Seanad Éireann

Vol. 213 Tuesday, No. 7 14 February 2012

DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

SEANAD ÉIREANN

TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe (OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)

Dé Máirt, 14 Feabhra 2012.

Business of Seanad ………………………………485 Order of Business …………………………………486 HSE National Service Plan: Statements, Questions and Answers ………………503 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage ……………523 Adjournment Matters Departmental Schemes ……………………………535 Household Charge ………………………………537 Departmental Bodies………………………………539 Job Losses …………………………………541 SEANAD ÉIREANN

————

Dé Máirt, 14 Feabhra 2012. Tuesday, 14 February 2012.

————

Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 2.30 p.m.

————

Paidir.

Prayer.

————

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

The need for the Minister for Agriculture and Food to ensure there is no departmental interference with the independent agricultural appeals board.

I have also received notice from Senator Paul Bradford of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to outline the regulations governing the household charge with respect to the owners of multiple accommodation units such as flats and bedsits within the same building and also the position on the second home tax obligations of these property owners.

I have also received notice from Senator Martin Conway of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources to rescind angling by-law No. 888 which came into force on 1 January in order to encourage anglers throughout Europe to come to Ireland to fish.

I have also received notice from Senator Jim Walsh of the following matter:

The need for the Minister for Health to clarify the person, persons or bodies that recommended the nomination of each of the 14 members of the recently announced expert group to examine the options to deal with the ECHR ruling in the A, B and C v. Ireland case, other than the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais and the criteria used for selection.

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

The need for the Minister for Social Protection to outline the background to the decision to lay off 20 workers from Rehab Recycle in Galway in view of the fact that the majority of those made redundant are people with special needs and to elaborate on the future Govern- ment subsidised work placements that will be available to clients.

I have also received notice from Senator Colm Burke of the following matter: 485 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

[An Cathaoirleach.]

The need for the Minister for Health to outline the action he proposes to take to deal with the large number of Irish medical graduates leaving Ireland within a very short time of qualifying.

I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion on the Adjournment. The matters raised by Senators Michael Mullins, Paul Bradford, Martin Conway and Jim Walsh have been selected for discussion and they will be taken at the conclusion of business. The other Senators may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise.

Order of Business Senator Maurice Cummins: The Order of Business is No. 1, statements, questions and answers on the HSE national service plan 2012, to be taken at the conclusion of the Order of Business and conclude not later than 5.15 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed five minutes, the contribution of a Sinn Féin Senator not to exceed two minutes and the contributions of all other Senators when asking the Minister a question not to exceed one minute; No. 2, Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2001 — Second Stage, to be taken at 7.30 p.m. and conclude not later than 9.30 p.m., with the contributions of group spokespersons not to exceed eight minutes and those of all other Senators not to exceed five minutes, and the Minister to be called on to reply not later than 9.20 p.m. The altered schedule of business for today was unavoidable. The Veterinary Practice (Amendment) Bill 2011 will be taken next Tuesday, immediately after the Order of Business.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: The debate last week on the Private Members’ motion on investment in education was useful and many good contributions were made. Have Government Members been briefed by the Minister for Education and Skills on the outcome of the review of DEIS schools and the proposed cuts to be made in disadvantaged schools? I note Senator Ivana Bacik’s colleague, Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordán, said at a public meeting in Dublin that they would be satisfied with the outcome of the review. I was not aware that Deputy Ó Ríordáin was at Cabinet. Can the Leader confirm if he, himself, was briefed by the Minister for Edu- cation and Skills? Perhaps Senator Bacik can advise given that the Minister is a member of the Labour Party. Have they been briefed? What is the review? Will parents of pupils in disadvantaged schools be satisfied when the review is published this week? I give a guarded welcome to the action plan for jobs published by the Government yesterday. Any Government initiative on jobs is to be welcomed and we need a debate on the plan. I am sure the Leader will allocate time for one in the coming weeks. I am concerned about a number of items in the plan. The main issue is a lack of access to credit for businesses which we all know about and discussed in the House. The action plan is aspirational and is a rehash of many other initiatives, such as Food Harvest 2020 delivered by the last Government, so a lot of announcements have already been made. The most important part of the action plan is on financing. The Government has said that micro-finance is not in the document and it will produce it in next quarter or the one after. Can the Leader confirm that the plan for a much vaunted strategic investment bank is gone and there will not be one? NewERA, which is the responsibility of the Minister of State, Deputy O’Dowd, does not have anything to do at the moment because a new era has not happened. Is the strategic investment bank plan finished? My party is concerned about a number of items in the action plan, particularly the scrapping of the county enterprise boards, which is unwelcome. We need to tease out these issues in more detail. 486 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Finally, can the Leader raise the following issue with the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, as I did not get an opportunity last week when we discussed energy legislation because the issue was not appropriate to it. There is a ludicrous situation whereby ComReg proposes to fine An Post €11.9 million for not meeting service targets. An Post has already, in difficult times, made substantial savings over recent years. It does not make sense for the communications regulator to fine a State company nearly €12 million because he does not believe An Post met a 94% next day delivery target, which the firm disputes. It is also critical of the fact that ComReg does not provide sufficient or timely information to enable An Post to improve its performance. All of us will agree that An Post has made major strides over recent years and has saved over €100 million in operating costs. I ask the Leader to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister and ask him if it is sensible for the communications regulator to fine a State company €12 million in the current climate. It makes no sense at all. This is the same ComReg that took no action against multinationals like O2 and Vodafone when they suspended their bill pay service and stopped the option of paying a bill at the post office. Such a measure went against ComReg’s advice but the companies were not punished. I ask the Leader to raise the matter with the Minister, as a matter of urgency.

Senator Ivana Bacik: I, too, welcome the action plan for jobs launched yesterday. It amounts to a significant new programme with more than 270 actions, some clearly based on initiatives taken previously and some of which are new. Some actions are creative and have already captured people’s imagination. I know that people in small businesses are interested in the diaspora finder’s fee. That measure, coupled with the visa waiver programme mentioned by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, in the House last Thursday, incentivises people outside of Ireland to invest here and create jobs. I have perused the action plan already and it contains important new provisions on the strategic investment fund, freeing up credit for small businesses and reforming procurement procedures for them too. It is important that we are seen to support small and medium-sized enterprises and indigenous enterprises that are major employers here. I would welcome a debate on the action plan on jobs, following on from what Senator Darragh O’Brien has said. A debate would build on the one we already had here on job creation when a Minister was not present. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, wrote to us and said he would take into account our suggestions. It would be very useful if we could build on that debate, even without a Minister being present, and debate the proposals for job creation made in the action plan and how some of our own ideas might feed into the further development of the plan. It is welcome that the Taoiseach will be monitoring the plan and that quarterly reviews will be held. Even if similar measures have been announced before, there was often a failure to ensure they took effect and actually worked. I call for a debate on the universities as some significant reports have been issued this week. Yesterday the HEA issued a very significant report on the criteria necessary for the emergence of technological universities, something which has been sought for some time in the south east. I spoke at a conference last Friday in Trinity College Dublin at which quite a number of issues were examined as to what made a university different from other institutes of higher education. This is a debate we could usefully continue and develop in the House in order to bring different perspectives to bear. Other reports are due from the HEA this week on the future shape of third level education and I welcome the proposals for reform brought forward by the Minister. It would be very useful to have a debate devoted specifically to third level education and the universities. 487 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Did the Senator receive a briefing note from the Minister on DEIS schools?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I have not yet seen the review findings, but like Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, I look forward to seeing them.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I would have thought the Senator, being a senior person in the Labour Party, would have been briefed in advance of Deputy Aodhán Ó Ríordáin.

An Cathaoirleach: For the information of the House, as Senator Martin Conway has with- drawn his motion for discussion on the Adjournment, I have selected the matter proposed by Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.

Senator Rónán Mullen: There are occasional outbreaks of discussion in the House on the future of the Seanad and there have been a number of calls for a more extended reflection on our institutions and in particular the future of the Seanad. A very useful contribution has been made, however, by the inaugural parliamentary fellow in these Houses, Mr. Brian Hunt, who has written a report on the role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the scrutiny of legislation. It would be very useful if his report which is available in the Oireachtas Library was to form the basis for a discussion in this House. He has raised a number of relevant issues, but he has expressed opposition to the proposed abolition of the Seanad on the basis that he believes at least one serious attempt at reforming it should be made before it is considered for abolition. He points out that should it be abolished, the major question that would arise is, in view of the importance of the role played by the Seanad during the legislative process, what would take its place. He says if the Seanad is not to be replaced by another legislative forum, there is a question about whether the legislative process in the other House would be enhanced and lengthened. Clearly, this gentleman who has considered the issues involved in detail believes merely abolishing the Seanad is not a runner as a sensible reform. He was the inaugural Oireachtas or parliamentary fellow and we should take his good work very seriously. It deserves to be debated in this House. I am not a member of the Fine Gael parliamentary party, but if I were——

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Senator’s cousin is a member.

Senator Michael Mullins: We have the forms.

Senator Rónán Mullen: ——I would be asking the leadership——

An Cathaoirleach: What goes on or what is supposed to take place at parliamentary party meetings is not a matter for the Order of Business.

Senator Rónán Mullen: I have no secrets to tell, but if I were leader, I would ask how it was that the grassroots of the party and backbench Members seemed to be more in touch not just with public opinion but also with experienced diplomats who had served in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade during the years in saying the withdrawal of our ambassador from the Holy See was a mistake. We all heard the former ambassador to Washington, Mr. Seán Donlan, yesterday on “Morning Ireland” when he exposed the Tánaiste’s bad judgment on the issue when he talked about the importance——

Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, I take issue with the suggestion the Tánaiste has shown bad judgment on an issue——

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. 488 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Senator David Norris: In raising a point of order I hope my colleague will refer to the slip of the tongue which was Freudian when Mr. Donlan talked about the responsibility of Irish diplomats in the implementation of Vatican policy. That takes us back a few years.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator should resume his seat. Does Senator Rónán Mullen have a question for the Leader?

Senator Rónán Mullen: It seems we are not allowed to consider another politician’s judgment as being bad. We will soon be asking permission to breathe here.

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

Senator Rónán Mullen: Yes. There is a serious issue about the Tánaiste’s credibility. He tried to claim all along that the decision was taken on economic grounds. It now appears the embassy to the Holy See was not even on the most recent list of embassies recommended for closure by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Senator Ivana Bacik: The Tánaiste has denied that. It was on the list.

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Rónán Mullen is out of time. Does he have a question for the Leader?

Senator Rónán Mullen: Yes. Does the Leader agree with me that this was a decision taken on political grounds——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator does not have a question for the Leader.

Senator Rónán Mullen: ——and that it should be revisited sooner rather than later?

Senator Deirdre Clune: I welcome the Government’s announcement yesterday on the jobs plan and I am particularly pleased to hear Senator Darragh O’Brien give it a guarded welcome——

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Very guarded.

Senator Deirdre Clune: ——in contrast to his colleague in the other House where it was dismissed out of hand. It is a wide-ranging document which deserves to be debated in this House. I suggest we debate it under the four headings of indigenous business; international start-ups and attr multinationals; areas with high potential; and improving our competitiveness. The debate would be more far-reaching if we were to divide it up into different areas for discussion over a period of weeks. The Leader might consider this suggestion. There are many elements to the plan which contains 270 proposals across 15 Departments and 32 State agencies. While I accept some of the proposals are not new, they had been left sitting on the shelf and not implemented. In fact, as noted by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, yesterday, the microfinance proposal had been made by the previous Government and that when he took office, he found it needed to be taken down and put into action. That is just one of many.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: It is still sitting there. That is why we need a debate.

Senator Deirdre Clune: I welcome the proposed changes to bring the county and city enterprise boards within the local authorities and tie them with Enterprise Ireland. This will make them much more reactive and provide for far greater support for small and medium- 489 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

[Senator Deirdre Clune.] sized businesses. That is a very positive proposal and I would not shake my head to dismiss it. I look forward to a very good debate on it.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: Is there any sign of the establishment of the strategic investment bank?

Senator Terry Leyden: I am delighted Senator Rónán Mullen dealt with the following issue so well and I agree totally with him. I call for a debate on the decision of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Eamon Gilmore, to unilaterally close our embassy to the Holy See at Villa Spada in the Vatican. In a statement yesterday the highly experienced former Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. Seán Donlon, exposed it as a personal, vindictive vendetta by the Labour Party——

Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, that is not what Mr. Seán Donlon said. In fact, it is very far from what he said.

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. The Senator should resume her seat.

Senator Terry Leyden: I have put the question and stated my view that it is a vindictive, Labour Party agenda.

Senator Ivana Bacik: It was attributed to Mr. Seán Donlon.

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

Senator Terry Leyden: My question to him is simple. It is such an important issue that there must be a debate on it in the House. I call on the Minister to come to the House——

Senator Ivana Bacik: He was here two weeks ago.

Senator Terry Leyden: ——specifically to discuss the question of the closure of the embassy to the Holy See. This morning there was a chink of light when he said he was reviewing the matter. He is making an excuse about Villa Spada in which I had a private audience with the late Pope John Paul II when I met him in Rome.

Senator Paul Coghlan: The Senator was everywhere.

An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Terry Leyden seeking a debate on the issue?

Senator Terry Leyden: Let us be clear on it. I know the Cathaoirleach was very much in favour of the embassy to the Holy See remaining open.

An Cathaoirleach: Of what I am in favour does not matter. Does the Senator have a question for the Leader?

Senator Terry Leyden: I strongly encourage Fine Gael Senators and Deputies to continue their campaign, as they will win. They have to bring this section of the Government to heel because it is anti——

Senator Ivana Bacik: On a point of order, when the Tánaiste was in this House on the Thursday before last——

An Cathaoirleach: That is not a point of order. 490 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Senator Ivana Bacik: ——he made it very clear that the decision would be reviewed if and when resources allowed.

An Cathaoirleach: I am sure the Leader will give that answer.

Senator Ivana Bacik: That has been the position all along.

Senator Terry Leyden: Does the Cathaoirleach realise——

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

Senator Terry Leyden: I have. There must be a debate on the issue.

Senator Ivana Bacik: There was a debate.

Senator Terry Leyden: This is a democracy. The Government is trying to suppress debate in the House.

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator’s time is up.

Senator Terry Leyden: Does anyone realise how significant it is to have an embassy and a permanent ambassador resident in Rome?

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator has made his point.

Senator Terry Leyden: It does not matter if the ambassador is living in a small apartment. He or she does not need to live in Villa Spada which could be used by the Irish Embassy to Italy. We have two ambassadors in France, one in Paris and the other in Strasbourg dealing with the Council of Europe.

An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Jim D’Arcy.

Senator Terry Leyden: There are more than 1 billion Catholics in the world giving allegiance to the Holy See. Ireland must have a permanent representative in the Vatican. I, therefore, urge the Government to reverse its decision. No matter how long it takes, the Fianna Fáil Party will ensure it is reversed, either by the Government or it as part of the next Government.

Senator Michael Mullins: It will be a long time before the Senator’s party is in government again.

(Interruptions).

Senator Jim D’Arcy: If I am not mistaken, Senator Terry Leyden was out with Gadaffi also.

Senator Terry Leyden: On a point of order, I was not——

Senator Jim D’Arcy: The Senator is like the Beach Boys — he gets around.

(Interruptions).

Senator Terry Leyden: For the purpose of securing jobs and trade, I travelled to the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Senator David Norris: Is a parallel being drawn between the Pope and Gadaffi?

(Interruptions). 491 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Jim D’Arcy to continue, without interruption.

Senator Jim D’Arcy: I welcome the Government’s jobs initiative which comprises a selection of bold ambitions, including making Ireland the best small country in the world in which to do business. It is easy to be cynical, but I know Senator Darragh O’Brien is not a cynical person. The plan offers hope and is presented with a genuine commitment to get the country moving again. I say with conviction that the plan gives hope to the mothers and fathers who are planning to say goodbye to their children at the airport that these young people will be able to stay in Ireland. As I welcome the youth of Ardee, County Louth, to the Chamber today, I want them to feel the energy of the House. They must be assured that the Seanad and the Dáil are working hard to make progress in this area.

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

Senator Jim D’Arcy: Does the Leader agree that the jobs initiative is a way forward for the country?

Senator David Norris: The welfare of the people is continually suppressed in the interests of the system. In an article in Rolling Stone in 2009 Matt Taibbi described Goldman Sachs as a “great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money”. I have been raising such issues as Goldman Sachs, the banking system and the ratings agencies for the past ten years. The rating agencies are no more than a flotilla of poisonous squids with the same motivation and intent as Goldman Sachs. In this context, I call for the establishment of an international financial court. The agencies are engaged in re-rating countries, yet they have been shown previously to have no knowledge or understanding of the concept of a conflict of interest. Who knows whether some of the people concerned do not have an interest in the impact they are having on the market? Who knows whether they are not making money on it? We are all entitled to know. Why is money being lent to the banks to buy bonds at a rate of 6% for which we, the Irish people, are paying? Continuing on the theme of the welfare of citizens, I was astonished at the response of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, when she was asked about marriage equality. Her response shows she has no intention of respecting the welfare of children. I am tired of the posturing of politicians on this issue and the opportunism 3o’clock that abounds when it comes to the welfare of children. I opposed the Civil Part- nership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010 on the basis that it violated the rights of children. Members who are now on the Government side of the House spoke most affectingly about the matter, but have they done anything about it? Gay people can adopt children — let that message go out — but they cannot do so as a couple. This means that when the adopting parent dies, the child is in limbo. I hear such smug hypocrisy about the welfare of children, but, as I pointed out at the time, the failure to make provision in this regard in the Act was nothing more than an abuse of children. Let us put the welfare of the people at the centre of our agenda. I hope to have an opportunity, if we have a general debate on economics, to talk about these matters. I spoke to the marriage equality people; I spoke to people about fracking and I have concluded that it is all part of the same thing — a lack of respect for the welfare of the people.

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

Senator David Norris: The electricity supply to the people in Priory Hall is being cut off because the building is being pumped out. What were they building? Was it a boat? What kind 492 Order of 14 February 2012. Business of building needs to be pumped out? Let us have a debate on these broad issues of principle, which is one of the things for which the Seanad was established.

Senator Denis Landy: I still have not mastered how to run one item into another, so I will just raise one item today, unlike——

Senator David Norris: Watch and learn.

Senator Denis Landy: ——the previous speaker who managed to run three items together. He even interrupts me during my little item. I would like to raise a serious issue today that is causing problems in both rural and urban Ireland. This is the continuous theft of gold for sale. I have seen statistics from the Garda Síochána in my own area and in my region which show that robberies are being carried out specifically to steal gold. This gold is being sold to shops which are unregulated and which do not require any identification of those vendors selling them gold, which they then sell on the market. I have sought legislation on this issue and have been in contact with the Minister’s office through one of my colleagues. I have been informed that it is under consideration. There is currently no traceability for gold sold by cash for gold shops. In view of the serious nature of this matter, the epidemic of robberies throughout the country specifically related to gold, and the sentimental consequences of these robberies to people, I call on the Minister to introduce legislation immediately to ensure there is full traceability of all gold that is being sold through cash for gold shops. This can be done easily and very quickly. I ask the Leader of the House to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister. I would also ask the Minister to give a little bit more thought to the type of response he gives back to Senators on issues that we raise in this House. I got a reply to a serious issue I raised two weeks ago, namely, the Eamon Lillis case. I got a one-line reply from the Minister which did not refer to the issue I was raising and included Senator Cáit Keane in the response, even though the Senator did not raise the issue at all. Senators need to get some serious responses from Ministers from now on.

An Cathaoirleach: That is a matter for the Minister himself. I cannot help the Senator in that respect.

Senator David Cullinane: I am sure that all Senators will join with me in expressing relief that all five bodies have been recovered from the sea following the sinking of the Tit Bon- homme fishing trawler, and in commending the communities of Union Hall in west Cork and the Gaeltacht area in west Waterford where one of the fishermen who lost his life, Michael Hayes, spent a lot of his time. A huge community effort was put in. Fishermen from throughout the country lent their boats to aid the recovery of the bodies. Divers were brought in from throughout the country. People in the communities supplied food and other supplies. It was a great community effort. A call was made by Mr. Hayes’s family at his funeral for various Government agencies to look at introducing personal emergency beacons to fishermen. This is a formal GPS system that is placed on the wrists of fishermen so that if a boat sinks and we have a tragedy like this in future, it will be much easier for the rescue operators to recover bodies. No one wants to see a situation again where we wait for weeks on end while divers try to recover the missing bodies. That causes huge trauma for the families. There have been major advances in technology and it is to be hoped the political exists to implement this change. I know the Taoiseach visited the families, as did the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, and they have been very supportive of them. They said they would investigate this. I ask the Leader to convey 493 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

[Senator David Cullinane.] to the Taoiseach the importance of this issue and one hopes there will be some movement. It is important to ensure what happened in recent weeks does not happen to other families.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I am concerned about the comment by Senator Norris that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Frances Fitzgerald, has no interest in the welfare of children. That comment needs to be clarified. With regard to the embassy to the Holy See, it would be helpful if the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade explored further the possibility of the embassies to Italy and the Holy See sharing the one residence. That the Vatican does not want this to happen is a mistake because we should be looking to find a way to resolve the issue amicably. I welcome the publication yesterday of the criteria for the designation of institutes of technology as technological universities. Let us make no mistake about it, this is a major development which needs to be debated because there are fears to be allayed and questions to be answered. For example, will this development lead to a lowering of standards? The institutes of technology are attracting students with 200 points plus, whereas the universities are attracting students with 350 points plus. Will the students in institutes of technology be able to do a masters and PhD? If that will not be the case, where will the students go? Will no one want them? Will lecturers at IT level without a PhD or significant publication record be offered a professorship at full or associate level? These questions need to be answered. Money will be a factor. Will there be enough resources to fund technological universities? This is about standards which matter. The standards achieved in education have brought us to where we are and sell us to the world. Therefore, we must not lower standards while seeking to improve the system. I look forward to a debate on the issue.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: Last week it was flagged by me that the Minister for the Envir- onment, Community and Local Government was to attend in Cavan the annual conference of town councillors. I attended the conference at which I took part in a panel discussion with Senator Denis Landy. There were more than 400 delegates in attendance. If they had attended in the hope the Government’s position on the system of local government would be clarified, they left deeply disappointed because the Minister did exactly the opposite. Instead of bringing clarity to the subject, he confused it even more. His messages were mixed. He referred to ending the isolation of town councils and implied that he was speaking about integrating local government structures. We are all for integration, but nobody wants town councils which have given fantastic service to communities for more than 100 years to be abolished at the stroke of a pen. Like me, the Leader will be conscious of the tremendous work councillors do. County councillors are equally concerned because, apparently, the Government is countenancing having fewer councils and county councillors. There was a reference to the Fine Gael parliamentary party. I cannot imagine what goes on at such a gathering——

Senator Catherine Noone: Because it is so big.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: ——but I am confident the Leader will be in a position to relay the concerns of councillors of all parties, the majority of whom are supporters of the Government. The Minister is supposed to bring an action plan to the Cabinet in six to eight weeks. He made it clear, however, that he was not bringing forward a White Paper or a consultation document, all of which bodes ill. There is, therefore, an onus on the Government side to ensure the Minister pulls back and allows local democracy to be saved. 494 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Senator Jimmy Harte: Before I ask the Leader a question, I wish to make an observation about Senator Terry Leyden who was disingenuous——

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

Senator Jimmy Harte: Yes. The question is about Senator Terry Leyden.

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

Senator Jimmy Harte: It is coming. Senator Terry Leyden uses the Chamber to make his point about the church. I have great respect for Senator Leyden.

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

Senator Jimmy Harte: The Senator reminds me of a riderless horse in the Grand National that continues racing until the end. By the time the race is over, no-one takes much notice.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: He is too heavy to be a jockey.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan: He has won a good few races.

Senator Jimmy Harte: I must get a few tips from him.

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

Senator Jimmy Harte: The news today in the north west is that the UK Government, through the Northern Ireland Assembly Minister for Finance and Personnel, Sammy Wilson, has allocated £330 million towards the upgrade of the A5 route from Aughnacloy, via Strabane, to Derry. It follows on the news that the Irish Government does not have the funds to complete the project. Several months ago I raised the issue of commencing roads with funding from Northern Ireland but I was shouted down by members who are not present today. They insisted that it could only be done jointly by both Governments, North and South. I congratulate Sammy Wilson on making that allocation today. I also made the point that the major issue was to get the road started because once it was started, it would then be completed. The news today is what and other proposed before Christmas, that is, to get the road started and get funding of £330 million. I ask the Leader to arrange for the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to come to the House to explain why the UK Government can spend £330 million but the Irish Government is found wanting. I would urge us to find a way to complete the road because it is important to the economy of the north west and for the delivery of services.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I support Senator Healy Eames’s comments on education devel- opments announced in recent times. We discussed in the House our problems with mathematics, which are very serious at second level, along our problems with what used to be called foreign languages. We also have a problem with economics in that the Wright report found that 7% of the senior staff in the Department of Finance had a qualification in economics and that showed in its performance in recent years. We need to place an emphasis on the classroom, learning and investing as early as possible in education. Over the weekend, we witnessed the obsession with structures, with calls by the head of the HEA for yet another round of restructuring. That is bureaucracy taking over from education which is what we do not need. We should have a debate in the House on real needs, where we are failing badly in mathematics and failing badly in languages, becoming a mono-lingual country. We have people in senior positions allocating billions worth of resources and without them having the proper qualifi- 495 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

[Senator Sean D. Barrett.] cations in economics . Can we put a debate on structures aside until after we tackle the real problems in education?

Senator Catherine Noone: I join colleagues in welcoming the Government’s jobs plan announced yesterday. I particularly welcome its specific targets which means it is more likely to succeed with the creation of 100,000 jobs by 2016 and a further 100,000 by 2020. I have read the jobs plan and I am impressed. It proves that job creation is at the centre of the Govern- ment’s focus. Two measures caught my eye. First was a measure to encourage all professionals in accounting, taxation and the legal industry to supply the business sector with quotations in advance of any services. That is a positive move and is welcome. Second, there is mention of placing downward pressure on commercial rents in NAMA properties to drive down the rate of vacancies and potentially save us from a situation like the one that occurred recently with the Lighthouse Cinema in Smithfield in Dublin where a perfectly viable premises was left empty and unrented for a year because a scheduled rent increase of 50% could not be deferred. These are small moves and are an example of the type of things that are being encouraged by the Government. I am grateful that Senator Darragh O’Brien and the Opposition welcome the plan. Our earlier debate was constructive. I join other Senators in asking the Leader to arrange a debate on the jobs plan.

Senator Feargal Quinn: I am informed that the mileage rate for the public service has three different levels which rewards those with bigger cars. This is a time when we are watching our costs. A larger car means a higher rate in mileage allowance and the lowest rate is €21.22. This is a time when we should not be encouraging people to have bigger cars by paying them more to do so. I understand that the subsistence allowance increases with the salary level and that three levels of payment exist. Does this mean that people who are paid more have bigger tummies or are hungrier so that they are paid more? Those are two areas which should be examined in light of controlling costs. I ask the Leader to verify what I have said or to correct me if I am mistaken.

Senator Colm Burke: I also welcome the jobs plan announced yesterday. I wish to raise one issue with regard to the proposal to remove red tape. I refer to a European Commission document which I have here. I can download a page which clearly shows the responsibilities of each official. There are 89 names on this page——

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator may not display documents in the Chamber.

Senator Colm Burke: ——and 89 different departments, but it clearly shows who is responsible for what area. We need to change processes in Departments and local authorities in order that people can immediately access information on a website as to who is dealing with a particular area in a local authority instead of having to telephone reception and go around the house to find the responsible person. The removal of red tape is one of the aims in the jobs plan and one of the ways to do so is to have a means of identifying the people in Departments and local authorities who are involved in job creation and regulation. This type of reform is badly needed. However, I welcome the proposals set out by the Government. Together with others, I look forward to ensuring the targets set are reached by the end of the term of this Government.

Senator Paul Coghlan: Senator Leyden’s intervention was another attempt at a phoney spat regarding the Vatican. He was an absolute holy show. I am as big a supporter as anyone in this 496 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Chamber or in the other House of having an embassy to the Vatican in Rome. However, it should be remembered that in this case, there is no diminution whatsoever of ambassadorial service. The previous ambassador retired but Mr. David Cooney, the Secretary General of the Department, is a full ambassador. There is no withdrawal of an ambassador——

An Cathaoirleach: Senator Leyden has called for a debate.

Senator Paul Coghlan: ——and there is no breakdown whatsoever in diplomatic relations. Mr. David Cooney is a superb diplomat and a former ambassador in London where he did a superb job. He and Archbishop Browne, the nuncio——

An Cathaoirleach: Is Senator Coghlan calling for a debate on the issue?

Senator Paul Coghlan: Of course I am. Mr. Cooney and the new papal nuncio, Archbishop Browne, are doing a wonderful job. I believe they will achieve something I mentioned before and which Senator Healy Eames mentioned today. One would hope the Vatican would see its way to allowing a small country in economic difficulties to have two ambassadors and two embassies work within the one building.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: After all, today is St. Valentine’s Day.

Senator Paul Coghlan: There is no reason this should not be possible. The Members opposite should be patient.

Senator Terry Leyden: That is a red herring.

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

Senator Paul Coghlan: I have a question and it is very simple. We know there are no consular services nor trade promotion with regard to the Vatican. We know what has happened. There is no need for the Senator to be jumping up and down like a jackass.

Senator Terry Leyden: Is the Senator a knight?

An Cathaoirleach: The Senator cannot make such statements.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I am sure the Leader will heartily concur with what I am saying.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to withdraw that statement.

Senator Paul Coghlan: I am not withdrawing anything.

An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Senator to withdraw what he said.

Senator Paul Coghlan: What did I say?

An Cathaoirleach: You said the Senator was jumping up and down like a——

Senator Paul Coghlan: I am sorry; I thought I was being accurate.

An Cathaoirleach: Will the Senator withdraw the remark?

Senator Paul Coghlan: Absolutely. I will always defer to the wishes of the Chair.

Senator Terry Leyden: It is a measure of the debate we are having. 497 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Senator John Crown: I bring to the attention of the House and note the sad passing of Professor Gerry O’Sullivan, the founder of the Cork Cancer Research Centre, who was a true visionary, not only in the world of cancer research but also in terms of having the ambition to set up something where nothing had been in place before, in the process earning a huge international reputation for his native county and city, as well as for his medical school and hospital. He launched many careers on the national and international stage of young people who worked for him, to say nothing about the many patients throughout the country who owe their lives to his work. The House should acknowledge his sad passing, if it has not been acknowledged already. May he rest in peace.

Senator Michael Mullins: It is welcome that this week has started on a very positive note. I join my colleagues in welcoming the jobs initiative announced yesterday. I hope 13 February will be remembered as the day on which we started a real fight-back in this country to create some badly needed jobs. I support the call made for a full debate in the House on the jobs plan. It would be appropriate for all those Members who contributed to the very worthwhile debate some weeks ago to have an opportunity to feed into the plan and discuss some of the very good ideas presented in the House but left out of the plan. I hope we will have another opportunity to try to have them included. The plan is a very positive document which contains some innovative ideas. The idea of linking and working with the very large Irish community abroad is certainly worth pursuing. I also welcome the idea of a one-stop-shop. I hope the local authorities which are working with Enterprise Ireland will provide the service that will help to generate many new small businesses. However, previous plans had their shortcomings.

An Cathaoirleach: Is the Senator calling for a debate on the issue?

Senator Michael Mullins: Lack of accountability and measurable results bedevilled previous plans. What is to be welcomed in this new plan is that the Taoiseach has nailed his colours to the mast and put his reputation on the line. He has said that on a quarterly basis he will give an account to the Oireachtas on how the plan is progressing, which is to be welcomed. As we discuss this issue on St. Valentine’s Day, we will remember the day we started to make a real difference by tackling the huge problem of unemployment.

Senator Denis O’Donovan: I support the comments of Senator John Crown on the passing of a great west Cork man, Professor Gerry O’Sullivan. As the Senator rightly said, Professor O’Sullivan was a pioneer in cancer research and was dedicated to the programme up to the very end. He originated from the small parish of Caheragh in west Cork and was very proud of his roots. He was a man who could mix with kings, but he never lost the common touch. He will be a huge loss to cancer research, the medical profession and not alone west Cork but the entire country, as well as internationally. A former Member, whom most Members would have known, the late, great Senator Peter Callanan once told me that Professor O’Sullivan had kept him on the planet for 20 years longer than expected after he had been diagnosed with cancer in 1989 and given six months to live. He served into his third term. He also paid tribute to Padre Pio, in whom he was a great believer. That is an anecdote of a late colleague of ours who survived owing to the excellent work, professionalism and dedication of Professor O’Sullivan. I was not going to raise the matter, but I take this opportunity to convey my condolences to Senator John Crown, who is also an expert in this field and a colleague of Professor O’Sullivan. I did not want his passing to go unnoticed in the Chamber.

Senator Martin Conway: I spoke to three young girls at the weekend who, unfortunately, are obliged to go to Australia because they cannot get work in Ireland. The last thing on their 498 Order of 14 February 2012. Business mind was whether or not we have an embassy in the Vatican. We should grow up and realise that people in this country have far greater concerns than that.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.

Senator Martin Conway: I noted with interest the publication yesterday of a report by the Higher Education Authority on the potential elevation of some institutes of technology to university of technology status. We have seen in the past how such elevations can be successful, with the University of Limerick, formerly the National Institute of Higher Education, now enjoying a proud reputation. However, we have also seen a situation where, in recent years, heads of department, professors and presidents of colleges throughout the State are being paid Monopoly money, with salaries of €200,000 or €300,000 not uncommon. I sincerely hope that the financial remuneration of incumbents in institutes of technology are not upgraded because of a change in status. We must have a debate on this issue. There is a question as to whether we are moving in haste. Why is this change required, who is seeking it and is there a demand from the international business community for such institutions? What is wrong with the current model? A debate on higher education should encompass the international ratings of our universities. Some are doing extremely well but others are not. An issue of particular concern in this regard is that there is no procedure for disciplining lecturers who are underperforming. Once one gets in the door of a third level institution, one apparently has a job for life. A debate is necessary because we are in a climate of austerity where we must examine every line of expenditure. What is more important than ensuring our young people have the education they deserve?

Senator Terry Brennan: I raise the matter of the French farce which took place in the Stade de France at the weekend. For any person interested in sport, what happened in Paris beggars belief. The weather in the city was very cold all last week and pitches were frozen. It was inevitable——-

An Cathaoirleach: I am at a loss as to what this has to do with the Order of Business.

Senator Terry Brennan: I have a question for the Leader. It is astonishing that there was no plan B given that there were warnings for five or six days beforehand. I am concerned at the cost of accommodation for fans hoping to attend the rescheduled game. I call on the Leader to ask the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport to raise this matter with his French counterpart with a view to reducing accommodation costs for the replay. I also call on Aer Lingus and Ryanair to consider, for the benefit of loyal fans who travel abroad to support their team, a significant reduction in air fares for the replay.

Senator Mary Moran: I welcome the formation of a recent all-party Oireachtas committee to support the survivors of symphysiotomy, a barbaric act carried out on women during childbirth.

Senator Ivana Bacik: Hear, hear.

Senator Mary Moran: In a 50-year period from 1944, more than 1,500 of these operations took place. There are currently approximately 150 survivors. Some 15 survivors have died since these women commenced looking for justice. Many of the survivors have been left permanently disabled, incontinent and in constant pain. I was shocked to learn that many of the women were not even told these operations would be carried out on them during childbirth. Many of them only learned of it some decades later. It is the intention of the Oireachtas committee to highlight the anguish and unnecessary suffering which these women endured. I ask the Leader to call on the Minister to agree to a debate on this issue and to ask him when we can expect 499 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

[Senator Mary Moran.] receipt of the report commissioned last year and due in September but then deferred to November. I would welcome an update in regard to when we can expect receipt of that report and in regard to the health benefits and entitlements which these women were promised in 2003.

Senator Maurice Cummins: A number of members have raised the issue of the jobs initiative announced yesterday by Government. Senator Darragh O’Brien stated that many announcements had already been made but there have also been a number of new announcements. There is no single solution to the jobs crisis. We have had many years of bad policy in that regard. The Government’s plan contains two strands, a deliberate step-by-step transformation of the economy by improving supports and removing obstacles so that we can get back sustainable enterprise-led growth which will assist more businesses to expand and create new jobs and, identifying and targeting key sectors of strong potential for jobs growth into the future. The key to addressing the jobs crisis, and the central aim of this action plan, is ensuring that we have more successful businesses in Ireland that are exporting more, performing better, expanding faster and creating more jobs. As has been stated, the plan contains more than 270 pro-jobs measures to be delivered in 2012 by 15 Departments and 36 State agencies. The process will be policed by a monitoring committee, operating out of the Department of the Taoiseach, which will prepare and publish quarterly reports on implementation of the plan. There is transparency and accountability in this area. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. It is an ambitious plan, which is what we need. We also need positivity. It is hoped the announcement of this plan will bring about more positivity rather than the type of negativity from Deputy O’Dea during the past number of days in regard to what might or should be happening. The Deputy also stated that while he wishes the plan well he does not believe it will succeed. We can do without that type of negativity.

Senator Jim Walsh: I think he picked it up from the Fine Gael school of opposition.

Senator Maurice Cummins: We need to move on and to take action on issues rather than speak about them. That is what this plan will do. I will raise the ComReg-An Post issue with the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, and come back to Senator O’Brien on that issue. As regards the Senator’s point in relation to a briefing on DEIS schools, I was not briefed on that matter and am not aware that any other member or backbencher has been briefed on it.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I thank the Leader for his clarification on that matter. Deputy Ó Ríordáin must have attended the briefing on his own.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senators Bacik, Healy Eames, Conway and Barrett called for a debate on third level education, in particular the criteria in respect of designation for technological universities. The HEA published the criteria for designation of technological universities yesterday. It also published two other papers, Towards a Future Higher Education Landscape, which provides a basis for institutes to review their mission in terms of how they will fit into the coherent higher education system now being developed, and Guidelines on Regional Clus- ters, which sets out how clusters of institutions are to be formed to serve regional needs. These documents have been sent to the universities and institutes of technology and each institution has been asked to make a submission to the HEA within six months setting out its strategic intentions as to where it proposes to position itself in the Irish higher education system. Sub- missions are to cover such areas as the institution’s distinctive mission, its preferred institutional 500 Order of 14 February 2012. Business structure, having regard to its current strengths, its institutional alliances and its involvement in regional clusters, as well as any other matters relevant to its future strategic development. There is much detail in this regard and I certainly will try to facilitate a debate on the structure. From a personal perspective, I can state with certainty that Waterford Institute of Tech- nology has started this process. The take-up of graduates and people involved in third-level education is lower in the south east than in any other region and it is the only region that does not have a university. Consequently, Waterford Institute of Technology has legitimately set out its place and laid its cards on the table. I realise that many other institutes of technology are beginning to come on-stream to try to get in. When Waterford Institute of Technology was upgraded from being a regional technical college to the status of an institute of technology, it was supposed to be the only such institute at the time. However the then Government — I acknowledge my party and the Labour Party also was involved — decided for political purposes to upgrade all the regional technical colleges to the status of institute of technology.

Senator Terry Leyden: They were right.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I hope this will not happen in this case and am confident it will not.

Senator Terry Leyden: I hope it does happen.

Senator Maurice Cummins: As for the question regarding the salaries of the presidents and lecturers in the institutes of technology and so on, I agree it is a matter that should be addressed in that debate Members will hold. Senator Mullen referred to the report by Dr. Brian Hunt, which I look forward to reading. I know Dr. Hunt, who is an excellent person and Members should examine his report. The question of the Irish Embassy to the Vatican has been debated at length. It has been raised by Senator Mullen today, as well as by Senators Leyden and Paul Coghlan among others.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: It also has been raised by the Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, Deputy Mathews and other Fine Gael Members.

Senator Maurice Cummins: The Tánaiste explained the position in this House. The Govern- ment’s position and decision to nominate the Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Mr. Cooney, as Ireland’s non-resident ambassador means he is ideally placed to inform the Government of any potential issues with the Vatican, thereby helping to head off any difficulties in the future. Moreover, the Holy See has agreed to Mr. Cooney’s nomination and it is expected that he will present his credentials to Pope Benedict next May. As Senator Paul Coghlan also noted, the question of the possibility of two ambassadors in one building is also being considered. As the Tánaiste mentioned in this House, this matter is under constant review.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I sense a U-turn coming on.

Senator Maurice Cummins: I do not know the reason Members continue to raise the subject on the Order of Business——

Senator Rónán Mullen: On foot of this information, perhaps the Tánaiste should explain himself to Members again.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader, without interruption. 501 Order of 14 February 2012. Business

Senator Maurice Cummins: ——because the position is abundantly clear in all the statements from the Tánaiste. I have outlined it a number of times and hopefully Members will not be obliged to deal with it again. I am sure the matter will be reviewed in early course.

Senator Terry Leyden: Members will continue raising it until the decision is reversed.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader, without interruption.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Clune and many others referred to the jobs plan and that has been addressed.

Senator Terry Leyden: Fine Gael must assert its position. They are only whips in government. The tail is wagging the dog.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Jim D’Arcy also referred to the jobs plan. Obviously, there will be interruptions from Senator Leyden in an effort to get on “Oireachtas Report” and while continually trying to get some headlines.

Senator Martin Conway: He is jockeying for position.

Senator Terry Leyden: I have not had great success.

An Cathaoirleach: The Leader, without interruption.

Senator Maurice Cummins: Senator Landy raised the question of gold and scrap for sale, which has been raised in this House several times. I will investigate the question of traceability and of future legislation in this regard. Senator David Cullinane referred to advances in technology, particularly in the context of the deaths of the five fishermen at Union Hall. The tragedy was a harrowing experience for all the families involved. I join the Senator, as, I am sure, do all other Members, in paying tribute to all the personnel of the State services and voluntary bodies who took part in the search. The Taoiseach has intimated that if the relevant technology is available, it should be provided. Skippers and personnel involved in the fishing industry and all others who go to sea should have the best technology available to them. I hope the devices to which the Senator refers will be made available. Their use should be compulsory because we do not want so many families in coastal areas being obliged, as has been the case, to grieve the loss of loved ones. Senator Ned O’Sullivan referred to local government reform. The Minister will be putting proposals in respect of that matter to the Cabinet in approximately eight weeks. I am sure the House will engage in a good debate on them when they emerge. Senator Jimmy Harte referred to the upgrading of the A5. As he indicated, £300 million has been allocated to the project. Senator Sean D. Barrett referred to third level education and the difficulties in the teaching of mathematics, languages and economics. These issues can be addressed when our debate on third level education takes place. I hope the Minister will be present in the House for it. Senator Feargal Quinn referred to allowances and subsistence rates for higher civil servants being based on the size of the cars they drive. I am aware that they were previously paid on the basis of car size, but I am not sure whether this remains the case. However, I assure the Senator that it is not the position in the case of Oireachtas Members. The system under which the horsepower of one’s car, etc., was used to calculate Members’ allowances and subsistence rates was done away with many years ago. I do not know whether such a system still applies 502 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers in the case of higher civil servants and county and city managers. However, I will try to discover what the position is for the Senator. Senators John Crown and Denis O’Donovan paid fitting tributes to the late Professor Gerry O’Sullivan. I am sure all other Members would like to extend their sympathy to Professor O’Sullivan’s family and acknowledge his passing and the work he did in the area of cancer research over many years. Senator Michael Mullins referred to the jobs plan, while Senator Martin Conway mentioned third level education. I have dealt with both matters. Senator Terry Brennan referred to the rugby match that was due to take place last weekend. I was astounded when I discovered that there was no undersoil heating at the Stade de France. It must be one of the few international stadiums which does not have an undersoil heating system. All the Irish people who travelled to Paris for the match incurred significant costs and were extremely disappointed at the outcome. I am not sure whether we can do anything about the cost of hotels in Paris. Hotels, etc., here tend to increase their prices when international matches are held at the Aviva Stadium. We should look into our own hearts in this matter. Senator Mary Moran referred to the barbaric practice of symphysiotomy. I understand the report to which she refers will be issued in the near future. The Minister will be coming before the House after the Order of Business to discuss the HSE’s national service plan. If the Senator addresses her question to him at that point, she will probably receive a response.

Order of Business agreed to.

Sitting suspended at 3.45 p.m. and resumed at 3.55 p.m.

HSE National Service Plan: Statements, Questions and Answers Minister for Health (Deputy James Reilly): I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the HSE national service plan for 2012 and our health reform priorities. My overriding commitment to the people is to introduce a better and more efficient health system which will have improved services for everyone. With this in mind, the Government and I are committed to introducing a single tier service that will deliver equal access to care based on need, not income. There will be a number of important stepping stones along the way and each will play a critical role in improving our health service in advance of the introduction of universal health insurance. I wish to update the House on the HSE national service plan for 2012 and, in particular, to outline the steps taken by my Department and the executive to mitigate the impact of budget cuts on front-line services and to set out my health reform priorities for the year. The HSE plan, which I approved in January, sets out the health and personal social services € 4o’clock that will be delivered by the executive within its current budget of 13.317 billion. This year will be the latest in a series of hugely challenging years for the health service. The €750 million savings target for 2012 follows savings of €1.75 billion over the past two years, giving a total of €2.5 billion. As I advised the Dáil recently, approval of the plan followed extensive work undertaken by my Department and the HSE, including a rigorous examination of budget allocations across the services aimed at minimising the impact on front- line services and identifying where efficiencies will be driven. This is to ensure there will not be a straight line reduction in services. In other words, it is not business as usual. The targets for service delivery set out in the plan are very demanding. The plan commits the HSE to minimising the impact on services by fast-tracking new, innovative and more 503 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.] efficient ways of using reduced resources. Reform initiatives set out in the plan include the development of proposals to protect the viability of community nursing home units and to increase the intermediate care capacity for older people, and I will continue to work with the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, on this; a significant strengthening of primary care services, including issuing GP visit cards to long-term illness claimants — the Minister of State, Deputy Róisín Shortall, and I will ensure the delivery of this significant step on the road to universal health insurance and free GP care for all; an additional €35 million to be targeted at improving child, adolescent and adult community mental health teams as well as suicide prevention and counselling services; a more tailored approach to disability services; commencement of the roll-out of the colorectal screening programme; and progression of the clinical care programmes, including the roll-out of a national chronic disease management programme for diabetes. This underscores our commitment to both prevention and chronic illness management, or secondary prevention as it is better known. More than 2,000 people have retired since September and another 2,000 will have retired by the end of the month. This still leaves more than 100,000 people working in our health services. Planning on this issue began last year. Contingency plans continue to be refined to address the impact of retirements and to ensure patient safety and service at the front line. This will include measures under the public service agreement to achieve increased flexibility in regard to work practices and rosters, redeployment and other changes to achieve more efficient delivery of services. Some management structures and services will be amalgamated and streamlined and cross-over arrangements will be put in place wherever possible and where clinical management numbers have been reduced. I have acknowledged that pressure points will emerge which, in fact, have already been identified by local hospital and community managers in the HSE and are now being worked on by the health transition team. The HSE is seeking to mitigate the impact of these retirements through targeted investment and recruitment. Some key posts will be filled and planned investment in this regard includes €20 million to enable the replacement of front-line primary care staff and €35 million in mental health for the recruitment of an additional 400 whole-time equivalents. I intend to review the service plan once the full impact of staff leaving at the end of the 29 February grace period is known. I made it clear during the course of the national service plan statements in the Dáil that this will be a dynamic process. There will be a number of reviews and as the situation changes, we will modify the plan. The service plan is a key signpost, however, for how our health services will be delivered in 2012. In addition, the programme for Government has set out a major agenda of reform of our health care system which will lead to universal health insurance. I have identified four key reform priorities for 2012: delivering on the special delivery unit agenda; further overhaul of health system governance; reforming the model of care; and reforming the health insurance sector. First, significant reform of the acute hospital system is planned. Last year I established a special delivery unit to reduce waiting times for patients for both scheduled and unscheduled care. The special delivery unit has delivered on the two key priorities which I set for it in 2011. In the area of unscheduled care delivered in emergency departments, the cumulative number of patients waiting on trolleys at 8 a.m. across the country for the first 16 days of January 2012 was reduced by 27% compared with the same period last year. I am glad to say that reduction continues.

504 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

In regard to scheduled care, I directed that all public hospitals ensure they had no patients waiting more than 12 months by the end of 2011. The National Treatment Purchase Fund reported that at the end of 2011, only two hospitals, both in Galway — Merlin Park and University College Hospital Galway — had people waiting more than 12 months for treatment on the active list. That compares with 28 hospitals at the end of 2010 that had patients waiting over 12 months. I recently announced new ambitious targets for scheduled and unscheduled care by the end of 2012 or earlier. Another critical aspect of reform of the acute hospital system is implementation of a new, more efficient funding system for hospital care. Under a “money follows the patient” funding system, hospitals will be paid per patient seen. This is a more efficient financing mechanism which incentivises acute hospitals to treat more patients, an incentive absent from the current arrangements. To achieve this a number of initiatives are already under way including a patient level costing project, which involves tracing resources actually used by individual patients from the time of entry and admission to hospital until the time of discharge. The Health Service Executive has also implemented a pilot project in regard to prospective funding for certain elective orthopaedic procedures. That has yielded a saving of nearly €6 million in its first year. Where hip and knee orthopaedic procedures were being paid for under the money follows the patient system, the hospitals were reimbursed immediately on submission of the bill as long as the patient was admitted on the day of surgery. That had a dramatic effect in both Navan hospital, Cappagh hospital and elsewhere. Further reform in the hospital sector will see public hospitals become independent, not for profit trusts. In progressing this, I recently announced my intention to organise every acute hospital into hospital groups. Each group will have a consolidated management team headed by a group chief executive with responsibility for performance and outcomes, operating within clearly defined budgets and employment limits. This initiative will build on the groups already announced in Galway and Limerick and ensure that the smaller hospitals are managed as part of a group, and that their role is protected. I have said time and again in the past that notwith- standing the difficulties we have had with removing some services from smaller hospitals because of safety concerns that is nothing to the row that will result when we start moving the less complex procedures from the bigger hospitals back to the smaller hospitals but we are determined to do it, and it will be done. The future of smaller hospitals is guaranteed. It is clear that the system of health governance must be radically overhauled also. To this end, I will be bringing forward legislation to bring about significant changes in the governance of the HSE. The legislation will abolish the board of the HSE and replace the board structure with a directorate structure. This new governance structure will be a transitional arrangement, pending the eventual dissolution of the HSE as the health care reform programme advances. In tandem with the proposed transitional governance structures, I intend to put in place new administrative arrangements for greater operational management focus on the delivery of key services. I believe that new arrangements will facilitate greater transparency, accountability and efficiency, and will be a key component in the move towards universal health insurance. The strengthening of primary care planned in the programme for Government and the HSE National Service Plan 2012 reflects the need to move to new models of care across all service areas, which will treat patients at the lowest level of complexity that is safe, timely, efficient and as close to home as possible. An example of that is a focus on the provision, where appropriate, of intermediate care for older people rather than long-term residential care. In that respect I want to see a chain of intermediate care facilities across the country to ensure that nobody goes into long-term care from an acute hospital without having passed through the 505 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.] intermediate care assessment and had the best possible chance at recovery through convalesc- ence and rehabilitation and a full assessment done as to how their needs are to be best met. The reform agenda also involves enhancing and expanding our capacity in the primary care sector to deliver universal general practitioner care, with the removal of cost as a barrier to access for patients. This commitment will be achieved on a phased basis to allow for the recruitment of additional doctors, nurses and other primary care professionals. Taking this step will allow us to move away from the old hospital-centric model, where health care was episodic, reactive and fragmented, and to deliver a more proactive, joined-up approach to the management of our nation’s health. A project team of officials from the Department and the HSE has been established to oversee the implementation of universal primary care. The project team held its first meeting on 24 January. Under universal health insurance, everyone will be insured for health care and the current unfair discrimination between public and private patients will be removed. In the meantime, I am focusing on addressing the problems of the current private health insurance market where insurers have a considerable financial incentive to cover younger, better risks rather than older, poorer risks. I emphasise that the levy that was put in place in regard to achieving this goal is not about class but about young people supporting old people. That is what community rating is about and I believe it is supported by all Members of this House. It is important to point out, however, that this is the last year of that levy as full risk equalisation will come in with effect from 2013. I am strongly committed to protecting community rating and within the next few months I will introduce legislation for a new risk equalisation scheme. This will ensure that a company such as VHI, which has the most of the older and less healthy customers, will be better able to compete on a level playing field. In the meantime an interim scheme of age-related tax credits and community rating levy has been in existence since 2009 and has been providing significant support to community rating. I extended the interim scheme for 2012, under the Health Insurance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. I have previously expressed my views on the VHI in the public arena on many occasions and the programme for Government provides for the VHI to remain in State ownership. For the benefit of clarity, the current position in respect of the VHI is that the Government has decided, on foot of my recommendations, that the VHI should make an application for authorisation by the Central Bank, subject to further Government decisions to be made relating to capitalis- ation. My Department and the VHI have been working for some time in preparation for this. When the foregoing fundamental building blocks are in place, we will be ready to proceed with the introduction of universal health insurance. This system will give patients a choice of health insurer and will guarantee that everyone has equal access to a comprehensive range of cura- tive services. The Government has recently given approval for an implementation group on universal health insurance. This group will assist in developing detailed and costed implementation plans for universal health insurance and will also help to drive the implementation of various elements of the reform programme. I have recently finalised details of the implementation group, which will be announced shortly, and the group will meet before the end of the month. The HSE service plan 2012 is underpinned by the Government’s requirement for reform, innovation and efficiency. The reforms that I am proposing are different from those tried before in a number of ways. They are comprehensive rather than incremental, they are led by innovation as opposed to dictated by resources and, most importantly, they are patient-focused instead of system-focused. The special delivery unit approach has succeeded in significantly 506 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers improving services in regard to emergency departments and scheduled care. Equally, I was pleased to launch a new electronic GP referral initiative recently, on behalf of the national cancer control programme, for patients with lung, prostate and breast cancer. This simple, effective referral guarantees patients that they will see the first available expert in one of the eight cancer service centres — the one nearest to them — and that a record of the referral is made and available to them as well as a confirmation of their appointment. This will obviate the types of problems we had in Tallaght last year. The commonality between these two improvements for patients has been that all the stake- holders have been involved. In the case of the special delivery unit, people on the front line came forward with innovative ideas, the special delivery unit did the analysis and the clinical programmes put in place the protocols to ensure they were safe. It delivered improvements in our trolley numbers; they are measurable and there for all to see. Similarly, the national cancer control programme, working with the Irish College of General Practitioners and with the IT providers, brought about the improvement of the electronic referral. The reforms are working. We can see real evidence of progress. This proves that it is possible, even during these times of financial constraint, to drive improvements and ultimately to provide a health system that is more efficient, of higher quality and delivers better outcomes for our patients. While we have made some progress, we have much more to do. We need to continue on the road we have taken. I am pleased that those who work in the health service have joined us in working toward this aim. The changes we have made which have primarily involved listening to them and what they have to say have given power back to the system and those on the front line a sense that they can in a real way influence the system that should be serving them to serve patients.

Acting Chairman (Senator Michael Mullins): The procedure is that group spokespersons will have five minutes and that a Sinn Féin Senator will have two minutes. All other Senators will have one minute each to ask questions.

Senator Darragh O’Brien: I welcome the Minister. I do not think I have had an opportunity before now to congratulate him publicly, although I have done so personally, on his elevation, as one north County Dublin man to another. He now understands how difficult it is to be Minister for Health and perhaps he has some sympathy for his predecessor, Mary Harney, on whom he was particularly hard from time to time, although it was sometimes justified. He should always bear this in mind. I have some questions for the Minister. However, I would like to start on a positive note. I very much welcome the additional €35 million and 400 staff in the mental health sector, an issue we discussed with the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch. This is crucially important. I am glad to say that, as the Minister will agree, the former Minister of State, John Moloney, did good work in this regard; it is important to highlight this fact. There is also €20 million for primary care services and €15 million to continue the GP visit card system which is a good initiative, as well as €25 million for further progression of the national clinical programmes. These are positive steps. I understand the Minister’s job is a difficult one, as there is no silver bullet for the health service. The Minister has mentioned the €750 million reduction in his budget and that the number of retirements from September up to the end of this month will total 4,000. He has said he will reassess the position at the end of February, which is probably the right thing to do, but I am concerned about the effect on front-line services. We must consider being more targeted in protecting front-line services, although I know the Croke Park agreement does not allow this. 507 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Darragh O’Brien.] It was the Minister’s mantra when he was in opposition — I consider that he was correct — but I would like to see more action from him in government. One striking aspect of the Minister’s statement is the lack of a mention of private hospital consultants and the issue of consultants’ fees. That is a nettle that needs to be grasped. The lack of 24 hour, seven day a week coverage in hospitals is the elephant in the room. The Minister and I both know the number who remain in our local hospital, Beaumont Hospital, at the weekend because there is not enough cover to allow them through the system. The special delivery unit will deal with only one element of the problem, the accident and emergency unit side. If we are treating the health service seriously, as we all are, we must grapple with the issue of hospital consultants’ fees and, more generally, the issue of private fees. I fundamentally disagree with the Minister on the issue of a universal health system — not necessarily with what he is trying to do but with what is being achieved. Effectively, middle Ireland can no longer afford private health insurance. We all know this and the figures bear it out. We will have a one tier system much sooner than the Minister might believe. We all aspire to this, but we will have a one tier system on the basis of the thousands of people who continue to leave the private health system. I put it to the Minister that the public health system is not fit for purpose in taking on the additional procedures. I would like to hear his view on how we will manage this. More than 140,000 people who cannot afford private health insurance are moving away from that system. How will the public health system deal with this? We previously considered matters such as elective surgery. The Minister has said much about the SDU and I agree it has done good work on the issue of trolleys, but the NTPF previously had an average waiting time of three months for elective surgeries and that is now being pushed out to nine months under the service plan. What was the difference between the service plan the Minister rejected on 5 January and this service plan? Were there fundamental differences? Fergal Bowers might have been a little unkind in describing it as somebody writing a letter to themselves to complain about themselves when commenting of the rejection of the service plan on 5 January, but we need to know if there were fundamental differences in the plans. The Minister has given a commitment time and again that the smaller community hospitals will remain. Throughout the country, however, there is a different sense about what is happening. Under the plan a maximum of 898 beds could be closed this year in community nursing homes. That is an 11% cut in public residential beds. We need more clarity on this. Every week, another figure is blowing around. I know the Minister is aware of the issue but I am also concerned about the further down- grading of HSE nursing homes and the services they provide. Specifically, there is a proposal that all cooking facilities will be off-site at Lusk nursing home. Food will be delivered the day before for elderly patients and reheated in the nursing home. This is a grave concern. The Minister, as a doctor, is aware of the importance of nutrition for sick and elderly people. I hope this proposal is not the thin end of the wedge with regard to moving food preparation and cookery services out of HSE nursing homes altogether and centralising them through mass- produced products. I do not expect the Minister to comment specifically on that today but I ask him to use his good offices to assist in the case of Lusk nursing home. It appears we are facing another 100,000 applications for medical cards over the next year or so. It is a fact — and none of us believes the HSE — that the applications are not being processed within eight weeks. The system is not working and we know it. I was sick to my back teeth asking the previous Minister about this. The review and renewal of medical cards is absolute nonsense. People have ailments that everybody knows will not be cured, yet in many 508 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers instances their medical cards are being reviewed every 12 months. That is adding to the paper- work within the section. It makes no sense and is slowing down the approval of new medical cards. There have been some awful cases, and I am sure the Minister has encountered some in his constituency office and has views in that regard. Can he confirm whether he believes the HSE’s claim of a four to six week turnaround on new medical card applications? It is not happening.

Senator Colm Burke: I welcome the Minister. I thank him for his detailed summary of the service plan for 2012. It is a difficult area. Last year we spent €13.416 billion on health care and the total income tax collected in the country was €13.317 billion. In other words, we spent more on health care than we collected in income tax. It is a frightening figure when one puts it in that context but it points to the fact that we are giving priority to health. This year I note that we will spend €13.317 billion on health care, which is the same amount we collected in income tax last year. It demonstrates the cost of health care. Health care covers a broad area ranging from elderly care, mental health and hospital services to the front-line services being provided in the community. It is a huge budget and a comprehensive service is being provided. I agree there are difficulties in this area, but the Minister has faced up to dealing with them and is very proactive in creating efficiencies, which is what we must achieve. The Minister said that in real terms there is a cut of €750 million in the budget. It is a huge cut for any Department to face. The Minister is facing that challenge and dealing with it. There will be staff cuts. Approximately 2,044 staff retired between September and January and another 1,770 will leave by the end of February. A substantial number are leaving the service and this must be catered for. We must consider the issue of staff who are retiring but who are prepared to continue to provide services until new staff can be put in place. I raised one of these issues with the Minister last week. Where a replacement is not immediately available, a person who is retiring should be allowed to carry on doing the work. A service should continue on that basis rather than have it close down. Not everything can be done by the rule book. Sometimes we must bend the rules a little in order to maintain services at all cost. I welcome the serious effort being made to reduce the number of agency staff being employed. It is unfortunate that this practice has used up a huge proportion of the budget of many hospitals in the past 12 months or two years. I am pleased, therefore, that a serious effort is being made to cut out this practice and get value for money, which is what taxpayers and the Minister want. Despite all the difficulties the Minister faces, he is dealing with the reform of the service to make it more efficient and reconfiguring services. I give him one warning in this regard. Reconfiguration cannot be set in black and white. There may be an ambitious programme, but reconfiguration cannot be done overnight. In this regard, I will bring a case to the Minister’s attention privately later. There is a need to set up an implementation team to oversee the reconfiguration process. Rather than proceeding in a straight line and closing a particular unit on a particular day, we need to ensure the proper transfer of services is provided for. There needs to be give and take in this process. In bringing forward reform and reconfiguration not all decisions should be taken by one person. There should be a joint approach by nursing and medical staff and administrators. There is a need for more competition in private health care in certain areas of the country, which could fill a niche. I have referred one matter to the Competition Authority on which I am waiting for a decision. I hope the net result will be the creation of more competition in the private health care sector which will, in turn, bring down the cost of health care for the ordinary 509 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Colm Burke.] person, which is what we all want to see. It should be our priority to bring down the cost for everyone in the country while providing a very good service. I thank the Minister for coming to the House and presenting the health service plan for 2012. With my colleagues, I wish him well in the implementation of the programme. I hope we will continue to maintain and reform the services in place.

Senator David Cullinane: I welcome the Minister who mentioned the pressure points in the health service because of the cut of €750 million, mostly in acute hospitals. That figure is not a true reflection of the savings that will be made in hospitals. I bring the issue back to a local level. Sometimes when we deal in global terms, it is hard to understand the impact of cuts on local acute hospitals. This morning we were briefed by the Health Service Executive. Senior management staff, including the CEO, Mr. Cathal Magee, were present for what was a very good briefing session on the regional plan for the southern region and the impact of cuts on Waterford Regional Hospital. It is not only the percentage cut. The regional hospital budget was cut by 3.7%, but there is an overrun on last year, so the total loss in spending this year at the hospital will be 10%. We will lose three theatres. One was closed last year. Two surgical theatres will be closed this year and we will go from eight to five. A total of 25 inpatient beds in the regional hospital will be lost. We will lose two inpatient beds in paediatric services. We lost six inpatient beds last year. We will see a 50% reduction in spending on medicines in rheumatology. We will see a reduction on spending on medicines for people with asthma. We are told that people will no longer get drugs administered on an individual basis, but that the hospital will do it on a group basis. This raises fears. Someone may need a drug on Tuesday but could be told to wait until Friday or the following Friday when enough people will need the same medicines. The problem is not so much about the money following the patient. The problem is that the money is simply not going into our hospital services. We have to look at the corporate governance issues. We have fragmentation of many services across the region. For example, we do not have 24 hour cardiology care at Waterford Regional Hospital. We need to make sure that regional hospitals specialising in acute services operate as regional hospitals and provide those services. That is not happening at the moment due to cutbacks. I ask the Minister to take that on board. I welcome some of what is being done by the Government. However, the impact these cuts will have on front line services and on patient care this year in our acute hospitals will be immense. That is simply wrong. It is not what the Minister’s party promised when it was in opposition and when it said it would deal with the real waste in the system, such as the money being spent by the taxpayer subsidising private health care. That is what needs to be dealt with; not these one size fits all cuts.

Senator John Kelly: I welcome the Minister to the House. When the former Deputy Mary Harney took over at health, I sent her a letter to the effect that she had taken the poisoned chalice. I was proved right. I would nearly say the same to this Minister, although I hope that, like the priest who drinks the wine at Sunday mass, he puts a good gloss on the chalice. I wish the Minister well in doing that. I welcome the extra €35 million provided for the psychiatric services in the national service plan. I know that front line services right across the country are being run at skeletal levels. Even at this stage, nurses feel threatened and afraid to go to work. I welcome the extension of medical cards to long-term illness patients, but the Minister should consider including people with cancer. They should have a medical card without having to undergo a means test. I say 510 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers this from my years of experience as a community welfare officer, when anyone with cancer who ever applied for a medical card was granted it. I have a couple of questions. Is the National Treatment Purchase Fund gone by the wayside, or is it still in place? What are the plans for Roscommon County Hospital? The Minister said that the future of smaller hospitals is guaranteed. Once the accident and emergency department in Roscommon was closed, a group came together to try to salvage something for the health service in the county. The group has promoted the opening of an ambulance base for west Roscommon. I hope the Minister will work with us on this issue and when the ambulance base is proposed for west Roscommon that it will go to west Roscommon. What is the update on the provision of advance paramedics following the closure of the accident and emergency unit at Roscommon hospital? Perhaps he would help dispel rumours circulating in the media on the urgent care centre in Roscommon that it will be further downgraded to five days per week. On the issue of the 600 community nursing home beds that it is proposed will be lost, I urge the Minister, by virtue of the debacle with Roscommon hospital, to ensure no nursing home in Roscommon is lost as a result of the reduction in bed numbers. I am concerned that we may be going down the privatisation road. I have worked in the health service for many years and have visited all the community nursing homes. The residents in those community nursing homes need 100% care, as distinct from many of those in private nursing homes who may not need to be there, as stated by the Minister. The main issue is that we do our best to keep people out of nursing homes. In seeking to do that a reduction of 4% in home help hours will not help the position. However, I have a proposal for the Minster which I have mentioned previously, namely, that consideration be given to the opening up of home help hours through the community employment scheme. There are many unemployed persons who are well able to provide care as home helps and perform such tasks as bringing in turf, sweeping floors, taking out ashes, doing the shopping and so on, the net cost of which to the Exchequer is €1.70 per hour given that they will still receive the social welfare payment. For an extra €1.70 per hour a home help service can be provided. That is an issue that should be dealt with. The fail deal scheme, as I said previously, is in many cases an unfair deal. When a person applies for the fair deal he or she is put on a waiting list. That person may be in the nursing home for four to five weeks but subsequent to that the HSE will write to him or her and authorise that the fair deal is in place but it will not be retrospective to the date of entering the nursing home.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): The Senator’s time has expired.

Senator John Kelly: I was always critical of HSE staff down through the years who received bonuses because I considered the bonus was in place to keep within a budget. However, when keeping to a budget someone is deprived of an important service. The Minister mentioned efficiencies in the services. I would have no problem with giving bonuses to people who can bring about efficiencies. I understand €6 million was saving in orthopaedic procedures. If that was an initiative undertaken by somebody that person deserves to be given a bonus.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): There are several other speakers.

Senator John Kelly: There is also the issue of the amount of money the hospitals are not collecting by way of health insurance. There are plenty of senior HSE employees who are not needed and are doing nothing. There is a job for one of them to ensure that each hospital claims back the money from the health insurers.

511 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

Senator Terry Leyden: There are many in County Roscommon who would like to have the opportunity I have today to put a few questions to the Minister. Does the Minister feel any sense of shame or embarrassment that he misled the people of Roscommon before the general election of 2011? He gave a clear unambiguous commitment as a senior qualified doctor, former president of the IMO, that the accident and emergency department in Roscommon hospital was safe and if it was closed he would reopen it and would keep acute surgery and acute medicine. They have all gone and the hospital is down to a skeleton service. Is the endoscopy unit promised by the Minister and one Fine Gael Deputy at a cost of €1.9 million going ahead? Can the Minister confirm whether six nurses are leaving the old accident and emergency section, now called the medical urgent care centre? Will they be replaced? It is vital that staff in a small hospital are replaced and it should be a priority to replace those that avail of the early retirement package. The Minister mentioned in his speech that he will review the matter at the end of February. It is important that we hold on to what we have and develop it. Has the Minister made a decision on the provision of a helicopter service for emergency cases, or an “eye in the sky”, that will be based at Roscommon County Hospital? He has received a submission on it and I would like to hear his views.

Senator Marie Moloney: I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for his presen- tation. Unfortunately, I have only one minute to speak. I could speak about many things but I shall stick to the point. I welcome the significant strengthening of the primary care services in the plan, including the GP visit card for long-term illness claimants. My only misgiving is that rich people suffer long-term illnesses too and some very wealthy people will now receive a medical card. The Minister could have extended the medical card to people with asthma, for example, or increased the guildelines or thresholds before adopting the measure. As the Minister will know, there will a large amount of applications submitted under this scheme. We are not coping with the current amount of applications. The HSE may tell the Minister that there is a 15-day turnaround of applications but it is not happening. I understand that there is one deciding officer to deal with all of the appeals which are not linked with the primary care reimbursement centre. As a result it takes many months to link an appeal with an application. I know that I am beginning to sound like a broken record in the House by going on about this issue but it is one that causes a lot of problems. Some people must wait over 12 months for a medical card and that is unacceptable. I would appreciate it if the Minister could spend a few minutes telling us how he proposes to deal with the matter.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): We must conclude the debate by 5.15 p.m. If members want the Minister to respond they will have to stick to one minute each.

Senator David Cullinane: There is nobody here.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): I call Senator Ó Clochartaigh.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Go raibh míle maith agat an tAire. I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions, if possible. I would have liked to have asked him how the essential organ transplant programme will function in the Galway area if Galway Airport closes down. I would like to ask him about the medical card debacle. How does he intend to sort the matter, as outlined by Senator Moloney? There are 158 people leaving the Galway west HSE through the redundancy programme, 50% of whom are nurses. How will the system function? Public health nurses and mental health nurses comprise 50% of the 158 that are leaving. 512 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

If I had more time I would have asked him about the pulling of dental services in the Connemara area, pardon the pun. How will the primary care strategy be rolled out when we have not enough people on those care teams? The most pressing question I have is on the St. Francis Nursing Home in Galway. Before Christmas a delegation from Galway met the Minister to discuss it. He listened intently and promised to carry out a review and that nothing would happen until it was finished. We have now been told that a decision has been made and the nursing home will close in May which contradicts the promise he made to the delegation. Who is telling the truth? Is it his Department or HSE Galway west? What is happening to the nursing home?

Senator Mary Moran: I welcome the extension of the long-term illness scheme. Will the Minister consider including patients that suffer stress or mental issues in the scheme? As I have mentioned to him before, the cost of prescriptions to such people can be astronomical. I also welcome the increase in funding of €35 million for mental health services for children, adolescents and adults. I ask the Minister to examine the services that are provided for young people again because some of the hospitals are totally unsuitable. The wards are unsuitable and can have a mix of elderly people with mental problems and younger people. I ask that he takes this into consideration when allocating the money and services. I refer to the closure of the laboratory in the Louth hospital and the fact that, as a result, all blood tests are being sent to Drogheda which is 24 miles away. I was recently contacted by constituents who have long- term conditions and need their blood test results on the same day, and this is not happening. The lab closed only yesterday but it is already posing a problem.

Senator Michael Mullins: I welcome the Minister to the House. My local hospital is Portiuncula hospital in Ballinasloe. It has been indicated to me that phsyician services are under severe pressure due to staffing levels and the significantly increased number of patients from the Roscommon area being treated. Some consultants are reducing their outpatient clinics by as much as 30% because of the workload. The physicians fear that the department of medicine will become an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. service and there is a fear that the accident and emergency department will also become an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. service. I ask for an assurance from the Minister that the necessary staffing will be provided to ensure the physician services can continue to give a 24-hour service. Will the acute medical assessment units be staffed indepen- dently and separately?

Senator Jimmy Harte: I welcome the Minister to the House. I commend him on his statement yesterday with regard to autism and the comments by Dr. Humphreys. I have experience of autism in my family. What he said was very hurtful and many people appreciate what the Minister said publicly. In the Letterkenny area, the parents of children with paediatric type one diabetes are fearful that the service will not be focused in Letterkenny and will instead go to Sligo which would be unfair in their view. Donegal has a high number of people with type one diabetes compared to the rest of the country and to travel from Carndonagh or Buncrana, for example, to Sligo, would be a long journey, whereas a person in Sligo could go to Galway which is less of a journey. The service is good as it stands but these parents are concerned that they may be pushed aside in favour of Sligo. I ask the Minister for clarification in this regard. The Minister is familiar with the situation in Lifford community hospital. I was born in that hospital and I know the area very well. When I visited it recently I met many of the patients, one of whom asked me to please ensure they were not moved out of their home because they regard the hospital as their home. Even though they may be moved to a more modern facility 513 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Senator Jimmy Harte.] they like the familiarity of their own chairs and their own television. I ask that these considerations be addressed.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): I call Senator Crown who has five minutes.

Senator John Crown: I thank the Minister. That means I have about three minutes to think of what I am going to say for the other two minutes. I am sorry but I did not realise I had such generous speaking time. I compliment the Minister on his vision for reform of the health service and I wish him well with its implementation. The challenge of implementation will be very difficult and, as I have said to him on many occasions, he will have my support in pushing towards a reform of the system to create an insurance model based on a mixture of public and private insurance in competition, which in my view is the right way to do it. This is my understanding of the synthesised programme of the two coalition parties. I ask also for an acknowledgement that the system which will maximise efficiency, equity and quality is the move towards a single tier of health care where there is a linkage at all levels between activity and payment, in order to provide the appropriately policed incentives for activity. I would like to bring the Minister’s attention to one area which is probably not as high on the agenda but of which I know the Minister has been made aware and which he has had a chance to consider in detail, namely, the question of the integration of research into the activities of the health service. Historically, in Ireland we have tended to regard ourselves as a small, poor, peripheral, investigationally irrelevant society where research was that activity which bright young Irish doctors did when they were abroad to train to build up their curriculum vitae before coming home and becoming rich ex-researchers. Unfortunately, that was the way the career path ultimately ended up developing for many people because they came back to a system that was so desperately and unprecedentedly short of specialist doctors that any notion of attempting to roll up their sleeves and do research when they already had truly unsustainable clinical loads would, I believe, have been considered bordering on immature by many of the more established people who were present in the country. Things are changing. We now have a cohort across the specialties in medicine, including family practice and the hospital-based specialties, of people who have developed major reputations in research. As I had occasion to point out to the Minister recently, the arguments for doing research in the health service are multiple. The first is that research itself may yield results which are of importance to the advance of the field. Ireland should not regard itself as a country which is in isolation from the worldwide research initiative. Second, while my colleagues in the Seanad might not be aware of this, patients who are being treated on research programmes tend to have better outcomes than patients who are getting identical or similar treatments outside of the discipline and rigour of a research programme. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reality is that the discipline and level of oversight which go into structuring treatments, which have been designed in many cases by teams of truly international experts, mean that the average patient in Dublin, Letterkenny, Cork, Galway or Belfast can get access to research protocols which have been designed by such truly international leaders. This has happened in the case of the All-Ireland Co-operative Oncology Research Group , which now has patients on trolleys in every acute hospital throughout the island of Ireland. The third reason is the bizarre career structure here. I am delighted we finally have a Minister who understands the issues involved in this. If we are to keep people in this country, we must enable them to continue to spend meaningful portions of their research time in international centres of excellence, of which I am in favour and which has been very good for Ireland, and 514 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers then ensure they return here. To achieve this, we need to have some research input into their training structures while they are in Ireland. People who will look at the curriculum vitae of young Irish graduates who are seeking jobs in, say, cardiac surgery in a Cleveland clinic, oncology in Memorial Sloan-Kettering or some branch of paediatrics in Sydney or Melbourne, will wonder what the person has done in research to date and whether the person has publications and a track record. This enhances the reputation and recognition of the training which our graduates will receive here. I support the Minister’s notion of introducing an additional level in the career grade which acknowledges the reality that we have many doctors in this country who are completely trained, and the only reason they are not employed as specialists is that we have had a highly restrictive national contract for specialists, which makes no sense. My one gentle criticism of the Minister is that, having come into a new job, he needs to let those around him in the Department know exactly who is boss — I believe he is beginning to do this. The need for change is fundamental. We need to dispense with the notion of a solitary national contract for hospital-based specialists. It makes no sense that somebody who works in the university environment in a teaching hospital in a large centre like Cork would be on the same contract as somebody who is doing very busy but primarily service-orientated work. With the new model of a single-tier insurance base, there will be different models of reimbursement. There may be doctors who set up practices in general surgery or in obstetrics affiliated to hospitals where they will bill insurance companies for their services. A single national contract simply will not work. I wish the Minister well. He is approaching his first anniversary in office and the honeymoon period is still very much intact. I bid him a happy St. Valentine’s Day.

Deputy James Reilly: Given the day that is in it, the metaphors regarding honeymoons and marriage may be appropriate. However, I will leave that well alone. I thank Senators for their contributions and will endeavour to answer their questions as best I can. I do not have every answer, but the information will be conveyed to Members. Where it is not available today, I will seek it out and get back to them in writing. I am reminded of my time in opposition when I was wont to fire a barrage of questions at the Minister at the Oireachtas committee. Members will understand if I inadvertently omit any question that was asked. I thank Senator Darragh O’Brien, who has had to leave the Chamber, for his questions. He referred to the reduction of €750 million in real terms in the health budget, the loss of 4,000 staff and our undertaking to protect the front line. Protecting the front line is what we have undertaken to do, in so far as we can. It is about front line services as much as front line numbers. The Senator said there was no mention in my opening statement of the issue of consultants’ private fees. I have made the point numerous times that it might give us a warm political feeling to give consultants a whack over the head and take €50 million from them, but the question is whether that will lead to more patients being treated more quickly. I draw Members’ attention to the various initiatives we have taken through the clinical programme, supported by the special delivery unit. For example, the assessment of the medical admissions unit in Cork has, in a six-month period, saved 11,000 bed days by avoiding admissions for patients who would otherwise have ended up in hospital. That would translate to 22,000 bed days in a year and a saving of somewhere between €15 million and €17 million. That is the type of progress being made in just one hospital. The productive theatre initiative is being carried out in five units, representing only 2.5% of all theatres, and has saved €2.5 million in one year. Transposing that across the system would give potential savings of €100 million. In addition, the money follows the patient initiative in regard to orthopaedic pro- 515 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.] cedures, whereby patients are admitted on the day of surgery rather than the night before, has led to savings of €6 million thus far. There is more than one way to achieve our goal. To clarify, my target is not savings but ensuring more patients are treated more quickly. If I can achieve that by way of negotiations with consultants on changes to work practices, that would be a good day’s work. My main concern is the cost of private beds and private fees. I am concerned that there is a willingness on the part of VHI and others to accept a 9% cost inflator year on year. I do not accept that. VHI has shown a willingness to deal with the matter through its engagement of Milliman to help it examine its cost base. Furthermore, having had a meeting with the three insurers and having established the health insurance consultative forum, which will meet again later this week, I made clear that cost is a major issue and that they must examine why they pay what they pay for different procedures. I am certainly seeking serious discounting of consultant fees where they are carrying out procedures in hospitals that could and should be carried out in primary care. What is at issue is not whether those procedures are carried out by consultants or GPs but the fact that they are attracting utterly unnecessary hospital side room fees. In regard to the cost of care in private hospitals, VHI has taken on board that our clinical programmes have been quite successful in reducing costs in public hospitals. VHI is now engaging with Barry White, the Health Service Executive’s national director of clinical strategy, to see how similar cost reductions can be achieved in private hospitals. Senator Colm Burke referred to competition in private health care. I have made very clear to VHI that it is not its role to determine its market. If there is a private facility available that is open and competitive, then VHI should be covering it. Certain people on the board of VHI may have a different view, but there are four new appointments to be made in the coming week. Those appointees will carry my message loud and clear that the objective is to secure more, not less, competition for the benefit of patients. Senator O’Brien claimed that waiting times under the National Treatment Purchase Fund, NTPF, have increased from three months. That is a little disingenuous. The reality is that many people waited six months or more before they even got on to the NTPF. I can prove it if the Senator needs me to. We had patients waiting up to three years for treatment. Is 5o’clock it more equitable to have everybody treated within a year or to have a select group treated within three months while others wait for years? Nobody should wait longer than a year for treatment, a target we have achieved throughout the country, with the exception of Galway. The specific reasons for that have been addressed with a new management now in place. It has control over the university hospital, Merlin Park, Roscommon and Portiuncula hospitals as a group, with clear riding instructions in terms of what is required of the smaller hospitals. That will cause some friction, but it is an argument we are determined to win. On nursing home care, I have made clear that the policy of this Government is to maintain a public provision capacity for nursing home care and community nursing units. However, I have made equally clear that we cannot have a situation where it is costing anywhere between 50% to 100% more to provide that care through the public health system as opposed to the private system. People will say there has been cherry-picking by private nursing homes and so on, and we are addressing that in a clear fashion. The NTPF has been asked to draw up, in conjunction with clinicians, a score card incorporating boxes that must be ticked in terms of the services available in a nursing home. When provision is agreed in terms of the price the nursing home will receive to care for a patient, if it does not tick all of these boxes, a discount will be applied. There is some evidence that nursing homes in the private sector do not provide 516 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers the same complexity and high dependency of care as their counterparts in the public sector. This is only anecdotal and not across the board by any means. Community nursing units are not being downgraded. Some may very well have to close, but we should try to keep as many as possible open and where they are not necessarily economically viable alternatives should be considered in terms of local fund-raising, being taken into a local trust and so on. I am wide open to all such options. What I cannot do is tell a person that his or her mother cannot get the care required because another patient is in a facility that costs twice as much as it should. There is an equity issue here. I have made clear in the past that it is not always about money. It is also about changing work practices and rosters. Several Senators referred to delays in processing medical card applications and disputed the Health Service Executive’s claim that its primary care reimbursement service, PCRS, is turning around new applications within 15 working days provided all the necessary information is submitted. I had a meeting with Mr. Paddy Burke, director of the PCRS, only two weeks ago, at which we reached agreement on several matters. First, anybody who responds to the PCRS’s contact will keep his or her medical card until the review is complete. Heretofore, applicants’ cards were being withheld until all correspondence was complete. This change takes a large number of people out of the equation. Second, there is now cross-referencing with the Depart- ment of Social Protection to ensure that anybody on social welfare keeps their card. Third, as I said in the House last week, there are people who have not responded and have not had any activity on their card in the past two years. It is reasonable that a card is revoked when there is no response to a third attempt at contact. Otherwise Mr. Burke would be in front of the Committee of Public Accounts trying to explain why he is still paying GPs to service cards for people who have not used them for two years and have not responded to his inquiries on three separate occasions. It is safe to assume that those people have probably left the country and, as such, we should not waste public money in providing medical cards for them. I fully accept that there was not sufficient regard given in the past to the need to process medical card applications in a timely fashion. Mr. Burke has apologised for that and the position has improved. However, in case anybody should take false succour from that, including the staff of the PCRS, a delegation from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children will visit the facility in Finglas before the end of the month. There should be no doubt about the tremendous interest in this House in ensuring minimum inconvenience for people applying for or renewing medical cards. Senator Colm Burke raised the issue of retirees returning to work in the health service. He is absolutely right that we must maintain flexibility within the system so that we can maintain services. If we find ourselves with a highly specialised vacancy, such as a CNA II in a paediatric intensive care unit, for example, we need to be sensible. To clarify, it is not my intention that retirees will return to the service in droves. Not all of the positions will be filled because they will not be necessary. However, those which are necessary to fill will be given to new people. We want to give young people a chance at a job instead of bringing back people who have already had their lump sum and pension. That is not what this is about. It would be very much the exception that somebody who has retired will be back in their old job. We are doing something that has not been done anywhere else in the western world, as far as I am aware, namely, seeking to improve quality and service against a backdrop of seriously declining budgets. I commend all of those involved. Senator David Cullinane referred to a reduction in the number of theatres and beds in Waterford. I already mentioned the productive theatre initiative. It is not about the number of theatres but how one uses them and how many patients are treated. The number in Waterford has reduced from eight to five, but I am assured that the productivity of the remainder can be 517 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.] improved under this initiative to ensure that patients receive the service they require. The same applies in regard to reductions in bed numbers. Regarding drug treatments, I do not accept that any patient would be left without treatment because of a delay in accessing drugs. Drugs will be secured if patients need them in urgently. It would be very strange if it were otherwise.

Senator David Cullinane: How will the proposed 50% saving on medication for rheumatology be made? We were told this morning it would be done by administering the drugs on a group basis.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): Senator Cullinane had his chance to ask questions. The Minister, without interruption.

Senator David Cullinane: We received that information from the Health Service Executive, but the Minister is saying something different.

Deputy James Reilly: I am not saying anything different. The Senator alleged that people would have to wait until Friday to get drugs when they need them on the previous Tuesday. He has no evidence to support that.

Senator David Cullinane: How will the proposal that medications be administered on a group basis work out?

Deputy James Reilly: It is a contention he has made in the House free from any legal challenge. I do not accept this will be the case and, as a doctor, I do not believe it would ever be allowed to be the case. We can achieve huge savings in drug costs through the use of generic drugs and by negotiating with the pharmaceutical industry to secure price reductions from the brand leaders. We are paying too much for these drugs. We have been using a basket of nine countries for reference and setting ourselves in the middle of the basket. However, some of these countries are on the more expensive side. The pharmaceutical industry is very important to this country in terms of research, innovation and the jobs it provides. At the same time, this is a small market. What has attracted those companies is the corporation tax rate, not the market in this State. We expect to do a deal with representatives of the industry. I do not understand what the Senator means by money not going into hospitals. He is correct that some of them are carrying a deficit from last year which must be addressed this year. I made it clear last year that each manager in each hospital has a responsibility to stay within his or her budget or face the consequences. In the past the consequence was for the patient, but in future it will be for the manager. We will call in all of the managers who do not stay within budget, having a discussion with them and ensuring their contract for next year reflects the new reality. We are determined to achieve transparency and accountability. It is not patients but the people who are responsible for management of the hospital in the future who will suffer the consequences of their failures.

Senator David Cullinane: Patients will suffer.

Deputy James Reilly: It was stated that the impact of the cuts will be immense. I was asked what the difference was between the plan I sent back and the plan we ended up with. The difference was clear. The first plan was moving more in a linear fashion in terms of an 8% cut resulting in an 8% reduction in services, which was not acceptable. We now have a situation whereby cuts are minimised and there is no linear relationship between cuts and a reduction in services in that savings have to be made and efficiencies have to be achieved, and they will 518 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers be. Members may have seen an article in yesterday’s Irish Independent by Ms Eilish O’Regan to the effect that a procedure carried out by a GP was half the price charged in a private hospital. She also stated that the cost of having a procedure carried out in some public hospitals costs up to nine times more than that charged by a GP. That is a gross waste of scarce taxpayers’ money. This is being addressed through treatment of patients at the lowest level of complexity that is safe, timely, efficient and as near to home as possible. Senator Kelly referred to my texting while he was speaking. I was trying to get information on the issue he was raising. Discussion on the ambulance base is currently ongoing but I am unable to respond to the Senator’s question in that regard. I will get the information and communicate it to the Senator. This issue was also raised with me by Deputy Feighan as late as this afternoon.

Senator Terry Leyden: What a coincidence.

Deputy James Reilly: I did not interrupt Senator Leyden. I will have plenty to say to the Senator when I get to respond to the issues he raised. On the urgent care centre, I have no knowledge of it being further downgraded and would not support that. The Senator’s suggestion in regard to the community employment schemes is a great idea. However, the trade unions could have difficulty with it. They might feel that people coming off community employment schemes were taking real jobs of other people. That has always been an argument. The idea is worthy of further exploration. I will look into the matter of the fair deal scheme not responding in time. On bonuses for efficiency, we have moved away from the bonus culture. I could not agree more with the Senator in regard to his comments on non-collection of VHI insurance fees. St. James’s Hospital developed a system which enables it to collect 93% of outstanding insurance fees. Many of our hospitals are down to 15%, 20% and 25%, which is not acceptable. Work on this is ongoing. It is proposed that the system from St. James’s Hospital will be transposed across all hospitals. Managers will be expected to deliver and collect. Some consultants are slow and some might like to use this as an industrial relations tool. However, I have a warning for them: I am prepared to bring in legislation to decouple this completely so that it will not be possible for it to be used in a negative fashion by some consultants. The vast bulk of consultants understand the importance of this to hospitals in terms of their overall funding and ability to deliver services to patients, which is their primary concern. They are co-operative but we need to make it easy for them. They should not have to be running around hospitals looking for files and charts before filling out forms. Again, this is a matter of management and efficiency and it will be done. Senator Leyden commenced his contribution with the accusation that I had misled the people of Roscommon. To mislead someone means to knowingly say something one knows not to be true. I have no problem putting my hand on my heart and telling this House and the people of Roscommon that I fully believed, from what I knew prior to the election, that it would be possible to keep that emergency department open. On taking up office, I explored every possible way of doing so but was told by HIQA it was not safe. There has been much misinfor- mation in the public arena. A meeting in the Department, which was attended by Ms Tracey Cooper from HIQA, the hospital action committee and Deputies Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, Denis Naughten and Frank Feighan——

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but I must remind the House that as per today’s Order of Business, this debate is to conclude at 5.15 p.m. I do not know how the Minister is fixed for time. Does the Acting Leader wish to extend the debate? 519 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

Deputy James Reilly: I am happy to remain for another five minutes. I have to go then to attend a health committee meeting.

Senator Colm Burke: I propose we extend the debate.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy James Reilly: I will be quick. The bottom line is that it was made clear it could not be made safe. I suggested we bring in extra consultants and registrars but was told that even if we had the money to do so, it would not make it safe because within 12 to 18 months they would become de-skilled, bringing us back to square one. I have previously expressed regret that this promise was made and I was unable to keep it. I have no problem with that. However, Senator Leyden was a member of a Government which brought this country to financial ruin, that encouraged people to buy houses, whose leader told people they should go away and commit suicide and that they were missing their opportunity to get on the property ladder. I did not hear any apologies from him or his party for that.

Senator Terry Leyden: What does that have to do with Roscommon County Hospital?

Deputy James Reilly: It has to do with the principle of knowingly misleading people and tying them to mortgages they could ill afford, leaving them in negative equity for the remainder of their lives. We will address that issue for people who find themselves in that situation.

Senator Terry Leyden: At least we kept Roscommon hospital open.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): The Minister, without interruption, please.

Deputy James Reilly: Comments about my misleading the people are a bit rich coming from Senator Leyden.

Senator Terry Leyden: The Minister betrayed the people of Roscommon.

Senator Martin Conway: Senator Leyden’s party betrayed the people of Ireland when in government.

Deputy James Reilly: The air ambulance situation is an issue I was exploring long before any of the groups concerned, with the exception of Bond Helicopters, came forward with the suggestion. That matter is progressing. It is to be hoped there will be news in this regard during the next couple of weeks.

Senator Terry Leyden: Okay.

Senator Terry Leyden: As regards the Senator’s question on endoscopy, endoscopy will be delivered. There is no question about that. Senator Moloney——

Senator Terry Leyden: I asked about staff meetings, to which I would like a reply. There are six staff leaving the——

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): The Minister has the floor. The Senator had an opportunity to ask his questions.

Senator Terry Leyden: The Minister is not replying to them.

Deputy James Reilly: I am replying. I referred to staff in a broader sense. There are plans in place to deal with all of these issues. They are well advanced. Managers of the hospitals 520 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers have a role to play in this regard and they have been told they will have to explain their plans to the people. It is their job.

Senator Terry Leyden: I thank the Minister.

Deputy James Reilly: Senator Moloney referred to the long-term illness scheme extension also helping the wealthy. There is no perfect system. This is what was agreed in the programme for Government. However, in terms of benefit to the taxpayer and Exchequer, wealthy people can end up back in hospital. Having access to a GP card can keep them out of hospital and save us money. It may not be the most equitable way of doing this but it is a step on our journey — it will not be a long journey, only a couple of years — towards a situation whereby everyone will be covered by free GP care at the point of delivery. I have already addressed the issue of medical cards.

Senator Marie Moloney: Perhaps the Minister will respond on the issue of deciding and appeals officers.

Deputy James Reilly: I am not aware that there is only one officer. As far as I am aware there are several. A group was established by me last year to address the issue of discretionary medical cards. The group is made up of doctors. Like the Senator I believe that people who are terminally ill should have a medical card and should not have to endure the stress of a lengthy application procedure. Also, there are many things available through the medical card that money cannot buy. These are simply not available to a private patient. On organ transplant, Senator Ó Clochartaigh expressed concern about what would happen if the airport was gone. We have an agreement with the Air Corps which allows us to transport organs back and forth without reliance on an airport. It was stated that 158 people are leaving Galway west HSE. There are contingency plans in place to ensure services there continue. The Senator stated there are not enough people to roll out the primary care teams. I do not believe that is the case. It may not be possible to achieve full primary care teams but I have never promised to be able to do that in the short term. I have in the past been a great critic of statements to the effect that there are 359 primary care teams. I want that qualified in terms of how many are fully functioning, how many are partly functioning and how many are there in name only. As far as I am aware, this breaks down roughly to a third each. On St. Francis’s community nursing unit——

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): There are only three minutes remaining.

Deputy James Reilly: Information on that issue will become available during the next couple of days. Senator Moran raised the issue of inclusion on the LTI of patients suffering stress. We have no plans to do that. However, everyone will have a medical card in the not too distant future. I hear what the Senator is saying but it is not possible to cover everyone in one go. One must go about this in a structured fashion and within the reality of ever-diminishing budgets. As for the closure of the laboratory in County Louth, that should not present a problem. It is 24 miles down the road and the journey takes 25 minutes on the motorway. Moreover, the use of information technology should allow for immediate reporting back to the hospital by electronic means. I am sure that is what is intended, but I will double-check for the Senator. Senator Michael Mullins mentioned the reduction in the number of outpatient clinics because of workload and fears regarding the introduction of an 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. service. There is no 521 HSE National Service Plan: 14 February 2012. Statements, Questions and Answers

[Deputy James Reilly.] plan for that to happen and staffing levels will be adjusted by the manager to ensure there is no reduction.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): The Minister must conclude.

Deputy James Reilly: I will, although I did not get to Senator John Crown’s issue. I also apologise to Senator Jimmy Harte but thank him for his comments——

Senator Marie Moloney: Can the Minister stay on if the session is extended?

Deputy James Reilly: I would like to finish, if Members are agreeable. I will only take two more minutes.

Senator Marie Moloney: I propose that the time allowed be extended to enable the Minister to deal with all the issues raised by Members.

Acting Chairman (Senator Imelda Henry): Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy James Reilly: I thank the Senators. In response to Senator Jimmy Harte, the utterances of Dr. Humphreys were most unfortunate and ill-considered. He refers to a theory that went out 50-odd years ago. It was promul- gated by a man by the name of Dr. Bettelheim and debunked initially by parents who had the good sense to speak out and point out that if they had four children, three of whom were perfectly normal, their parenting was not the problem. This is an organic condition with a multiplicity of genetic factors. As I told parents on TV3 last night, they know their children and their needs and should not let anyone set a limit on their horizons. In many cases, the outlook can be quite good. What all parents want is for their children to be able to reach their full potential. It is my responsibility and job to ensure the services are put in place to allow this to happen, even in times of financial stress. I announced the allocation of an additional €1 million per year for the next three years for services for children with autism to allow for earlier diagnosis and intervention. Moreover, I have made it clear to the service that I am not satisfied with the position where some receive a Rolls-Royce service, while others receive none, which is neither equitable nor fair. This issue is being addressed. Lifford Community Hospital is a small hospital which will be difficult to maintain. The Mini- ster of State, Deputy Dinny McGinley, has contacted me about it many times. Moreover, I have visited it myself, I am familiar with the general practitioners and acknowledge it provides a great service. However, in the overall scheme of things, one must try to consider some way to financially support it that makes sense. I will be happy to discuss any model that might emerge from local people if they have innovative ideas. On the type 1 diabetes service in County Donegal, I am not aware that it is moving to County Sligo, but I can check the position for the Senator. Last but not least, I come to Senator John Crown’s contribution. I have visited the Irish co- operative for oncology research and the work it is doing provides a model for bringing together experts, not building a big premises but sharing information and being involved in world trials. An astonishing statistic that is worth repeating is that in clinical trials around the world the general participation rate is approximately 3% of patients, but in one of the group’s studies it managed to achieve a participation rate of 30%, which speaks volumes. Moreover, it is important to emphasise the benefit to patients of being involved in such activities, which is they have access to cutting-edge medication, as well as phenomenal supervision because they are part of a trial. 522 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

As for the career path for junior hospital doctors, I have a report on my desk that I hope to have finalised shortly. The intention is to send a clear signal to those who have trained, have reached specialist registrar level and are now being interviewed for consultant posts but who do not get them because of the lack of such posts. Only one in four do so; the other three leave Ireland, despite our having spent up to €1 million on training them. As it is madness to let them leave the country, a clear career path should be provided for them. I have made it clear that this is not like the English system which is something of a graveyard for those who never get to become consultants. It will be a natural progression to consultancy as long as one meets peer group review requirements and the number of publications necessary. I will conclude by noting the Senator’s comments on the different contracts for research versus service make sense. This is certainly something I will explore. I thank Members for their indulgence and for contributions. I look forward to returning to the House to update them on progress in the reform of the health service because the final message is that reform works. It is measurable and one can see it.

Senator Colm Burke: I thank the Minister for dealing with all of the queries raised. While he will revert to Members on a number of issues, I thank him for his contribution and wish him well in the implementation of the service plan for 2012.

Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.

Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

Question proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.” Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): I welcome the opportunity to address the Seanad on the Second Stage of the Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2011. The purpose of the Bill, which is very short, is to enable Ireland to accept an amendment to the articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund, IMF, which are incorporated in existing legislation, namely, the Bretton Woods Acts 1957 to 2011. The amendment, which is known as the amendment on the reform of the executive board, arises in the context of a number of IMF governance reforms that were agreed by the board of governors in December 2010. At present, the five largest members of the IMF are entitled to appoint one executive director. The effect of the proposed amendment is that the executive board will in future consist only of elected executive directors, thus ending the category of appointed directors. It is expected that the amendment will facilitate restructuring of the Board on a more representative basis.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I apologise for interrupting but would it be possible to obtain copies of the Minister of State’s speech?

Deputy Brian Hayes: We will try to obtain copies for the Senators. The main objective of the IMF, which was established following the Bretton Woods conference in 1945 and which Ireland joined in 1957, is to support global financial stability in the interest of all its members. Since the onset of the global financial crisis, the fund has played a key role in helping to restore stability to the international system. We are particularly aware of this in the context of the EU- IMF programme for Ireland. The IMF is a quota-based institution. Each member country is assigned a quota based mainly on its relative position in the world economy. Quota subscriptions generate most of the IMF’s financial resources. A member’s quota determines its maximum financial commitment to the IMF and its voting power and has a bearing on its access to IMF financing and the cost of 523 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] borrowing from the fund. However, current quotas have not kept up with changing economic realities, especially the increased economic weight of major emerging countries in the world economy. While the quota adjustments will benefit emerging market economies in the main, a number of economically advanced countries, including Ireland, which have been significantly under-represented in the past, will also receive a quota increase. In December 2010, the board of governors agreed on a package of quota and governance reforms building on decisions which were taken in 2008 and which were designed to strengthen the fund’s legitimacy and effectiveness. It is worth recalling that, under the 2008 reforms, it was agreed to realign voting power in the IMF to reflect changes in the global economy and to increase the voting power and participation of low-income countries. The related amend- ments to the IMF articles were provided for under the Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) Act 2011, and the Bill before the House continues this process of governance reform. The 2010 reforms involve a shift of more than 6% of quota shares to dynamic emerging market and developing countries while protecting the quota shares and voting powers of the poorest members. The amendment on the reform of the executive board is, by resolution of the IMF board of governors, required to have entered into force before the quota increases can become effective. This requires acceptance of the amendment by a voting threshold of three fifths of members, with 85% of total voting power. While it is not possible to be definitive with regard to the timeline for the implementation of the 2010 quota changes by resolution of the board, each member has committed to use its best efforts to complete the necessary steps for acceptance before the annual meeting in October of this year. That is the entire objective of the exercise. As I stated on Committee Stage in the Dáil, we are trying to put the legislation in place in advance of the annual meeting to which I refer. This will enable Ireland and other countries to implement the reforms contemplated in the legislation, which are important for all members of the IMF. While the quota adjustments will benefit emerging market economies in the main, a number of economically advanced countries which have been under-represented in the past, including Ireland, will receive a quota increase. When the amendment has been accepted by the requisite majority of IMF members, the quota increases agreed in 2010 will come into effect. The adjustments will result in a significant increase in Ireland’s quota and this will result in an important reduction in the interest rate margin on our borrowings from the fund. The legislation is, therefore, designed to allow the Government to agree to the reforms in question at the annual meeting of the IMF in October. By logical extension, those reforms will allow for a lower rate of interest on our borrowings from the IMF. That is an important and significant point, particularly in the context of the situation in which we find ourselves. The Central Bank has estimated that, taking into account the previous quota adjustments, which were implemented in March 2011 and the further increase under the 2010 reforms, there could be an overall reduction, on a weighted average basis, of the order of 100 basis points in the cost of our IMF borrowings. This is a very welcome development and the present Bill is part of the process of delivering this adjustment. It should be noted that these expected savings may change either upward or downward in light of future quota revisions. This is a very short Bill with just three sections. The main provisions relate to acceptance by the Government of the amendment on the reform of the executive board. The text of the amendment is contained in the Schedule to the Bill. Section 1 of the Bill sets out the definitions of terms used in the Bill. Section 2 provides for approval of the acceptance of the amendment of the IMF articles by the Government. Section 3 contains the provisions relating to the Short Title, construction and collective citation. 524 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

The amendment on the reform of the executive board is set out in the Schedule to the Bill and has 15 sections. The first section provides that the executive board shall consist of 20 executive directors——

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I do not know if this has happened to other Senators and I apologise, but there is a page missing from the copy of the speech that has been distributed.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We will try to address it.

Deputy Brian Hayes: All of the copies of the speech are distributed with the health warning, “check against delivery”, and this is a warning for Senators and the media. I apologise for the missing page.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I think it is the second last page. I thank the Minister of State.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We will allow the Minister of State to continue and try to rectify it.

Deputy Brian Hayes: The second section provides that, for the purpose of each regular election of executive directors, the board of governors, by an 85% majority of the total voting power, may increase or decrease the number of executive directors. The effect of this provision is that the existing possibility, whereby the size of the board may be adjusted, will continue to apply to the restructured board. The third section provides that elections to the all-elected executive board will continue to be at intervals of two years and in accordance with regulations adopted by the board. The remaining sections 4 to 15 delete or amend existing provisions which refer to the category of appointed executive directors and include transitional provisions to govern the period between the entry into force of the amendment and the first election following such entry into force. These sections do not provide for any changes to the existing provisions beyond those resulting from the elimination of the category of appointed executive directors. As I said at the outset, this is a short Bill designed to give effect to IMF reforms which were approved in 2010 by the board of governors, including the then Irish Minister for Finance. The changes relate to the governance framework of the IMF and are part of the ongoing process of modernising the fund and enhancing its legitimacy in today’s world. Ireland’s acceptance of this amendment will contribute to the ratification process to enable the amendment to come into effect, the target date, as I stated earlier, being by the next IMF annual meeting in October 2012. The implementation of the amendment, when it becomes effective, will trigger the related quota increases and lead to a significant reduction of the interest rate on Ireland’s IMF borrowings. In summary, there are tangible benefits for Ireland from this process. The quota increase will assist in strengthening our representation and influence in the IMF and will result in reduced borrowing costs. To put it in a nutshell, up to now, as I understand it, the big countries have automatically held sway and had people appointed directly to the board of governors of the IMF. The impact of this legislative change, once it is accepted by the IMF, will be that people must be elected to the board. This recognises that the world is a different place to what it was ten or 15 years ago and, as a consequence, representatives from big and small countries must be elected. This is a fundamental reform which people have expected for quite some time. It is thus in Ireland’s interest, and in the interest of the IMF membership generally, that the Bill be enacted. I commend the Bill to the House.

525 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

Senator Paschal Mooney: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. I appreciate he probably received his script on his way into the Chamber as it is the nature of the business. Perhaps in his capacity as head of the main procurement agency for the Government he will send a memo to all Ministers and Ministers of State to state when they come before the House they might at least have the courtesy to make their initial speeches available to Senators and certainly to spokespersons. This is not meant as a personal reflection. The only reason I raise this is because the Minister of State has sat in this Chamber as a Senator to discuss a technical Bill of this nature——

Deputy Brian Hayes: I am sorry, a Leas-Chathaoirligh,——

Senator Paschal Mooney: I am not in any way attempting to put the Minister of State on the spot but the point might be made. This is not the first time this has happened and it also happened under the previous Administration. It is important that we put it on the record and we will leave it at that.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: To put it to bed and ensure it is not repeated by other Ministers and Ministers of State, perhaps the Leader can address it by contacting the various Ministers and Ministers of State. I am sure it is a teething problem that can be resolved.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I have no wish to in any way embarrass the Minister of State. That was not my intention.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I accept the Senator’s bona fides.

Senator Paschal Mooney: I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. Over the past five years the IMF has had an ambitious programme of reform. As the Minister of State correctly pointed out, this is the latest in a series of reform mechanisms. The previous Administration introduced similar legislation at the beginning of the process in 2010. The executive board will be reduced to 20 members from 24 and they will be elected. As the Minister of State said, prior to this its members were appointed. It has been a source of criticism globally, not from countries such as Ireland but from developing countries, that there has been an unfair weighting in terms of who is on the board. Perhaps the new quota system will provide an opportunity for emerging economies. There is continuing criticism about the fact that the head of the IMF and the head of the World Bank are appointed, and that a nice little arrangement seems to exist between the US, which usually takes the position of president of the World Bank, and Europe, which takes the IMF position, with Christine Lagarde in the position at present. I do not raise this in order to change it although there are those who are critical of it. It is important and relevant from an Irish perspective that we have somebody with a European background, and with regard to the EU, Christine Lagarde had a very strong and warm relationship with the current and previous Administrations here when she served as French Minister for Finance. Her sentiments were very positive towards Ireland. It was rather unfortunate, and I use the word cautiously, that Dominique Strauss-Kahn had to step down because there had always been a perception, in this country and others, that the IMF was a great bogeyman and when it came into a country it effectively decimated its economy. However, it became apparent from the public statements of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, prior to and during his tenure of office, that he was very concerned the fragile economies which the IMF entered would not be further eroded or destabilised by the fiscal policies traditionally pursued by the IMF. There are stories going way back about the manner in which it effectively reduced economies and the people in them to almost penury. There is a new awareness, partic- 526 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage ularly in light of the international banking crisis that started in 2008 and which has affected all countries. I want to put on the record that we are not unique in this regard. Some might say the previous Administration was unlucky to have been there when it happened, but it happened and we are now dealing with its aftermath. This particular reform is very positive. I appreciate the Minister of State will put a positive spin on it but I understand that while there will be some financial advantages to the country they will be quite small. The Bill does not say exactly what they will be but I suppose one must be thankful for small mercies in the current climate, and any reduction in Ireland’s financial liability must be welcomed. We would prefer if the IMF was not here, in a sense dictating Irish economic policy, but that is what is happening. Interestingly, from reading letters to The Irish Times certain people seem to suggest it is manna from heaven that the IMF came here because successive Administrations did not bite the bullet in terms of stricter and tighter economic and fiscal policy. It took the IMF to wake us up and make us take the decisions we have taken. However, even with its committed support of €22.5 billion from the extended fund facility, loans under the EU-IMF programme of assistance to the end of last September amounted to €26.5 billion. Loans from EU sources amounted to €17.6 billion, while loans from the IMF amounted to €8.9 billion. We are talking megabucks in terms of the impact on the economy. It is sad these are loans rather amounting to a free lunch. The country must address this matter and is doing so. I wish the Government well in its efforts to ensure this happens, with particular reference to the promissory notes. It is morally unjustified at this point in the development of the banking crisis that a promissory note of €30 billion is still hanging over us like the sword of Damocles because much has moved on since the giving of the bank guarantee in 2008; the environment has changed completely and we will be left in an impossible position unless the Government seeks adjustments. I know it is very much aware of this. I would like to think sentiment for Ireland is positive because we are seen as being model pupils, an awful term to use when one considers the reality of our economic situation. However, if we are adjusting and complying, painful as it may be, and seeing a spark at the end of a long dark tunnel, surely there must be reciprocation on the part of the European Union. This is not a case of giving back the money or sending it up in smoke, rather it is about an adjustment to allow the country to manage its way out of the economic morass in which it finds itself in an orderly fashion to give some hope to the people. It is all about hope and confidence, like everything else. Therefore, I hope any attempts the Government is making in this regard will be successful. In spite of our compliance record under both the previous and current Administrations which I applaud, there was one significant criticism by the IMF since the budget, namely, that the budget decision to reduce capital spending was too severe. Perhaps it was not a criticism as such, but it raised eyebrows, offering a view the Government might have gone a little too far in the reduction on the capital side as distinct from the current side. The only reason I raise this issue — it is an old chestnut at this stage, as the Minister of State is well aware — is I genuinely believe that if we were to spend a little more public money on the roads and infra- structure in general, we would create jobs. It is a Keynesian approach to economics that now seems to be out of favour in the austerity-led German-French alliance. However, the Govern- ment would do itself and the country a great favour if it were to consider this point in the context of the budgetary position and try to find avenues to explore such as the establishment of a bank of reconstruction or perhaps using pension funds to stimulate the economy. Like the Minister of State, I commend the legislation which is an important step along the road towards full reform of the IMF. It is important that Ireland is seen to be an active partici- pant in that regard. 527 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

Senator Michael D’Arcy: The IMF dates back to the end of the Second World War when it was established along with the World Bank. Certain procedures and requirements were stipu- lated for each institution; everything was more or less carved up in that the senior person in the IMF was to be a European, while his or her counterpart in the World Bank was to be an American. This stood the test of time until Mr. Strauss Kahn ran into his difficulties in New York and there was a substantial play to seek the position of senior person within the IMF when candidates from Israel and Mexico were in the race. Even though Christine Lagarde won the day, we are moving towards a new world order and an era in regard to the position of developing countries. The previous world order was established with the United Nations, the IMF, the World Bank and others after the Second World War, but within the past 15 to 20 years, especially in the past ten, that order of great countries, with the power and resources they possess, is changing. That is the way it should be. The figure being quoted is 6% towards the nations in waiting. The agreement is in place and anything we say or do in this House will not change that position. This legislation must be concluded before next meetings are held in October. The IMF has been the subject of substantial criticism by people who have worked within the organisation and by others outside it in other organisations. It is a matter of opinion. The term “bogeyman” was used on the other side of the House, but the organisation has been called much worse than this. It all comes back to the manner in which its representatives come to a country, do not negotiate but dictate as far as practicable what the arrangements will be. We are experiencing this to some degree. Far too often countries were not prepared to do the difficult thing and others had to come in who were not very concerned about what had happened in the past or other historical considerations within a country. They reduced everything significantly. Unfortunately, on too many occasions people are not prepared to give up what they have. “What we have we hold” is an expression used by people worldwide, not only in Ireland. During the summer I read a book about what had happened in the United States when some cities went bankrupt. Even though this had happened, those employed by the cities in question refused to accept any pay reduction. This happens worldwide. People do not like to accept reductions, but they tend not to negotiate as extensively as a government must do. In November 2010 when the troika came to town, the concern was there would be a calamity, but it has proved to be much more accommodating than many had anticipated. I am very glad that one point is clear, namely, that the troika, particularly the IMF, has agreed to look at the promissory notes issue in the context of the recapitalisation of Irish banks. For one institution, Anglo Irish Bank, the numbers are in the region of €30 billion of the €63 billion due and I am satisfied there will be a result. Normally, bodies of that nature do not negotiate and there is no outcome or result that is satisfactory to all parties to the discussions. On that basis and because no one was representing this House, a number of weeks ago I travelled to Berlin with the finance committee. I paid my own way because I was not included in the roll-call of those travelling and it was a trip worth taking. If there is a governmental agreement with financial implications for German taxpayers, the German Government will have to put the question before the budgetary committee of the Bundestag. We can all partici- pate, not only at governmental level but also in our parties and at parliamentary committee level to try to advance these issues. I refer to the 1% reduction. We will take anything that is offered. We would like to receive more than 1%, but if that is the figure agreed to, so be it. It is a considerable result on the promissory notes issue and most welcome. The view has been expressed in both Chambers of the Oireachtas that there is a moral obligation on us to pay all of the national debt.

528 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

However, all of us, despite our different political mindsets, agreed when we met the Bundes- tag finance committee that one message had to be delivered, which was that there is a differen- tiation between the national debt that everyone agrees we are morally obliged to pay — this is how we pay, for example, our civil servants, the old age pension and child benefit — and the socialisation of bank debt, which is now considered to be sovereign debt. We delivered that message and parties from different strands of the political spectrum were on board. I refer to the information about the troika review that was released earlier relating to the memorandum of understanding and the potential a portion of the funds accruing from the sale of State assets being made available to the Government to assist job creation. We all accept that no country can get out of financial difficulties such as these without economic 8o’clock growth. According to the ESRI, an increase in GDP of 1% equates to 40,000 jobs. The objective is to get people back to work and I am pleased and satisfied that everything is not doom and gloom, which was the impression created prior to the visit of the EU-IMF delegation to Dublin. They see sense. We are meeting our targets, unlike others. For example, Spain is in significant difficulty with the European Commission tonight. If there is going to be a success under the programme, it will be Ireland. It is not pleasant, easy or nice but we can get there.

Senator Sean D. Barrett: I welcome the Minister and I thank him for his contribution. The IMF was a vital institution following the war when architecture was needed to prevent a repeat of the 1930s and, as Senator D’Arcy said, this also included the World Bank, the UN and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. Most of these bodies served us well and there were no reruns of the Second World War. The IMF had an important role and Irish people played a significant part. I recall my own colleagues, Professors John Bristow and Alan Tait, working for the fund to help other countries, which the organisation went into by invitation. However, they were demonised, as the Minister of State said. In recruiting graduates from our department in Trinity College Dublin, the IMF chose the top people and it therefore built up expertise in economics, which plays a valuable role. The reduction in the interest rate referred to by the Minister of State and the change in the organisation’s remit to give developing countries whose economies are expanding rapidly a better say in how the IMF runs itself are welcome. Senators have referred to the fund’s presence in Ireland. It is of huge value to us. Mr. Chopra has become a national figure who is widely liked. The IMF representatives have given us breathing space. What on earth would we have done if they had not come in? However, more important, as the Wilson report showed, the Department of Finance was short of economic expertise and it was valuable to have the IMF delegation present. I hope we will continue to avail of that expertise when the rescue period is over. Senator Mooney and others wondered whether Keynesianism is applicable in a small, open economy, because many economists doubt it. I am not sure that the troika was correct in its criticism of the Government’s capital programme because we need to develop capital investment appraisal techniques. I would establish a central office of project evaluation, COPE, and then put projects through the House to establish whether they were worthwhile. We had such a record of not investing in good capital projects and running up capital debt that the Govern- ment was correct. If the IMF thinks we should do more, the corollary is it should assist us in developing appraisal techniques, which should be published well in advance in order that we can judge whether a project is right. When the IMF representatives visit Dublin, they should relate more to Parliament. Members have asked the Leader to invite them to the House. There are 42 new Senators and 77 new Deputies in this Oireachtas and it is important that the fund brings them on board. They are 529 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

[Senator Sean D. Barrett.] dealing with faults in public administration, including hopeless bank regulation and faults within the Department of Finance. Bringing the elected representatives on board would, therefore, be a major development. Ireland experienced regulatory capture in that the banks undoubtedly got hold of the Exchequer on 29 and 30 September 2008. Have the IMF representatives ideas on how to prevent that happening again? Keynesianism in Ireland has built up a large, powerful bureaucracy. When the Government Chief Whip took a debate in the House, he stressed the importance of the Central Statistics Office and its independence and professionalism. Do we need a Government economics service, which would be both professional and independent? According to the troika document released earlier, the Government needs to beef up competition policy. Measures have been introduced to address sheltered sectors, including one passed by the House last week to open up GP lists to new doctors. However, large sections of the economy have become sheltered, including airports and health insurance. It is strange that the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport seemed to think it a good idea that between 16% and 23% of taxi drivers might leave the industry. The deregulation of the industry was a successful policy and the Government needs to be more in touch with how economic policy works because mistakes were made. For example, there is a fiscal responsibility Bill on the Order Paper, which must be taken. I support the IMF and the reason I was looking through the Minister of State’s speech was to find even more supportive things to say to him and about him, and that has been remedied. The organisation has performed a valuable role and Irish people have played an important part in the secretariat and in providing economic expertise. The fund’s staff provided an important input as we looked into the economic abyss a few years ago. They have steadied the ship and we should value their ideas on how we grow and their provision of economic help and expertise, which was highlighted in the jobs plan announced yesterday. The Minister will have his Bill long before the October deadline and I wish him well in that endeavour.

Senator Tom Sheahan: I compliment Senators Mooney and Barrett on their positive attitude and approach to this agreement. I never realised there were so many economists and economic academics in the country. The majority seem to survive on one-upmanship in the context of who will be first out with the bad news. If they continue to dish out enough bad news, eventually they will get something right.

Senator Paschal Mooney: One or two of them have.

Senator Tom Sheahan: That is my point. I do not know who is paying for all the economic academics. I was asked earlier to put this agreement in a nutshell. I replied that the country would be in a bad way without it. Under the proposed changes, it is positive that the management of the IMF will be directly elected. Second, Ireland will benefit by way of an interest rate reduction. Some have given figures of 100 base points, 1%, etc. but I would not quantify any reduction we may receive when the Minister is negotiating on our behalf. A long game is being played in respect of the promissory notes, but some of our more economic minded people and academics appear to be jumping the gun and not waiting for the negotiations to conclude to see the results, rather they are pre-empting the outcome. Senator Sean D. Barrett made a good point on capital projects, in respect of which Senator Paschal Mooney said there was a deficit. That will be a positive aspect in the long term because, as Senator Sean D. Barrett stated, it will lead to value for money being achieved in such projects. By and large, there is value to be obtained, but many people in every walk of life are still charging above the odds. They have decided that if they do not get the job, so be it, that 530 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage they will not work for less than a particular rate. That applies to Government projects also. We are all aware that in emergency cases local authorities must buy houses for families and once an auctioneer becomes aware that a house is being purchased for a county council, the price increases. In fairness to Senator Sean D. Barrett, he has previously highlighted the evaluation of capital projects. For years contracts were signed at a certain figure and it was then a case of adding on extras which amounted to more than the initial capital investment. Bad value was obtained in these cases. I do not look on the lack of capital investment this year as something negative because it will lay a pathway for capital investment in the future. I ask people to keep their powder dry regarding the negotiations on the promissory notes because with the Minister negotiating on behalf of the country I can only see a positive outcome. While this is primarily a technical Bill, it gives effect to the IMF reforms approved in 2010 when the former Minister for Finance was negotiating on our behalf. I see two positives. First, the leaders will be directly elected — it will provide for increased representation for Ireland in that regard — and, second, there will be an interest rate reduction. Therefore, I support the Bill.

Senator Kathryn Reilly: I will be brief because as previous speakers mentioned, this is a technical Bill to which we are not opposed. Therefore, we will not vote against it. However, we do have concerns about the IMF and its domination by developed countries which account for 15% of its members but which hold 60% of the votes. This must change. Further reforms are needed, central to which is giving the developing world an equal say in the way the IMF will be run. There is an argument that those countries most affected by its policies should have a greater say in the way it operates and that there is a need to abandon the use of the stringent policy conditions attached to the loans it gives. There is a need for a lender of last resort on the international stage and the IMF could be an appropriate body to fill that role. As mentioned, the IMF attaches stringent and strict conditions to loans. This means, as we know, that national governments are told what they are supposed to do in no uncertain terms. Like any organisation, the IMF should be entitled to expect that it will get back what it loans but countries which are broke and in desperate circumstances have their economic policies dictated to them. In many cases this is unhealthy and unsustainable. Mali is one of the poorest countries in the world, with 90% of the population living on less than $2 a day. The consequences of the IMF’s most recent involvement are stark. Utility prices rose dramatically following privatisation, while cotton prices dropped heavily following trade liberalisation. Development aid from the World Bank to the value of $72 million was blocked, which had the effect of making the majority in the country even poorer. This is not a record one could stand over. The head of the IMF is on a salary of $440,000, plus allowances, each year, yet the IMF lectures countries about the need for austerity, financial discipline and fortitude. It is subscrib- ing to cuts to the minimum wage and in health care and other public services while its officials live on huge salaries. I look forward to the day when we can have a more substantive debate on governance reform in a democratic forum, but for now we will support the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I call Senator Jimmy Harte who was outmanoeuvred by Senator Tom Sheahan who was quick off the mark.

Senator Jimmy Harte: They are fast on the pitch also.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It is difficult to beat these Kerrymen. They are quick.

Senator Jimmy Harte: I welcome the Minister of State once again. When I was in school, we read about the IMF and the Bretton Woods Agreement. It was something we thought we read about only in a textbook, but images of IMF representatives arriving at our door brought me 531 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

[Senator Jimmy Harte.] back to a time when I studied the theory of the Bretton Woods Agreement for my leaving certificate. Regardless of what is said about or our opinion of it, Europe and the world would be a much different place without the IMF and its involvement for the past 55 years, even though it might be populated by dictators and others who have ulterior motives. The Bretton Woods Agreement was put in place following the Second World War and concerned the way countries would harmonise their relationships. Generally, it has worked to the betterment of Europe and perhaps the world when we consider what happened in the last century. The sentence in the Bill that hits everybody is that implementation of the amendment will trigger the related quota increases and lead to a significant reduction in the interest rate charged on Ireland’s IMF borrowings. That is what the people want to hear because they know when that happens, it will be to the benefit of taxpayers. Five or six years ago no one in this building would have thought we would be talking about the IMF coming here because, as Senator Kathryn Reilly said, it was always mentioned in the context of dealing with countries such as Mali and other Third World countries. We never envisaged the day when Ireland would need its assistance, but we have no choice in the matter. If we do not work with it, it will give us its answer. In fairness, even the previous Government recognised, albeit late on, that we had a problem which we are now fixing. No one has any problem with the Bill. Senator Sean D. Barrett is the expert on the “ins” and “outs” of the IMF, economic history and the prognosis for the country. I am sure the Minister of State is up there also in terms of his knowledge, but the sentence in the Bill that indicates we will benefit from a rate reduction is what people want and need to see. Therefore, I support the Bill.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does the Minister of State wish to respond because there is unanimity on the matter?

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Deputy Brian Hayes): I thank colleagues for their positive comments on the Bill. A lovely story was told by Dave Allen in the wonderful series he made in the late 1970s and early 1980s in which he described what it had been like to grow up in Waterford city. He said that if ever he was a bold boy his mother would say that if he did not go to sleep the “scissorman” will come and get him. He was a guy who allegedly went around Waterford and elsewhere at the time chopping off children’s fingers and nails. Dave Allen used to ask the question: “Would you sleep too if this lunatic was out and about going to kill you?” A little like the “scissorman”, the IMF had a bogeyman status for some years largely because of what occurred in the 1970s. During the course of the past decade or so, its world view has changed a little. It has seen itself as an organisation which helps countries grow and develop and there is a recognition that stimulus is needed and that fundamental reform does not always have to be on the austerity front in that it must also be about how an economy develops. I first met Mr. Chopra and his colleagues with the then Deputies Noonan and Kenny and a few other colleagues on the finance team when we were not in government. He said in that wonderful Mombasa voice of his that: “We need to get to know you because it looks like you are going to be in government in a few months time”. He asked the question: “What is Fine Gael?” I answered that by saying that: “Last night I was in University College Dublin addressing a Young Fine Gael meeting and a very smart 19 year old Young Fine Gael member said that “the IMF agenda is the Fine Gael agenda”. I said: “Whatever that means, I am not sure, if it is about deregulation, public sector reform and reducing expenditure, I am not exactly certain.” 532 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

I thank colleagues for their remarks. Senator Mooney’s remarks were very constructive. He rightly pointed out the role that is now played by Christine Lagarde as head of the IMF. It is important for this country given her significance and from where she has come in terms of the European experience. She understands this country and has a familiarity with it. In terms of our relationship with her, to have someone like her at the top of that organisation is hugely beneficial to this country, as Senator Mooney rightly pointed out. The IMF has always been clear that its interest rate is published in the shop window, as it were. It does not negotiate. It has a clear view that if one wants to get money from it, one can check its website and see its interest rate on a daily basis. It is not negotiable. It is there arguably as a lender of last resort but there is a transparency about its interest rate regime in a way that may not be as obvious about other organisations because of the fact that it alters on a daily basis based on what it can obtain from its own forces. I thank Senator Mooney for his welcome remarks and comments concerning the Govern- ment’s efforts to redesign the promissory notes. We continue to work with our colleagues. As other Senators said, the fact that the IMF, the Commission and the ECB, in their latest report, have agreed a joint position paper, which hopefully will come into agreement by the end of February following which it can then be transcended to the political level, is an advance, but we should not set a timeline or a time limit as to when we will obtain this, if we will obtain this. We are hopeful that we will succeed but those negotiations continue. I agree with the Senator Mooney that we must concentrate in 2012 and beyond on the issue of how to stimulate the economy when we have no money. Senator Michael D’Arcy pointed out the welcome news from the Commission and the troika in terms of the proceeds of the sale of State assets. We can use some of that money for investment in jobs and in a stimulus. That is very good news. That is something on which the Government has been painstakingly working during the past year to make sure that we got over the line. When the troika first came to town, its view was straightforward. It is the lender of last resort and its view was that if we have assets, we should sell them and pay off the debt. However, we have been making the point that this would not be a sensible approach, that selling the assets in a firesale would not be sensible in terms of maximising the sale of the asset. There is no point in doing that unless we can use part of the sale of those assets for the purposes of investment in a stimulus and in jobs. We very much take on that task now given the announcement from the Com- mission today. I agree with Senator Michael D’Arcy that the BRIC countries are crucial to the future formation of the IMF. That was one of the reasons in the most recent Finance Bill the Govern- ment took the view that it was right to support our exporters who will export to the BRIC economies as a means of helping our companies at home. Very significant tax benefits will be yielded for Irish companies selling products to Brazil, Russia and breaking into new markets in China and the like. What we are trying to do in that respect is significant. I also agree with Senator Michael D’Arcy that we have a relationship with the IMF. We have come into a close relationship with it during the past 14 or 15 months and it is developing. It recognises the significant progress that has been in this economy during the past year and a half in terms of dealing with our problems in an up-front and honest way. I agree with the Senator’s remarks in that regard. I thank Senator Barrett for his remarks. He made a crucial point, namely, that significant numbers of Irish economists and public officials have played very senior roles in the IMF during the past 30 or 40 years and have helped other countries and helped our reputation as a small country. We have always done well as a country in punching above our weight in having very significant players in these international organisations. We are a neutral country and we 533 Bretton Woods Agreements (Amendment) 14 February 2012. (No. 2) Bill 2011: Second Stage

[Deputy Brian Hayes.] come with clean hands, as it were. The Senator pointed out the role of colleagues of his in Trinity College and elsewhere who have played a significant role in the IMF, and I want to recognise that. I fully agree with Senator Barrett that this and the other House and the committees of both these Houses need to be fully engaged in the appraisal of capital projects. The questions need to be asked before the money is spent rather than afterwards. If we have learned anything from the fiasco from some winner-takes-all projects that were selected by purely political means during the past decade and beyond, we need to properly involve Parliament; it should have an oversight role. I refer to the comments made by the Minister, Deputy Howlin, in his budget speech. We see there being a huge role for the committees of both Houses as we get close to adopting the budget at the later end of this year. We need to stress test proposals and examine options in a realistic way. I fully agree with the Senator that oversight of and parliamentary engagement in capital and current expenditure is something that this Government wants to put in place with the co-operation of all parties and Independents. We very much agree with that. The IMF’s involvement in this State is a matter for this House, but I very much hope that if colleagues want to meet the IMF and the troika, they will have an opportunity to do that and engage with them in a private way and if the troika chooses to do that in a public way, that would be a matter for it. Senator Sheahan rightly spoke about good advice and keeping our powder dry when it comes to the promissory notes, on which I agree with him. We should not set some arbitrary deadline as to when this matter will be concluded. Senator Reilly spoke about conditionality. She is right about that, but as Shakespeare said: “neither a lender nor the borrower be”. If one draws down funds, one does it on the terms of the people who are lending to one.

Senator Tom Sheahan: Terms and conditions apply.

Deputy Brian Hayes: To return to what that Young Fine Gael member in UCD said, she has a point when she said that much of the IMF agenda is the structural reform agenda that this country must take ownership of and change if we are to develop a better economy for all of us. I also agree with the Senator Reilly about the developing economies; that is why it is important that we keep development aid strong. It is in all our interests that we have strong development aid support programme for developing countries in order that we can develop those economies to help our economy and the world economy. We need to recreate our economies on a constant basis. I agree with her that there is a need for the State to continue to do that. I thank the Senators for their positive remarks. This is a technical Bill, but the reforms that have been agreed and that will, I hope, be introduced before the October IMF meeting represent important and significant progress in terms of this international organisation and this country’s relationship with it.

Question put and agreed to.

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

Senator Maurice Cummins: On Thursday next.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 16 February 2012.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again? 534 Departmental 14 February 2012. Schemes

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

Adjournment Matters

————

Departmental Schemes An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan.

Senator Michael Mullins: I, too, welcome the Minister, although I understood the Minister of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was to take this matter. I want to make it clear that the issues I am raising predate his appointment as Minister, but obviously he has inherited the problem. I want to discuss the findings of departmental officials with regard to the forage area of commonage lands in Keelderry, County Galway, which are similar to thousands of hectares of land from County Donegal to County Kerry. The land in question is located in a special area of conservation for birds and being farmed in compliance with the commonage framework plan, the REPS and National Parks and Wildlife Service guidelines. An inspection involving an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and a supervisor took place on 14 October 2010. In his report dated 15 October 2010 the officer states he found no forage and the supervisor agreed with his conclusion. This was in spite of the fact that the same officer had granted a forage figure of over 90% on similar land nearby. A point to note about this area is that the adjoining commonages all have a forage reference area in excess of 95%, and this land is no different. The last line of the official’s report states he concurs with the findings of two colleagues who did not write their reports until one week later, 21 and 22 October 2010. The Minister will agree this is impossible and evidence of a conspiracy and a vendetta by departmental staff. In the reports it is acknowledged that there were horses grazing on the land, yet the forage area was given as nil. The question then arises as to what the horses were grazing on. In February 2011 an area superintendent reinspected the land and allowed a forage area of 10% . There are no varying degrees of agricultural activity in the terms and conditions of the scheme concerned and it is incredible that they could not understand this at the time. It was only in July 2011 that staff in the Galway office discovered this and, as a result, all staff were called to a meeting to clarify the position. In a mix-up of geographical work areas, two other officers who were on a temporary transfer from another section were instructed by their supervisor to carry out an inspection on the same lands. The results were dramatically different. All independent advice clearly confirms that these officers carried out their inspections as per the 2010 commonage inspection guidelines and their findings are correct. I understand that following a freedom of information request in May 2011 two senior officials visited the place of work of these two officers. The purpose of the visit was to coerce them into agreeing that they had carried out an unauthorised inspection in order that their file would not be released in response to the FOI request. This they refused to do. I compliment them on their integrity and honour in taking this action. The Department persisted in withholding this part of the file, although it was subsequently released after the intervention of the Ombudsman. As the Minister is aware, this is a criminal offence and I call on him to have the matter investigated. I understand that when the issue was 535 Departmental 14 February 2012. Schemes

[Senator Michael Mullins.] raised with him by Deputy Noel Coonan, he ordered an investigation. However, one member of the investigation team is the same area superintendent who has already made a decision in this matter and is desperately trying to uphold it, even though it totally contradicts the terms and conditions of the scheme. I put it to the Minister that, in breach of fair procedures, natural and constitutional justice, the Department failed to perform an independent investigation by allowing an area superintendent — as well as staff from his own section within the Department — to investigate his own work, thereby depriving the applicants and the staff who were on a temporary transfer to his section of a fair and reasonable investigation. The only parties who have been subject to investigation are the officers who carried out an authorised inspection and produced an accurate report. This raises the question of how staff members who are unable to recognise forage land, who acknowledge that stock are grazing on the land, yet confirm the forage area to be nil, can justifiably continue to carry out work of this nature, given their clear inability to understand the meaning of the terms and conditions of the scheme. In a desperate attempt to deflect attention away from the core issue of forage availability, the investigation has been extended to the grants paid to the farmers concerned for buildings and under the REPS and other schemes in the past ten years. These actions and omissions by the Department’s staff represent an abuse of power, harassment, intimidation, bullying and deliberate embarrassment of legit- imate applicants and members of its own staff. A number of the landowners have never received any communication from the Department, while others received no replies to letters of query. An appeal was lodged with the independent appeals office in July 2011 but has met with frustration, delay and unjust impediment, the result of which is that the appeal has not been heard in an expedient manner, as the applicants are entitled to. I put it to the Minister that the reason for this behaviour on the part of his Department is to prevent the appeal from being heard, which results, again, in a deprivation of natural justice for those concerned. At this late stage I emphasise the urgency and importance of rectifying the behaviour of the Department which amounts to an attempt to pervert the course of justice by its staff. In the light of this, I urge the Minister to take immediate action to rectify this unconscionable behaviour by members of his Department in manipulating the appeals process to prevent dignity, integrity and justice from reaching the applicants. Many farmers have lost huge amounts of money as a result of this action. I ask the Minister to have the matter investigated and brought to a satisfactory conclusion as a matter of urgency.

Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Phil Hogan): I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, who apologises for his inability to attend. As the House is aware, the Agriculture Appeals Office is an independent agency established to provide an appeals service for farmers who are unhappy with decisions of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine regarding their entitlements under certain schemes. The Agriculture Appeals Act 2001, with the Agriculture Appeals Regulations 2002, sets down the functions of the director and the appeals officers, the decisions that may be appealed and the procedures that must be followed in respect of agriculture appeals. The Agriculture Appeals Act is specific in outlining the powers conferred on the appeals office and its officers. Specifi- cally, appeals officers are independent in the performance of their functions; they are not confined to the grounds on which the original decision was made, rather they decide as though the matter was being decided for the first time; oral hearings which are held where the appellant so chooses are in private, with the appellant being free to be accompanied by whomever he or 536 Household 14 February 2012. Charge she wishes, be it a family member, farm body representative, legal representative or someone else; appeals officers are authorised to administer oaths and take evidence under oath; and decisions of appeals officers are binding on the Department. The aim of the appeals office is to provide an independent, accessible, fair and timely service for scheme applicants and deliver that service in a courteous and efficient manner. This is the manner in which the appeals office has worked in practice. The Department’s officials have ongoing regular contact with the appeals office in matters relating to a wide variety of schemes operated by the Department. This allows the process to run smoothly from the point of view of the Department, the appeals office and the appellants. Since the establishment of the office, the number of cases processed has run into the thousands and, in all the interlinked dealings necessitated by these cases, at no stage was the independence of the office called into question. Both parties take their legal responsibilities in the consideration and processing of appeals with the appropriate regard expected under the regulations. It is understood the Senator may have raised this matter with reference to a specific ongoing case. I can inform the House that the case in question was initially the subject of an informal internal investigation within the Department, but it is now subject to a formal investigation. Therefore, while this formal investigation is ongoing, it is not appropriate that any appeal on the matter under investigation be considered by the appeals office. This does not in any way interfere with the ability of those concerned to pursue their case with the appeals office on the conclusion of the formal investigation, should they so choose to do so at that stage.

Senator Michael Mullins: Some of the issues I have raised are certainly worthy of investigation. I urge that this matter be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Household Charge Senator Paul Bradford: I thank the Minister for coming to the House this evening to respond to my contribution on the household charge. Following the decision to introduce this tax, there is great maturity and acceptance among the majority of the Irish that the country and local government must be funded. While no one wishes to pay taxes, there is significant and substantial take-up of this tax. I have a few queries regarding the operation of the scheme. It is important that we try to clarify any anomalies that might emerge and ensure people know exactly who is and is not obliged to pay the tax. Will the Minister clarify the position with apartments and bedsit units, particularly single bedsit units in a house? My understanding is that if separate kitchen facilities are provided, the charge is applicable but if there is some type of central cooking or dining area, it might be different. I would be obliged if the Minister would clarify the position in that regard. Second, will the Minister clarify the position concerning the non-principal private residence or second home charge? I have received a number of queries from people who claim they are unable to get a precise and immediate response from the Department. Will the Minister confirm that people who are eligible to pay the €100 household charge must pay not only that charge but also the tax on the second property, if they have such a property? I believe people are now buying into the household charge, not because they wish to but because they know they must. I have come across a number of cases where people realise that an older or disused house should have previously been subject to the non-principal private residence tax of €200 per year. They are now worried that they should have paid the €200 per annum two or three years ago. I understand there is a €20 per month levy or fine for not doing 537 Household 14 February 2012. Charge

[Senator Paul Bradford.] so and they are worried about coming forward. Is there any possibility that the Minister could make some arrangement to encourage those people to regularise their affairs? Of course we cannot mention the word “amnesty” any longer, but perhaps some arrangement could be made to assist those people.

Deputy Phil Hogan: A former era.

Senator Paul Bradford: The word is from a former era. It will be an arrangement rather than an amnesty. My colleague, Senator Walsh, when he realised this matter was being raised, brought it to my attention that we might get some clarification on the issue of people who are currently residing in Britain, for example, but who own a house in Ireland which is let to tenants. Do they pay both the household charge and the non-principal private residence charge? They are not living in Ireland, so it is not their second Irish property. What are their obligations? That covers the questions I wished to ask. I welcome the fact that this scheme is up and running and that there is a mature and positive response from the public. However, if we tie up the loose ends and remove the doubts, it will be easier for everyone.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I thank Senator Bradford for giving me the opportunity to clarify the issues he raised. The EU-IMF programme of financial support for Ireland commits the Govern- ment to the introduction of a property tax for 2012. The programme reflects the need, in the context of the State’s overall financial position, to put the funding of locally delivered services on a sound financial footing, improve accountability and better align the cost of providing services with the demand for such services. In order to meet the requirements in the EU-IMF programme, the Government has introduced the €100 household charge in 2012. The charge is an interim measure and proposals for a full property tax will be considered by the Government in due course. The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local Government (Household Charge) Regulations 2012 provide the legislative basis for the household charge. The Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, and associated regulations provide the legislative basis for the charge on non-principal private residences. Under the legislation, owners of residential property are liable to pay the household charge, including those persons with a liability to pay the charge on non-principal private residences by the due dates, unless otherwise exempt. Both the Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 and the Local Government (Charges) Act 2009, as amended, contain the same definition of residential property. Sections 2 of both Acts provide that the residential property means a building that is situated in the State and that is occupied, or suitable for occupation, as a separate dwelling, whether the occupier shares, or would be entitled to share in connection therewith any accommodation, amenity or facility with any other person, and includes a house, maisonette, flat or apartment, including the form of accommodation commonly known as a bedsit. The charge on non-principal private residences and the household charge are payable on each unit of accommodation that is occupied, or suitable for occupation, as a separate dwelling. Thus, the owner of a building which is divided into a number of flats or bedsits is liable for the charge on non-principal private residences and the household charge on each such unit in that building. The household charge and the charge on non-principal private residences are on a self-assessment basis and it is a matter for an owner of a residential property with a liability to either or both charges to declare that liability and to pay the relevant charges by the due dates. 538 Departmental 14 February 2012. Bodies

The income from the household charge and from the charge on non-principal private residences is used to pay for essential local services. I am conscious that people, genuinely and through no fault of their own, might have deemed themselves not to be liable for the second home charge. I will introduce new arrangements whereby I will be in a position to stem the penalties that have applied since then and allow them to enter into an instalment arrangement with the local authority in order that they can discharge their liability. This will ease the financial pressure of having to pay a lump sum to deal with their compliance with the law in this area. I have recently established an expert interdepartmental group to design an equitable property tax having regard to its terms of reference. This group has been asked to report to me by the end of April 2012. I will then bring proposals to Government for decisions on the structure and modalities of the property tax to replace the interim household charge. I agree with the Senator that the current household charge is a flat rate charge which is not progressive or fair. That is the reason I will bring forward proposals arising from the interdepartmental group for implementation in 2013.

Senator Paul Bradford: Could the Minister reply to my question about houses that are owned by Irish people who are living abroad?

Deputy Phil Hogan: I will revert to the Senator with that clarification.

Departmental Bodies Senator Jim Walsh: Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire. This matter is the need for the Minister for Health to clarify the person, persons or bodies that recommended the nomination of each of the 14 members of the recently announced expert group to examine the options to deal with the European Court of Human Rights ruling in the A, B and C v. Ireland case, other than the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais, and the criteria used for selection. The expert group has a difficult task on this sensitive issue, which is to bring forward a series of options on the fundamental issue of balancing the right to life of a mother and that of her unborn child. I welcome the Government’s decision that the expert group should bring forward a series of options rather than just a single recommendation. In that regard I also draw attention to the fact that the Fine Gael Party, in a pre-election commitment, vowed not to introduce abortion legislation and said that pregnant women will receive whatever treatment is necessary to save their lives and the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld. I subscribe fully to that and I hope there will be no deviation from it. Ireland has a very impressive record over many decades on maternal safety and safe births. Indeed, a recent UN report on the safety of mothers during pregnancy ranked Ireland at the top of the class, a position that must not be compromised in the future and one which, it is to be hoped, the expert group will keep to the forefront of its deliberations. Advocates of abortion should reflect carefully on this and consider that countries such as Britain and Holland, where abortion is readily available, lag behind Ireland with regard to the safety of mothers in pregnancy. In fact, Ireland is safer than a plethora of countries with greater economic resources than ours and with wide-ranging legalised abortion. The European Court of Human Rights judgment arises from the Supreme Court decision in the X case which held that abortion is lawful when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, and that such risk included that the mother might commit suicide. However, the Supreme Court, surprisingly, reached this verdict without hearing any expert psychiatric evidence. We will all remember the circumstances. We were in the middle of a general election 539 Departmental 14 February 2012. Bodies

[Senator Jim Walsh.] campaign and this became an election issue. As a consequence it did not get the kind of examination it should have got. In the intervening 20 years, research has increased our knowledge of potential adverse mental health effects associated with abortion and has been greatly advanced in review studies. This raises serious doubts about basing our legislative response on a judgment that lacked the informed findings of more recent research. In Britain, a high proportion of the 190,000 abortions that took place in 2010 were based on psychiatric grounds. This should be instructive for us and for our expert group, who would be well advised to take account of Professor David Fergusson, particularly given his own personal position as favouring the right to choose. In that regard, it is interesting that this British assump- tion has been challenged by him since more sophisticated studies have been conducted. Writing in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2009, Professor Fergusson concluded that his research clearly suggested that an unwanted pregnancy leading to an abortion was likely to be a risk factor for subsequent mental health problems whereas an unwanted pregnancy leading to birth was not a risk factor for these problems. He concluded that we should be careful in that regard. Pivotal to the deliberations of the expert group is how the series of options may be ultimately shaped. Therefore, how the people were selected and whom they represent are important components of what the outcome might be. The abortion industry has resources, influence and long tentacles. Planned Parenthood in the United States, for example, had 330,000 abortions in 2010 and facilitated only 841 adoptions. This is a value of life issue. Let us not diminish society’s respect for the inherent value of every human life.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am taking this Adjournment matter on behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Health, Deputy James Reilly. As Senator Walsh might be aware, on 29 November 2011, the Government approved the establishment of an expert group to recommend a series of options on how to implement the A, B and C v. Ireland judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. The establishment of this expert group reflected a commitment contained in the programme for Government. In terms of its composition, it was agreed that, to fulfil its remit, the group would require experts representing the fields of obstetrics, general practice, psychiatry, law, public policy and professional regulation. The Minister for Health and I have every confidence in the members who have been appointed to the group. In addition, it could consult with interested parties and additional relevant experts and professionals in order to aid its deliberations. The group is due to report back to Government within six months from its establishment. As the Senator has already indicated, proposed nominations were sought from medical training bodies and the professional regulatory bodies, that is, the Medical Council and An Bord Altranais. The Office of the Attorney General was also of assistance in recommending nominations to deal with the legal aspects of the judgment. When the Minister for Health received all of this information, he considered it in consultation with the Taoiseach and Tánaiste and made his final decision as to the membership of the expert group. By way of background, in December 2009, the European Court of Human Rights heard an application by three women that it is a breach of their rights under the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights for the Irish State not to provide abortion in circumstances where a woman wishes to undergo an abortion, the A, B and C cases. The judgment of the court confirmed that Article 40.3.3° of the Constitution is in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights. 540 Job 14 February 2012. Losses

However, in the case of the third applicant, Ms C, the court found that Ireland had failed to respect the applicant’s private life contrary to Article 8 of the convention. This was because there was no accessible and effective procedure to enable her to establish whether she qualified for a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with Irish law. The court ruled that “no criteria or procedures have been... laid down in Irish law... by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty...” and held that further legal clarity was required. Following the judgment, the Government submitted an action plan to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 16 June 2011 as required by the European Court of Human Rights. The action plan contained a commitment to establish an expert group, drawing on appropriate medical and legal expertise with a view to making recommendations on how this matter should be properly addressed. The Senator may wish to note that officials in the Department of Health are in the process of compiling a list of biographies of all the members of the expert group. The Minister for Health will be happy to send this document to the Senator once it has been finalised. I am also pleased to inform the Senator that the first meeting of the expert group took place on 30 January 2012 and I wish it well in its deliberations.

Senator Jim Walsh: I thank the Minister for his response, which is comprehensive. I welcome the fact that the biographies will be published. Could those biographies include any prior comments on this sensitive topic, if there are any on the record, which would display the disposition of members of the expert group regarding their being pro-abortion?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Please reply briefly, Minister. Senator, I remind you that this is not the Minister’s brief.

Senator Jim Walsh: I accept that.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am sure the biographies will speak for themselves. I am also sure the Senator will be well able to Google, or otherwise find, the necessary information regarding comments made by people who have very strong views on both sides of this issue.

Job Losses Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Minister is very welcome on this St. Valentine’s night. It is really good of him to be here replacing the Minister for Social Protection.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am delighted to be here on this very important night.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Great. I wish to ask the Minister for Social Protection the background to the decision to lay off 20 people from Rehab Recycle in Galway, which is part of Rehab Enterprises, in view of the fact that the majority of the people who have been made redundant have special needs. They have intellectual and physical disabilities. I would also like the Minister to elaborate on future Government subsidised work placements for people with intellectual disabilities. This is the first example, in the current recession, of people with intellectual disabilities being laid off. That is what makes this case unique. Rehab Recyle, in Parkmore, Galway, is part of Rehab Enterprises, and currently has a total workforce of 45. Of these, 33 are classed as general operatives and 80% of these people are classed as having special needs. This week, between 17 and 20 of the employees received 541 Job 14 February 2012. Losses

[Senator Fidelma Healy Eames.] redundancy notification and of these, between 14 and 17 are special needs employees. Many of the employees being made redundant have worked for the Rehab company in Parkmore since its start-up in 1995, 17 years ago. Only three of those known to have been made redundant do not have special needs. These redundancies will have a devastating effect on the employees themselves but, most importantly, on their families. I have already met three of these families. Their concern is what they will do with these adults, young and middle-aged, at home. These special needs employees depend on their jobs to allow them to integrate fully into society and to feel a sense of worth and identity. Without employment they will be left in a vulnerable position with a loss of dignity, sense of identity and self worth, leading, in some cases, to a rapid deterioration in their mental and physical health. That cannot be underestimated. It is difficult to understand this decision. It makes very little economic sense because the majority of the employees’ pay is subsidised by the Government. The very name Rehab Recycle suggests employment for people with special needs, yet the criteria Rehab has put forward for selection for redundancy include words such as, “lack of flexibility, innovation, dexterity, motivation and experience”, words that would never be applied to people with special needs. They would not have those capacities. The criteria do not include length of service or loyalty, which these employees have demonstrated during their years of service with the company. When I met one of the families, whose brother received redundancy notification this week, they asked me to describe the man to the Seanad. I will call him “Terry”. He is 50 years of age and has been employed as a general operative by Rehab Recycle since it started in 1995. Last week, he received notification that he was one of the employees at risk and this week, following a meeting with management, he was notified that he was one of the people being made redundant. He works three days a week and lives an independent life in a house that is partly supervised. He has been in this routine for the past 25 years. He is very happy and he is no burden on society. The family feel that when Terry loses his job, there will be a rapid deterioration of his mental and physical health. They also have very real fears that there appears to be no solid structure in place once he is made redundant. What structures are in place for these people? They feel that those most vulnerable in society are being neglected and that this issue needs 9o’clock to be highlighted and given top priority. In the current environment, the chances these people have to avail of other work opportunities are diminished. Even in the boom times, people with disabilities were the least likely to be employed, so in the midst of a recession, they are really undermined. The opportunities afforded to people with disabilities by Rehab placement have been invalu- able. Being able to play an active role in the community is something that most of us take for granted. We should promote the active involvement of people with intellectual, physical and mental disabilities and I urge the Minister for Social Protection to do all she can to intervene and to ensure that this situation does not go from bad to worse. There appears to be little or no support structure in place to help these vulnerable people now or in future. For those wishing to move on to new employment, Rehab has promised that a full labour market service tailored to their individual needs will be put in place to assist them to secure alternative employment, either within companies of the Rehab Group or otherwise. However, it is the view of the families that this is just a PR gesture and they do not believe that it is true, even though I clarified it for them. I understand that this transition will help 542 Job 14 February 2012. Losses them for up to six months under the National Learning Network. After this the employees will be left to fend for themselves. I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions in conclusion.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Tá an t-am istigh.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: What supports are being put in place? What is the role of SIPTU in this case? I understand SIPTU were slow to come in. This has been a real shame. These are people with disabilities and some of them had membership in SIPTU. Is their redundancy tax free? Will their jobs be offered back to them in a better climate? If they take redundancy, which they have done in some cases, will that prevent them from taking other jobs? I am talking about people with special needs.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I must apologise for the fact that the Minister is not in a position to attend. I am here to reply on her behalf. The Department of Social Protection has recently taken over full responsibility for the wage subsidy scheme as the previous FÁS employment services division joined the Department of Social Protection on 1 January 2012. This scheme plays a valued role in supporting employers to provide job opportunities in the open labour market for people with disabilities, and demonstrates the Department’s commitment to increasing the employment of people with disabilities in a more mainstreamed work environment. The wage subsidy scheme is available to employers who provide more than 21 hours of employment per week to disabled workers. The financial supports for employers are structured under three separate strands and companies could benefit under one or more of the stands simultaneously, as appropriate. Strand 1 is a general subsidy paid to an employer in respect of a disabled person who has a productivity shortfall in excess of 20%, in comparison to an able-bodied peer. The rate of subsidy is €5.30 per hour and is based on the number of hours worked, giving a potential annual subsidy of €10,748 per annum based on a 39 hour week. Strand 2 is intended to cover additional supervisory, management and other work based costs that may arise when employing two or more eligible people with disabilities. Strand 2 is a percentage top-up of the wage subsidy and is based on the overall number of disabled employees employed under Strand 1. For example, three to six disabled employees get a 10% top-up of wage subsidy paid, seven to 11 employees get 20%, 12 to 16 get 30%, 17 to 22 get 40% and 23 employees and more get 50%. Strand 3 is an additional grant for employers who employ 30 or more disabled workers with the support of the wage subsidy scheme. This element is a contribution towards the employment and expenses of an employment assistance officer, who is employed in a supportive role to assist the employees with a disability. The focus of the EAO’s work concentrates on the personal, social, health or family circumstances of disabled workers which might inhibit them from remaining in employment. The grant for this strand is €30,000 per annum. The Rehab recycling group in Galway has 34 employees for whom it receives a strand 1 wage subsidy of €5.30 per hour, subject to a maximum of €10,748 per annum in respect of each employee. The company also receives the maximum 50% top-up subsidy under strand 2. Nationally, the Rehab Group employs 192 people with disabilities, for whom it receives WSS funding. It is the only employer currently eligible to receive a strand 3 subsidy. This hourly 543 The 14 February 2012. Adjournment

[Deputy Phil Hogan.] subsidy rate of €5.30 per hour was originally index linked to the minimum wage. However, the hourly rate was not altered when the minimum wage was last reduced. I would also like to stress that the wage subsidy scheme continues to be available as an incentive for employers who provide jobs for people with disabilities. I take on board what the Senator said in respect of redundancy and other issues, and I will ask the Minister for Social Protection to reply directly to her on that matter.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I thank the Minister for taking the Adjournment, given that it is not within his brief, but I have a raised a number of questions that are not answered in this reply.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister has said that the Minister responsible will respond. There is no point in hammering him on this issue.

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I would never hammer the Minister. He is too big. I thank him, because it is late. I would appreciate if he would relay the other questions I raised to the Minister for Social Protection.

The Seanad adjourned at 9.10 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 February 2012.

544