfortunately, are mirrored throughout the country. Particularly in rural areas, people who were used to a certain tranquil way of life no longer feel that sense of peace and security which traditionally ran in tandem with rural living. Whether one lives in the city centre of Dublin or the most rural part of the country, one should be entitled to live in peace and security. Whatever action is required on the part of the authorities of the State to tackle and decommission, if I may be excused the pun, these gangs, we must facilitate it. It is interesting that the legislation has not been used to date but I see that as a strength rather than a weakness because it reveals the considered approach taken by the DPP. The greatest assurance we can give is that the provision will only be used where necessary. I support the continuation of the provisions because we should not apologise for deploying the State’s resources against criminal gangs and those who direct them. We are duty bound to protect the person and property of our constituents, the vast majority of whom are law abiding.

Senator David Cullinane: I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to my earlier contribution in which he stated that there is no more important right than the right to be protected. While my party supports that sentiment, he is trying to create a false dichotomy as if this issue involved a choice between the rights of a criminal or terrorist, as he put it, and the right of citizens to be protected. That is simply not the case, however. As Senator Byrne noted, a number of Labour Party Members previously opposed these provisions because they shared our concerns, as does the Irish Council for Civil Liberties and many others. Our judicial system must be based on human rights. Is our state of emergency to be perpetuated for ever? Are non-jury courts here to stay? The evidence demonstrates that the emergency powers in place in this jurisdiction are out of kilter with the systems in many of our European counterparts. Are we to say these problems more prevalent in Ireland and, if so, what kind of message does that send? We must safeguard rights, including the right to a fair trial. This underpins everything I believe in regard to the criminal justice system. I will give no comfort to those who engage in any sort of crime but every citizen has the right to a fair trial. The Minister referred to Sinn Féin and its response to this motion. He spoke about some of the micro-groups that continue to exist but he knows better than anybody these groups are hostile to everything my party stands for and that we have expended huge efforts on the peace process. We will not have that questioned by any Minister. Sinn Féin’s public representatives at the highest levels have received death threats from the individuals to whom the Minister referred. We know at first hand the threat these groups pose but we consider these provisions in the wider context of whether they add value to democracy and the judicial system rather than undermining what should be a fair, independent and human rights based system. This is why we opposed the Offences against the State Act and it is why we will oppose the motion before us. As I presume the Minister will be pressing the motion, I advise the House that we will be calling a vote on it.

Senator Aideen Hayden: I wish to respond to Senator Byrne’s comments about the Labour Party. We have a proud record in defending individual rights, including the right to a jury trial, and we make no apologies for that. History shows us that previous Governments which rolled back on individual civil liberties did so on the basis of claims of necessity that were incorrect. The result was that the response of the State was far in excess of the threat presented at the time. However, that does not make us blind to the fact that circumstances arise where it is necessary to roll back on civil liberties. 61 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion

[Senator Aideen Hayden.]

When Senator Cullinane pointed out that members of Sinn Féin have been threatened by some of the organisations that remain at large in this country he helped to make the Govern- ment’s case. We do not live in a society in which people can walk down the street without fear of their lives being taken from them. Until we find ourselves in a society in which that is possible, we have to recognise that we do not have the freedom of allowing for a jury trial in all circumstances. From my experience of working on housing issues in vulnerable urban communities I am well aware of the level of fear and intimidation that obtains in deprived parts of the country. Areas which suffer high levels of unemployment and deprivation suffer far more from criminals than the middle class gated estates of suburban Ireland. That is the reality. The people who the Labour Party seek to protect by supporting this motion live in poor and deprived circumstances in the blackspots of this country. We make no apologies for supporting it.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Or for changing your mind.

Senator Aideen Hayden: It is a fair and reasonable solution. As the Minister has pointed out, it is not used in many circumstances and the Labour Party will keep it under review. Who is suffering at the hands of these armed gangs and criminals? What communities are intimi- dated? They are the most vulnerable and poorest communities in this country. They are the people the Labour Party stands up to defend.

Senator Tom Sheahan: The most frequently used word in the debate on the Bill is intimidation. The doublespeak of my colleague from County Waterford was referred to earlier. He seeks further resources for the Garda Síochána. Adequate resources are provided to the Garda Síochána if we did not have gangs and organised crime. Senator Hayden referred to the puppet- eers behind these organised gangs. Who is pulling the strings? There has been no reference to intimidation of the Garda Síochána. Recently, Sinn Féin held its national conference, its Ard-Fheis, in Killarney and a member of the Garda Síochána told me that the people organising the conference tried to dictate what they wanted from the Garda organisation. They did not want any member of the Garda Síochána in plain clothes; they wanted them all in uniform. They wanted no security within the complex and wanted to provide their own security. A member of the Garda Síochána died in tragic circumstances in County Kerry recently. A member of Sinn Féin said to a friend of mine in the Garda Síochána that they would have done a much cleaner job.

Senator David Cullinane: That is outrageous. It is hearsay about what some member might have said.

Senator Tom Sheahan: It is not hearsay.

Senator David Cullinane: It is hearsay and it is absolutely outrageous.

Senator Tom Sheahan: I stand over it and I will put my name to it.

Senator David Cullinane: It is outrageous and it is an abuse of Senator Sheahan’s position in this House.

Senator Tom Sheahan: I will put my name to it and stand over it.

Senator David Cullinane: That is not what the Garda Síochána were saying, which was very happy with the Ard-Fheis. 62 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion

Senator Tom Sheahan: This is the kind of doublespeak that is going on.

Senator David Cullinane: Senator Sheahan is abusing his position. He should withdraw that remark.

Senator Tom Sheahan: I refer to one comment in the Minister’s speech, the fact that there is “unfortunately, plenty of evidence of the willingness of these gangs to engage in murder, armed robbery, kidnapping, drug smuggling, counterfeiting and other serious offences”.

Senator David Cullinane: If the Senator is not prepared to name the individual, who he claims is a member of Sinn Féin, who made a very serious charge, he should withdraw the remark. He should put up or shut up. It is an outrageous statement for the Senator to make and I reject it absolutely. No Sinn Féin party member would say such a thing. It is absolute nonsense from Senator Sheahan. He should name the person involved or withdraw his comment.

Senator Tom Sheahan: I believe——

Senator David Cullinane: Senator Sheahan should name the person involved.

Senator Tom Sheahan: ——these serious offences apply to the CVs of several organisations still operating in this country.

Senator David Cullinane: Senator Sheahan cannot name the individual. He is a coward. There is no such individual.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O’Neill): Senator Cullinane, individuals cannot be named in this House because they are not here to defend themselves.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I thank most of the speakers for their support for this motion. Senator Byrne made reference to organised criminals in rural Ireland. It is a real issue that individuals are using our motorway system to act as predators on isolated elderly people in rural communities. The Garda Síochána has taken serious action, as part of Operation Fiacla, to target those engaged in such activities. The force has had some success in identifying individuals behaving in this way but I must be careful in what I say so I do not prejudice imminent prosecutions. There have been instances where elderly people are the victims of barbaric physical abuse at the hands of those who sought to invade the privacy of their homes and rob them. They seemed to take some pleasure in causing the maximum amount of distress to people who are unable to defend themselves. These individuals are nothing more than cowards preying on communities. I praise the Garda Síochána for the substantial work done in this area and for the considerable success that will become evident in the context of cases dealt with in our courts in the next 12 months. This is a crucial item of legislation in tackling organised crime. The context of the facility of the Special Criminal Court hearing cases is not being abused, despite the view of Senator Cullinane. It is a fallback, to ensure that no one engaged in organised crime feels entitled to impunity. We have seen instances of people prepared to threaten and intimidate jurors and put their lives at risk or lead them to believe their lives are at risk. People doing public service serving on juries are entitled to know they are safe. In the context of adjudication of cases before the Special Criminal Court, all of the rules of evidence and constitutional protection that apply to individuals apply to any prosecution before the Special Criminal Court. The only difference is that the outcome is determined by members of the Judiciary as opposed to jurors. When dealing with terrorism or organised crime, if individuals prepared to engage in illegality 63 Criminal Justice (Amendment) 20 June 2012. Act 2009: Motion

[Deputy Alan Shatter.] believe they can be immune from prosecution through the intimidation of jurors, it is of crucial importance that we have an independent court to determine properly, according to law and the Constitution, any prosecutions taken. We have an appropriate appellant system that provides oversight. When Senator Cullinane speaks about these areas, he is not talking about reality. He is talking about a theoretical world that exists in the heads of members of Sinn Féin, which is detached from the reality of the threat posed by subversives and criminal gangs.

Senator David Cullinane: That is not true. People are entitled to a fair trial.

Deputy Alan Shatter: There is no point in members of Sinn Féin telling me we should give further resources to the Garda Síochána when they want the Garda Síochána to address some areas of crime with its hands tied and without an assurance that, should an investigation prove successful, an appropriate trial can take place.

Senator David Cullinane: It is not fair, just appropriate.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Senator Cullinane wanted to ensure people have the right to a fair trial but fair trials are conducted in the Special Criminal Court, just as they are before jury trials. Fair trials are conducted because we have an independent Judiciary that applies the rule of law very carefully. Should something arise in a trial that warrants further examination, the opportunity to appeal a decision arises. It is important to recognise the reality so that we do not engage in a theoretical breastbeating based on the baggage Sinn Féin carries from the past.

Senator David Cullinane: That is more political posturing from the Minister. Why does the Minister not properly resource the Garda Síochána to deal with gangs? The Minister should not just create an impression he is doing something by producing draconian legislation that is not used. It is a joke.

Acting Chairman (Senator Pat O’Neill): Senator Cullinane should allow the Minister to speak without interruption.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Senator Cullinane is having a bad day today.

Senator David Cullinane: The Minister’s approach to this issue is a joke. He is being flippant about a serious issue.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I regret that, when it comes to ensuring the law and structures necessary to tackle organised crime and remaining small groups engaged in terrorism in this country, Sinn Féin wants to verbalise a position. It is willing to talk but not willing to walk the walk. I thank other Senators on all sides for their support on this important measure.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 35; Níl, 4.

Tá

Bacik, Ivana. Conway, Martin. Bradford, Paul. Cummins, Maurice. Brennan, Terry. D’Arcy, Jim. Burke, Colm. D’Arcy, Michael. Byrne, Thomas. Hayden, Aideen. Coghlan, Eamonn. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Coghlan, Paul. Heffernan, James. Comiskey, Michael. Higgins, Lorraine. 64 Business 20 June 2012. of Seanad

Tá—continued

Keane, Cáit. O’Brien, Darragh. Kelly, John. O’Donovan, Denis. Landy, Denis. O’Keeffe, Susan. MacSharry, Marc. O’Neill, Pat. Moloney, Marie. Power, Averil. Moran, Mary. Sheahan, Tom. Mullen, Rónán. van Turnhout, Jillian. Mullins, Michael. White, Mary M. Noone, Catherine. Wilson, Diarmuid. Ó Murchú, Labhrás.

Níl

Cullinane, David. Reilly, Kathryn. Norris, David. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Paul Coghlan and Susan O’Keeffe; Níl, Senators David Cullinane and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh.

Question declared carried.

Business of Seanad Senator David Cullinane: On a point of order, I ask Senator Sheahan to withdraw a comment he made earlier about an alleged comment of an alleged member of Sinn Féin. It was hearsay and he did not substantiate it. It was an awful statement and I would respectfully ask that he withdraw the statement he made.

An Cathaoirleach: I was not in the Chair at the time so it is very difficult for me to adjudicate on it. The Acting Chairman at the time perhaps thought it was a political charge.

Senator David Cullinane: I am respectfully asking the Member if he would withdraw the comment.

An Cathaoirleach: If Senator Sheahan wishes to withdraw it, he may. I am not in a position to enforce anything. Does Senator Sheahan wish to comment?

Senator Tom Sheahan: No, I do not wish to withdraw my comment. Senator Cullinane asked me to name the person in question but I believe it would be inappropriate for me to name the person.

Senator David Cullinane: It is inappropriate for a Senator to come into this House and engage in hearsay.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not having a discussion on it now.

Senator David Cullinane: It is inappropriate for any Member of this House to abuse their position and to engage in hearsay and then not even substantiate the claim that he made, and hide behind the fact he cannot name the member.

An Cathaoirleach: We are not dealing with that issue now.

Senator David Cullinane: It is inappropriate and despicable for the Senator to do so.

65 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

An Cathaoirleach: Those issues should be dealt with at the time. The Acting Chairman maybe felt it was a political charge. I am not in a position to make a judgement on it now.

Senator David Cullinane: He should be ashamed of himself.

An Cathaoirleach: We must move on.

Seanad Reform: Motion Senator Denis O’Donovan: I move:

That Seanad Éireann calls on the Government to include Seanad reform in the Consti- tutional Convention.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, to the House and I welcome this debate. The motion is a clear, succinct and unequivocal request. As we were aware before the last election, both Fine Gael and Labour called in their election manifestos for the abolition of the Seanad and their suggestion was that this would be done within 100 days, which obviously has not happened. In this instance, we must make it very clear that all parties, including my own party, Fianna Fáil, have the position that there is a need for Seanad reform. The questions one should pose are as follows. Does Ireland need an Upper House? In my view, it does. Does the current cost of the Seanad justify its retention? I believe it does. Despite rumours to the contrary, the overall cost of running the Seanad according to information from the Oireachtas Library and Research Service is approximately €9 million per annum, which could be improved on. What should Seanad Éireann do and how should it be elected? All of these issues have to be considered. With regard to whether Ireland needs an Upper House, Bunreacht na hÉireann was introduced in 1937 and the Seanad has served this country very well since then. Irish democracy is built on the organs of State and the separation of powers. We have the Judiciary and the Executive and there is a need for the operation of the Houses of the Oireachtas 2o’clock — the Dáil and the Seanad — to be examined. If reform of any of those bodies is needed, the most obvious and first port of call should be the Dáil itself. The Dáil is cumbersome and has a committee system that, while it was intended to be of benefit to democracy, is in fact unworkable at present because the committees are very large and unwieldy, despite recent changes. The other point that should be put on record is that the Legislature is currently under the control of a Government with a very large Dáil majority which is unprecedented in the history of the State. There is a widespread recognition that in order to improve our democracy we need to have a stronger Legislature that can hold Government to account. At present in Ireland, the Legislature does not hold Government to account. In fact, on recent issues, were it not for the Seanad, the majority is so large in the other House it would be almost undemocratic. Seanad Éireann slows down Governments. Irish Governments, particularly those supported by large Dáil majorities, can effectively steer through whatever measure they wish. In the current situation, without the Seanad, the huge majority of the Government parties in the Dáil could bulldoze through whatever legislation they require. Irish politics is dominated by parochial issues. It is ludicrous that Deputies should be sent from all parts of Ireland to represent their constituencies by having a focus on local, parish pump politics, which is an ongoing, festering issue. Recently, a particular issue in a west Cork town was being dealt with by every member of the town council and every county councillor and Oireachtas representative in the electoral area, amounting to 23 people. It is wrong, be it 66 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion in relation to planning or other issues, that every engineer, architect and public servant is being engaged with in a plethora of correspondence from Deputies, councillors and so on. The proposal to reduce Dáil representation from 166 to 158 seats is only tethering around the edges of the problem. It will not resolve it. With regard to the operational cost of the Seanad the Taoiseach may have given the impression, not deliberately but mischievously, that the operational cost of the Seanad is approximately €18 million or €19 million per annum. As I have already stated, the correct figure is closer to €9 million. Fianna Fáil believes that the number of Senators should be reduced by at least ten and that Senators should be paid an annual salary of, say, €50,000. A reduction in the number of Senators and their salaries would result in an approximately €2.5 million saving to the Exchequer. Also, Senators should be required to vouch for expenses, an issue which we have looked at but in respect of which we have never grasped the nettle, and should devote themselves fully to their job as Senators. I believe that the Seanad should sit normal working hours Monday to Friday rather than on a part-time basis, which allows Members to hold other jobs. Another important matter is what Seanad Éireann should discuss. In my view, we are now dominated by Europe. Current issues of concern include the influence of Germany in our economy, the problem with the eurozone and the financial difficulties being experienced by Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland. As I understand it almost 70% of all legislation currently passed by the Oireachtas is initiated in Europe, either by way of directive or indirectly. There is not enough scrutiny of European legislation. A reformed Seanad could take up the mantle of scrutinising European directives. Currently this work is done by various committees. I was once told by a senior clerk in the Oireachtas that this is done on a need to know basis. In other words, if, say, the Joint Committee on the Environment, Transport, Cul- ture and the Gaeltacht is required to scrutinise particular measures from Europe these are simply landed in front of it. There is no cohesion between the various Departments in regard to what is coming down the track, which is totally unacceptable. I also believe that a reformed Seanad should play a greater role in the development of cross- Border relations. It should be inclusive of representation from Northern Ireland. We all live on the one island and it should be written in stone that both communities in Northern Ireland be represented in a new Seanad. I hope that during my lifetime we will aspire to a united Ireland. There should be more integration on issues across our communities including, health, fishing, farming, the environment and so on. Also, Seanad Éireann should be given the specific power to assess, on a regular basis, the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement by this jurisdiction. Time limits should be imposed on speakers, the reading of speeches should be prohibited and time should be allocated to debate issues currently affecting citizens, as is currently the case in the Dáil. Seanad Éireann should be given the specific job of assessing our obligations under the many international treaties to which we have signed up and this should be done on a rotating basis to ensure we know what we are doing. I believe the public consultation process initiated by the Leader, Senator Cummins, should be further developed so that the citizens of this country, particular groups, minority groups of citizens and so on would have the right to bring acute issues affecting their lives before this House. In my view, Seanad Éireann should be in a position to vet all major State appointments by the Government and there should be a requirement that any recommendation by the Seanad on any such appointment must be taken into consideration by the Government. An issue arose recently in regard to the propriety of a senior appointee to the European Union. I believe that a cross-party committee of the Seanad could fulfil such a role. 67 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Denis O’Donovan.]

Fianna Fáil recommends that at the very minimum the current constitutional convention should review the Seanad. It is abominable that that convention is proceeding without taking cognisance of the role of Seanad Éireann, which is an important plank in our Legislature. Former Taoiseach, Mr. John Bruton, for whom I have enormous respect, established the committee on the Constitution in 1997 chaired by former Deputy Jim O’Keeffe from west Cork. That committee considered many issues and was subsequently chaired by the late Deputy Brian Lenihan. I later chaired the committee from 2002 to 2007. The committee dealt with many issues and produced 11 reports, some of which have never been acted upon. It would be more appropriate that the Government act on already completed constitutional reform work rather than on the knee-jerk political proposal to abolish the Seanad, which is a ludicrous proposal. As stated in the motion, the constitutional convention should deal with the issue first and foremost.

Senator David Norris: I am happy and honoured to second the motion. It is appropriate that we are taking it now. This was a victory for democracy in the House today, which is rare and unusual. I compliment all those who had the courage to vote in favour of democracy. What is being done against this House is a serious matter. Also, it is being done by someone who has never been a Member of this House. I do not recall ever seeing him in this House. Perhaps he did flit in once or twice. There is a nasty odour emanating from this Chamber, a bit of a whiff reminiscent of what happened in the House of Lords about 200 years ago in terms of placemen, peerages, advan- tages and preferment. I wonder if some day history will not show that this type of thing has been going on here also. There is no question but that there is some degree of collaboration on the Government side in regard to the winding down of the Seanad. It is seen in all kinds of ways, including the absence of the ordering of business and Private Members’ time. As the longest serving continuous Member of this House, I very much resent this. It is a serious step to lock-off one limb of democracy. It is not something that should be done on a whim as a brainstorm in front of a television camera. It was ill-thought out and there was no consultation on the matter with the Cathaoirleach or Leader of this House or with the Taoiseach’s Cabinet colleagues. It came out suddenly and the justification given was that it was financial. What rubbish. It was an insult to anybody’s intelligence but the voters are not stupid, they are quite canny. They were frightened into voting for the recent fiscal treaty. They knew there were risks, so they judged matters and made their decision, which we must honour and respect. By God, however, they have been given a free kick. I believe that if this referendum is put to the people, they will reject it because there are plenty of people who respect the Seanad. Regardless of that, all the people whom the Government has alienated will come out. I will be out too and will be campaigning on this matter. I will ensure that no sore is left unscratched because we have to have democracy. There are decent, honourable, good people on all sides of the House who are called to politics as a vocation. However, we are in an unprecedented situation where every single lever of power in this land is in the hands of the Coalition. Thank God we have a decent and independent-minded President, but what if it were different? He was a member of the Labour Party but presumably he has withdrawn his membership since being elected. We are so lucky to have a man of that calibre.

Senator Paul Coghlan: And the Judiciary.

Senator David Norris: Think about it — every single lever is in the possession of the Coali- tion. I did not know they controlled the Judiciary also, but I thank the Senator for letting me know that. 68 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

Senator Paul Coghlan: No. The judges are very fair, independent-minded people.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Norris without interruption.

Senator David Norris: It is important from a democratic point of view that this House remains a dissenting voice, particularly because we face these economic problems. I sit on the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Trade, of which I was a founder member with our current President Michael D. Higgins. He was a Member of this House as was W.B. Yeats and another President, Mary Robinson. As we sit here, a Bill introduced by my colleague, Senator Feargal Quinn, is going through the Dáil. That is how useful Seanad Éireann is. I have produced social legislation that was revolutionary and while the Government eventually took it over, it was initiated in this House. Every single Member on the Independent benches has produced legislation, which has had an impact. In fact, one could say we have had more of an impact in proportion to our size and the way we are resourced, than Dáil Éireann which is simply full of voting fodder. I came into the House 25 years ago on a slogan of reform. My slogan was: “Vote No. 1 Norris for an end to the quiet life in the Seanad.” I think I have delivered on that whatever people might think about it. Ten years earlier, in 1977, I also coined the phrase that the Seanad was in danger of becoming the intensive care unit of the Dáil. I know there are flaws in it, but I also know they can be rectified, and so does every single Member of this House. We will not act on it, however, and why not? It is because there is a lot of hypocrisy and laziness in establishment circles. The Cathaoirleach and the Leader know that on numerous occasions in the past I have tabled all-party resolutions — agreed by every single party in this House — concerning reform of the Seanad, yet Governments of whatever hue routinely vote their own proposals down. That is how serious they were about the reform of Seanad Éireann. Senator O’Donovan, who has had a distinguished career in this House, said that other reforms were proposed as well. The Government should be ashamed to make such a farce of an alleged consultation with the people — a convention that does not address the real issues, but avoids them and talks about reducing the voting age. The latter point is significant but it is not earth-shattering. It also seeks to reduce the term of the Presidency. I am glad the Govern- ment received my letter at last because I wrote it about 20 years ago. It has taken a long time for that particular penny to drop, but it is not of huge significance. If the Government is going to look at the Presidency, what is it afraid of? Why is it so hypocritical? It should consider its own 1998 report which said — as did every single party — that the nomination process for the highest office in the land was undemocratic and unfair. The former Deputy, Jim O’Keeffe, produced a Fine Gael Bill on the matter. However, when something that was not even quite as tough as that was produced within the last few months by Deputy Catherine Murphy, who is a decent woman, the Government voted it down. Therefore let us tear away this figleaf that the Government is interested in reform, because it is not. It is interested in power. I am glad that a professor from Trinity College is coming in here to give a talk about power. It was Acton who said that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I would hate to see it happening to the Government. We have a very difficult economic situation and it is precisely in those situations that human rights get pushed down the ladder. That is where I see this House doing more than talking about European law. This is one forum where we have never avoided human rights issues; we have consistently brought them up. While the other House is dealing with economic affairs, as it is charged to do, and we are restricted in our capacity to deal with such affairs by the Constitution, we can deal with human rights. 69 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator David Norris.]

We all know that reforms are needed because we are unrepresentative. I acknowledge that the university seats need reform, but we are probably the most democratic element of the whole House. Some 55,000 Dublin University constituents are eligible to vote and in my case they are quite independent-minded. I think the electorate is approximately 95,000 or 100,000 in the NUI constituency. Those are real constituencies. They should be broadened but the Government should look at the beam in its own eye. The Taoiseach’s selection of his 11 seats was visionary, although he may live to regret it. They are independent-minded people. Those 11 seats are filled without any pretence of an election. The last election to be held was a by- election in which 237 votes were cast. For public consumption to gull the people, those votes have to be multiplied by 1,000 and the newspapers collaborate with this. Therefore, if somebody gets 97.3 votes, we are told they got 97,300 but it is a farce. We need to look carefully at the nominating bodies to ensure they do not represent the current antiquated groups, but that they are spread out to represent the whole variety of Irish life — intellectual, academic, working, nursing, teaching and others. We must then do the critical thing which is to liberate the voter, giving ordinary members of the public the vote. We will then not duplicate the Dáil. If the Seanad was just the “son” of Dáil Éireann there would be no point in it, but there is a point in having something that is different and can bring in a different expertise. It can, for example, bring in medical expertise, as we have seen with the professor of oncology, Senator Crown. We have also seen Senator Feargal Quinn who is an extraordinarily successful businessman. In addition, Senator Denis O’Donovan is constantly talking about the fishing industry, while Senator Fiach Mac Conghail talks about the arts with such passion. I will not name any more Senators because it would just become invidious and be a waste of time. Nonetheless, in this instance, we have a real possibility to undertake reform if we have the courage to do so. In order to reform Seanad Éireann, it must be included in the constitutional convention, otherwise it is a farce. The Government must also include the Presidency, otherwise its cover will be blown and we will know we were right to suspect what was going on. It is a dangerous exercise. I protested when, at the beginning of the awful economic difficulties, instead of addressing financial problem, the previous Government, led by Fianna Fáil, silenced every organ or group, from Combat Poverty to the Equality Agency, that spoke out on behalf of marginalised people. It is the same system now in that the Government is silencing one of the last critical voices. Seanad Éireann was established in 1922 to give a voice to people who thought they might have no voice in the new State — those of a dissenting religion — and it was successful. It was abolished by President de Valera in 1936 but by 1937 he had to rethink it and reintroduced it. Does anybody here think I would ever have been elected to a national parliament? In my opinion it is an honour for this country that I was the first gay person in the world to be elected to a national parliament by a real electorate. It took 25 years to replicate that in the Dáil. So I am saying, let us keep the Republic and the values of Tone, Pearse and the rest. Let us cherish both Houses of the Oireachtas equally.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The constitutional convention will be established during the next couple of weeks by way of resolutions in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The Government proposes that initially the constitutional convention should look at two matters, namely, reducing the presidential term to five years and reducing the voting age to 17 years. The convention will be asked to report on these matters within a two month period. With regard to Seanad Éireann, the programme for Government contains the commitment that a referendum on the future of Seanad Éireann will be put to the people during the term 70 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion of office of this Government. Members, including on this side of the House, have expressed the view that the issue of Seanad reform should be discussed by the constitutional convention. However, the Government’s position on the matter is clear: a referendum on the future of Seanad Éireann will, more than likely, be held during the latter half of next year. The Govern- ment does not intend to refer the matter of Seanad reform to the constitutional convention.

Senator David Norris: That is a disgrace.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Hear, hear.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The position of Government on this matter is clear and unequivocal. It is my duty to relay the view of Government to this House.

Senator David Norris: I pity the Leader for it.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Cummins without interruption, please.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I look forward to Senators’ contributions. I can assure the House that I will not interrupt any Senator when speaking. It is my duty to outline the Government’s position to the House, which is what I am doing now. In the circumstances, I cannot accept the motion before the House.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: I welcome this important debate on Seanad reform, in particular consideration of Seanad reform by the constitutional convention. As I look across the Seanad Chamber, I note there are six Independent Senators here. As such, we outnumber all political parties in the Chamber this afternoon. What signal does that convey to those citizens watching us while we are discussing the future of the parliamentary model of Seanad Éireann which includes elected and nominated Senators from diverse backgrounds and university Senators? This is a symbolic moment. Were a vote to be called now and the doors were locked, Independent Senators would have the majority.

Senator David Norris: Let us do it.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: I am assuming that Senators Norris and Quinn are on the same wavelength as I am. What is the Government afraid of in the context of including Seanad reform in the constitutional convention? It is ironic that I, as a nominee of the Taoiseach to the Seanad upholding the Constitution in terms of my position here, am in favour of a greatly reformed Seanad Éireann. If the choice was clear between abolition and retention I would favour abolition. However, in my view, that displays an ill-considered view in terms of how we can reform our political structures and can invest more time in developing trust between citizens and parliamentarians. I do not consider myself a politician, rather I consider myself a parliamentarian, a role which I take seriously. Unlike Senator O’Donovan who spoke eloquently on this issue earlier, I believe that the work of the Seanad could be dealt with in a day and a half. I run the national theatre and I have just as much right to be a part of Seanad Éireann as does a full-time politician. The diverse backgrounds and experiences we bring are important. My fellow Senators in the group of Taoiseach’s nominees, can, while running businesses outside of this House, contribute constructively to any debate. To me, the notion of a part-time Senator is not a derogatory one. A Seanad which meets for a day and a half, commencing on a Tuesday morning and finishing at lunch time on Wednesday, would encourage all vocations, elected politicians, teachers, fire officers and so on to get involved in the important work of the checks and balances on the 71 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Fiach Mac Conghail.] Dáil. It should not duplicate what is being done in the Dáil but should bring a different nuance to legislation. I find it disturbing that the Government is afraid to allow our citizens to discuss the future of a part of our Oireachtas in a safe environment, namely, the constitutional convention. Of what is Government afraid? What is wrong with a public debate on this issue? I believe that as a Chamber the Seanad is wholly undemocratic because not every Irish citizen can vote in the Seanad elections. That is open only to those lucky enough to have a third level degree and studying in NUI or TCD. I am lucky I had the privilege of a third level education in Trinity College, which allowed me to vote, as I did for Senators Norris and Bacik. I believe that is a very narrow——

Senator David Norris: The Senator now rues the order in which he did so.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: No. I did so in reverse order.

Senator David Norris: They were two good choices regardless of the order.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: We have a flawed system of democracy in terms of the manner in which the Seanad is constituted. The report of the sub-committee on Seanad reform is a wonderful document prepared under the chairmanship of former Deputy and Leader of this House, Ms Mary O’Rourke, with the assistance of many Members of the current Seanad. It states on page 26 that one of the problems — this was accepted by the Seanad — is that the Seanad has no distinctive role in the Irish political system. The reason for this is the major gap between the average citizen and Seanad Éireann. I again ask, of what is the Government afraid? Why not openly discuss this reform? I have been a Member of this House for 12 months now. Reform is very slow. I accept the bona fides of the Leader and that he has delivered some change but reform of this House has been on a basis which has made no necessary connection. The media is often blamed for not giving enough attention to what is done in this House. I believe we do a good job and that if there was reform, in particular around election and reflection of a broader section of Irish society, we could do a better job. I am disturbed by Fine Gael and Labour’s deliberate opposition to the notion that 66 citizens within a constitutional convention, along with 33 politicians, 2:1, cannot have a deliberative, safe and informed debate around reform of Seanad Éireann. My fear is — I believe this will come true — that the proposal on abolition of the Seanad will go to a referendum without any prior deliberative process. If the result of the referendum is “No”, the Seanad will be abolished. If the result is “Yes”, there is no promise of reform.

Senator David Norris: Of course not.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: As I stated earlier, I have been a Member of this House for almost a year. If reform takes this long, I can guarantee that should the result of the referendum be “Yes” and the Seanad is retained the reform agenda will not continue at any pace that would give citizens a sense of enhanced trust in the Oireachtas. This is the reason we should put the cart before the horse. The Taoiseach, Ministers, Deputies and Members of this House should trust members of the constitutional convention to deliberate fairly on this issue. A series of work programmes has already been set out for the convention. The Leader stated earlier that the likelihood is that a referendum will be held in the latter part of next year, which means the schedule is already slipping. We are talking now about a referendum being held at the end of 2013, which could slip into 2014. The constitutional convention could easily convene on this particular issue. I have experience in deliverable democracy because I had the privilege of 72 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion being chairperson of We the Citizens, which was a project that lasted a year and examined how deliberation and informed decisions by citizens can enhance trust, increase participation in political life and increase understanding of and empathy with the difficult decisions politicians must make in the Oireachtas. A vote taken prior to the citizens engaging in a debate on Seanad reform weighed heavily in favour of abolishing the Seanad. We then had informed discussion with expert witnesses and political scientists on both sides who presented the history of Seanad Éireann, how and why it was established and the diversity it showed in its first ten years. The founding fathers of our Republic made an extraordinary and significant contribution to the establishment of a diverse republic. The Seanad was so strong and influential that de Valera tried to stop it not once, but twice. After this debate the citizens voted in favour of Seanad reform. I urge the Labour Party in particular, because we know Fine Gael’s policy is to abolish Seanad Éireann, to support with us the motion to include Seanad reform as part of the constitutional convention.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I am always happy to debate Seanad reform, but this is not a debate on Seanad reform; it is a very specific debate on a motion put before us. It is unfortunate it came before us in the way it did. I do not see the urgency in having this debate today. I voted against having this debate today and I would much prefer to have had a really meaningful debate in the House with the Minister——

Senator David Norris: You have had plenty of time to arrange it.

Senator Ivana Bacik: ——present briefed on the issue. This would allow us to have a proper debate on reform of the Seanad. I have debated reform of the Seanad in a range of fora and I will do so again in UCD on 30 June at a conference celebrating 75 years of Bunreacht na hÉireann. My personal position is very clear. I favour reform rather than abolition of the Seanad and I would have preferred to see Seanad reform contained in the constitutional convention along with a range of other issues. However, I must accept, as the Leader of the House has stated, that the programme for Government, voted on and accepted by the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party, states otherwise and sets out a range of specific topics to be dealt with by the constitutional convention, of which the two announced are just the first in the early phase which will take two months. The other issues will be dealt with at a later date. The issue of the future of the Seanad is not in it and I must accept this. As colleagues on all sides of the House are aware, we have been trying to conduct internal reforms of the Seanad to ensure our business is done more efficiently and effectively and in a more meaningful way. Initiatives such as the Seanad Public Consultation Committee, on which I commend the Taoiseach’s nominees, and the invitation to the Orange Order to address the House on 3 July show the Seanad can make a difference. Senator Norris is correct with regard to legislation initiated the House and I have been responsible for some of it. It shows the Seanad has a very worthwhile role to play. It is also true to say the Taoiseach’s nominees have greatly enhanced the Seanad and their presence means that often the Government does not have an effective majority in the House. This makes for a stronger and more democratic Seanad. All of these points are powerful arguments that will be brought into play when we debate the future of the Seanad in the context of the constitutional referendum we now know will be held next year. In the meantime it behoves those of us interested in the issue to debate it wherever we can. As I have stated, I debated it at public meetings in Trinity College last December and March and I will debate it in UCD this month. The subject of this motion is much narrower. It is directly against what is in the programme for Government and on this basis I will oppose it. 73 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

Senator David Cullinane: I welcome this opportunity to debate the important issue of the future of one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. My party has long held the view that the constitutional convention is the best place to examine Seanad reform. In examining the issue of Seanad reform, it is important to put it in wider context. It would be a mistake for the Government and the political establishment of the country to see Seanad abolition as a serious attempt at political reform. There is no doubt we need to reform the Dáil, local government and the Seanad. Simply wielding the axe on the Seanad and ignoring what is happening in the Dáil and local government is not a genuine attempt to reform governance in the country. In my view reducing the number of Deputies, changing the time of questions to the Taoiseach, sitting an extra day a month on a Friday when most Government Deputies do not even turn up, reducing the number of Oireachtas committees and reducing the number of local authorities and local authority members without examining their powers and functions, considering the vision we have for local government and giving it the powers and responsibilities it should have in key areas such as health and education, do not amount to genuine reform. All I see from the Government is a cut in numbers at — let us be honest — the behest of the troika. It is reducing the number of Deputies, councils and councillors and abolishing the Seanad and presenting this as some type of political reform. However, we are not dealing with the real issues which include the relevance of the Dáil, what the relevance of a second Chamber should be and what a proper system of empowered local government should be. This is the big mistake in the Government’s approach. The key principles which would underpin my approach to reforming governance generally include sovereignty, and God knows we need to discuss this given that we have given it away and it looks like there could be another European referendum as a full fiscal and closer union is sought by a small group of people who want more powers for Europe. The other principles are democracy, accountability, transparency, national unity, equality and the power of local communities and the influence they should have in the democratic process. Our view on Seanad reform sits in this overall framework and is underpinned by these principles. Our party has made clear that the Seanad in its current form is not fit for purpose. I took part in a debate in the Chamber before I was elected, when I was part of a Sinn Féin delegation that came in 2003. The former Leader of the House, Mary O’Rourke, held a number of consultations and my party made a presentation. A report was published but no meaningful reforms were made. We must be honest about the fact that the political establishment has put all of us in a situation whereby one of the options on the table is abolition of the Seanad, and it seems to be the only option on the table. It is quite sad that it is acceptable for us to consider severing one of the arms of the Oireachtas because it does not mean anything and is not fit for purpose without having any meaningful discussion on the need for a second Chamber, the relevance of a second Chamber and the powers and functions of the Seanad. The whole approach to Seanad reform is very dismissive and, to be honest, it is very dangerous to simply present a notion to people that it is easy to get rid of one arm of the Oireachtas. We are not doing justice to the fact that the House has powers. Limited though they are, we do have powers and these should not be taken for granted or taken lightly which is what is happening at present. It makes perfect sense to me that the issue of Seanad reform should be included in the constitutional convention. What better place to discuss it? We have been told it will be an opportunity to consult with the people of the State on a number of key issues, many of which are important. However, we are missing a golden opportunity to reform the Constitution and the structures of governance in the State because the Government is reducing the ability of the convention to deal with a number of very important matters. Many issues should be dealt with by the convention and I fail to see how it will not discuss the future of this House. I genuinely believe we are putting the cart before the horse by holding a refer- 74 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion endum next year that will gut the Constitution and God knows how many amendments will be made to it. It is proposed to do away with one arm of the Oireachtas without giving genuine and serious consideration to the impact so doing will have or to the relevance of a second Chamber or to the powers and functions thereof. This is the wrong approach. It would make perfect sense for this to be done by those who will be considering those issues, engaging in consultation work and consulting with people in this State. Thereafter, on foot of all the aforementioned consultations, were the convention to decide in its wisdom there was no place for a second Chamber, then by all means a referendum should be held and the people should be allowed to have their say. However, in the absence of such a thorough, independent analysis of the future of this House, it would be a grave mistake on the part of the Government to proceed with its abolition. The manner in which people are elected to the Seanad undoubtedly must be reformed as if there is to be a future for this House, this must be done on the basis of universal franchise. In addition, there must be discussion on what a second Chamber should look like. I make no apologies for believing a second Chamber should scrutinise legislation. While this should be a core part of its activities, I also believe it should scrutinise European Union legislation. More- over, it should be a conduit for the people and for many organisations that do not have access to the Dáil and which never will. The second Chamber can play a role by providing a space for individuals, organisations and those who wish to engage in a genuine way with the political system. This House could serve such a purpose and I note this has been partially achieved through the reforms enacted by the Leader of the House, with the support of all parties and groupings, through the Seanad Public Consultation Committee. This has been a worthwhile exercise that will continue over the next few years. However, it could be enhanced and could be made to be a relevant part of informing decision-making in this Chamber. For example, I have consistently called for a debate on poverty and this House could play a very important part in this regard. It could invite before it individuals who are affected by poverty and organisations working in communities that have been devastated because of poverty. Such organisations and individuals should be invited before the House for consultations, after which Members’ policy documents should be published. Such documents should then be allowed to inform and underpin decision-making. For example, Members have done this in respect of the rights of older people. Consequently, there is much that a second Chamber could do. It would be wrong simply to get rid of this second Chamber or to state it does not matter and the referendum should be held because it has had its day without giving it a proper analysis. While I could say much more on governance in general, I am conscious this is a specific motion that calls on the Government to ensure the future of the Seanad is part of the constitutional convention. Sinn Féin has called consistently for its inclusion. In their discussions with the Taoiseach, my party leader and those members of my party who comprise our membership of the convention expressed clearly their view that the future of the Seanad had to be part of the convention. I am very disappointed the Government has not acquiesced to that request. It would have had support from the Opposition and from many Independents. It makes no sense but for whatever reason, the Taoiseach has set his face against doing so and is set on the abolition of the Seanad. I believe this to be wrong and the Taoiseach will be obliged to defend his position when he eventually attends this House. However, the position of Sinn Féin is crystal clear. It is wrong to dismiss this House without considering it in the proper context and in Sinn Féin’s view, the proper context is the constitutional convention.

Senator Marc MacSharry: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a few points and welcome the Minister of State the House. On the Order of Business this morning, I mentioned that far too often in Irish history, the Government of the day has been guilty of using Parlia- ment as a tool, rather than the Government and Cabinet being the tools of Parliament and its 75 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Marc MacSharry.] people. While I noted all Administrations probably were guilty in this regard, the current Government certainly is guilty. This is the biggest difficulty Members face. Having made that point this morning, it gives me no pleasure to note, lest there was any doubt in my mind, that of anyone listening or that of anyone who cares to read the record of the House, the Govern- ment has proved it to be a fact today through its subversion of the democratic process by whipping Fine Gael Members not to participate in this debate. Think Ceaucescu, think Stalin.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Shame.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Members should think of that level of democratic subversion because this is what is taking place today and there is no excuse for it. I do not hold Senator Cummins responsible as Leader of the House, because I acknowledge he shares many of my views. However, what has sickened me in my ten years as a Member is the manner in which the political hierarchies of Fine Gael, of Fianna Fáil in its day and of the Labour Party have abused the Seanad and have kicked around democracy as though it were a game for the sole use and participation of the 15 people around the Cabinet table. While I am sure the Minister of State has had a busy day, it looked for a moment as though he were falling asleep while others were speaking. This is out of character for the Minister of State and I note Senator Bacik mentioned it was an awful shame this debate could not be arranged for another day, when a Minister who was briefed could be present. This was a sad and unfair indictment of the Minister of State because I assume all Ministers are briefed on the work of the Government and, if not, they should not be Ministers. It is as simple as that. For far too long, the Seanad has been perceived by the Taoiseach, Deputy Kenny, simply as an electoral tool. Members should recall the shock and surprise on the face of the then Leader of the Opposition in the Seanad, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, when, as they prepared to enter the dining room of the Citywest Hotel for the Fine Gael presidential dinner, he announced Fine Gael would abolish the Seanad because there were votes in so doing and sure enough, there were. Thereafter, the establishment of the constitutional convention for political reform was promised because there were votes in that too and that also was the case. However, the intention now is to ensure the facade of Government and democracy continues, thereby proving and underlining that the Dáil and Seanad are mere servants of the Cabinet, rather than the other way around as it should be. As Senator Norris has observed, the intention is to give the convention a couple of important but fairly superficial issues such as reducing the voting age or making the term of the Presidency a bit shorter. Why did the convention not consider the number of Deputies in Dáil Éireann? Why does the aforementioned convention not consider the abolition, reform or whatever else of the Seanad? There is no point in talking to Senators about Seanad reform as they all have their individual views in this regard and historically, Senators have not been the problem. The problem always has been the abuse of the political hierarchy and I refer to the downright contempt the leadership of Fine Gael is showing for its Members today by telling them they cannot speak on this motion. How dare they? How dare they effectively admit that what they are involved in is a democratic dictatorship? It is a case of “Do as I say and do what I tell you.” As for the purpose of the Fine Gael and Labour Party parliamentary party meetings, the Ministers wheel in a policy and tell their members to go out and sell it. Those who might not like it are reminded there is a queue of people to take their place. This is what is wrong with this constitutional democracy in which we live. It was a sham and a downright disgrace today to see Fine Gael and Labour Party Members outside the leadership clearly being whipped not to participate in a debate which I remind Members was democratically decided on by this House earlier today. 76 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Why are the active Members who have often spoken about Seanad reform and the need for the constitutional convention to include this issue not present today to participate in this debate? It was because they were told to stay away. Moreover, Senator Bacik would have Members believe the Government sent in the poor, honourable Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, who is not briefed on the issue. This is an admission from the so- called leader of the Labour Party in the Seanad that Ministers come before this House to preside over Bills on which they are not briefed.

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not what she said.

Senator Marc MacSharry: I have known the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, for as long as anyone in this House and he certainly is as well briefed as any other Minister. It is a disgrace that we are stifling debate and democracy, giving a Harvey Smith to democracy and downright manipulating a process that will ensure Seanad abolition. Shame on Fine Gael in particular, and also on the Labour Party for allowing this to happen. There are 1 million things that could be suggested, debated and considered by a constitutional convention. The last people anybody needs to hear talking about it are Senators. I have never known a Senator, Independent or otherwise, who is not an avid enthusiast and proposer of radical Seanad reform. That has never been the problem. The problem is clear for everybody to see today. It is the empty Fine Gael and Labour Party benches. How dare those Senators call themselves democratic, and representatives of the people? Shame on them. Think of Ceausescu, Stalin and that kind of Communist oppression because that is what they are holding up and standing for today.

Senators: Hear, hear.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I do not understand the thinking behind having a constitutional convention but excluding from that convention a discussion on the Seanad, at a time when there is a proposal that the Seanad be abolished. If the Seanad is abolished there will be at least 70 changes to the Constitution. How can there be a constitutional convention and 3o’clock shortly afterwards a change be made that was not discussed at that convention? I spoke of 70 changes to the Constitution but I am told there may be as many as 93. That just does not seem to make sense. What we are debating today is whether the discussion about the Seanad should be included in the constitutional convention. It does not make one iota of sense to consider having that convention, concerning the taking place of which there is clearly a great deal of agreement, while excluding from it a measure that will bring about so many changes. There have been many discussions about the abolition of the Seanad, and about from where this move came. It appears it may have come as a whim, or as something in which the potential Taoiseach of the day declared he believed. That is worthy of discussion but the place to have that discussion is at the constitutional convention. We have talked today about some of the benefits of having a second House. It is essential that we have one. The bicameral system exists in a very large number of countries around the world although many smaller countries do not have it. Senator Norris has been in the House for 25 years; I am in my 20th year here. I look back and think of some of the occasions I can remember where this House played a very large part. Let me offer just two instances I remember. I remember the George Mitchell scholarship Bill going through the Dáil. It was a very short and easy Bill that honoured the George Mitchell scholars who were to come here from the United States to study peace in Ireland or, indeed, any subject here. The Bill that went 77 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Feargal Quinn.] through the Dáil referred to studying in this “State”, meaning the Twenty-six Counties. That was noticed in the Seanad the following day and drawn to the Minister’s attention. He stated he had advice that the wording had to take that form. Imagine coming to study peace in Ireland and not being allowed to study north of the Border. It just did not make sense. It was argued in the Seanad that this should not take place and that the scholarship should apply to study in all of Ireland. The Minister went away, thought it over and accepted the amendment made in this House. The Bill was changed and returned to the Dáil. That seems such a simple item but if we had had only one House when this matter was discussed the original wording would have passed. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy McGinley, for staying, at least for the time he did. He was very welcome.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Is the incoming Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, as well briefed?

Senator Feargal Quinn: He is.

Senator Marc MacSharry: According to Senator Bacik——

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Senator Quinn, without interruption.

Senator Feargal Quinn: The point we are making is not merely about whether we should have a second House but about whether that debate should take place in the constitutional convention. It seems to make sense that it should. I offer a second example, one that was quite dramatic and which a number of us will remember. I forget how many years ago it happened but a proposal had gone through the Dáil that public opinion polls should not be published for the three weeks before an election. It passed through the Dáil and that House went into recess. That evening, in this House, we carried it on to Committee Stage. The then Senator, now Deputy Shane Ross, had a proposal which pointed out the ludicrous situation whereby there would be no public opinion polls for the three weeks prior to an election, not until the midnight before the election took place. Can Members picture how idiotic that would be? Suddenly, on the morning of the election, the television cameras, the radio stations and all the newspapers would carry the news that there had been a big swing, for or against. It was the most ridiculous thing but this had not been noticed in the other House. This is only a reminder of the value of having a second look at every piece of legislation. That is the reason this matter should be discussed in the constitutional convention and not merely discussed as a question of Seanad reform. If there is going to be Seanad reform, the very aspect the constitutional conventional will look at is how we can make it a more healthy body, one that will be more efficient, that will work better. The point that will crop up very early on, and the constitutional convention is surely the place for it, is how we should elect the Members. Senator Norris has spoken on this today and there is little doubt that the Independent Members can speak on this. I understand that in the first 14 years of the original Senate, from 1922 to 1936, there were no Whips. This played a very valuable role because all Senators were, in effect, individual independent Members. Look- ing back, one of the best uses of this House was during the years 1994 to 1997, when the Government of the day did not have a majority in this House. Those of us who were here then, five Independent Members, held the balance of power. It was great fun. The Leader will remember that time, too, because the Government had to be nice to us in regard to any item 78 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion it wished to get passed. It had to have at least three of the five of us to agree. I am sure that on occasions we made mistakes but it was a very healthy Seanad and a very healthy Govern- ment. It achieved a very great deal and on that basis it balanced out. I mention that because the case I make is not about how we reform the Seanad — if we do so. I am sure it must and will be reformed. My point is that it is essential that there be a second House, whatever it is called. It is essential that we do not have a constitutional convention that studies the Constitution while knowing that as soon as that convention is over the Government intends to make a change that will bring about at least 70 changes to the Constitution. It seems ridiculous. If we are going to have a debate in the form of a constitutional convention it must include a debate on the institution of the Seanad because the abolition of the House would change things so very much that it would become a laughing stock. It would not make sense to have that convention and ignore what is coming immediately afterwards. This needs very serious consideration but the solution is simple.

Senator Paschal Mooney: In 1933, Eamon de Valera, who had just been elected Taoiseach, called an election. During the course of the election campaign he visited my home town of Drumshanbo in County Leitrim and made a speech on the high street. This is commemorated with a plaque that was unveiled subsequently by his granddaughter, a former Member of the other House, Síle de Valera. It was an extraordinary event, according to what my late father told me, and happened on a fair day when many such political gatherings used to take place. The reason the cameras happened to be in Drumshanbo at that time is that a cameraman was following de Valera on his national campaign. The clip was subsequently used in the programme about de Valera from that wonderful series, “Seven Ages: The Story of the Irish State”, by Seán Ó Mordha on RTE television, which is available on DVD. During the clip, the extract from his speech, de Valera threatened to abolish the Senate if it continued to thwart Govern- ment business. As Senator Quinn outlined in his eloquent contribution, the First Seanad that was established under the Free State Constitution did not have a Whip system. The Seanad continued to thwart W.T. Cosgrave’s Administration from 1922 to 1932 and the two subsequent de Valera Administrations between 1932 and 1936, when Mr. de Valera abolished it. It is rather interesting that despite his antipathy towards the Free State Seanad, which obviously had a mind of its own, Mr. de Valera decided to reintroduce the Seanad, much to the surprise of everybody, when he put his proposal for a new constitution before the people in 1937. I have never gone into the detail of what changed his mind but it is obvious that when he looked at the situation, he decided this country would be more suited to a bicameral parliament. At that time, and to a large extent today, the Executive ruled and the Dáil disposed of the Execu- tive’s proposals. As I have often said in this House, we have one of the most centralised Administrations in Europe. Senator MacSharry spoke about Stalin in another context. The manner in which we govern is in urgent need of reform. Successive Administrations of all political hues have done very little to reform the manner in which we carry out our democratic duties in either House. This House has been totally ignored. The 13 reform documents that have been prepared since 1937 are gathering dust on the shelves of the Oireachtas Library. In all that time, not a single Government has done anything to address the inequities and flaws that have existed since the First Seanad. The first of those flaws relates to the manner in which Senators are elected. Mr. de Valera’s concept was excellent. He decided the new Seanad would be broadly reflective of vocational and other interests. It was supposed to be a broad representation of Irish society. However, even the most dedicated MA students would find it difficult to get their heads around the complex structure of Oireachtas panels and nominating sub-panels he put in place. Only those of us who have gone through the system are able to go some way towards explaining how it works. However, it has worked in terms of getting people elected. 79 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Paschal Mooney.]

The original concept was all about representing various vocational interests such as organised labour, administration, the industrial and commercial life of the country, the cultural and edu- cational life of the country and the agriculture sector. All of these important parts of Irish life — of who we are as a nation — were supposed to be represented in the new Seanad. The flaw was the manner in which one had to go about being elected. It was all very well to allow the respective bodies to make nominations, but the broad membership of those bodies did not have the right to vote in Seanad elections. That was left to the politics of the day. As a consequence, this Chamber was, is and will remain a political Chamber. Therein lies the flaw. That is just one aspect of this debate, however. I raise it merely as an historical anecdote that points to the urgent need for Seanad reform. The most recent of the 13 reports that have suggested various ways of reforming the Seanad was published when Mary O’Rourke was the Leader of the House. Such a level of activity proves that the Members of this House, across all groupings, have never at any time been reluctant to embrace change. We have been pilloried by the public for being irrelevant. It has been suggested that the Seanad is a nursing home for broken-down politicians or a starting point for aspiring politicians. In fact, the Seanad has been accused in the public domain of doing everything other than what it was established to do, which is to operate as a means of bringing checks and balances to the democratic system. That was and remains the core of the business of the Seanad. The Government has suggested the establishment of a constitutional convention. The dogs on the street would say without any reflective thought that Seanad reform should be included in such a convention. Like Senator Quinn, I cannot understand why the Government is going down the route it has chosen. It is not as if there is no room for debate on Seanad reform. What is the Government offering? It is offering an architecture that will involve elected representatives and a random selection of people from across the country. I assume they will be selected in the same way as people are selected for jury service. It is likely that some of the people who are asked to get involved will not want to do so. What will they be asked to deliberate on when this elaborate structure is put in place? At a time when 440,000 people are unemployed, they will be asked to talk about whether the President should serve for five years rather than seven years and whether the voting age should be reduced from 18 to 17. How is the Government deciding on its priorities? The Taoiseach set the ball rolling in this regard by unilaterally declaring he wanted to get rid of the Seanad. I can inform Senator Quinn that according to the information available to me, which will be for another day, the Taoiseach did so in a fit of pique without consulting his colleagues. He is now being hung by his own petard. The Labour Party has not made a public policy statement on the abolition of the Seanad, but it seems it is not in favour of it. I am aware that some senior members of the Labour Party would prefer if Seanad reform was considered as part of the constitutional convention. Fianna Fáil is not in favour of abolition. When our leader got a rush of blood to the head during the general election campaign — perhaps he was going for a populist line of thought as well — he asked why it should not be abolished but we managed to convince him otherwise and put a little halt to his gallop. He has now seen the proper light of day in that regard. In fairness to him, he went about it in a very systematic manner. He consulted his Seanad colleagues and asked our esteemed colleague — Senator O’Donovan, who has legal training — to conduct research and prepare a report. We had a democratic debate on that basis, as we always do in Fianna Fáil, and we made a democratic decision that we are not in favour of abolition. Senator Cullinane made it quite clear in his contribution that Sinn Féin is not in favour of abolition. I understand from those who comment on these things that any time an amendment to our Constitution is proposed — I 80 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion think we have made more amendments to our Constitution than the people of Switzerland have made to that country’s constitution — the referendum does not pass unless there is a political consensus in the country and among the political establishment.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: I thank the Minister of State for coming to the House for this debate. During the 20 minutes I had to prepare for this debate, I researched the basis for the establishment of the Government’s constitutional convention. I was interested to read that the Government proposes to establish the convention “by Resolutions of both Houses of the Oireachtas”, which will “provide for the Convention to submit its final report to the Houses within twelve months of its establishment”. I always look at the Government, the Dáil and the Seanad as a giant company. For the moment, we are set up as a giant company. We have the Lower House and the Upper House. That is how we are for the moment. I need to be educated in one respect. I know the Taoiseach said during last year’s general election campaign that he intended to abolish the Seanad. Did extensive discussions and deliberations take place before he came to that position?

Senator Paschal Mooney: The Senator must be joking.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: Did he do so on the basis of his experience over the years? I am not quite——

Senator Thomas Byrne: It came into his head as he was arriving in Citywest.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: Was it a fleeting moment in Citywest? When the Taoiseach nominated me to this position, I told him I had heard him say that he intended to abolish the Seanad. He said he had that in his mind. I do not think for a moment that the Taoiseach, being the man I know he is, would not sit down and discuss the wheres, the whats and the whys. We are running a giant company here. Things have changed significantly since the Taoiseach was elected. It has struck me in recent days, as I have been reading and talking to my colleagues, that we are still beset by challenges and worries. Things have not remained the same since the day the Taoiseach was elected and the evening in Citywest when he said that. Reform is on the table. There is reform that might have been good in this document but a lot more reform is needed now. Let us say that if there was a “Yes” and a “No” vote again regarding the abolition of the Seanad then like my colleague, Senator Fiach Mac Conghail, I would vote for its abolition. We could talk about reform of the Seanad if it was done in a way that we could debate it. We can put the subject that is up for debate today on the list of topics for debate at the constitutional convention. It must be put on the constitutional convention’s list to be debated, thought about and reported upon and then come back here. As one of the speakers said earlier, reform is not just for us Senators to debate. I favour reform but it is not right that we must wait until 2013, the end of the next year. There are “Yes” and “No” views but there is no time for us to have a meaningful dialogue with our people. A new Seanad should embrace experience and expertise that represents the professions such as the legal, the business, the health, the sports, the arts, the agriculture, the education, the candlestick maker, the toy maker, the emigrants, all of society and some Northern Ireland people. Today I heard some eloquent speakers here say that we have known, over the years, what has happened in the House and Senator MacSharry spoke very eloquently and strongly. Let us imagine for a moment that 20 years have elapsed and there is somebody in the Dáil whom no one like and who has complete power but there is no Seanad. What then? What if there are no checks and balances? We must keep the Seanad going but we live in a different world. We live in a very frightening Europe and Ireland is under the troika at the moment. New Zealand 81 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Mary Ann O’Brien.] is the only democratic country that I can think of that got rid of its Seanad. The other day I spoke to Sir Michael Fay in New Zealand and he said that getting rid of its Seanad was the worst thing that they had ever done in his country. We cannot stand here and not put this matter on the agenda for the constitution convention. I do not want to undermine the importance of the duration of a presidential term of office by insisting on a reduction of the seven year term. That is a no-brainer. It should be five years——

Senator Paschal Mooney: Hear, hear.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: ——but who cares whether it is seven or five years? With regard to a voting age of 18 or 17 years of age, I do not mind but 17 years sounds better. The Seanad versus the Dáil argument or the Seanad’s abolition is serious and needs to be discussed. It is the lifeblood of every citizen in the country that we are talking about. I also want to put a question to the Leader that we can discuss later. Hypothetically, if the Seanad is gone, how many Deputies will we have in the Dáil? Can somebody answer my question? What has the Taoiseach in mind?

Senator Maurice Cummins: There will be 158 Members.

Senator Paschal Mooney: It will be 158 Members.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: I thank the Senators. If we have two chambers and we reform, how many Deputies will be in the Dáil and how many Senators will be in the Seanad? As we know, it is not just the Seanad that needs to be discussed. There is much to be discussed here. A lot has gone wrong and we have huge challenges ahead so we all know that the problem is greater than the reform of the Seanad. It is not question of me making a very ineloquent and badly thought out speech. As I said, I was not prepared but I also was not prepared not to speak.

Senator David Norris: Well said.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: Over 50 Senators voted today but where are they? What is more important than this afternoon’s debate? Where is everybody, Minister?

Senator Marc MacSharry: They are not allowed. They have been told not to speak.

Senator Thomas Byrne: You were banned from speaking.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: Is that true?

Senator David Norris: Fine Gael has whipped them.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Not correct.

A Senator: Nobody told me that.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Why are there no people here?

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not correct.

Senator David Norris: I was told it by some of your members. 82 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not correct.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Some of your Members were telling us that was what the Whip was saying.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Pardon.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Some of your other Members have said what the Government espoused.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Senator Mary Ann O’Brien is speaking.

Senator Mary Ann O’Brien: We are here to serve our country and our citizens. This should not be day for the imposition of a party Whip. There should be an informed discussion about a simple debate on whether the reform or abolition of the Seanad should form part of the constitutional convention. I implore the Taoiseach to open up his mind to discuss this with the convention, with the Seanad and all of these advisers. I thank Members for listening to me.

Senator David Norris: Well spoken.

Senator Thomas Byrne: I hope that my county colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, conveys the deep anger that has been expressed in the Chamber today about his party colleagues being banned from speaking in a debate. He would never want to be banned from speaking because he is outspoken and rightly so. They have been banned.

Deputy Shane McEntee: No.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The evidence is there.

Senator Maurice Cummins: That is not correct.

Senator Thomas Byrne: A stream of Opposition speakers have made their contribution. In all my time in the Seanad it has never happened that nobody——

Senator Terry Brennan: I can only speak for myself.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Contributions has gone from one Opposition speaker to another.

Senator Terry Brennan: I can only speak for myself.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Nobody from the Government has offered and that is evidence that they have been banned from speaking. No Government Senator spoke and that is the evidence. It is a shambolic day for democracy in this country.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Hear, hear.

Senator Thomas Byrne: It is revenge for two Government defeats in the Seanad this morning. It was a good jolt to remind the Government that this country is a democracy and run by the people and not as my colleague, Senator Marc MacSharry said, by 15 people around the Cabinet table. I urge the Leader to get his colleagues into the Chamber to offer their views no matter whether they are for or against the motion. Let us not forget that the motion tabled is to decide if Seanad reform should be discussed at the constitutional convention and is not about Senators being for or against the Seanad. The former is a reasonable discussion to hold because the constitutional convention is shambolic. It is a sham. As has been said, it will reduce the voting age and decrease the presidential term. They are not matters for debate in which 83 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Thomas Byrne.] the public needs to be involved. They are matters that public representatives can decide within Parliament and then hold a referendum if needed. There are far more serious constitutional issues affecting the country that can and should be dealt with by a constitutional convention and they include the Seanad. The reality is that the Government wants to keep full control of what happens at the constitutional convention. It wants full control of the pace of reform and to slow it down. The Government members came to power as reformists and talked about the abolition of the use of the guillotine in debates. We have had more guillotines under the Senator’s leadership than ever before.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator is again incorrect.

Senator Thomas Byrne: We have had more Committee Stage debate immediately after Second Stage than ever before.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator is incorrect.

Senator Thomas Byrne: As I understand it, the guillotine was rarely used——

Senator Maurice Cummins: Speak facts.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Without interruption, please.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Senator said that he does not interrupt me.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Senator Thomas Byrne to continue, without interruption.

Senator David Norris: You will not let them speak without interruptions.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The guillotine was rarely used in previous terms of the Seanad. There is a specific commitment in the Programme for Government to have at least a week——

Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes.

Senator Thomas Byrne: ——between Second Stage and Committee Stage and between Com- mittee Stage and Report Stage. That rarely happens. I acknowledge that the situation has slightly improved. The commitment to reform by the Government side has been shown for the sham that it is.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Hear, hear.

Senator Thomas Byrne: It is smoke and mirrors. The impression of reform has been given but things have got far worse. Never before in the history of a European democracy have Members of Parliament been told by their Government not to speak. It is incredible and never before has it happened. Shame on Fine Gael and the Labour Party for allowing it to happen. Little more needs to be said. I hope that the Seanad passes the motion and that the Government takes cognisance of it because the pressure will be serious. Let this not be seen as some sort of self-preservation motion because it is not. I do not know where I shall meet the Minister of State tomorrow night. I do not know whether it will be in Laytown or Kells but we are both fairly well got in both places. I want to be in the next Dáil. I shall do my work as a Senator but I am not here to preserve my seat as 84 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion a Senator. I am here to make sure that reform is properly debated by the Irish public. At the end of the day it is the public that decides on what happens in this Chamber and not 15 people around a Cabinet table.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Yes.

Senator John Crown: I wish to share two minutes of my time with Senator Rónán Mullen.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator John Crown: I have tried to think of a good analogy for the facial appearance of the Minister of State and his predecessor here this afternoon. The best that I can think of is that they seem about as enthusiastic as the fraternal delegate from the Taliban going to a women’s political association meeting.

A Senator: Is that later?

Senator John Crown: It would be, yes.

Deputy Shane McEntee: Is Senator Crown speaking about me?

Senator John Crown: In general, yes. Please do not take it personally.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The Senator is out of line.

Senator John Crown: I understand the circumstance in which they have found themselves press-ganged into a duty that they evidently find — I won’t say distasteful — somewhat down the list of priorities for what had been their planned activities for today. It is well known that when I ran for the Seanad a year ago——

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Deputy Shane McEntee): On a point of order, I have listened to everything that has been said and I do not like the Senator’s insults.

Senator John Crown: Okay. There are many things I do not like either but that is just the way it is.

Deputy Shane McEntee: I have listened and I will carry the message that was said to me.

Senator John Crown: I thank the Minister of State. However, I stand by my comments. When I ran for the Seanad a year ago I stated that I would never run again for it as currently constituted. There is a very strong case to be made for either its abolition or reform. My three complaints about the Seanad are that it is undemocratic. It has introduced an electoral cast system into the country where some citizens have a vote while others do not, some are so far down the cast system that they would best be considered to be untouchables. Something I have learned since I have become a Member, I hope my colleagues do not take this personally, is that it is somewhat ineffectual. I am not saying that it never has an effect but certainly in terms of bang for the book, in terms of the opportunity of having the Chamber and all these people working here, it could be used far more effectively. My principal objection is that the original intent of the Chamber has been comprehensively subverted in the past 15 years. The purpose of this Chamber was to bring an alternative set of life experiences and life skills into the corridors of Parliament and we have lost that. It was supposed to be a place where people who came from academia, labour, commerce and agriculture, industry and across the whole spectrum of society, could bring their life experiences to bear together with those of the 85 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator John Crown.] full-time politicians in the Dáil and they would give us, perhaps, some more information that would help them when making their decisions with respect to governance and legislation. We all know that something very different has happened to it since and it has become an extension of the Dáil and the local government system, mainly used by the political parties as a means of advancing the careers of those on the way up and rewarding those who have been loyal servants. I am not saying that people have not given good service here as a result of it but that is not the original intent of the de Valera Constitution. While some of that subversion has taken place from without the House, with great respect some of it has taken place from within the House. When people continually act as if they are local representatives for some fantasy football version of Dáil Éireann here, it actually undermines the authority of allowing this Chamber to continue in the future. When people who look at it in a dispassionate fashion from the outside ask what it does, it makes us very vulnerable to the accusation that it is a somewhat cynical, party politically inspired Chamber which has, as its real intent, something other than that which was planned for it in the beginning. One can make really fine arguments for having a two-tiered, bicameral, dual-chambered national parliament. There are all kinds of arguments that can be advanced in terms of checks and balances and of the original intent of the de Valera Constitution and in terms of providing time for deliberation on big matters. One can make many fine arguments for having a single- tier parliament as well. This is the truth. Anybody looking at it critically from the outside would say there are arguments on both sides. This is a small country which is geo-ethnically largely homogeneous. I acknowledge that we have a rich tapestry of ethnic groups within the country but we do not have large ethnically-defined political parties. This is not pre-1999 Yugoslavia. This is a very different country. We do not have that. We do not have one of the big reasons people need a second chamber. One of the reasons we had a second Chamber in the 1920s was that those from the class that had regarded themselves as having an allegiance to Britain would not feel totally democratically disenfranchised by majoritarianism in a new State. That was a noble idea which was, perhaps, deemed anachronistic in the early 1930s and replaced. One thing for which no argument can be advanced is not having a debate.

Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: Exactly.

Senator John Crown: The most critical component of the constitution of any country is how it elects its national parliament. If we are having a constitutional convention and it deals with issues which some would see as relatively trivial and insubstantial in direct comparison to the actual Constitution of the national Parliament, one has to say there is something severely wrong with the democratic process. I for one readily buy into the theory that the Taoiseach, who is a good man and has made a good contribution to public life, did, perhaps, in a fit of pique, perhaps somewhat informed by the populism of an impending election make a decision which may not stand up to scrutiny. I have made mistakes in my life. I have done and said things which were wrong and I am happy to take them back when I have done so. He should acknowledge that he should advance in the constitutional convention his arguments for, and allow those who have arguments against, abolition of the Seanad. It is regrettable that such a vicious whip has been applied today which has prevented our colleagues, many of whom I know have similar opinions to myself, from speaking. I yield to my colleague.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I thank the Senator for sharing time and also for telling us that he was wrong on occasions. It reminds me of a friend who said he was only ever wrong once and that was when he thought he was wrong but he was actually right. Somebody said today was a 86 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion good day for the Seanad that we had voted against the wishes of the Government and managed to secure a debate on the motion. It would be a much better day for the Seanad if, on any given day, the House was to show itself capable of voting against the wishes of the Government on a point of principle about a particular legislative amendment or some other issue. A weakness that is apparent for all to see in the way the Seanad operates is that we do not prove sufficiently often that we have minds of our own and we do not live out what the Seanad was meant to be, which is a place where unusual, surprising, but very carefully considered points can be made and where there would be a reflection of legislation and policy that did not manage to happen in the other House. Whatever is to be the future of the Seanad it has to involve promoting that independence of thought and unpredictability as well in terms of the scrutiny that is available. I am not a particular fan of the constitutional convention idea. It is rather rash and does not compare well with the previous sophisticated work of the Constitution review group. If there is to be a constitutional convention it is appropriate that any proposal to change the Constitution would come under that heading and would fall to be considered in due course by that convention. I disagree with those who say that if presented with a straight proposal to abolish the Seanad they will vote for it. To do that and to say that actually panders to the superficial, ill-considered, authoritarian and anti-democratic approach being taken by the Government. The change I would like to see in our institutions is that we would introduce a list system or elements of the list system into voting for the Seanad. In that way we would be able to guarantee that in one House at least there are people elected who have an eye to national issues, to policy consider- ations and who are not driven to the extent that, perhaps, happens in the Dáil, to focus on local issues so much of the time because that has been to the detriment of democracy. That is where the Seanad could make a major contribution. Were we to be elected by a list system it would guarantee diversity of representation of different shades of opinion in the country and would be to the benefit of politics.

Senator Averil Power: I wish to share time with Senator Ned O’Sullivan.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Averil Power: I join colleagues in supporting the call for the constitutional convention to be given the opportunity to discuss real political reform. I do not see how it can in any meaningful sense discuss electoral reform for the other House without looking at how it fits into the overall picture from local government to national Parliament to this House. All three need to be examined together if there is to be any meaningful review of how the political system works. Senator Mac Conghail pointed out that the convention is well suited to do that because there will be 66 citizens on it. It is extraordinary that the Government does not want to give such a reflective and deliberative group the opportunity to consider all the issues and develop proposals which at the end of the day will be put to the people. In general, in respect of the constitutional convention I am disappointed at the brief it has been given because it is a good idea but it has been somewhat trivialised by the issues that the Government has said it will put before it. Senator Norris spoke about the presidential selection system. I agree this is infinitely more important than discussing whether the term of the Presi- dency should go from seven to five years. Neither should a discussion on the voting age should take months. As a strong advocate of marriage equality that is an issue on which political leaders should take leadership. It is extraordinary that the Taoiseach seems to be one of the last leaders in Europe, and in the western world now that President Obama has made his position clear, who will not say where he stands on the issue or if he has a personal view. Instead of trying to deflect it to the constitutional convention the Taoiseach could say where 87 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

[Senator Averil Power.] he stands. My party passed a motion at our recent Ard-Fheis supporting marriage equality, and I will support it whenever the referendum is held. It is an issue on which people should take leadership, and it is not necessary for it to be debated in the constitutional convention. It should be put to the people. I agree with previous speakers that there are weaknesses in respect of this House. The Seanad often makes a far greater contribution than is appreciated. Generally, the debates here are more reflective and less partisan and as previous speakers pointed out, over the years both Senator Quinn and Senator Norris brought forward Bills that passed through this House and made a contribution. However, there are significant flaws that must be addressed such as the lack of popular legitimacy to this House, which undermines the work we do regardless of how hard we work and what we achieve. The House does not have adequate powers. More important, the composition of the House is not sufficiently distinct. I agree with Senator Mullen in respect of a list system. If we had a Seanad that was elected on a national list we would end up with a distinct group of parliamentarians here that would be very different from the constituency focus that is in the Dáil. We would also get far better representation for minorities. If we had 50 seats, for example, the quota for each one would be only 2% and we would end up with a genuinely vocational representation because people would run on national issues and we would have representatives of the Traveller community and our immigrant communities and therefore a much more diverse Parliament. A second House would add enormously to Irish democracy and it is regrettable that the constitutional convention will not be given the opportunity to examine those issues. As Senator Quinn pointed out at the outset, this is not a debate on the future of the Seanad, and Government representatives have not been asked to take a side on that issue. They are being asked to consider that the constitutional convention would be given the opportunity to discuss these issues and that when the people vote on the future of the House, they are given real options for reform on which they can decide. That is all that is being asked of the Govern- ment representatives. I express the same regret as others that there have not been more contributions from the Government side because I would have liked that engagement and to hear what Members on the opposite side of the House feel about this issue.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Hear, hear.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: This is a bad day for the Government, the Seanad and democracy. For an historian, it is reminiscent of the final days of Grattan’s Parliament and the passing of the Act of Union, which was probably one of the most unfortunate and sordid periods in our history. It is shameful that those on the Government side have effectively boycotted this important debate.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Hear, hear.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: They are like the Romans of old sulking in their tents when they should be here participating in what is an important issue for our Constitution and our country. The Taoiseach made a serious error of judgment in the heat of the pre-election debate. As Seán Lemass said, all election promises are null and void. The Taoiseach should be man enough to admit he was wrong. We should talk about reform, but this knee-jerk reaction of abolishing the Seanad is not going down well with the people. I predict that if the Taoiseach, Fine Gael and Labour continue on this road they will get a resounding answer from the people because people know their history, and they want their democracy. As we speak, the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, is planning the abolition of the oldest tier of public representation in this country, 88 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion namely, our town councils. He has taken the scalpel to county councils. He is amalgamating some and intends to break up others. Is this Government anti-democracy? We have fewer local units of democracy than any country in Europe. We have a third of what they have in France. I compliment the Independent Members, many of whom were appointed by the Taoiseach and would have a sense of loyalty to him in that regard, on their courage but the idea that we would have a constitutional conference to examine the Constitution and exclude from its business the most central item, namely, the proposed abolition of the Seanad, which affects 68 Articles of the Constitution, is Alice in Wonderland stuff. It is laughable. A series of Ministers have attended the debate, and they are all welcome. Apparently, their lips are sealed also. They appear to be here only in a listening mode. We will not get the wisdom of their views or the view in Cabinet. That is silly. Obviously, words do not mean what the Government says they mean. More democracy, not less democracy, is what this country wants. The Seanad has a proud tradition. I am proud to say a kinswoman of mine, Kit Ahern, served here for many years. During that period she provided a constituency service in Kerry North while attempting to win aDáil seat, which ultimately she did. The service she gave to the people would not have been possible had it not been for the Seanad. The idea that the Seanad is a nursery for upcoming people is not a bad thing. Some of our best leaders, including former taoisigh, started their political career in the Seanad——

(Interruptions).

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: ——the great Garret FitzGerald being one of them.

Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I thank the——

Senator Thomas Byrne: On a point of order, is nobody from the Government offering? Some of them did complain.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): That is not a point of order. Senator O’Donnell is the next speaker on the list.

Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: I support the motion that the future of the Seanad should be part of the constitutional convention. Why would that be so wrong? What is it about that proposal that Fine Gael and Labour do not want to do it? Have Fine Gael and Labour no faith in the Seanad? Have they no faith in its past, its present and its future? What does the Govern- ment really want? If it wants the abolition of the Seanad it can have it but it should look around. If that happens it will have closed down part of a powerful Executive. It will have closed down a place where there are checks and balances, new voices, new ways and a democratic balance in terms of what happens in this country and to our people. If that is what the Government wants, it can have it because without reform the Seanad will not survive. If it turns down the constitutional convention as a place where that reform can be discussed, I have no doubt it will bring about that demise. I say to the leader of Fine Gael and the Labour Party Whip that the absence of Fine Gael and Labour Senators for this debate——

Senator Thomas Byrne: They were banned.

Senator Marie-Louise O’Donnell: ——is a sad reflection not on what they really feel but on what they are prepared to accept. 89 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

Senator David Norris: Well spoken.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I have listened with great interest to all sides in this debate but, unfortunately, it reminds me of watching the Ireland-Spain game in that everything was coming from one side. That is a shame. I have never seen that. I served in the previous Dáil when the Government took very difficult decisions and I do not recall such an instance whereby Members were told not to speak in a democratic Chamber when those Members were elected to represent the people. The motion I circulated last week, with the support of our Independent colleagues and our colleagues from Sinn Féin, was simply to ask for the inclusion of Seanad reform in the constitutional convention. To have a situation where we had to fight tooth and nail, and the Govern- ment had to lose three votes this morning, to ensure this debate could even take place would show anyone looking in from the outside the importance of a second Chamber. This Government has a majority of 59 seats. In terms of the work done by this Seanad, I accept it must be improved but to be fair to the Leader he has brought about a number of changes that have improved the relevancy of this House. As someone who has served as a constituency Deputy, I am well aware of my responsibilities as a national politician and as a Senator in a national parliament. When I compare my time in the other House to my time here, I have read more legislation here, have tabled more amendments and am more au fait with the laws of this land as a result of serving in the Seanad and taking my job here seriously. I have a professional background also. Many of us here came through politics, but we also have a broad breadth of experience across society. That is as it should be. How can we allow a situation where the Taoiseach can simply decide on this? This is a Taoiseach who in 15 months has not bothered to grace this House with his presence. A suc- cession of Ministers of State — I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to the House today — have come into the House, but apart from Deputy McEntee who took umbrage at a comment made by Senator Crown, they have not spoken. As Ministers of State, they have not said a word on this, yet this is what passes for democratic debate. The fundamental issue is that changes need to be made to the Oireachtas and it needs to serve the public better. We must be able to discuss that and have a proper debate. I am astonished by the decision taken by the Leader and the Labour Party to muzzle their colleagues in the Seanad. I wonder whether that was a call that came from the Government Chief Whip, Deputy Paul Kehoe. Did he tell the Leader to tell Members they were not allowed contribute in this debate?

Senator Maurice Cummins: The answer is “No”.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I would never try to silence any of my colleagues on any matter, regardless of their opinions. If we do not allow freedom of expression in this House, what is the basis for the debate? I ask the Leader to be constructive so that the Taoiseach may be aware today that the Seanad exists. We, as Opposition, have tabled a number of Bills, some very important, for example, Senator MacSharry’s Bill, the Family Home Bill 2011, which was only beaten by three votes. That Bill, if passed, would have been enacted a year ago and would have afforded protection to homeowners, particularly the 12% or 13% of homeowners in mortgage arrears. Daily, some of these people are losing their homes and they see nothing being done to resolve the situation since the publication of the Keane report, which was provided to Cabinet in late September last year. We would have had legislation through the House, but for political reasons the Government voted down the Bill by three votes. 90 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

I want to see a Seanad in the future that does not abide by a Whip system and I include Fianna Fáil in that. I want people to be able to vote freely on legislation and to introduce Bills. I agree with my colleague Senator Byrne that since the start of this session, the guillotine has been used in both this House and the Dáil more expansively than ever used previously.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Not true.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: This is happening at a time when we have serious issues to debate. For example, the next time the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Govern- ment will be in this House, he will be considering closing down town councils. Tomorrow, we will have An Bille Gaeltachta 2012, which will remove the rights of people in Gaeltacht regions to elect their own representatives. We have the situation now where the Government wants to abolish the Seanad, but it does not even want discussion on this in the constitutional convention. The two issues the Government wants discussed in the constitutional convention, the reduction of the voting age from 18 to 17 and the reduction of the presidential term from seven years to five years, could be done in a week. I see no reason for 100 people to be brought together to discuss that. What is the point? This is window-dressing, just like the window-dressing brought forward when the Government apparently reformed the Oireachtas committees.

Senator Thomas Byrne: Hear, hear. It is a shambles.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: They were just thrown in together and the number of chairpersons was reduced. However, last week the number was increased again. All that is being done is window-dressing, not real reform. All we are asking for today is real reform and I thank all colleagues from all sides who contributed to the debate. It is a shame that some Senators have remained silent and have allowed themselves be told by the leaders of both Fine Gael and the Labour Party not to contribute to the debate.

Senator Thomas Byrne: That is unconstitutional at the least.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: That is very sad. Before this debate concludes, I would love for the Leader and Senator Bacik, who has just come into the Chamber, to tell us why they took a decision to tell their colleagues they were not allowed speak on this debate. If that is the way a government behaves towards its colleagues, how will it behave towards opposition parties? The Minister of State present will not contribute to this debate, no more than any of the other Ministers who sat in that chair did today, but I hope he and the Leader will take our clear message back. We are not talking about saving the Seanad or anything like that. We are simply talking about allowing a reasoned debate as part of the constitutional convention in order to allow the general public discuss what is best for this Chamber and for democracy. I have always been a reformist, even when I served in the other House, but not an abolitionist. However, let the people decide. The Government must not just proceed along the lines it is going. What happened here today and this morning is important for the Seanad. I thank our university Senators, Sinn Féin and in particular the Taoiseach’s nominees, who are in a difficult position, for supporting this very reasonable motion. It is not too late. The Leader should tell the Taoiseach to come back down off Croagh Patrick and help him realise he has made a mistake and should include Seanad reform in the constitutional convention.

Senator David Norris: And stop sulking.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Hear, hear. 91 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): I now call Senator Ó Clochartaigh. I apologise, but we cannot take contributions from Senators Walsh, Barrett and Ó Domhnaill as we are out of time.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I would like to allow a minute of my time to Senator Walsh as he has a point to make.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Before the Senator starts, will the Leader extend the debate by 15 minutes to allow those others who wish to contribute do so. There are only three further speakers.

Senator David Norris: Hear, hear. I second that.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Any amendment to the Order of Business must come from the Leader.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I respectfully ask the Leader to allow this.

Senator Fiach Mac Conghail: The disappointed Fine Gael and Labour Party Senators——

Senator Maurice Cummins: It was agreed with the leaders that we would delay the Animal Welfare Bill until 4 p.m. and that is what will happen, as per the Order of Business.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Just another 15 minutes.

Senator Marc MacSharry: Muzzled again.

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Senator Ó Clochartaigh, without interruption.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Ba mhaith liom fáilte a chur roimh an díospóireacht seo agus ba mhaith liom a rá go raibh muide réidh don dióspóireacht seo, pé lá a thiocfadh sé.An fáth nach raibh muid sa Chamber nuair a bhí cuid den pléádhéanamh ná go raibh muid ag éisteacht go cúramach leis san oifig. I welcome this debate. I also welcome the silence of my colleagues on the other side of the House.

Senator Thomas Byrne: The enforced silence.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: What it says to us is that the abolition of the Seanad is Government policy and they all agree with it. Therefore, they are not wasting our time in toeing the party line and repeating ad nauseam what is already known as Government policy.

Senator David Norris: It is the silence of the lambs.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: As somebody who sits through a lot of debates here and who as a member of the agricultural panel ends up sucking at the hind teat for speaking time on many occasions, it is great, as a Sinn Féin Senator, to get the opportunity to get back in a debate such as this for a second time. What is important when we consider reform of the Seanad is that we consider voting rights for all of our citizens, especially our diaspora. We believe there is a huge need for reform. The university panels are not really democratic as they do not recognise degrees from all third level institutions. We also need to consider the quality 92 Seanad 20 June 2012. Reform: Motion of debate in the Seanad. Many of the Ministers who have come into this House have said that the quality of debate on issues here is much superior to that in the Dáil. There would be an issue also if we only had one House, the Dáil, which has a massive majority. We have seen how legislation can be railroaded through this House, but if it was necessary only to railroad it through one House, I would fear for the democratic process. We have had some very good debates here on certain issues and have been able to 4o’clock tease out issues, such as the septic tank issue. Although the Government side did not like the way we drew out that debate, certain changes were made to the legislation which improved it and that was important. It is for this reason we have called for issues such as poverty, regional development, older people’s issues, job creation and youth emigration to be debated here fully. Tá mé chun seans a thabhairt anois do mo chomhleacaí, an Seanadóir Walsh, ach tá súil agam go mbeidh díospóireacht eile againn agus go m’fhéidir go gcuirfear an mantóg ar chainteoirí an Rialtais amach anseo arís.

Senator Jim Walsh: Today is a red letter day for the Seanad, not so much because the Government was defeated on two votes, but because it has exposed a trend I have detected in the lower House over the past 13 or 14 months. I am reminded of a statement made in the lower House in 1934 which is worth putting on the record as it is symptomatic of what is happening here. The direct quotation is as follows: “ . . . the Blackshirts were victorious in Italy and the Hitler Shirts were victorious in Germany, as, assuredly, in spite of this Bill and in spite of the Public Safety Act, the Blueshirts will be victorious in the Irish Free State.” So declared former Attorney General John A. Costello of the Cosgrave Government when a Bill restricting the wearing of political uniforms was introduced in the Dáil.

Senator Ivana Bacik: That is a joke.

Senator Jim Walsh: Where John A. Costello failed——

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Please resume your seat, Senator. As it is now 4 p.m.——

Senator Jim Walsh: ——the Taoiseach, Deputy Enda Kenny, is endeavouring to succeed. The dismantling of our democratic institutions is a matter of grave concern——

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Senator, will you resume your seat?

Senator Jim Walsh: ——not to these Houses, but to the country at large.

(Interruptions).

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): Senator, will you resume your seat?

Senator Jim Walsh: The muzzling of the Fine Gael Senators was symptomatic of an intention which is——

Acting Chairman (Senator Jillian van Turnhout): There has been plenty of opportunity for debate.

Senator Jim Walsh: ——adverse to the interests of the Irish people. The people need to be cautious. 93 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 26; Níl, 23.

Tá

Barrett, Sean D. O’Brien, Mary Ann. Byrne, Thomas. O’Donnell, Marie-Louise. Crown, John. O’Donovan, Denis. Heffernan, James. O’Sullivan, Ned. Kelly, John. Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. Ó Domhnaill, Brian. Landy, Denis. Power, Averil. Leyden, Terry. Quinn, Feargal. Mac Conghail, Fiach. Reilly, Kathryn. MacSharry, Marc. van Turnhout, Jillian. Mooney, Paschal. Walsh, Jim. Norris, David. White, Mary M. Ó Murchú, Labhrás. Wilson, Diarmuid. O’Brien, Darragh.

Níl

Bacik, Ivana. Healy Eames, Fidelma. Bradford, Paul. Higgins, Lorraine. Brennan, Terry. Keane, Cáit. Burke, Colm. Moloney, Marie. Coghlan, Eamonn. Moran, Mary. Coghlan, Paul. Mulcahy, Tony. Comiskey, Michael. Mullins, Michael. Conway, Martin. Noone, Catherine. Cummins, Maurice. O’Keeffe, Susan. D’Arcy, Jim. O’Neill, Pat. D’Arcy, Michael. Sheahan, Tom. Hayden, Aideen.

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

Question declared carried.

Animal Health and Welfare Bill 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed) Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, and his officials to the House.

Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.

SECTION 22

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Amendments Nos. 23a, 24 and 25 are related and may be discussed together.

Government amendment No. 23a: In page 22, lines 26 and 27, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following: “22.—(1) A person shall not— (a) sell an animal to a person who is apparently under the age of 16 years, or (b) give an animal as a prize to a person who is apparently under the age of 16 years, unless that person is accompanied by a person of full age to whom section 2(3) refers.”. 94 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine (Deputy Simon Coveney): This section has attracted a great deal of discussion. It is easy to find examples in which it seems overly restrictive, and equally examples in which it does not go far enough. One member of the House said that 16 was too young, and we should raise the age to 18. Therefore, the current age limit strikes a good balance. However, following suggestions from Senators, this amendment adds a restriction on the granting of animals to minors as competition prizes. Following the discussions we had two sessions ago, I was trying to achieve a balance in terms of not being overly restrictive if a child under the age of 16 wins, say, a cockerel as a prize, while not allowing a situation in which children are dealing in the buying and selling of animals. What we had in the original Bill was that a person shall not sell an animal to a person who is apparently under the age of 16. With regard to amendments Nos. 24 and 25, Sinn Féin wanted to make an exception for the awarding of a prize. In our amendment, we propose that a person shall not give an animal as a prize to a person who is apparently under the age of 16, unless that person is accompanied by a person of full age. In other words, if a child is accompanied, he or she can collect a prize at a mart or whatever, which is not something we are seeking to restrict. We have tried to achieve a good balance and improve the wording while taking into account the legitimate concerns that were expressed by some Senators. I hope Senators are happy with that.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire arís agus muid ag plé an Bhille thábhachtaigh seo. Tógfaidh mé ar bord an méid atá ráite aige agus glacaim leis go bhfuil sé le gach dea-mhéin ag glacadh leis an moladh a bhí déanta againn. I applaud the Minister for having the foresight to consider the point made by Sinn Féin that there was a potential loophole in the legislation. It is interesting that this has happened just after our debate on Seanad reform. We are sometimes critical of Ministers who do not consider suggestions we make, but this Minister has done so on a number of occasions. We mentioned not only that the legislation would have an impact on people under 16 who owned animals, but also that we needed to cover the eventuality of a person under 16 being in possession of an animal that had been won as a prize. We have considered the amendment tabled by the Minister and we feel it deals with our concerns. Therefore, we will not press amendment No. 24. Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an moladh a thógáil ar bord.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I thank the Minister for engaging constructively with the House. He listened to what was said in the Chamber and came back with this amendment which takes into account the concerns we expressed the other day. We are perfectly happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.

Section 22, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 23

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 27a, 28 and 51 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.

Government amendment No. 26: In page 22, lines 29 to 31, to delete subsection (1) and substitute the following: “23.—(1) Subject to this section, a person shall not kill a protected animal or cause or permit another person to kill a protected animal, unless the person killing the animal is 95 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

competent to kill it in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations (if any) and does so in such manner as to inflict as little suffering as possible in the circumstances.”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I acknowledge that a number of suggestions have been received about this section, and I find I am of like mind. Therefore, I am accepting the spirit of a number of the amendments that have been proposed, and I have tried to accommodate them in a new amendment. As I stated during my Second Stage speech, there was never any intention to interfere with the current approach whereby, in emergency situations, an animal may be humanely killed by a knackery operative. Despite efforts to make it clear that this was intended, the previous wording still seemed to cause some confusion, and therefore I have had to redraft. I should be clear that the new subsection 23(1) allows any competent knackery operative to carry out such a killing. Many people misread section 23(2) as the general rule covering all situations in which an animal needs to be humanely killed. This is incorrect, as it does not say that only an authorised officer may kill. It states that if an authorised officer is of the opinion that an animal is fatally injured, he or she may kill the animal. Section 23(2) applies only to a situation in which an authorised officer or vet needs to humanely kill an animal that has been abandoned or where the owner is not taking adequate care and responsibility. Amendment 27a clarifies this. The new amendment No. 26 amends section 23(1) as follows: “Subject to this section, a person shall not kill a protected animal or cause or permit another person to kill a protected animal, unless the person killing the animal is competent to kill it in accordance with animal health and welfare regulations (if any) and does so in such manner as to inflict as little suffering as possible in the circumstances.” It is a sensitive and awkward issue to be required to kill an animal unexpectedly. When an animal breaks its leg while being loaded onto a trailer what does one do if a veterinarian is not on site? Who is considered competent to put the animal down? Numerous practical examples can be presented of animals suffering significant pain and requiring to be put down. If a veterinarian or other authorised officer is not available, one needs either a competent farmer or somebody from a knackery yard to perform the task as humanely as possible. This is the balance we are trying to strike in the section. I accept there is no perfect wording but we do not want to be overly restrictive. It is often the case that the humane response to a suffering animal is to put it down quickly and efficiently. If the skills required for such a task are available either on the farm or in a local knackery yard we should allow them to be applied rather than wasting hours locating a veterinarian.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I thank the Minister for considering this issue and reverting to us with a Government amendment which I am willing to accept. The concerns expressed by farming organisations on section 27 related to the requirement to procure the services of a veterinary practitioner where a protected animal needed to be put down, thereby incurring additional expense for the farmer. The revised amendment No. 26 will allow knackery workers or competent farmers to perform this task. Many farmers are as skilled as any veterinarian and are more than capable in this regard. In my constituency of West Donegal it would take a veterinarian one hour and 15 minutes to travel to a farm in order to issue a certificate allowing an animal to be put down. One could not permit an animal to wait that long. I have witnessed instances of capable farmers adminis- tering injections to relieve animals of pain. In light of the wording of the revised amendment, we are prepared to support it.

Senator Pat O’Neill: I commend the Minister on the revised amendment. He has taken on board the concerns expressed by farming organisations and farmers. This is an animal welfare 96 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Bill which seeks to protect the welfare of animals and ensure they do not suffer. The revised amendment has removed the ambiguity which previously existed in the Bill.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Amendment No. 27a inserts into section 23(2) the phrase: “, without having to seek the consent of its owner or the person in control of it”. It permits a competent officer to deal with, for example, an animal which is lying in a ditch after being hit by a truck and which clearly needs to be put down in circumstances where it has been abandoned or its owner cannot be determined. It is a practical approach to situations where it is not possible to find the owner or person who is in control of the animal. Sometimes the decision has to be made on the spot in order to be as sympathetic as possible towards the animal. We believed this amendment was required to make it crystal clear that such an intervention was permitted. On that basis I will withdraw amendment No. 28.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 27 not moved.

Government amendment No. 27a: In page 22, subsection (2), line 42, after “may” to insert the following: “, without having to seek the consent of its owner or the person in control of it,”.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 28 not moved.

Section 23, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 24

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Amendment No. 29 is ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Exchequer.

Amendment No. 29 not moved.

Section 24 agreed to.

SECTION 25

Amendment No. 30 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 25 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Paschal Mooney: Section 25 makes reference to codes of practice. Has the Minister indicated what code of practice he intends to adopt? I understand that a number of the organisations which will be affected by this legislation have already devised codes of practice.

Deputy Simon Coveney: We have made it clear from the outset that we will not prescribe codes of practice in the legislation but will give the Minister the power to put in place codes of conduct, whether by establishing new codes or adopting codes that have been published elsewhere. Clearly if we put in place a code of practice that affects commercial farming, for example, we would do so in conjunction with stakeholders and farming organisations. I have already put in place a code of practice for the operation of rescue homes for dogs, cats, horses and donkeys. There are numerous good examples of practical codes of conduct which offer 97 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] guidelines for the treatment of animals. I want to leave it open to me or any future Minister to negotiate and put in place codes of conduct through ministerial order if it is deemed appropriate to do so.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I wish to refer generally to section 25. Bearing in mind what the Minister said, codes of conduct have garnered many views and opinions within farming organisations. Currently, voluntary codes of practice are in place, many of which were written by Teagasc and which work effectively. The argument of farming organisations and farmers is that they are licensed to the Department through flock number or herd number. The number is registered to the individual farmer or farming unit and the Department has a records system. Nevertheless, there is a major difficulty in this country. There was a difficult case in the constituency in which I live over the weekend, whereby a pet was mutilated by a third party. There are no codes of practice for owners of pets, cats or birds. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the distinction between introducing a code of practice on a statutory footing for pet owners and the need to have flexibility, scope and negotiation with the farming organisations in respect of statutory codes of practice for farm animals. Perhaps the Minister can bear that distinction in mind and liaise with farming organisations before setting anything on a statutory footing. I appreciate where the Minister is coming from and there is a need to protect animals at every level, including animals on the farm. It is important there are clear guidelines. Some 99.9% of farmers comply with voluntary codes of practice so they should not have anything to worry about. However, organisations need some reassurance. Section 25(1)(b) refers to how the Minister may “adopt a code of practice published by another person (whether within the State or otherwise)”. Codes of practice in other juris- dictions may not fit our jurisdiction. The expertise exists within the Department and Teagasc to draw up a code of practice. Perhaps the Minister should take that approach instead of duplicating the approach of another jurisdiction in the US or in Europe. I am not sure whether the Minister can come back on Report Stage but perhaps there will be an opportunity in the consultative process with organisations to take on board this point before introducing the code on a statutory footing.

Senator Averil Power: I supports the call of Senator Ó Domhnaill for a code of practice with regard to pets. The Minister is aware of codes in other countries, such as New Zealand, which has a clear code of conduct for looking after dogs. Unfortunately, when people take home puppies or receive them as gifts, they are not aware of the care a dog needs and the cost and responsibility that comes with owning a pet. It is important to set out these aspects so that animal welfare is prioritised and people are clear on their responsibilities when they take care of an animal. There is a different context when we talk about farm animals because it is someone’s profession to work with animals so they will have a certain awareness. People are not aware of the basic checklist of requirements for pet owners. I call on the Minister to prioritise it. I will speak later on the more general issues of animal welfare.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I certainly hope Senator Power does so.

Senator Paschal Mooney: Senator Ó Domhnaill’s contribution referred to farm animals. We are dealing with three categories, including farm animals and those used by hunting organisations. On Second Stage, I drew attention to the legal requirements on pet owners in the UK. Pet owners are now legally obliged to care for the pet properly by providing the five basic needs. I will not repeat them. Hunting organisations have a code of practice, which is up to internationally accepted standards, and have never received a single animal welfare complaint 98 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed) under their code of practice. Perhaps the Minister will flesh out how to reconcile differing categories of farm animals, domestic pets and hunting organisations. I am sure the Minister will examine this. Will he have three separate codes of conduct? Will he devise a new code of conduct to take account of these categories? Perhaps it is preferable that the Minister accepts a code of practice that is internationally recognised.

Senator Pat O’Neill: Senator Mooney touched on section 25(4), which states: “A person who has in his or her possession or under his or her control an animal of a particular class or description shall have due regard to a code of practice . . . that applies in relation to an animal of that class or description.” If a person has an animal in possession or control, is that automatically a protected animal? If a person is in control or possession of an animal, does the Animal Health and Welfare Bill automatically apply to it? Hunting is within the remit of the Minister of State, Deputy McEntee, although it is part of the Minister’s Department.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I will start with the last point. The Bill applies to all animals, wild animals and protected animals, in the control of a person. They may be farm animals or pets. Senator O’Neill left out the words in parentheses, “if any”, when reading section 25(4) because there are no codes of conduct for most animals. Standards are imposed on 99% of farms in the farming sector. There are also animal husbandry requirements under cross compliance measures and these are linked to the single farm payment entitlements. Over the past 20 or 30 years, we have significantly raised the standard of animal welfare. Last January, separate items of legislation changed the conditions under which poultry farms operate in respect of the space for hens laying eggs. Battery hens no longer exist. From next January, all breeding sows must be in open housing situations. The tethering of sows will no longer be allowed under EU regulations. Farmers or pet owners are obliged to abide by a series of laws, whether EU laws or national legislation. If there are sectors or categories that could benefit from a set of guidelines or rules, whether voluntary or statutory, the section gives the Minister the power to work with stakeholders to introduce the set of guidelines. A good example is the animal welfare guidelines for horses, ponies and donkeys. It outlines the five freedoms to which Senator Mooney referred. It is an international best practice standard related to the freedom from thirst, hunger and malnu- trition, freedom from discomfort, pain injury and disease, freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour and freedom from fear and distress. These are internationally accepted in the western world as the five freedoms that apply to animals. They are the basis for codes of conduct but obviously we will have different types of codes of conduct depending on the sector. Let us suppose one keeps a set of hounds for hunting or beagling. These are very different circumstances from those of keeping a domestic pet. We are simply giving the Minister the power in this legislation to work with industry to put in place a code of conduct, where appropriate, in certain sectors as it should apply to them. Sometimes there are sectors within sectors. For example, the code of conduct which one may put in place for poultry housing or piggeries would be entirely different from a code of conduct for cattle or sheep. I take on board the point made by Senator Power about the need to consider international best practice on codes of conduct for domestic animals, especially dogs. One thing we are trying to do with the legislation is to create an all-island approach towards animal welfare. Northern Ireland put in place animal welfare legislation last year. We have examined it and we are trying, where possible and practical, to mirror what they have done north of the Border so that there are common standards for animal welfare and animal health. I hope to move the towards a complete common standard north and south of the Border with a series of measures from disease control to welfare requirements. That is our purpose. I do 99 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] not see the legislation as a threat to any sector. On the contrary, it is about applying best practice where appropriate in order that we look after animals properly.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 26 to 29, inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 30

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are related and may discussed together by agreement

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 31:

In page 28, subsection (1)(h), line 5, to delete “identified” and substitute “possible to identify”.

Section 31 deals with compensation to farmers. The issue will affect farmers because the compensation arrangements will be changed. Section 31(1) states: “The Minister may, subject to this Part, pay compensation.” Until now there have been various compensation schemes, including the regime of the on-farm market valuations scheme, the income supplement, the depopulation grants, the hardship grants and the various other grants available. The understanding, if not the legislative position, was that these grants would be made available in cases of hardship, for example, where a farmer had a herd turned down. The section continues: “The Minister may, subject to this Part, pay compensation, the amount of which is to be determined by way of an assessment carried out by a valuer or an arbitrator, in accordance with any guidelines...”

Deputy Simon Coveney: I believe we are dealing with the previous section.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: This is section 31.

Deputy Simon Coveney: This is section 30, amendment No. 31.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: The Acting Chairman has me confused. I was calling him Donald Trump this morning because of his hairstyle and he has since gone with the haircut.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): I do not believe the hairstyle of the Acting Chair- man has any bearing on the animal welfare legislation. I am sorry if I have confused you but we are on section 30, amendment No. 31. If I have confused you in any way I am sorry but I think you have confused yourself; I have nothing to do with your confusion. We are very tolerant.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment No. 32 not moved.

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Amendment No. 33 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue and we are not allowing any discussion on it.

Amendment No. 33 not moved.

Section 30 agreed to. 100 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

SECTION 31

Acting Chairman (Senator Terry Leyden): Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 are out of order because they involve a potential charge on the Revenue and we are not allowing any discussion on them.

Amendment Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.

Question proposed: “That section 31 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I was discussing this earlier. It relates to the payments and the compensation regime to farmers based on the compensation payments which heretofore have been available when a herd was turned down. According to my reading of the section, the major issue is that where a heard is turned down “The Minister may, subject to this Part, pay compensation”. Clearly, this is as long as it is wide because if the Minister may do so, then it is at his discretion. Given the tradition of valuation schemes, this option would be available. The fear, however, is the lack of compensation were the Minister to decide that a farmer’s herd being turned down in one instance means financial destruction for the farmer. If compensation was not readily available in the case where a herd had to be destroyed or if it were to be reduced, the farmer would be unable to restock and this is where the difficulty arises. Section 31(4) states: “An application for compensation shall be in such form and contain such information as the Minister may determine.” Will the Minister outline further the nature of this information? It is not stated in the Bill but will it be introduced by regulation? The next section is section 32 and I it will not elaborate on it now. This is an important issue because there should be a definitive ruling or guideline issued. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide it today. If the Minister can do so I will rest at ease. I am reluctant to let this section go because further down the road, perhaps not in the Minister’s time but perhaps in five or ten years time, we will end up in a position where a farmer’s herd is turned down, he cannot afford to replace it and his compensation has been greatly reduced although he has made the application correctly. The farmer may not meet the standard criteria or the compensation may be so reduced that he can not replace his herd and he has no option but to leave farming although he has done everything correctly as a farmer. This is the difficulty. I recognise that the Minister understands the point I am making.

Deputy Simon Coveney: This is an important issue and this section and the next section are probably of most concern to farm organisations. For this reason I am keen to clarify several things. Let us consider the case of a farmer with a reactor in his herd or who must have his herd destroyed in an effort to prevent disease spreading because of a bio-security risk. That farmer will be compensated and such a person need not feel threatened by this legislation. There must be some flexibility, however, for a Minister with regard to laying down in legislation and the requirement to pay compensation. For example, if someone steals an animal and the animal turns out to be diseased and has to be destroyed, should that farmer be compensated? If a person has imported animals illegally and they infects his herd, should the person be compensated or given full compensation? These are the possibilities we are trying to cover in the legislation. Section 35 deals with the abatement of compensation. The House will note “the Minister may reduce or refuse to pay an amount of compensation to an owner in respect of a farm animal . . . if in his or her opinion, the owner . . . ” has done X, Y or Z. We can look at that list on Report Stage and again in the Dáil if the Senator feels the list is inappropriate, too restrictive or too open. However, a Minister has to be able to 101 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] make a refusal to compensate in certain circumstances where somebody either should not have the animal, has deliberately spread disease and there is proof of that, or if downright neglect has resulted in animals being diseased. Again, the 99% of farmers who go about their business and who are sometimes hit by disease through no fault of their own, or where there is a fault and they still deserve to be fully compensated, will still be compensated. I am glad we are spending less money on TB controls than we have spent in a very long time because TB is affecting Irish herds less than at any time since the 1950s, so far as I know. We are also making steady progress in regard to BVD. The control measures are working reason- ably well. The compensation that goes with that is not going to change but if we are inserting in up-to-date legislation a requirement on the Minister to pay compensation, there has to be some flexibility if it is clearly not appropriate that compensation should be paid. That is all we are doing.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I appreciate exactly where the Minister is coming from because he is covering a very wide range of farming activities and malpractices. While I take on board the Minister’s explanation, the Minister “may” pay compensation for animals removed under the disease programmes whereas the current Diseases of Animals Act states the Minister “shall” pay compensation, not “may”. That is where the difficulty lies. The Diseases of Animals Act covers what the Minister has outlined would possibly be covered in any event. I agree with the Minister that any farmer or anyone else should not receive compensation if, due to their negligence and fault, their animals fall into a state of ill health or die — that is only right and fair. However, we are talking about the difficulty coming down the road where the Department in the future may decide it is not going to pay the compensation 5o’clock under some future Minister and that it is up to the insurance companies to pay it. We would then be into a real game of brinkmanship with insurance companies and we know the way they are treating people at present. I know of cases in my constituency where people have genuine claims but the companies are not paying out on them. Insurance assessors are losing their jobs throughout the country at a drastic rate because the insurance companies have closed shop and stopped paying out compensation claims. I would be very fearful that if there were genuine claims from farmers, the insurance companies would find a way of not paying compensation. Perhaps what is needed is a very specific addition to the disease compensation terms to include in this Bill all of the diseases covered under the Diseases of Animals Act that are currently covered by the term “the Minister shall pay” to ensure the Minister of the day is in a position to pay. What will happen, in my view, having spoken to people in Macra na Feirme and others, is that younger farmers in particular may be less optimistic and more cautious. They may decide not to invest because they are fearful that, if there is an outbreak on a farm, this could potentially bankrupt them if they are left hoping for an insurance claim. I hope the Minister can reflect on this issue and reconsider it for Report Stage.

Senator Pat O’Neill: The Minister is right in regard to the phrases “may pay” and “shall pay”.If“shall pay” had been included in the legislation, then during the biggest threat to Irish agriculture in recent years, the foot and mouth outbreak, the person who brought those sheep illegally onto the Cooley peninsula would perhaps have been entitled to compensation. Under the new wording of “may pay”, I doubt if this will happen. Anybody who imports animals into this country illegally where this leads to a disease outbreak in a herd should not be entitled to compensation. The Minister is right in this regard. The word “shall” cannot remain in place.

102 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Deputy Simon Coveney: I am glad the Cooley farms legal case was raised. I would like to make a few points in this regard as it is important we address this fully and I do not want to leave any doubt. First, this Bill is in line with the Cooley farms case, which stated clearly that the Constitution protects property and, therefore, people will get paid as a result of losing their property if the State requires them to do so. If we were to unilaterally cut compensation, we would be in court very quickly unless we could show it was a reasonable course of action around some of the issues I have already raised. On the other point in regard to the 1966 Act, which uses the terminology “shall pay”,itis somewhat selective to just quote the “shall pay” element because it is then stated in the Act that this is subject to agreement with the Minister for Finance, which is essentially an out. Therefore, the Department will pay, subject to agreement with the Department of Finance, but if the Department of Finance raises a concern as to why there should be a payment of money, the payment does not go ahead. We have actually taken the Department of Finance out of the equation in this Bill and have stated that the Minister “may” pay. As far I understand it, section 35 lists the circumstances whereby there may be a doubt in regard to whether there is full payment or no payment. There is no effort here, as Senator Ó Domhnaill suggests, to try to shift the onus for payment onto insurance companies. I can assure him that is not the issue. The idea that farmers would have to pay a fortune for insurance to cover the costs of reactors in their herds is not something we are asking farmers to do. This is a State-sponsored eradication programme for TB and any of the other diseases we are targeting. If a farmer’s herd unfortunately picks up TB from wildlife through a badger or some other animal, or from a contiguous herd, then that farmer will have compensation applied to him or her. With regard to the other disease control mechanisms or in the case of a bio-security breach where there is an outbreak of a very serious disease and herds have to be slaughtered en masse, the point is that a person cannot insure against such a situation, which hopefully we will not see in my time as a Minister, although we never know. This is not supposed to be targeting farmers or shifting the onus away from the State to try to save money or anything like that, quite the opposite. It provides more clarity than the previous legislation, which required payments to be subject to agreement from the Minister for Finance. I believe we have provided more clarity here than was perhaps in that 1966 legislation.

Question put and declared carried.

SECTION 32

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 36 to 38, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together, by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 36:

In page 29, subsection (1), line 22, to delete “one or more persons as valuers” and substitute “a panel of valuers”.

This amendment relates to the section dealing with valuations and seeks to establish a panel of valuers. Farmers would thus be allowed to select from a panel of valuers, instead of the wording currently in section 32(1) which states that the Minister may appoint for the purpose of carrying out evaluations of farm animals, animal products, animal feed or other things relating to farm animals “one or more persons as valuers, if the Minister is satisfied that the person appointed...”. Ultimately, what will be required is a panel from which people can select. The panel would be independent and acceptable to the Department and individual farmers could 103 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.] then select from it. Geography will dictate matters also because people will not travel from Cork to Donegal for a valuer or vice versa. The amendment seeks to open things up a little. The fear is that if farmers are given a list of only two or three valuers, why not give them the entire list if the Department is happy with them? I am not sure how many valuers have been approved by the Department. Would I be right in guessing it is around 50 or 60?

Deputy Simon Coveney: I do not have the exact figure, but it is somewhere around that.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: It is something in that region but I am only guessing. In that case, instead of having a prescriptive list, we are seeking a wider, open one. If all the valuers are on the Department’s list in any event, it should be opened out so that farmers can select one from the entire list.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I am not going to accept these amendments at the moment, but this is an area we are examining. I am trying to get the balance right in ensuring that one has a genuinely independent valuer. One of the good things about rural Ireland is that people know each other. They are likely to bump into the valuer in a pub or outside the church. That is a strength but it is also a potential weakness because when one has a social relationship with the person who is coming to value one’s herd, there may be undue pressure on that person to give a favourable valuation. We are trying to ensure, therefore, that there is a separation in terms of picking someone who is genuinely independent. Everyone on the valuation list is professional in what they do and how they do it, so I do not want to over egg this potential issue. There are essentially three processes here and in the context of these amendments we have to talk about the full section. If somebody is being compensated for his or her herd or for an animal that has been destroyed, there is a valuation process which hopefully will be acceptable to the farmer and the Minister, so that the money gets paid out. If the initial valuation is not accepted either by the farmer or the Minister, it can be challenged. There is an appeals process, including a panel of valuers on the appeals panel, one of which will be chosen to do a second valuation. If on the basis of that second valuation there is not agreement either from the Minister’s or farmer’s side, then it can go to arbitration. In section 33, which is linked to this section, we are saying that the Minister will appoint a person or persons for the arbitration panel as well. My gut feeling is that we have gone a little overboard. Whether it is the initial panel, the appeals panel or the arbitration panel, all of these people are being chosen by the Minister and the farmer has no input in terms of choosing an appropriate person. For example, somebody may be chosen to value a herd with whom the farmer has had a falling out, although nobody knows about that. If a farmer is likely to have someone coming onto his or her farm who may have some past history, we do not want to allow that situation. Having said that, however, I do not want a situation where the farmer always chooses the valuer because that is not healthy either in the initial valuation, the appeal or in arbitration. At some point, if farmers feel they are being unfairly treated in the initial valuation they should have a role in choosing somebody from a panel, perhaps in the appeals process. Therefore, we will examine that matter and I will come forward with a proposal on Report Stage to try to improve the situation. We may be overly suspicious in that there is no role for the farmer in choosing the person from a panel. Farmers are basically assigned someone who does the valuation and if they do not like it they are assigned a second person for the appeal. If they do not like that they are assigned somebody for arbitration. In one of those three mechanisms it would not be unreason- able to give a farmer some say in choosing from a panel of three, four or five people. 104 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

There is another point we will examine because it makes sense to do so. It should be possible to consider an automatic valuation process initially. That could, potentially, provide a quicker valuation which would not have to put the Department to the expense of a farm visit for a valuation, looking at dead animals or whatever. If a farmer has a certain number of animals of a certain weight and size, and a certain species, it should be reasonable to extrapolate the likely value of those cattle. Perhaps it should be an option for a farmer to accept that valuation or else have somebody come to undertake a full inspection and valuation on that basis. We are therefore examining all those things and we might come back with something that is a bit more balanced.

An Cathaoirleach: Is amendment No. 36 being pressed?

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: No.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.

Government amendment No. 39: In page 30, subsection (7), line 13, to delete “14 days” and substitute “5 working days”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: This is a fairly straightforward amendment which seeks to change the number of days from 14 to five. If the Minister or owner of a farm animal, animal product, animal feed or other thing related to the farm animal being valued, on receipt of the report referred to in subsection (6), which is the valuation, is dissatisfied with the determination of the valuer on the first valuation, he or she should require a second valuation not later than five days after the valuation. In other words, we are trying to get the process under way quickly, rather than leaving it for two weeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 40:

In page 30, lines 17 to 21, to delete subsection (9).

This amendment seeks to delete subsection (9). That subsection states that the Minister may issue guidelines relating to the valuation of an animal, animal product, feed or other thing relating to the farm animal, or an arbiter may have regard to those guidelines. The subsection is very prescriptive and sets out the terms of reference of what that valuation should be. Farming organisations have argued that the Department is appointing the valuer but only after the guidelines of what they should be looking for have been established. The Minister’s earlier comments on a kind of book-value model, which is widely available, would perhaps be a better starting point, rather than being prescriptive on details concerning guidelines. I am not sure exactly what those guidelines will be on the valuation of animals, but I am sure the Minister will explain them. How will they be brought into account? The animal product obviously refers to feed and other products. However, if one is setting guidelines and also selecting the valuer, it seems that is where the issue would be.

Deputy Simon Coveney: It is one thing to choose the valuer in terms of the possibility of a personal relationship being an influencing factor on the valuation. While that is only a slim possibility, we need to legislate for it. It is another thing to suggest that an issue has arisen in terms of issuing guidelines. When it comes to valuations, we need consistency. If one wants 105 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] consistency, there must be guidelines in terms of how it is to be calculated. It is stated in my note that allowing the Minister to issue guidelines is an important policy which should ensure uniformity and fairness between different valuation arrangements. It would serve to protect to the overall public interest. This is about ensuring that the valuation process is the same in Buncrana as it is in Ballydehob. It cannot be left up to the valuer to put in place guidelines. There is a need for a clear set of rules to ensure everyone makes their valuation on the same basis. It is no more complex than that.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I accept that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 33

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 41:

In page 30, line 37, to delete “arbitration” and substitute the following:

“an arbitration panel which includes a representative of the applicant and”.

The Bill states that if the Minister or owner of the farm animal product, animal feed or any other thing relating to the farm animal is dissatisfied with the second valuation he or she may, not later than 14 days from the date of that the valuer’s report, request that that matter be settled by arbitration. The amendment proposes to delete the word “arbitration” and replace it with “an arbitration panel which includes a representative of the applicant and” which would ensure the applicant is represented at a hearing. I would welcome the Minister’s view on this proposal.

Deputy Simon Coveney: This is linked to the appeals process and the original valuation. We are trying to strike a balance between the three processes so that if a mistake is made on the original valuation it will be picked up on during the appeal and if not picked on then will go through the arbitration system, which will come up with a fair valuation. To accept an amendment on one without knowing what we are going to do in respect of the other two would not be too smart on my part. I appeal to the Senator to withdraw the amendment until I have looked at the matter again. If the Senator has further suggestions he could perhaps withdraw the amendment now with a view to resubmit it for Report Stage, when we can look at it in the context of the new wording I will put together.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 33 agreed to.

SECTION 34

Government amendment No. 42: In page 31, to delete lines 5 to 18 and substitute the following: “he or she may by regulations provide— (i) that compensation or a portion of it is not payable— (I) in respect of animals of a particular breed, species, class or type,animal product, animal feed or other thing, 106 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

(II) where the killing or destruction related to a particular disease or diseases, (III) for particular activities, including dealing in animals or agistment, or (IV) for particular methods of husbandry specified in the regulations, or (ii) for the limitation of the eligibility of a person for compensation in whole or in part in respect of an animal, animal product, animal feed or other thing relating to a farm animal to which the regulations relate.”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: This proposal clarifies the arrangements for abatement of compensation and makes them more generous in that instead of abatement only being totalled, a partial limitation can be applied. This relates to the particular circumstances in respect of which one would limit compensation. Rather than giving full compensation one would have the capacity to give partial compensation in the circumstances outlined in this amendment. The main thinking behind this is particularly valuable animals. For example, a race horse in Coolmore, from which a person may be breeding, which picks up a disease which we are trying to stamp out and as a result of which the animal has to be destroyed, which would result in the exposure of the State to €50 million, €60 million or €100 million in compensation. There must be some limitations on the State in terms of exposure in this regard and a balance between what the insurance company and the State would be asked to pay. That is my understanding of the reason for this provision. It is an unlikely enough scenario but there are bulls which are particularly valuable. Race horses are an obvious example. I am anxious in the context of biosecurity not to expose the State to compensation of tens of millions of euros. That is what we are doing in terms of the limitation on compensation. I stand to be corrected on this but I do not believe it will have any practical impact on normal compensation around disease control, be it an outbreak of foot and mouth disease or TB. This provision is being introduced in an effort to limit the exposure of the State to very large sums of compensation where a person would have to destroy a particularly valuable animal.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: So, there is no change to schemes such as the BSE scheme where an outbreak occurs?

Deputy Simon Coveney: No.

Amendment agreed to.

Section 34, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 35

An Cathaoirleach: Amendments Nos. 43, 48 and 49 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 43:

In page 32, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following paragraph:

“(d) shall inform the owner of the independent appeals process to the decision and the associated timeframe.”. 107 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.]

This amendment seeks to insert a new paragraph (d) which states: “shall inform the owner of the independent appeals process to the decision and the associated timeframe.” This relates to the Minister reducing or refusing to pay compensation to an owner of a farm animal. I have no difficulty with paragraph (a) which relates to where a farmer fails to take reasonable measures. However, I believe that it should be provided in the Bill that the owner of the animal be informed that an independent appeals process will be established and that an indicative timeframe in that regard should be laid out, so that the owner of the animal, if refused compensation, would have the opportunity to make an appeal. Perhaps that is already provided for in the legislation.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I understand that there may be some concern on this matter. The Bill provides on page 32, line 24, subsection (3)(b) that the Minister may consider any representations duly made. People can essentially make their case and the Minister takes that into account. Ultimately, if the second valuation, appeal of valuation and arbitration structures do not apply because the Minister has deemed that it is appropriate not to pay out compensation then, my understanding is — I stand to be corrected on this — that the appeal process for a person at that stage is to the courts to have a judge make a decision on the matter. It would be a fairly serious decision for a Minister to refuse to pay compensation. There would need to be good reason for his or her doing so. The legislation could be tested in court if people felt that was appropriate. I will take another look at this. I do not want a long appeals structure put in place, which is unlikely to be used very often, just for the sake of having it. Having said this, if a person is refused compensation he or she has the right to question the process. The question is whether we encourage people to go to court to do this or put in place a formalised appeals structure. Essentially a decision by the Minister would be appealed within the Depart- ment which does not make sense. It would undermine the Minister’s authority. This is not like the valuation whereby if one does not get agreement on the valuation one can appeal it and if one is not happy with the outcome of the appeal one can go to arbitration. This is a more serious decision by the Minister to either reduce or not pay compensation for the reasons outlined the legislation. The party concerned can make representations for consideration by the Minister and it is up to the Minister to make a judgment. If a person is inconsistent with the law he or she can be taken to court. There is no separate appeals process for this element.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I welcome the Minister’s clarification and I appreciate what he stated. Amendment No. 48 relates to going to court and all this brings with it. This would create an exposure to the taxpayer because the Department would have to represent the taxpayer in court which would cost money if the case is lost. I argue the State would be further exposed by having a system whereby the District Court decides. We all know what the legal profession is like; from the applicant’s view in particular it will keep cases going. Amendment No. 48 proposes to have an appeals system only. This is probably a poor example to give because it has such a serious backlog at present, but in the Department of Social Protection officials make a decision, representations are made to the Minister by elected representatives on behalf of their constituents, and the applicant has an opportunity to make an appeal to the independent appeals office which is within the Depart- ment and ultimately under the control of the Minister. This may be a template worth considering and may ensure the Minister will not end up fighting court cases every other week. Nothing would be worse for the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which liaises with farmers and that is not always easy, than ending up in court cases against farmers with regard to compensation which are highlighted by the media. It would not be good for the industry, the farmers or the image of the Department. I appreciate it would be defending the State’s 108 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed) interest but the cost would be very high. I am not a legal person but I know when one gets caught up in the District Court system it takes months or years to reach an outcome. I do not think this would benefit anyone, particularly the farmer. Will the Minister consider a system of representation to the Minister prior to or after an independent appeal hearing? This may be a way to avoid undermining the authority of the Minister. The independent appeal could be heard first after which the ultimate judge would be the Minister. This is just a suggestion.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I do not know why amendment No. 48 is being taken with amendment No. 43 because they are on entirely different issues. One amendment is about an appeal with regard to an animal welfare notice, and we will discuss that section shortly, which is an entirely different issue to somebody not receiving compensation after a disease outbreak which caused the destruction of a herd because the animals were stolen or illegally owned. I will consider Deputy Ó Domhnaill’s concerns. Obviously we do not want to bring farmers to court unnecessarily. I stress there would need to be a very good reason for us not to compensate somebody required under the legislation to destroy a herd. It would be a fairly cut and dry decision for a Minister. I will come back to this issue on Report Stage. I make decisions as the Minister with responsibility for fisheries and often when it comes to decisions on quota allocations there are winners and losers with some people happy and others unhappy. We find ourselves in court all of the time. We need clear guidelines and a transparent decision-making process. It is normally the process which is tested in court and it would be the same in this case. If there is good reason for the legislation to be applied resulting in a farmer not receiving full compensation or any compensation I suspect it would be the process that would be questioned in law rather than the actual decision itself. I do not know whether one needs an appeals process. I will examine it. The Deputy can press the amendment if he wishes but at present I cannot accept it.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: In light of what the Minister has said I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That section 35 stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Terry Brennan: I recall the incident of a farmer in County Louth. In the interest of not spreading TB to neighbouring farms he was advised by the Department to cull his entire herd of deer, and I am speaking about the four-legged deer. I thank the Minister for considering the case sympathetically. The man was advised verbally to do what was in the best interests of the farming community and neighbouring farms. He destroyed all of his herd. I cannot say whether the compensation he received was adequate. As we are discussing compensation and examining cases, the Minister told me he would examine this case and did so, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the departmental officials and the Minister for doing so.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I thank the Deputy.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 36

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 44:

In page 32, subsection (1), line 29, after “regulations” to insert the following:

“based on sound scientific information and the cost benefit of such”. 109 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.]

This relates to the regulations the Minister will make under the legislation on preventing or minimising the risk or spread of disease, controlling and eradicating disease or a disease agent, protecting or enhancing animal health and welfare, controlling or prohibiting species, specific uses or activities involving or relating to animals and animal products, the keeping, movement, transportation and sale of animals and providing for all matters set out in the schedule. I fully support this and have no issue with it. I propose that these regulations should be based on sound scientific information and the cost benefit of such and the Minister may feel this is appropriate. This would protect the Minister in cases taken against the Department. I assume any decision taken by the Minister in this area will take these words into consideration in any event and I ask that they be included in the legislation if possible.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I do not propose to accept the amendment because I do not want a situation where a Minister makes a regulation conditional on something that is difficult to define. Everything would be conditional on sound scientific information. If one acts on a report about blatant cruelty to an animal, it would have nothing to do with sound scientific information. The word “scientific” suggests an onus of proof on the part of the Minister before he or she can act. The point of this legislation is to move away from requiring a case of cruelty to be proven before action can be taken, to a situation where a Minister or an authorised officer is permitted to act early on the basis of suspicion, credible reports or experience. Bio-security and disease control are equally important but the fundamental legal problem with cruelty in the past was that there was no measure between doing nothing and full prosecution. A case had to be constructed, with all the evidence that such a process requires, before anything could be done and, in the meantime, the animal continued to be abused. The point of this legislation is to introduce measures providing for a welfare notice to be issued. If there is reason to believe problems have arisen in respect of an individual’s animals it will be possible to send a notice asking him or her to do X, Y and Z. If the individual complies, it is the end of the story and the Garda or the courts need not get involved. It is similar to a yellow card system for animal cruelty and welfare. Clear scientific information would not be relevant to such a course of action. We are trying to build up a team of authorised officers who will work on behalf of local authorities and my Department to protect animal welfare, alongside experts in farming and farm inspections. We will not recruit a new army of people to inspect farms. If there is a suspicion about problems with bio-security or disease outbreaks, they would be able to inspect the herds to address the problem at the earliest opportunity. I understand the Senator’s perspective but his amendment is not in the spirit of what we are trying to achieve.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Government amendment 44a: In page 33, subsection (4)(b)(i), lines 28 and 29, to delete “a term of imprisonment” and substitute “imprisonment for a term”.

Deputy Simon Coveney: This is a technical amendment which was recommended by the Office of the Attorney General because it uses more exact language. Any Member who is a barrister or solicitor will probably appreciate the difference in the terminology but it is not an issue of substance. 110 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: “That section 36, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Senator Pat O’Neill: I ask whether insects and beekeeping are covered by the section. The spread of disease among bees has resulted in the destruction of hives and threats to human consumption of honey.

Senator Averil Power: I welcome the powers granted to the Minister to set these regulations and agree that effective interventions should not have to wait on the outcome of court cases. However, while I welcome the improvements in animal welfare provided for in the Bill I am disappointed that the Government decided against banning live hare coursing. As the Minister is aware, the practice has been banned in most other countries, including the UK and Northern Ireland, and it is my strong personal view that it is a cruel pursuit. Other countries have managed to create a sport out of drag coursing without inflicting pain and cruelty on animals. I have expressed this view to my colleague, Senator Ó Domhnaill, and our Dáil spokesperson, Deputy Moynihan, and I recognise that my personal opinion is in the minority in my party. I have discussed some of my party’s other amendments with my colleagues. They are being presented on behalf of the party and reflect the majority point of view. I am probably in a minority of one on some of the amendments with which I do not fully agree. I note the Minister will have the power to make regulations and I hope he will consider a ban on live coursing. Fine Gael’s position on stag hunting appears to have moved on, or at least it has not implemented its pre-election commitment to overturn the ban introduced by the previous Government. I hope its position on animal welfare issues will evolve in a similar manner.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I am not going to get into a debate on hare coursing but I respect the Senator’s views. We have endeavoured to get the balance right with this legislation in order to protect vulnerable animals, to ensure people realise the responsibility that comes with ownership of animals and to act more effectively on bio-security issues. We have deliberately left alone the legal status of hunting and coursing. We dealt with these issues under a previous section by providing for recognised codes of conduct for field sports and hunting. That will not change unless the codes are breached in a blatant way that brings other elements of the Bill into effect. We will, therefore, not be changing the status of hare coursing in this Bill. In regard to whether the section covers bees, I may have to dial a friend for the answer.

Senator Susan O’Keeffe: Has the Minister a friend who knows the answer?

Deputy Simon Coveney: I fear I may be ridiculed if I read my note on the matter.

Senator Averil Power: If the official accompanying the Minister knows the answer I will be very impressed.

Deputy Simon Coveney: On a serious note there is a significant threat to the health of bee populations in Ireland and across Europe and North America, with the result that honey has become a valuable commodity. We should be much more proactive in developing a commercial honey industry in this country. One should consider what has been achieved in Scotland in the Scottish Highlands on the back of heather in particular, where tens of thousands of tonnes of highly valuable honey now are being produced very successfully on a farmed basis. While the industry here seeks to expand, efforts are being made to bring under control one particular disease issue. Unless I am mistaken, approval is close for a treatment for the pest in question. 111 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed)

[Deputy Simon Coveney.] I am unsure whether it has been approved yet but it certainly is on the way to being approved. As regards the welfare of bees, my understanding is that beekeeping is covered. However, I might revert to Senator Brennan in writing on that to avoid being quoted in the next edition of the Phoenix magazine or something similar.

Section 36, as amended, agreed to.

SECTION 37

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I move amendment No. 45:

In page 33, lines 36 to 40, to delete subsection (1).

I intend to withdraw this amendment because it is far too sweeping. There has been a great deal of discussion on the position regarding authorised officers since the amendment was first formulated. While I will withdraw the amendment, I seek an explanation from the Minister in respect of authorised officers. The Bill’s explanatory memorandum states the Minister will appoint authorised officers under section 37 of the Bill. If my recollection is correct, this will involve county veterinary officers under the remit of county councils and other vets from the Department or otherwise that would be appointed. In other words, this pertains to professional staff whose credentials cannot be questioned and who are required in any event to implement the legislation.

Senator Paschal Mooney: In this context and to save time, I also seek a response from the Minister with regard to authorised officers. I understand that existing practice with the Irish Greyhound Board is that inspections are carried out in the presence of a Bord na gCon representative. Is the Minister minded to apply a similar criterion to this legislation in respect of inspections? In other words, when inspections take place the authorised officer would be accompanied by approved vets from the relevant organisation.

Deputy Simon Coveney: While I will consider this suggestion, one must allow authorised officers to inspect. For example, in an emergency case in which a rapid inspection was necessary, not being legally allowed to go on-site unless one was accompanied by an appointed authorised officer from another organisation would be very limiting. While it will be difficult to accommodate this proposal, I will consider what is being proposed in the context of the provisions of the Welfare of Greyhounds Act.

Senator Paschal Mooney: Yes, that is relevant.

Deputy Simon Coveney: It is a specific industry with regard to the breeding and training of dogs, which is the reason there was a separation into two different Bills between what became known as the puppy farming legislation and the greyhound legislation. They were dealing with quite different sectors, one of which pertained to a narrow sectoral area, while the other was a much broader animal welfare issue.

Senator Paschal Mooney: This suggestion comes from those hunting organisations that keep dogs in kennels.

Deputy Simon Coveney: Someone’s mobile telephone is buzzing. While I do not know whose it is, it is not mine. I will consider the suggestion and will revert to the Senator. However, I do not believe it will be possible to apply this proposal across the board because the Department then would 112 Animal Health and Welfare Bill 20 June 2012. 2012: Committee Stage (Resumed) be obliged to prescribe which organisations would be allowed to have an accompanying officer and which would not, at which point one begins to enter a quite complex area. For example, in the case of farmers would it be a farming organisation and should it be the beekeepers’ association in the case of bees?

Senator Paschal Mooney: I was referring to the hunting organisations.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I do not mean to make light of the request.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I understand the Minister’s point of view.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I will examine the relevant greyhound legislation.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I thank the Minister. I have been reluctant to spell out the identity of the organisation because I wanted to get a sense of the Minister’s perspective. I was merely using the example of Bord na gCon in the Welfare of Greyhounds Act as a point of comparison in which an authorised officer is accompanied by a Bord na gCon vet. To be specific, this proposal would apply to those with hunting dogs in kennels.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That section 37 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Simon Coveney: The issue of authorised officers is sensitive and what one wishes to avoid is having people who do not understand how farming works and how agriculture works going onto farms. Consequently, to provide reassurance, the inspection procedures and the authorised officers who will go onto farms essentially will be as they are present. Those concerned will be departmental vets, local authority vets and so on. However, there will be a new category of inspection following the enactment of this legislation, which will pertain to domestic pets. When someone uses the currently available freefone number to make a complaint or to express a concern that animal cruelty is going on in his or her neighbourhood or whatever, I must put in place authorised officers who can follow up on that complaint. In most circumstances, I would like such authorised officers to be either vets or veterinary nurses. However, it should be open to the Minister to work with, for example, a welfare organisation such as the ISPCA, which already is operating and which receives calls from people who make statements of concern with regard to animal welfare and which in consequence has much experience in this regard. I have spoken to the ISPCA about this and have made it clear that I would not authorise any of its officers for farm inspections or for inspections concerning commercial farm activity because there already is a sufficient number of authorised officers available to do that. However, I also told the ISPCA that I would not discount its officers, who have 6o’clock a great deal of experience, in respect of the follow-up calls or inspections that may have to be made regarding domestic pets, animal cruelty and so on. There is much expertise available, particularly in the ISPCA, and I would like to be able to include such individuals within a certain category of authorised officer for certain tasks if it is necessary to increase the size of the panel. This makes sense and the ISPCA has been absolutely reasonable on this issue. It does not seek access onto farms, which is a different type of role. I wish to flag this point because I had stated previously that the authorised officers all would be vets or veterinary nurses. There could be some exceptions to this but proof of experience or expertise or both in respect of animal welfare or animal cruelty cases would be necessary. 113 Fisheries 20 June 2012. Protection

Senator Paschal Mooney: I am a little concerned because my understanding is the RSPCA, the ISPCA’s equivalent in the United Kingdom, is anti-field sports. I do not have evidence of this but I base it on a briefing I received, as is the Dogs Trust, which openly discredits hunting. Therefore, those who represent the hunting fraternity in Ireland are completely opposed to any extension of the authorised officers into their area of activity. I understand the Minister’s perspective with regard to domestic animals and so on but I put down the marker that the Minister should tread with caution in this regard. He does not want to have the hunting and fishing organisations come down on his head on this issue. As there always is an extreme when putting forward a view and while I do not suggest I agree with this, I will cite one extreme example. In the United Kingdom, the RSPCA brought an elderly couple to court for having an obese dog. It even removed the couple’s pet for its own so-called safekeeping. While this is an extreme example, it obviously happened and this is the reason the hunting organisations are particularly concerned about any extension beyond what the Minister originally outlined, to the effect the authorised officers would be vets. I appreciate the point from which the Minister is coming and I am not against the idea but I make the point there is another dimen- sion to this issue of which the Minister should take account.

Deputy Simon Coveney: I take account of this point. This proposal is about trying to use the available expertise and relates to those who are willing to help and who may not even be seeking payment. At the same time, one must ensure one does not use people who may be involved in animal welfare organisations for all the right reasons but who may not have the skill set to be able to follow up on the basis of reports. It is about using judgment. I can assure Members that anybody we appoint as an authorised officer will have to show some expertise and experience. Such people will not be undertaking inspections in an area where they have a fundamental or ideological opposition; that would be crazy. From a practical point of view, there is a great deal of expertise available and we should use it, particularly for the domestic or household pet situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I propose an amendment to the Order of Business, namely, that we adjourn Committee Stage at 6 p.m. and resume later.

An Cathaoirleach: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I compliment the Leader on his initiative in this regard. We are very close to completion so it should not take too long.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.

An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?

Senator Maurice Cummins: Ag 10.30 a.m., maidin amárach.

Adjournment Matters

————

Fisheries Protection Senator Denis O’Donovan: With the permission of the House, I wish to give a minute of my time to Senator Ó Domhnaill who also wishes to address this issue. It is ironic that the Minister with responsibility, Deputy Coveney, a good honourable Corkman, has left the House and put the Minister of State in charge of a very delicate matter. 114 Fisheries 20 June 2012. Protection

I will refresh the memory of the House. In 2006, a Fisheries Bill was introduced and in the same year, the then Minister, Noel Dempsey, one of our own Ministers in that Government, decided to revoke the licence for salmon net fishing around the coastline. This caused great consternation and, arising therefrom, an absolute ban on drift nets for salmon fishing was introduced which affected people around west Cork, Kerry, the island communities and, as my colleague will attest, in Donegal. It had a socio-economic impact on those areas. In Cork there were some 110 active drift net licences, all of which were revoked by minsterial order, as the Minister was entitled to do; it was not done by legislation. As a result of efforts by me and others within our party those affected got a compensation package. At that stage Fine Gael Deputies from the peripheral areas of Ireland, whether in counties Donegal, Mayo, Clare, Kerry, west Cork or Waterford, gave a clear commitment that if they were returned to power they would reverse that particular decision. I locked horns with the Minister of the day, Noel Dempsey, with whom I had difficulties, and he declared that after five or six years he would review the situation. I accept and do not dispute the importance of salmon fishing to inland fisheries in the rivers and lakes of the west of Ireland. The issue is also present, however, for people in Bere Island, Whiddy Island, Cape Clear and other islands, for whom there should be a limited reopening of salmon fisheries, subject to certain obvious restrictions. I am not talking about the blanket situation that had obtained. However, evidence so far shows that the removal of drift net licences has dramatically increased the volume of fish coming into all the rivers. In Bantry Bay we have the Ouvane and Comhola rivers, among others. A lot of poaching is going on. In my view, the people I mentioned are the first who should be given, on a test series, a limited licensing system. This would help people in remote rural areas of Ireland, the peninsular areas and islands off west Cork and might only be on a two year basis. If the Minister retains the right to reintroduce a licensing system he also has the right, at any stage, to abandon that system. After six years of the ban it is worth looking at this situation again and we should do so. For many years, salmon fishing off the west Cork coastline was very successful and created onshore jobs. It is worth revisiting. The Minister of State might have some very interesting news for me and I hope at least some of it will be positive.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I thank Senator O’Donovan, who is an expert in this area, for raising the issue and for allowing me 30 seconds to add my tuppenceworth from a north-west point of view. The salmon fishing ban was a devastating blow and a wrong decision. It was devastating for smaller coaster and island communities. The compensation package, although available, was not availed of by all fishermen. Those people, in particular, should be allowed, encouraged or given the opportunity to return to fishing. Although scientific evidence may argue that by returning to fishing there will not be the availability of salmon, the best scientists of all are the fishermen themselves, particularly those living on islands who are advising that there are salmon coming in close to shore, in particular in the north-west 6A area, where salmon are coming in albeit later in the season. The biggest difficulties, which the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine did not attack, were the pollution in our rivers, the lack of spawning beds for the production of salmon and the issue of seals. In every bay in the country, as in the bays in my constituency, there are seals sitting up and eating five, six and seven salmon a day. The Department should focus on a seal cull and on reopening salmon fishing. I hope the Minister of State has good news for Senator O’Donovan and me.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Fergus O’Dowd): Táim chun é seoaléamh, cé go bhfuil sé beagáinín fada agus má bhíonn orm teacht isteach an dara uair, déanfaidh méésin. Wild salmon in Ireland are part of our rich national heritage and biological tapestry, and Ireland is one of the most renowned natural producers of wild salmon in the North Atlantic. 115 Fisheries 20 June 2012. Protection

[Deputy Fergus O’Dowd.]

Ireland traditionally operated a commercial, offshore, mixed stock fishery, an estuarine draft net fishery, an in-river commercial snap net fishery and an angling or recreational fishery. Fisheries experts and scientists in Ireland have been concerned for many years about the declining numbers of salmon in Ireland. This parallels concerns internationally regarding the severe decline in Atlantic salmon. This parallels international concerns about the severe decline in the number of wild Atlantic salmon, which has a very distinct life cycle. As Ireland has a large number of salmon rivers, it is very important in terms of the worldwide stock of Atlantic salmon. Since 1996, Ireland has introduced a progressive series of conservation initiatives to address this decline in stocks. In addition to conservation measures that were already in place, Ireland introduced an annual quota for angling and commercial salmon fishery in 2002. That quota was reduced progressively on an annual basis from 219,000 salmon in 2002 to 62,000 salmon in 2007. Although these measures provided some protection for stocks until 2007, they did not specifically address the mixed stock nature of Ireland’s marine salmon fisheries. These fisheries were known to take salmon from individual river stocks below that river’s conservation limits. They took stocks originating from rivers in other countries as well as in Ireland. Conservation limits are defined as the number of adult salmon required to reproduce in sufficient quantities to generate the next generation of salmon in a specific system and to ensure the long-term sustainability of this river-specific salmon stock. Ireland has established conservation limits for all salmon river systems. The salmon stock status in each catchment is accessed each year using best available counter and catch data supported by scientific data and modelling. This scientific analysis, which is conducted by the independent standing scientific committee on salmon, offers advice on potential salmon surpluses and deficits using the pre- cautionary principle. Each year, management personnel review the scientific outputs and develop management advice for each salmon river. This advice supports the annual development of the salmon and sea trout commercial and angling fishery regulations. In order to align fully with international scientific advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation, the Government closed the mixed stock salmon fisheries — the drift net fishery — in 2007. The closure of Ireland’s mixed stock commercial salmon fishery was supported by the introduction of a €30 million salmon hardship scheme, which was aimed at fishermen who were prepared to leave the sector permanently and was administered through Bord Iascaigh Mhara. While the salmon fishery is a public fishery for which a licence is required, there is no obligation on the State to open the fishery. Equally, nobody is entitled to obtain a licence. Despite this lack of licence entitlement, the hardship scheme was made available to all commercial salmon licence holders from previous years. They were given an opportunity to receive compensation in return for ceasing commercial salmon fishing permanently. Applications from interested applicants were accepted until the end of 2007. Many former fishermen availed of the scheme. Since then, the exploitation of salmon stocks through commercial fishing and recreational angling has only been permitted on stocks emanating from rivers that are achieving their conservation limits and therefore have surplus salmon available. In 2012, some 57 rivers are open with a surplus of salmon available whereas 60 rivers are closed because they did not reach conservation limits and did not generate a surplus. A further 31 rivers are open for angling on a catch and release basis. Rivers meeting over 65% of the conservation limit may be approved for catch and release status. This permits rod and line angling under strict conditions, such as using a barbless hook and immediately returning any fish caught to the water alive. In 2006, the Central Fisheries Board, which is now known as Inland Fisheries Ireland, was directed under the Fisheries Act 1980 to “co-ordinate the preparation and implementation of a programme for rehabilitation of salmon stocks giving priority to rivers below their Con- 116 Fisheries 20 June 2012. Protection servation Limits in special areas of conservation which have the greatest prospect of recovery”. Provision was made for the programme to be funded from the proceeds of the salmon conservation component of salmon licence fees. An additional fee, equivalent to the cost of the salmon licence, was added to all classes of salmon licence to provide funds for conservation in 2007. This fund was subsequently used to rehabilitate habitats in salmon rivers, particularly those under their conservation limits. Over €3 million has been collected and allocated to rehabilitation projects nationwide since the fund was initiated. The Atlantic salmon is a protected species under the EU habitats directive. The current salmon management regime complies with the requirements of this legislation. The reintroduc- tion of a fishery for offshore islands and coastal communities would be contrary to the internationally independent advice from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea. Such a move could potentially lead to conflict with EU obligations on grounds of not protecting vulnerable Irish and international salmon stocks. Despite the initial increase in runs in most rivers following the closure of mixed stock commercial salmon fisheries, many specific river stocks remain below their conservation limits. Given the persistently poor marine survival rates experienced by most monitored stocks in the north Atlantic and taking account of forecasts until 2015, at least, any expectation of an increase in catches is unrealistic and irresponsible at present. The advice we have received from our scientists and the position of the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation is that the priority is the conservation imperative rather than an indiscriminate increase in the catch. The current low levels of commercial fishing do not involve fish taken at sea but are concen- trated on particular stocks in river and estuary systems that are generating surplus fish by meeting their conservation limits. It would not be appropriate to extend commercial fishing to sea areas such as those around offshore islands where the runs of salmon are known to be from multiple river stocks — both Irish and non-Irish rivers — some of which are below their conservation limits. The opening of commercial salmon fishing to offshore areas could only be considered with any authority if there was a dramatic improvement in marine survival of wild Atlantic salmon. Current international advice concurs that there is no indication of this in the foreseeable future. All current scientific evidence suggests that Atlantic salmon stocks remain under severe pressure in Ireland and elsewhere. There is no indication that there has been any sustainable recovery in the stocks as implied in the debate topic. All evidence is that marine survival of wild Atlantic salmon is at a fraction of historical levels. Until this improves significantly, the expansion of the commercial salmon fishery is unsustainable and irresponsible.

An Cathaoirleach: I am sure all of Senator O’Donovan’s questions were covered in the Minister of State’s reply.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I have great respect for the Minister of State on a personal basis. As a former Member of this House, he ground out his back teeth in this Chamber. He has made great progress since then.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I thank the Senator.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: However, he was like the grim reaper as he read his reply. He was unable to offer any solace to the people of Donegal, west Cork or Kerry. Some of his colleagues in the Dáil who like to pontificate had suggested that as soon as the new Govern- ment came into office, the Fisheries Acts would be revisited and the appalling decision that was made by my colleague, the former Minister, Noel Dempsey, would be reversed. As Senator Ó Domhnaill said, the pollution of our rivers by local authorities and chemical plants over the past 30 or 40 years has done far more damage to this country’s salmon fishing industry than the minimal actions of a few lads off the coast of west Cork and Donegal. I accept that this might not fall under the brief of the Minister of State. Can he confirm he is saying that the 117 School 20 June 2012. Patronage

[Senator Denis O’Donovan.] curtain is down as far as commercial salmon fishing is concerned? If that is the case, we might as well tell the people about it. Perhaps we can make a few bob here and there by letting Merkel’s people from Germany pick a few salmon from our rivers and lakes. It is a sad conclusion to the wild salmon fishing industry that I knew for all my lifetime.

Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Tourists from Germany, Britain, America or anywhere else are more than welcome to come to this country to catch fish in areas where that is allowed. Irish people like Senator O’Donovan and me are welcome to do the same. There is no difference in that respect. The Senator and I know each other for a long time, so I can say to him with respect that the curtain is falling on the salmon stocks themselves. The necessary stocks are not there anymore. That is why we have to give conservation the priority it requires. It must be to the fore in the interests of the survival of the species. As the Senator is aware, commercial fishermen who opted out of that industry permanently were compensated for that as part of a €30 million programme. The key point is that if we can conserve stocks over the years to come, at some point in the future we can return to the status quo that existed before the stocks started to disappear. It would be irresponsible and wrong if all the salmon were to disappear over the next three or four years as a result of an action of this Government or any other Government. It is important that these species survive, and we will do everything possible to sustain their survival in the proper way.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: The salmon of wisdom is finished.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Bacik has the second matter. I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: Is the Senator supporting my salmon fishing issue?

School Patronage Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Cannon, to the House and thank him for taking this matter. My question to the Minister for Education and Skills, which was timely given the announcement today of the Minister’s action plan in response to the advisory group on the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector, was specifically on the provision of additional multidenominational school places in the Portobello area in Dublin 8 on the basis of recommendation A4, which is at page 61 of the report of the advisory group on patronage and pluralism. It recommended that where significant demand for a new school type has already been evidenced, a building should be made available by the Depart- ment of Education and Skills from existing school stock as soon as possible. The Portobello Educate Together group, of which I am chair, has already demonstrated significant demand for a new school type in our area. We have 637 members, a total of 409 children pre-enrolled for school between 2013 and 2016, and parents who are clamouring for additional multidenominational school places in our area, even for this year. We hope to see a new multidenominational school established in our area by September 2013. I am delighted that in today’s announcement the Minister has accepted the recommendations of the advisory group. I am pleased to see that his action plan sets out a clear timetable for the carrying out of transfer or divestment of patronage in primary schools where parents and local communities require it but I am anxious that in our area we would see change earlier than envisaged in the Minister’s timeline because we have already demonstrated a clear and unchal- lengeable need for the provision of more multidenominational school places in our area. Our area is one of the 44 areas designated by the Minister in his response today as requiring a survey of parental demand to establish whether greater diversity of patronage is required but we have already established that requirement. We have established that parents in our area 118 School 20 June 2012. Patronage require greater diversity of provision of school type and that we fit precisely within recommendation A4 of the advisory group, which was that the Minister should proceed immediately to provide new school space where the demand has been established. In other words, it should not go into the timeline provided for the surveying of parents in particular areas. I ask whether any progress has been made. I understood that our area was a pilot area for transfer or divestment and that progress had been made. Has the Minister of State anything to report in terms of that progress?

Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills (Deputy Ciarán Cannon): Iam taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, the Minister for Education and Skills. As the Senator is aware, in June of last year the Minister announced that up to 40 new schools are to be established within the next six years to provide sufficient school capacity to meet our increased demographics. These consisted of 20 new primary schools and 20 new post- primary schools. That announcement did not include a proposal to establish a new primary school in the area referred to by the Senator. However, the forward planning section of the Department will continue to monitor enrolments in the Portobello area to ensure there is sufficient school accommodation to meet any projected future demands. The report of the advisory group to the Forum on Patronage and Pluralism in the Primary Sector was published in April of this year. The report’s findings and recommendations have been considered, and the Minister outlined his action plan in response to the advisory group report this morning. In regard to divesting, the advisory group recommended that the process of divesting of patronage would commence in 47 identified areas of stable population with likely demand for diversity. The Minister agrees in principle with the approach to divesting outlined in the forum report and intends to commence the process immediately. On the areas to be surveyed, as the Senator is aware, the 47 areas referred to in the report were identified at the request of the Catholic Church in 2010 and the list was drawn up based on criteria applied to data from the 2006 census. Since the Minister published the forum report in April, new data has become available from the 2011 census. The Minister has decided to update the list of areas to be surveyed to reflect the new data available from census 2011 and to take account of areas where primary school diversity is already provided or planned. In summary, this means that the number of areas to be surveyed in the initial phase is 44. I am pleased to inform the Senator that among the Dublin areas to be surveyed in this initial phase are Dublin 4, 6 and 8. The divesting process will involve the gathering of evidence by the forward planning section of the Department of Education and Skills on the scale of divestment required in the identified areas. Parents will be given full information on the different types of schools and the different patron bodies. Helplines will be put in place during the survey period to deal with any queries from parents. Surveying will be carried out in five pilot areas initially — these areas are yet to be decided — with surveys being carried out in these areas in October this year. I understand the Minister aims to start surveying in the balance of the 44 areas in November. I thank the Senator for raising this important issue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Can the Minister of State give me any more information in terms of the Portobello group? I am disappointed because there is nothing new in his response. The group is not looking for additional school accommodation. It is looking for a change in the type of school accommodation being provided in our area. That fits squarely within the need 119 Road 20 June 2012. Signage

[Senator Ivana Bacik.] for transfer or divestment of patronage, and we had understood our area was at an advanced stage for a transfer or divestment from an existing Catholic school to become multidenominational. Has the Minister of State anything specific to say or will he bring my request for specific information to the Minister, Deputy Quinn, and ask whether more detail could be provided because there is nothing new in the answer given?

Deputy Ciarán Cannon: I have no more information other than what is available in the response from the Minister, Deputy Quinn, but I undertake to pass on the Senator’s concerns and ambitions for the Portobello area to the Minister. I would point out that if we are to proceed with the divestment of school patronage in particular areas we must be able to rely on sufficient data to allow us make that decision to divest to an alternative patronage. To move ahead without having that scientific surveying carried out in areas would be unwise. The response refers to five pilot areas initially. The Senator might have a word with her colleague to see if it would be possible to have the Portobello area included in those five pilot areas.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I will do that. I thank the Minister of State.

Road Signage Senator Paschal Mooney: The Minister of State will be aware that this issue has been bounc- ing around a number of Departments, so to speak. I am not anticipating the Minister’s reply but I hope it would at least flesh out the question I am asking. Road signs are dealt with by way of an order made by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport under the Road Traffic Acts. The technical specifications are laid out in a detailed way in the traffic signs manual issued to all road authorities. I raise this matter because there are growing concerns about the disparity, which is of a bilingual nature, in terms of road signs across the country where either the spelling is incorrect or it is not sufficiently highlighted. It is primarily to do with the variations between the various spellings across the country which is confusing. Interestingly, when the Official Languages Act was introduced in March 2009 the requirement was for all new signage erected after March 2009 to be bilingual, with the Irish version displayed first and to be as legible, prominent and visible as the text in English, but it seems the Minister opted to specifically exclude road signs from the requirements of the Official Languages Act regulations. On the spelling of placenames on road signs, the traffic signs manual to which I referred requires road authorities to use the officially designated Irish versions of placenames as agreed by the Place Names Commission. In case of doubt they are asked, under the traffic signs manual, to actively seek the advice of that origination. There are significant mistakes on road signs throughout the country and when those are brought to the attention of Oifig An Coimisinéir Teanga it contacts the individual authorities and asks them to amend them. I understand that, in the main, local authorities are amenable and responsible in that regard. In terms of the variations and the incorrect signage, the only way to ensure that all such road signs are correct would be to have a once-off national audit and replacement programme, as well as a detailed proofing mechanism, to ensure that incorrect road signs are not erected in future by roads authorities. I raise this matter because this is a policy issue. I appreciate that it is about the local authorities enforcing what the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport has set out in its traffic signs manual but it is patchy at best. It is only when it is brought to its attention that incorrect 120 Road 20 June 2012. Signage signs are corrected. That is not good enough, and it is time there was a more co-ordinated approach. I support the view of An Coimisinéir Teanga who stated in a number of his annual reports that a once-off national audit and replacement programme is the only way to address this issue.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon: I thank the Senator for the opportunity to address this issue today and I am replying on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Leo Varadkar. The Minister has responsibility for overall policy and funding for the national roads programme. However, the planning, design, and implementation of individual national road schemes, including the provision of road signs, are statutory matters for the National Roads Authority, NRA, under the Roads Acts 1993 to 2007 in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Regional and local roads, including improvement, maintenance and the provision of road signs, are a statutory function of each road authority in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Roads Act 1993. In 2003, the regional roads signposting programme was introduced to sign all significant junctions on regional roads in county council areas. This programme is now nearly complete. There is a clear procedure in place for local authorities to ensure that the correct spelling is used on all traffic signs. This procedure is outlined in the 2010 traffic signs manual. It is a statutory requirement that place names on information signs be in both Irish and English, except for names of destinations in Gaeltacht areas. Where the names of places in these areas are in Irish only and the spelling of a place name is similar in both languages, only the Irish form of the name should be shown. With regard to the spelling of place names on traffic signs, clear guidance on this issue is set out in section 1.1.49 of the 2010 traffic signs manual which is available on the Department’s website. In ensuring that the correct forms and spelling of place names are used on traffic signs, road authorities should consult the relevant place names orders published as statutory instruments. If the place name is not included in a place names order, the Gazetteer of Ireland, the place names branch of Ordnance Survey Ireland, should be consulted. Alternatively, in determining the correct Irish form of a place name, road authorities can also consult with, and obtain advice from, An Coimisiun Logainmneacha. Before consulting with an coimisiún, road authorities may wish to ascertain, through local consultation, whether specific place names have a particular local significance or what traditional local usage may exist. On a bilingual place name sign, the Irish place name is positioned on top, with the English equivalent underneath. In order to convey to drivers as clearly as possible that two distinct languages are contained on the sign, there must be an obvious distinction in text so as not to compromise road safety. This is imperative not just for Irish drivers, but also for the large number of tourists on Irish roads. To this end, sentence case lettering at an angle of 15 degrees is used for the Irish text and uppercase lettering is used for English text. It is believed that the use of inclined or italic and generally lower case script emphasises and best represents the older Gaelic script. In addition, Irish place names are on average 40% longer than their English equivalent. If Irish text was in uppercase and at the required height to be visible, then this would result in much larger signs or numerous abbreviations which could lead to lack of clarity of the sign for the driver. There is a practical implication in preventing signs from being unduly wide where space is limited on substantial numbers of roads around the country where sight lines of visibility can become obscured by larger signs. Also, larger signs require larger posts for structural stability, which increases the safety risk of any potential road collision impact. On balance, the current system of bilingual signs is the preferred option for displaying placenames in both languages in as safe a manner as possible. In conclusion, the display of text on traffic signs is determined under section 95 of the Roads Traffic Act 1961. The primary motivation of the Department is to ensure that traffic information signs assist in the safe use of the road network and provide clarity for road users so as 121 Garda 20 June 2012. Stations

[Deputy Ciarán Cannon.] not to compromise road safety. It is a matter for local authorities to ensure that guidelines set out in the 2010 traffic signs manual are followed.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I am grateful to the Minister for that response as it fills in many of the gaps on the history and background to signage. However, most of the response is taken up with the issue of design and the manner in which signs should be displayed. The core of my argument is the point mentioned in the last sentence of the response, that signage is a matter for local authorities. I agree and have no difficulty about that. However, local authorities are not implementing the recommendations and guidelines as set down in the Department’s traffic signs manual. Therefore, I ask for some proactive approach to be taken by the Department on this, rather than just saying it is up to the local authorities. Local authorities are failing in their duty in this regard. It seems they tender to different companies which do not then consult with the Place Names Commission as to the correct spelling. I cannot think of any other reason for the problem. Perhaps the Minister of State can explain the reason. I am sure he has come across similar variations to those I have, where there is a variation in the spelling of the names. All I ask for is that some uniformity is brought into the system. This is a policy issue and if the Department does not take it on board, it is left to individual local authorities. Some of these are good, some very good and some not good enough. I hope the Minister of State will take the message back to the Minister that he should look again at the responsibilities of the Department in this regard, to ensure there is no variation in the spelling of place names across the country.

Deputy Ciarán Cannon: I will undertake to pass on the Senator’s concerns to the Minister.

Garda Stations Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this motion with regard to a district headquarter Garda station in my constituency, namely, Glenties Garda station, which has been a subject of much speculation over the past number of days following leaks from the Department that the decision may be to close this station as a district station and redeploy any of the additional staff there. Currently, there are between 30 and 40 gardaí working in the district station there, but some of these will be redeployed to the district stations of Milford and Ballyshannon. Milford is approximately 70 miles north east of Glenties and Ballyshannon is approximately 40 miles south of Glenties. As a result of the closure, some of the current six stations under the jurisdiction of Glenties Garda station — Glencolmcille, Carrick, Dungloe, Annagry, Bunbeg and Burtonport — would be left under the jurisdiction of the revised Milford sub-district and the rest under a new extended Ballyshannon sub-district. This would mean that the entire west of Donegal, virtually 90% of the Donegal Gaeltacht, would be left without a station and without the required manpower to deal with serious crime in those areas. Donegal has been the subject of very serious crime over the past while, and over the past number of weeks in particular. I am very alarmed that this closure may happen, despite rural vandalism and crime. For example, this past weekend, a large number of sheep was stolen from a farm and a dog was mutilated as a result of individuals trying to break into a premises in the St. Johnston area of my constituency. The dog was in a small shed and was barking at the intruders and he was slashed in the throat to such an extent that the walls of the shed were covered in blood. This disgraceful attack on a defenceless and innocent animal illustrates the spiralling crime within the county. In addition to crimes such as these, there is an ever-increasing presence of drug farms, one of which was found in Laghey in Donegal recently. Some men have been charged with that and we thank the Garda for their efforts in that regard. A car was stolen during the Donegal 122 Garda 20 June 2012. Stations international rally at the weekend, a post office robbery took place in Bridgend last weekend, there have been a number of burglaries of holiday homes in the county and a number of homes of elderly people have been burgled over the past number of months. Today, sadly, we learned of the murder of a man in his 60s who lives in the Churchill area of County Donegal. The circumstances are not known at this stage, but the man was murdered in a rural part of the county. This must be reason enough to ensure that the current Garda resources available to rural areas of County Donegal are maintained. I raise this issue tonight because people are living in fear, particularly in rural areas. Many people in my county this evening are worried, particularly elderly people. I have spoken to a number of them on the telephone today, as a result of the announcement of the murder which occurred in the past 24 hours. The Minister cannot in any way reduce Garda resources in west Donegal or any part of our county, given the close geographical connection with Northern Ireland. A total of 97% of the land mass of our county is connected to the North, and on the other side we are connected to the Atlantic Ocean, with all our ports and harbours. We have crime, we have the importation of drugs, and we have cross-Border crime as well. I hope the Minister of State has some reassuring news about this station for my constituents and the people of west Donegal in particular.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Kathleen Lynch): Iam responding to this matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, who sends his apologies. Unfortunately, as the Senator probably knows, he could not be here this evening, as he has not yet mastered the ability to bilocate. The Minister has asked me to thank the Senator for raising this matter, which provides him with an opportunity to address the position of the district headquarters status of Glenties Garda station. Glenties is a district headquarters in the Donegal division. The Garda strength, as of 31 May 2012 — the latest date for which figures are available — was 52 in the Glenties district, out of a total of 433 in the Donegal division. The division is supported by 24 Garda reserves and 29 civilians who provide administrative and technical support to members of the Garda Síochána. The House will be aware that towards the end of each year, the Commissioner prepares a policing plan for the following year. In the process, he reviews all aspects of the Garda Síochána’s policing model, including the deployment of personnel, the utilisation of modern technologies and the operation of Garda stations in terms of opening hours and possible closures. In addition, all divisional officers are asked to assess the level of activity in each Garda station in their areas. It must be stressed that the key objective of this ongoing review is to promote the more efficient and effective deployment of resources rather than to secure specific cash savings. The policing plan for 2013 has not yet been prepared, and therefore it is not possible for the Minister to say at this stage what it may contain, although it is expected that it will contain measures to address the ongoing issue of rationalisation of the Garda station network. Any such proposals must be seen in a particular context. The Garda Síochána, like every other public sector body, will have to manage with reduced resources. The House will be aware that under plans agreed by the previous Government as part of its compliance with the terms of the EU-IMF agreement, Garda numbers are to be reduced. However, that reduction is being accompanied by real reform being introduced under the Croke Park agreement, which was established as part of a strategic response to the economic crisis. The Croke Park agreement is playing a key role in reform across the public service. This programme includes the reform of structures, operations and processes in order to maintain services at the highest level possible while coping with reductions in numbers. New efficiencies must be introduced so that, even with reduced staffing levels, the best possible service continues to be provided to the public. This need for efficiency is what underlies the Commissioner’s proposals to close some Garda stations in 2012. It was also a key driver in the development and introduction of new Garda 123 The 20 June 2012. Adjournment

[Deputy Kathleen Lynch.] rosters, new processes for making payments in the Garda Síochána and a new performance and accountability framework for members of the Garda. The Garda Commissioner is responsible for the detailed allocation of resources. The resources available in the Donegal division, which I have already outlined, are further aug- mented by Garda national units such as the Garda National Drugs Unit, the Criminal Assets Bureau and other specialised units. Garda management will continue to closely monitor the allocation of resources, taking account of transfers and retirements, crime trends, policing needs and operational strategies on a district, divisional and regional level. The Donegal Garda division and the Glenties Garda district will be subject to the same level of monitoring and decision making to ensure that optimum use is made of Garda resources and the best possible Garda service is provided to the public. The Garda Commissioner has reiterated the commitment of the Garda Síochána to providing a professional and effective service to the community, and he has the full support of the Minister in this regard. Before I conclude I pay tribute, on behalf of the Minister, to the Garda Síochána for the commitment and the professionalism its members display in carrying out their duties.

Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I thank the Minister of State. I know she is not responsible for this Department or for the response she just gave, but the response was, to say the least, pitiful and shameful. It did not address in any way the concerns of people living in my area. We all know the Commissioner is responsible for detailed allocation of resources — there is nothing new in that — but the Commissioner can only deal with the resources he is given. Unfortu- nately, it appears that Garda stations are closing. Thirty-nine Garda stations in the State have closed over the last six months, of which three — or 8% — are in my own county. While crime is escalating because of the recession, the resources being made available to tackle that crime and protect people in their homes are not sufficient. I am not pointing the finger at the Minister of State, but if the Garda Commissioner is forced into a situation in which he must close Glenties Garda station, it is up to the Minister to provide the resources to ensure that station remains open, because it is on his head if crime escalates or if lives are lost as a result of those decisions to save a few euro. Yes, we are in difficult times, but ultimately we must protect our people. The Garda is doing an excellent job, but if one speaks to members of the force at the moment, they will say they are finding it very difficult.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The first priority of the Commissioner and the Minister is to ensure the safety of the citizen, and they are doing quite a good job in that respect. The Garda is doing an excellent job. I do not think the situation is as bleak as the Senator is painting it. I accept that he must make the argument, but I do not think it is as bad as he says. For Donegal as a whole, the resources are quite considerable, for the reasons the Senator has outlined. I cannot say for certain what will be in next year’s budget in the area for which I am responsible, and I most definitely cannot guarantee a budget allocation in an area for which I am not responsible. We are in dire circumstances; the country has never been in this position before. We are trying to crawl our way out of it, and we are doing our very best.

The Seanad adjourned at 6.50 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 21 June 2012.

124