dail2013-06-20a.xml

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!DOCTYPE publicwhip
[
<!ENTITY aacute "&#225;" >
<!ENTITY eacute "&#233;" >
<!ENTITY iacute "&#237;" >
<!ENTITY oacute "&#243;" >
<!ENTITY uacute "&#250;" >

<!ENTITY Aacute "&#193;" >
<!ENTITY Eacute "&#201;" >
<!ENTITY Iacute "&#205;" >
<!ENTITY Oacute "&#211;" >
<!ENTITY Uacute "&#218;" >

<!ENTITY ndash   "&#8211;">
<!ENTITY mdash   "&#8212;">
<!ENTITY iexcl   "&#161;">
<!ENTITY divide  "&#247;">
<!ENTITY euro    "&#8364;">
<!ENTITY trade   "&#8482;">
<!ENTITY bull    "&#8226;">
<!ENTITY lsquo   "&#8216;">
<!ENTITY rsquo   "&#8217;">
<!ENTITY sbquo   "&#8218;">
<!ENTITY ldquo   "&#8220;">
<!ENTITY rdquo   "&#8221;">
<!ENTITY bdquo   "&#8222;">
<!ENTITY dagger  "&#8224;">

<!ENTITY Scaron "&#352;" >
<!ENTITY scaron "&#353;" >
<!ENTITY Ouml   "&#214;" >
<!ENTITY szlig  "&#223;" >
<!ENTITY agrave "&#224;" >
<!ENTITY acirc  "&#226;" >
<!ENTITY atilde "&#227;" >
<!ENTITY auml   "&#228;" >
<!ENTITY ccedil "&#231;" >
<!ENTITY egrave "&#232;" >
<!ENTITY ecirc  "&#234;" >
<!ENTITY euml   "&#235;" >
<!ENTITY icirc  "&#238;" >
<!ENTITY iuml	"&#239;" >
<!ENTITY ntilde "&#241;" >
<!ENTITY nbsp   "&#160;" >
<!ENTITY ocirc  "&#244;" >
<!ENTITY ouml   "&#246;" >
<!ENTITY oslash "&#248;" >
<!ENTITY uuml   "&#252;" >
<!ENTITY thorn  "&#254;" >

<!ENTITY pound  "&#163;" >
<!ENTITY sect   "&#167;" >
<!ENTITY copy   "&#169;" >
<!ENTITY reg    "&#174;" >
<!ENTITY deg    "&#176;" >
<!ENTITY plusmn "&#177;" >
<!ENTITY sup2   "&#178;" >
<!ENTITY sup3   "&#179;" >
<!ENTITY micro  "&#181;" >
<!ENTITY para   "&#182;" >
<!ENTITY middot "&#183;" >
<!ENTITY ordm   "&#186;" >
<!ENTITY frac14 "&#188;" >
<!ENTITY frac12 "&#189;" >
<!ENTITY frac34 "&#190;" >
<!ENTITY oelig "&#339;" >
<!ENTITY aelig  "&#230;" >
]>


<publicwhip scrapeversion="a" latest="yes">
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.1" nospeaker="true" time="10:30:00" url="">Prelude</minor-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.2" nospeaker="true" time="10:30:00" ><p>Chuaigh an Leas-Cheann Comhairle i gceannas ar 10:30 a.m.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.3" nospeaker="true" time="10:30:00" ><p>Prayer.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.4" nospeaker="true" time="10:30:00" ><p>Paidir.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.5" nospeaker="true" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00100">Leaders' Questions</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.6" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00200"><p>Yesterday, the truth of the Government's cut to students with special needs became clear when the National Council for Special Education announced that the 42,500 special needs students will have their allocation of resulting hours cut by 12% at the start of the new school term.  This means that children with autism, severe emotional disturbance, severe learning disabilities and assessed syndromes will have their special teaching hours cut by half an hour per week from four and a quarter hours to three and three-quarter hours, starting from next September.  This will be more than an hour and a quarter less per week than the same student received in 2011 and constitutes an overall reduction of 25%.  Similarly, students availing of special needs assistants will have their allocations cut by 10% from next September, with many losing their allocation to a designated special needs assistant.</p><p>  On foot of increasing student enrolments in schools, 42,500 students will require resource teaching hours this September, which is an increase from the equivalent figure of 38,500 students last year.  Similarly, 22,000 students in schools will require special needs assistants, which is an increase from the figure of 20,000 students last year.  This increased student enrolment is being recognised by the Government for mainstream students who do not have a special educational need through the hiring of 450 additional mainstream teachers at primary level and 450 additional mainstream teachers at second level in order to maintain standard pupil-teacher ratios.  Why are students with special educational needs not being treated in the same way by hiring the additional numbers of resource teachers and special needs assistants that are necessary to ensure they are not obliged to endure cuts?  Why is the Government targeting its drive for savings in education on the most vulnerable students in the education system?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.7" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00300"><p>Hear, hear.  It is also a breach of the programme for Government.  It is disgraceful.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.8" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00400"><p>First, neither the financial allocation for special education needs nor the personnel allocation for special education needs is being reduced.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.9" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00500"><p>It was not increased.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.10" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00600"><p>The financial allocation for special education needs in 2011 was &euro;1.3 billion and the allocation in 2013 is &euro;1.3 billion.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.11" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00700"><p>The T&aacute;naiste is obsessed with figures.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.12" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00800"><p>The number of resource teachers currently is 9,950 and that has not been reduced.  The number of special needs assistants is 10,575 and that is not being reduced.  If one considers the totality of the education system, at present there are approximately 59,000 teachers working therein, 32,000 of them at primary level and 27,000 at post-primary level.  Of those teachers, 9,950 are resource teachers or learning support teachers.  In addition, there are 695 teachers in special classes and 1,078 teachers in special schools.  In other words, there are in total 11,700 teachers whose sole function is to support children with special educational needs.  In addition, there are 10,575 special needs assistants or in other words, for every five mainstream teachers in the system, there are two people, between special resource teachers, learning support teachers and special needs assistants, who are specifically dedicated to working with children with special needs.</p><p>  What has been happening is the numbers presenting for special needs assistants and for resource teachers have been increasing.  For example, last year the increase was approximately 10%.  As for what the Minister for Education and Skills is doing in this regard, the National Council for Special Education has in the first instance published highly detailed policy advice as to how the resources should be allocated.  This is the first time that the allocation system has been considered in detail for approximately 20 years.  Schools are being encouraged by the National Council for Special Education to consider the way in which the resources are being used and, for example, to use team teaching where that is possible, to ensure that individual children do not see any actual reduction in the resource hours provided.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.13" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A00900"><p>Green jerseys and team teaching.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.14" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01000"><p>In addition, the Minister has asked the National Council for Special Education to establish a working group to begin immediately to develop a proposal for a revised allocation mechanism for learning support and resource teachers.  The aim of this new mechanism will be to ensure that learning support and resource teachers are targeted at those schools and children who need them most.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.15" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01100"><p>A disgraceful answer.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.16" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01200"><p>There is one minute for a supplementary question from Deputy McConalogue.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.17" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1071" speakername="Dara Calleary" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01300"><p>Team teaching.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.18" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01400"><p>Silence please.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.19" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01500"><p>I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.20" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01600"><p>That is a 10% cut.  He lied to the D&aacute;il.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.21" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01700"><p>Order.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.22" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1048" speakername="Arthur Spring" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01800"><p>Withdraw that.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.23" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A01900"><p>Withdraw that remark.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.24" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02000"><p>He misled the D&aacute;il.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.25" nospeaker="true" time="10:30:00" ><p>(Interruptions).</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.26" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02200"><p>Sorry, Deputy McGrath-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.27" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02300"><p>It is a 10% cut to children with special needs-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.28" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02400"><p>A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.29" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02500"><p>----- with an additional 4,900 such children entering the system in September-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.30" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02600"><p>No Deputy, this is Leaders' Questions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.31" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02700"><p>----- and the T&aacute;naiste is misleading the House and is giving out misinformation.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.32" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02800"><p>Deputy-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.33" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A02900"><p>On a point of order, the Deputy said the T&aacute;naiste has lied.  He has accused him of lying.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.34" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03000"><p>Deputy Durkan should stop.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.35" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03100"><p>They are attacking the most vulnerable people in society.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.36" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03200"><p>The Deputy should withdraw that remark.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.37" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03300"><p>I call Deputy McConalogue.  The Deputy should resume his seat.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.38" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03400"><p>The Deputy used-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.39" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03500"><p>A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this is a very serious-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.40" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03600"><p>A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I make my point?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.41" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03700"><p>This is Leaders' Questions and there are no interruptions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.42" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03800"><p>A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, this is a very serious issue.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.43" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A03900"><p>I am sorry but in the course of that, the Deputy accused the Minister of lying.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.44" speakerid="unknown" error="nomatch" speakername="A Deputy" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04000"><p>Deputy Durkan should cheer up.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.45" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/983" speakername="Billy Kelleher" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04100"><p>Get out the white coat.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.46" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04200"><p>The Minister was accused of lying.  Is the Leas-Cheann Comhairle going to deal with that?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.47" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04300"><p>This is Leaders' Questions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.48" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04400"><p>Can the Leas-Cheann Comhairle deal with the accusation of lying?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.49" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04500"><p>I will deal with that later.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.50" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04600"><p>Okay.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.51" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04700"><p>This is a very serious issue.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.52" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/983" speakername="Billy Kelleher" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04800"><p>Get out the straitjacket.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.53" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/959" speakername="Pearse Doherty" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A04900"><p>Is Deputy Durkan as concerned about children with special needs?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.54" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:30:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000003#A05000"><p>This is a serious issue that requires the attention of every Deputy in this House.</p><p>Unfortunately, the T&aacute;naiste's response shows that he does not have a clue as to the impact this will have on special needs students from September.  Nowhere in his response has he acknowledged that this will lead to a reduction of half an hour for almost every student in receipt of special teaching hours starting in the new D&aacute;il term.  If we were to apply the T&aacute;naiste's logic to pensioners, for example, and say that because there are now more pensioners but the budget will remain the same, every pensioner would have to take a 12% cut from September, nobody would agree that that was not anything but a cut.</p><p> Regarding mainstream students, the T&aacute;naiste's Government is increasing the number of teachers in the system this September to ensure there are no cuts in standard pupil-teacher ratios.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.56" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/961" speakername="Emmet Stagg" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00200"><p>Is the Deputy opposed to that?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.57" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00300"><p>No.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.58" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00400"><p>Why will he not apply the same logic and give the same fair treatment-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.59" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1096" speakername="John Browne" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00500"><p>This is more cuts for people with disabilities.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.60" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00600"><p>-----to students who have special educational needs?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.61" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/961" speakername="Emmet Stagg" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00700"><p>Any chance of a question?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.62" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00800"><p>It defies logic-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.63" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B00900"><p>Any chance of an answer?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.64" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/982" speakername="Kathleen Lynch" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01000"><p>He cannot answer a question if it has not been asked.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.65" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01100"><p>The Deputy is over time.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.66" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01200"><p>-----and it is entirely indefensible.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.67" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01300"><p>A question please, Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.68" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01400"><p>In the past the Minister, Deputy Quinn, who is sitting beside the T&aacute;naiste, admitted to mistakes and corrected them.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.69" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/961" speakername="Emmet Stagg" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01500"><p>Is the minute up?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.70" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01600"><p>When he targeted disadvantaged schools in a previous budget he admitted that he did not understand the impact of the cut.  He apologised and subsequently reversed it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.71" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01700"><p>The Deputy is over time.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.72" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/961" speakername="Emmet Stagg" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01800"><p>A Second Stage speech.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.73" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B01900"><p>I am about to conclude.  Regarding student grants, he apologised to students for the mistakes that had been made.  I am asking the T&aacute;naiste to admit that this is an indefensible mistake.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.74" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02000"><p>Thank you, Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.75" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/998" speakername="P&aacute;draig MacLochlainn" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02100"><p>He should not try to defend it.  I ask that he give a commitment to the House this morning that he will sit down with his Cabinet colleagues, and particularly with the Minister, Deputy Quinn, reconsider this measure and ensure that from September no special needs child is targeted as part of his drive to achieve savings in the education budget.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.76" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02200"><p>Even in these very difficult financial circumstances this Government committed to ring-fencing the finance available for special educational needs, and we have done that.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.77" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1096" speakername="John Browne" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02300"><p>You are cutting-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.78" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02400"><p>Order.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.79" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02500"><p>No.  Please do not abuse language.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.80" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02600"><p>The T&aacute;naiste is abusing the electorate.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.81" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02700"><p>The money that is available-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.82" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02800"><p>Please have respect for the person in possession.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.83" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B02900"><p>-----for special educational needs in 2013 is &euro;1.3 billion.  That is 60% more than was available or allocated in 2007 at the height of the boom.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.84" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03000"><p>It is 10% less than last year.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.85" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03100"><p>The numbers of special needs assistants and the numbers of resource teachers have not been reduced.  The National Council-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.86" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03200"><p>Every child is being cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.87" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03300"><p>Please, Deputy McConalogue.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.88" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03400"><p>The Deputy needs to listen to the reply.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.89" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03500"><p>It is waffle and rubbish.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.90" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03600"><p>Please Deputies.  The T&aacute;naiste has the floor.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.91" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03700"><p>The National Council for Special Education, whose job it is to examine the way in which those resources are allocated, has come forward with a policy proposal.  It is the first time in 20 years that the way in which the resource is allocated has been examined.  It has come forward with a policy advice as to the way the resource is used.  Among that, for example, is the idea of team teaching and better use of the resource.  The Minister for Education and Skills has established a group to examine the allocation of the resource so the money that is available and the number of resource teachers, special needs assistants and special teachers available are deployed to meet the needs of those who need them most.  As I said, the Government's commitment to special educational needs cannot be doubted.  For every five teachers-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.92" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03800"><p>A cut of 10% is being imposed on every child.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.93" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B03900"><p>-----in the entire first level and second level education system there are two people, between resource teachers and special needs assistants, who are dedicated to assisting and working with children with special needs.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.94" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04000"><p>The T&aacute;naiste is dismantling that now.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.95" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04100"><p>The issue now is to make sure that allocation and that resource, which is very considerable-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.96" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04200"><p>Smart teaching.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.97" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04300"><p>-----is used to best advantage.  That is why the Minister for Education and Skills has asked the National Council for Special Education to apply itself to the allocation of that resource.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.98" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04400"><p>Shameful.  The T&aacute;naiste is not addressing the impact of the cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.99" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04500"><p>The money has not been cut.  The number of special teachers has not been cut.  The number of special needs assistants has not been cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.100" nospeaker="true" time="10:40:00" ><p>(Interruptions).</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.101" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04700"><p>Order please.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.102" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1096" speakername="John Browne" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04800"><p>The T&aacute;naiste never mentioned the children once.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.103" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/998" speakername="P&aacute;draig MacLochlainn" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B04900"><p>In the foyer of these Houses we proudly display the 1916 Proclamation.  The T&aacute;naiste will know well one of the main lines in that Proclamation, namely, cherishing all of the children of the nation equally.  The decision yesterday announced by the National Council for Special Education, NCSE, and the Minister, Deputy Quinn - he was nowhere to be seen yesterday; it is welcome that he is here today - flies in the face of that pledge.  The latest cuts of 25% in real terms since 2011 are shameful.  I cannot understand that because every parliamentarian in these Houses has interacted with parents, families and carers of people with disabilities.  How can we continue to stand over cuts such as these?  These are cuts to children with autism, speech and language difficulties, multiple disabilities, severe emotional disturbance and visual or hearing impairments.  Why are children such as these and vulnerable people paying the price of austerity?  People watching these debates know that the very wealthy got bailed out, and they take the hit.  How can the T&aacute;naiste possibly stand over this type of decision?  Members of this House come from different political backgrounds but, fundamentally, we are decent people.  We listen to people who are carers and those who are struggling.  I appeal to the Minster to reverse this decision.  He should not present it in some Orwellian fashion that the budget is the same as it was last year.  He knows that the number of students has increased.  More money needs to be allocated to this area.  I appeal to the T&aacute;naiste to do the right thing and have this decision reversed.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.104" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05000"><p>The exaggeration continues.  It is now a 25% cut, according to Deputy Mac Lochlainn.  We should get the facts right.  First, there is no cut in the allocation-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.105" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05100"><p>That is what it is.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.106" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05200"><p>-----of money for special educational needs.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.107" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1096" speakername="John Browne" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05300"><p>The numbers have increased, which makes it a cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.108" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05400"><p>The Government has ring-fenced the funding available for special educational needs, and for very good reason because it is committed to providing for the needs of children with special needs.</p><p>  Second, the number of teachers dedicated to working with children who have special educational needs has not been cut.  The number of special needs assistants dedicated to working with children with special educational needs has not been cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.109" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1071" speakername="Dara Calleary" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05500"><p>The hours have been cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.110" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05600"><p>Those numbers are being protected.  The issue is that the number of children presenting in schools for special educational needs resources is increasing.  That is why the Minister for Education and Skills has asked the National Council for Special Education to examine the way in which this resource is allocated so that it is used to best effect.  For 20 years nobody looked at the allocation.  That is why he asked that it be looked at to ensure that the considerable amount of money being dedicated to special educational needs, and the considerable number of personnel in the education system dedicated to special educational needs, are going to where they are most needed and that they are used in the best possible way within the schools.  I believe that is reasonable.  It is reasonable that after 20 years, during which time this was not looked at, the Minister would get the National Council for Special Education to examine the way this resource is used within our schools and to develop a way in which the dedicated money and personnel for special educational needs, which is considerable, are used to the best advantage of the children who need them.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.111" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/998" speakername="P&aacute;draig MacLochlainn" time="10:40:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000004#B05700"><p>The T&aacute;naiste has got to reflect on this issue.  This is Orwellian stuff.  All of us got e-mails last night from teachers and principals across the State describing clearly the real impact on the children involved in their schools.</p><p>This is defending the indefensible.  I will read from the Labour Party manifesto for the last election.  It states, "Labour will support schools, parents and children with special educational needs by ensuring that necessary supports follow a child from primary to second level and achieving greater integration of special needs-related services."  The Labour Party was spot on when it said that and it should honour that.</p><p> I was on a panel sponsored by the Disability Federation of Ireland last year and it put out a pledge called &quot;a threshold of decency&quot; for every political party to subscribe to, stating there would be no more cuts to disability services.  What citizen would support the cutting of services to children with disabilities, their parents or carers?  That was the pledge and this Government has not accepted it.</p><p> The T&aacute;naiste should stop the Orwellian language and the nonsense.  Let us be realistic, the fact is that children going to school in September will have to cope will less support for those pupils with disabilities.</p><p> There was a presentation recently by parents of children with Down's syndrome.  In Donegal Deputies from all parties recently met parents who told them what it means to be the parent of a disabled child and what those resources and supports mean to them.  I am appealing to decency here because I think we are decent people in these Houses.  Let us reverse this decision.  Do not hide behind the NCSE but do the right thing and reverse the decision.  Please do not get up again and try to defend the indefensible.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.113" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00200"><p>It is not the indefensible.  As I have said, for every five teachers in our education system-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.114" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1071" speakername="Dara Calleary" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00300"><p>The Government is taking three of them away.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.115" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00400"><p>-----across first and second level education, there are two people in addition to those teachers who are specifically dedicated to providing supports to children who have special educational needs.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.116" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00500"><p>To a certain number of children.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.117" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/976" speakername="Timmy Dooley" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00600"><p>The T&aacute;naiste was elected to protect that.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.118" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00700"><p>It is a sizeable commitment by an standard.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.119" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00800"><p>The number of children increases but there has been no increase in resources.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.120" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C00900"><p>That number has been protected by this Government, there has been no reduction in that number.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.121" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01000"><p>Get real.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.122" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/976" speakername="Timmy Dooley" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01100"><p>That is a cut in real terms.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.123" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/959" speakername="Pearse Doherty" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01200"><p>What about the child?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.124" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01300"><p>There has been no cut in the money that is being provided for special educational needs.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.125" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/976" speakername="Timmy Dooley" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01400"><p>Demand has increased, which makes that a reduction in real terms.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.126" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01500"><p>It makes sense that we look at the way in which that resource is being used.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.127" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1028" speakername="Aengus &Oacute; Snodaigh" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01600"><p>The Minister for disinformation.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.128" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01700"><p>For 20 years, that was not done.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.129" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/976" speakername="Timmy Dooley" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01800"><p>Every little cut hurts.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.130" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C01900"><p>The National Council for Special Education has looked at the way that resource is being used and has come forward with ideas and proposals and the Minister for Education and Skills is working with it in that regard to ensure the resources, which have not been reduced, and the number of people working in this area, which has not been reduced, are working to the best advantage of the people who need them.  That is what makes sense.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.131" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1028" speakername="Aengus &Oacute; Snodaigh" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02000"><p>The sad thing is the T&aacute;naiste believes this.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.132" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/959" speakername="Pearse Doherty" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02100"><p>The T&aacute;naiste is embarrassing himself, he should sit down.  It is disgraceful, this is complete waffle.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.133" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1030" speakername="Eric Byrne" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02200"><p>When have you lads ever had a conscious for Christ sake?  You murdered 3,000 people.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.134" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02300"><p>Two things.  The money for special educational needs has not been reduced and the numbers of people, including resource teachers and special needs assistants, have not been reduced.  The Government is determined that the money and resources being provided for special educational needs, which are considerable, are used for the best advantage of the children who need them and that is why the National Council for Special Education has been asked to examine the best possible use of the money and the people who are dedicated to providing support to children with special educational needs.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.135" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02400"><p>Last November, undercover investigators revealed the Irish Family Planning Association clinics, and other clinics that are overseen and funded by the HSE's crisis pregnancy programme, were involved in actively encouraging women in crisis pregnancies to mislead and lie to their doctors about their abortions if complications were to arise after the abortion procedure.  The advice was described at the time as reckless and dangerous.  Professor Sam Coulter Smith said when the investigation became public that he was aware of cases where women had died because they did not tell their doctors they had an abortion.  It is disturbing that such poor advice would be given to Irish women in crisis pregnancies at a time when they are vulnerable and need appropriate advice more than ever.</p><p>  The finding was just one of a number of disturbing findings revealed in the investigation.  It also found the Irish Family Planning Association in particular was in breach of several provisions of the Abortion Information Act 1995.  It appears this legislation was being breached on a wide scale.  This reflected a high level of contempt for their health and well being, not to mention the law of the land.</p><p>  Following on from this investigation, a so-called &quot;independent inquiry&quot; was established by the HSE and announced by Mr. Tony O'Brien, head of the HSE and former head of the Irish Family Planning Association.  The inquiry was to be chaired by Ms Brigid McManus, a former Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science.  Following a parliamentary question from Deputy Terence Flanagan, however, the answer gave the impression the investigation and inquiry has been downgraded to an audit, something entirely different.  The inquiry was established in November 2012 and seven months later no significant progress has been made.  We have been told the report will be finalised in the next seven to eight weeks.  Can the T&aacute;naiste explain the delay in the investigation, given the seriousness of the wrongdoing and the endangering of women's health the undercover investigation revealed?  Can he explain why the investigation has been downgraded to an audit?  Were the people giving this dangerous information suspended?  They should have been suspended, or at that very least, some action should have been taken.  Was any part of the &euro;3 million in HSE funding to the offending agencies withdrawn or withheld?  If not, why not?  Why is the IFPA, a State-funded agency, which has given out life endangering and inaccurate information to vulnerable women and girls in crisis pregnancies, still receiving money when other HSE and other programmes are being targeted?  Will the T&aacute;naiste tell us the exact status of the investigation into State-funded crisis pregnancy counselling services?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.136" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02500"><p>The Deputy is asking me to give information on an investigation that is still underway.  I cannot possibly do that and neither should he prejudice the outcome of any inquiry or investigation that is taking place.  We clearly must await the outcome of the investigation.  I remind the Deputy that there is legislative provision for the provision of information to women in crisis pregnancies that is in line with the constitutional position and the referendum held on the issue some time ago.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.137" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="10:50:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000005#C02600"><p>I am not trying to prejudice any investigation, I am trying to deal with the situation where we were promised an investigation and we were told who would head that investigation.  In reply to a parliamentary question this week, however, we have been told it is an audit.  What hope can any of us have about the sincerity of this Government's claims when it speaks about championing women's health when it has done nothing to address the situation I have outlined today? We have had false promises and misleading information.</p><p>  We must stop fooling ourselves if we think we are having a real debate about protecting women's lives and health at the moment.  A Bill is being introduced today and the Government should stop fooling itself because it is not fooling me or a large majority of the public.  Why has the Minister for Health not made a statement on this?  The Minister was quick to make statements on the abuses within other State-funded health services, such as nursing homes.  Why the silence on this topic at this time, when the Government claims it wants to do its best for women and protect their lives and health?  The silence from the HSE since the initial expos&eacute; in the <i>Irish Independent</i> of wrongdoing highlights the point I am making.  I compliment those who carried out this undercover investigation and Mr. Jim O'Doherty.</p><p> We cannot be selective in our concern for women.  The Irish public is becoming ever more aware of what is going on and in the interests of democracy the colossal double standards which seem to be underpinning the debate must stop.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.139" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1075" speakername="Regina Doherty" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00200"><p>Is there a point?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.140" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00300"><p>Women and girls in pregnancy deserve better from the Government.  I did not get the answer to the question I have asked.  Where is the inquiry?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.141" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1099" speakername="Marcella Corcoran Kennedy" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00400"><p>What did Deputy Mattie McGrath do when he had the chance?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.142" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00500"><p>Where is the inquiry?  Where is it at?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.143" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1061" speakername="Jan O'Sullivan" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00600"><p>What is Deputy Mattie McGrath trying to imply?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.144" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00700"><p>It is now an audit.  Why was Mr. Tony O'Brien appointed CEO-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.145" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1061" speakername="Jan O'Sullivan" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00800"><p>That is outrageous.  He is trying to blacken him.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.146" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D00900"><p>-----when he was involved in this agency previously?  The T&aacute;naiste might answer those questions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.147" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01000"><p>I call the T&aacute;naiste, on a final reply on this.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.148" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01100"><p>All I can say is that the Crisis Pregnancy Agency is doing a good job providing support to women in crisis pregnancies.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.149" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01200"><p>The T&aacute;naiste is satisfied.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.150" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01300"><p>The D&aacute;il question that the Deputy refers to was replied to by the Minister for Health.  If there are other issues arising from that question, I am sure that further questions can be tabled to the Minister on it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.151" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01400"><p>Why the delay?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.152" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01500"><p>There is not a delay.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.153" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01600"><p>Seven months.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.154" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1061" speakername="Jan O'Sullivan" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01700"><p>Nine months.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.155" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01800"><p>There is not, and Deputy Mattie McGrath well knows that.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.156" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D01900"><p>Of course, there is.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.157" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02000"><p>There is information, support and advice that is provided to women in crisis pregnancies, as should be the case.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.158" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02100"><p>Of course.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.159" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02200"><p>There is a crisis pregnancy agency which has responsibility for the provision of advice-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.160" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02300"><p>Proper advice.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.161" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02400"><p>-----and information to women in crisis pregnancies.  It works within the aegis of the Department of Health and it is doing a fine job.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.162" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02500"><p>In this case, not.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.163" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02600"><p>It is not fair for Deputy Mattie McGrath to impugn, either those who are working in the agency-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.164" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02700"><p>I am not impugning anyone; they impugn themselves.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.165" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02800"><p>-----or in any other agency by prejudging the outcome of any investigation, audit, inquiry or whatever one might want to call it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.166" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D02900"><p>I only want to see the facts.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.167" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03000"><p>Deputy Mattie McGrath should at least await the outcome of that before making the kind of allegations or insinuations that he is making in the course of his question here this morning.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.168" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03100"><p>That concludes Leaders' Questions.  I regret cannot allow Deputy Finian McGrath the use of the word &quot;lie&quot;, otherwise it would be impossible to have a dignified or orderly debate.  I ask him to withdraw the word &quot;lie&quot;.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.169" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03200"><p>I withdraw that word.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.170" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03300"><p>I thank the Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.171" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03400"><p>Hear, hear.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.172" nospeaker="true" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03450">Order of Business</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.173" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03500"><p>It is proposed to take No. a4, Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage, to adjourn after opening speeches; No. 19, Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad &Eacute;ireann) Bill 2013 - Second and Remaining Stages (Resumed), to adjourn at 5.45 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded; No. 12a, motion re Statement for Information of Voters in relation to the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad &Eacute;ireann) Bill 2013, to be taken on the conclusion of No. 19; and No. 20, Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012 - Second Stage (Resumed).</p><p>  It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: the D&aacute;il shall sit later than 5.45 p.m. tonight and shall adjourn on the conclusion of Topical Issues; in the event No. 19 concludes, No. 12<i>a</i> shall be taken immediately upon the conclusion and shall be decided without debate; the resumed Second Stage of No. 20 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after one hour; Oral Questions shall be taken for 75 minutes at 5.45 p.m. today or on the conclusion of No. 20, whichever is the earlier; Topical Issues shall be taken on the conclusion of Oral Questions or of No. 20, whichever is the later; the D&aacute;il shall meet on Tuesday, 25 June 2013 at 11 a.m. and the business to be transacted from 11 a.m. until 1.45 p.m. shall be as follows: European Union (Accession of the Republic of Croatia) (Access to the Labour Market) Bill 2013 [Seanad] - Second and Remaining Stages; Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1 p.m.; the opening speeches of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokespersons for Fianna F&aacute;il, Sinn F&eacute;in and the Technical Group, who shall be called upon in that order, shall not exceed 20 minutes in each case and such Members may share their time; the speech of each other Member called upon, who may share his or her time, shall not exceed ten minutes; a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed five minutes, Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 1.45 p.m. by one question which shall be put from the Chair, and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only those set down or accepted by the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation; whereupon the sitting shall be suspended until 2 p.m., whereupon the normal order of the day shall commence with Oral Questions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.174" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03600"><p>There are six proposals to be put to the House.  Is the proposal that the D&aacute;il shall sit later than 5.45 p.m. tonight agreed?  Agreed.  Is the proposal for dealing with No. 12a, motion re statement for information of voters, agreed to?  Agreed.  Is the proposal for dealing with No. 20, Second Stage (Resumed) of the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012, agreed to?  Agreed.  Is the proposal for deal with parliamentary questions agreed to?  Agreed.  Is the proposal for dealing with Topical Issues agreed to?  Agreed.  Is the proposal for dealing with the sitting and business of the D&aacute;il on Tuesday, 25 June agreed to?  Agreed.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.175" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03700"><p>On the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012, I note the T&aacute;naiste is imposing a time limit and guillotining that Bill as well.  I might just ask, particularly in light of the comments of the Chairman of the Fine Gael Parliamentary Party yesterday, Deputy Charlie Flanagan, where he lamented the approach of the Government in guillotining so many Bills and the entire lack of any reform agenda, whether the T&aacute;naiste might happen to agree with him and take on board his comments.</p><p>  On the universities (amendment) Bill, is there an update from the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, on his intentions in that regard?  Has Deputy Quinn had second thoughts on it or is he planning to bring it forward in the near future?</p><p>  On SUSI and third level student grants, it was pointed out to us at committee level yesterday that there are some 550 applications still under appeal and over 100 affected by particular issues, including estrangement from families and being able to approve independent means of living.  I ask that the T&aacute;naiste and the Minister for Education and Skills take note of that, with particular regard to ensuring that no student is blocked from accessing his or her examination results, which in many cases are now available, because they still have not received their student grant.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.176" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03800"><p>First, on the Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012, we have agreed the way in which that is to be dealt with in the House.  It is No. 20 and we agreed that there will be an hour for the debate on it.  There is a time limit on the enactment of that Bill.  There are issues which are related to the establishment of the fiscal advisory council and the new regulations on budgetary governance which come within that and the legislation must be dealt with before the summer recess.</p><p>  On the issue about SUSI, there is not a legislative issue arising in that regard but, as the Deputy will be aware, the Minister for Education and Skills is on top of that.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.177" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1071" speakername="Dara Calleary" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D03900"><p>If he will not talk about SUSI, what about Charlie?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.178" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/998" speakername="P&aacute;draig MacLochlainn" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04000"><p>In April, the Government facilitated the passage through Second Stage of the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Bill 2013.  As the T&aacute;naiste will be aware, my colleague, Deputy &Oacute; Caol&aacute;in, designed this Bill to facilitate access to the courts to all victims of symphysiotomy.  These elderly women are waiting for this.  The Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, of which I am a member, was to have had the Minister before it to take this forward but he was out of the country.  It has been weeks and we still have no more information.  At this stage, I appeal that this be brought before the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for Committee Stage as soon as possible.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.179" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04100"><p>Hear, hear.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.180" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04200"><p>My understanding is that the Bill is due to go to the committee.  I understand the Minister and the committee are in contact about that.  I will relay Deputy Mac Lochlainn's concerns about the matter to the Minister.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.181" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04300"><p>First, I welcome the Government's decision - on being coerced - not to sell off Coillte.  If we can believe them and trust them, hopefully, it will be there for the people to enjoy and to benefit the country.</p><p>  I also want to ask about the county enterprise-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.182" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1092" speakername="Paudie Coffey" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04400"><p>We looked after that.  It was Deputy Tom Hayes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.183" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04500"><p>Whoever, I welcome it.  We, and the public, put on enough of pressure about it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.184" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:00:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000006#D04600"><p>On the Order of Business.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.185" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1092" speakername="Paudie Coffey" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00100"><p>It is the real Opposition.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.186" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00200"><p>I welcome something that is good for the country and its people.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.187" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1092" speakername="Paudie Coffey" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00300"><p>The real Opposition looked after that.  Deputy Tom Hayes looked after it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.188" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00400"><p>I am glad.  I hope the Deputy is not calling Deputy Tom Hayes as he is now part of the Government.  I ask about the county enterprise boards (dissolution) Bill.  There were people from my and other counties here yesterday who are very concerned about their future.  I have supported our county enterprise board and I value what it has done with little money over the years.</p><p>  With regard to the Central Bank (consolidation) Bill, will the T&aacute;naiste comment on what I regard as a very worrying statement last night from Mr. George Osborne, MP, about the disengagement - or perhaps the dropping into the Irish Sea - of Ulster Bank by the Royal Bank of Scotland?  I have raised this significant issue before.  There will be a major effect on us here in Ireland.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.189" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00500"><p>I do not know if legislation is promised.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.190" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00600"><p>Not on Ulster Bank.  I had a very substantive reply ready to give the House in anticipation that-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.191" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00700"><p>The T&aacute;naiste can give it now.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.192" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00800"><p>-----some of the Opposition parties might have considered it sufficiently important to raise this morning.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.193" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E00900"><p>It can be read now.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.194" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01000"><p>There was an opportunity at Leaders' Questions but it was not taken.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.195" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1090" speakername="Mattie McGrath" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01100"><p>It can be given now.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.196" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01200"><p>There is no legislation promised so the matter does not arise at this point.  The county enterprise boards (dissolution) Bill is due this session.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.197" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01300"><p>The Government has had on its legislative programme almost from the beginning of its term of office reference to a housing Bill.  We are now two years on, and the housing crisis is worsening daily for the 100,000 or so families on the housing list with virtually no prospect of getting a home because of waiting lists which are 12, 13 or even 15 years in many cases.  This week alone in my constituency, eight families are faced with homelessness because of the inadequate rent caps.  Landlords have indicated they can get higher rents and they want these people out, so they are faced with homeless or being told to go to emergency accommodation hostels on the far side of the city.</p><p>  Where is the housing Bill?  The Government can plead that it does not have any money but it cannot say that we do not have houses in the country.  We have houses and we need a housing Bill to deal with the disastrous housing crisis facing 100,00 families in this State.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.198" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/969" speakername="Caoimhgh&iacute;n &Oacute; Caol&aacute;in" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01400"><p>Hear, hear.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.199" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01500"><p>There are three housing Bills.  One is in the Seanad and Second Stage took place this week.  The heads of the second housing Bill are expected shortly and it is intended to be published this year, whereas the third housing Bill will be published next year.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.200" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/989" speakername="Jerry Buttimer" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01600"><p>Given the success of the Constitutional Convention and the way in which members, and particularly citizen members, have gone about their business to make it a success, when does the Government intend to hold a series of debates in the House on the reports so far?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.201" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01700"><p>The procedure is that the Government has committed to giving a response to each of the reports within four months of the report being presented.  The first of those will arise by the summer and a second will arise in the autumn.  Arising from those responses, we can make arrangements for debating the issues in the House.  Where there are constitutional amendment proposals or proposed referenda arising from the Constitutional Convention, they would have to be brought to the House in any event for legislative measures.  The idea of having a wider debate on the reports of the Constitutional Convention, once the Government has responded to it, could be arranged.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.202" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01800"><p>I have two issues.  Will the Government consider withdrawing the Bill facilitating abolition of the Seanad in view of the lack of any real substantive D&aacute;il reform on the table and the lack of support from the Government's Deputies and Senators?  The referendum will cost &euro;14 million, which could be better spent on special needs education.</p><p>  I also ask about the Children First legislation.  On assuming office, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, stated it would be her top priority but after two and a half years, we are still awaiting its publication.  Will the T&aacute;naiste enlighten the House on when we will see the legislation published?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.203" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E01900"><p>The Government will not be withdrawing the Bill on the abolition of the Seanad.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.204" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02000"><p>Fine Gael will not be doing it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.205" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02100"><p>Work is proceeding on the drafting of the Children First Bill.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.206" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02200"><p>Will we see it before the summer recess?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.207" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1068" speakername="Peter Fitzpatrick" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02300"><p>When can we expect publication of the radiological protection (amendment) Bill to ensure Irish legislation is compatible with the terms of the Convention for the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials and Nuclear Facilities so that Ireland can ratify the convention?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.208" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02400"><p>It is expected next year.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.209" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1108" speakername="Noel Grealish" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02500"><p>I am sure the T&aacute;naiste and most Members of the House are aware of the position in many estates around the country with regard to noise pollution and disturbances caused to many good and law-abiding citizens.  When does he expect publication of the noise nuisance Bill?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.210" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02600"><p>The noise nuisance Bill is intended to extend and improve the powers available to enforcement authorities to prevent, reduce or abate noise nuisances by allowing for on-the-spot fines and providing for mediation between neighbours.  I do not have a date for the publication of the Bill but I know the Minister is working on it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.211" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1062" speakername="James Bannon" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02700"><p>The harm associated with alcohol misuse and the effects on society are very well documented, with consequences including suicide, physical assault, self-harm and even murder in some cases.  As we know from media outlets, there has been a significant increase in the number of places selling cheap alcohol or engaging in below-cost selling.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.212" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02800"><p>To which legislation is the Deputy referring?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.213" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1062" speakername="James Bannon" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E02900"><p>When will the public health (alcohol) Bill come before the House?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.214" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E03000"><p>The Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Alex White, has been working on the issue and has developed some proposals which will be considered by the Government.  Arising from that discussion, the public health (alcohol) Bill will be progressed.  I do not have a date for it yet but it is being dealt with as an immediate issue.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.215" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E03100"><p>Some weeks ago the Taoiseach was asked about any impending legislation on discussions of a merger of Coillte and Bord na M&oacute;na and he stated there were no such discussions or proposed legislation in that regard.  Considering yesterday's welcome decision, after much deliberation, with regard to Coillte, will the T&aacute;naiste now indicate to the House that there will be legislation emanating from the Government on the proposed or possible merger of Coillte and Bord na M&oacute;na?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.216" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E03200"><p>I expect some legislation will be required and when that has been advanced, we will be able to tell the House when it can be brought forward.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.217" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1049" speakername="Michael Healy-Rae" time="11:10:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000007#E03300"><p>Unfortunately, children are being abused and used in the Irish sex trade, with 23 children identified as trafficked victims in Ireland last year.  The Immigrant Council of Ireland believes the Government must improve in identifying victims, give better access to justice for victims and establish a national database to improve information flow between the Government and front-line agencies.  This relates to the Children First Bill.</p><p>  The next issue relates to Deputy Mattie McGrath's comments.</p><p>I ask that the T&aacute;naiste circulate the reply to Members that he had prepared regarding the future of Ulster Bank and the comments made yesterday by Mr. George Osborne.  If the reply is available, will the T&aacute;naiste circulate it to Members please?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.219" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00200"><p>On legislation please, Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.220" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1049" speakername="Michael Healy-Rae" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00300"><p>We would all appreciate that very much.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.221" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00400"><p>Regarding the Children First Bill, I understand the heads of the Bill will be before Government in the near future.  I will circulate, probably by way of letter, a response on the Ulster Bank issue.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.222" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00500"><p>I wish to raise two issues.  First, in connection with the health (amendment) Bill, a constituent of mine rang me last night from the heart unit at the Mater Hospital.  He is waiting for someone to donate a heart in order to survive.  He also told me that there are 20 other patients in the same situation as himself.  He asked me to raise this matter in the D&aacute;il.  A public awareness campaign is needed because people are dying every day whose hearts could be donated to others who need them urgently.  At the moment there are 20 people in the Mater Hospital who need a heart donation.  A public awareness campaign is essential.  This is nothing to do with resources but with awareness.  I ask the T&aacute;naiste to raise this with the Minister for Health.</p><p>  Second, regarding the Children First Bill, will the T&aacute;naiste, along with the Minister for Education and Skills, examine the situation that will pertain in September with regard to services for children with special needs?  An extra 4,100 children are coming into the system, including many young children with Down's syndrome, who need resources and support.  I urge the T&aacute;naiste to consider the situation carefully.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.223" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00600"><p>What the Deputy has said with regard to public awareness about heart donations is very worthwhile and I agree with the Deputy's comments on the matter.  I might be so bold as to suggest that he submit it as a topical issue because I am sure it is something to which the Minister of Health would wish to respond directly on.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.224" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1051" speakername="Brendan Griffin" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00700"><p>In recent months public debate in Ireland has focused on a number of issues but the issues of unemployment and emigration, which are obviously enormous problems, have not been given the attention they deserve.  I ask that provision be made in the schedule for a special debate on unemployment and emigration before we rise for the summer.  These issues deserve a special debate because they are still hugely problematic.  While unemployment may have stabilised, more must be done and new jobs must be delivered.  In that context, I call for a special debate-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.225" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00800"><p>That is a matter for the whips, Deputy Griffin.  Does the T&aacute;naiste wish to say anything on that matter?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.226" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/951" speakername="Eamon Gilmore" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F00900"><p>The Deputy is right.  This is the big issue of our time - the need to create jobs and to ensure that we address, in particular, the needs of young people who are unemployed.  The Government is always prepared to have this issue debated and discussed in the House.  Arrangements for debates are made by the whips and I urge Deputy Griffin to raise the matter with the Government Chief Whip.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.227" nospeaker="true" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F01000">Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Order for Second Stage</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.228" nospeaker="true" time="11:20:00" ><p>Bill entitled an Act to protect human life during pregnancy; to make provision for reviews at the instigation of a pregnant woman of certain medical opinions given in respect of pregnancy; to provide for an offence of intentional destruction of unborn human life; to amend the Health Act 2007; to repeal sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; and to provide for matters connected therewith.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.229" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/952" speakername="James Reilly" time="11:20:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000008#F01200"><p>I move: &quot;That Second Stage be taken now.&quot;</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.230" nospeaker="true" time="11:20:00" ><p>Question put and agreed to.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.231" nospeaker="true" time="11:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000009#G00100">Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013: Second Stage</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.232" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/952" speakername="James Reilly" time="11:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000009#G00200"><p>I move: &quot;That the Bill be now read a Second Time.&quot;</p><p>  I stand before the House today fully aware of the sensitive and complex nature of the matter we are about to deal with.  I am also fully cognisant of the wide range of views that exist in the House and throughout our country so from the outset I want make very clear this legislation is about saving lives, the life of the mother and her child wherever possible, and that it upholds the constitutional equal right to life of the unborn.  I believe it is a Bill which is measured and provides for a robust framework around a very real legal vacuum that currently exists.</p><p>  The main purpose of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 is to restate the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland.  It does not confer any new substantive rights to a termination of pregnancy.</p><p>  Twenty-one years ago, the Supreme Court legalised the termination of pregnancy in cases where the mother's life is at risk.  At present, nobody is able to say how many terminations have been carried out in Ireland since then.  Nobody has accurate figures on the number of terminations that were performed in Ireland last year.  Nobody knows whether one hospital is responsible for the lion's share of these procedures or whether a small number of doctors carry out a disproportionate number of terminations.  It is not possible to inform the House whether uncertainty over our termination laws is being abused.  Worse, we do not know whether women's lives are put at risk from this lack of clarity.  Equally disconcerting for me is the fact that I cannot assure the House with certainty that women have clarity regarding the medical interventions available to them to save their lives.</p><p>  Article 40.3.3&deg; of the Constitution was inserted by the eighth amendment in 1983 and reads, &quot;The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.&quot;  The Supreme Court decided in 1992 in Attorney General <i>v</i>. X that the Constitution permitted a termination of a pregnancy where there was a real and substantial risk to the life of a woman which could only be removed by terminating the pregnancy.  It must be remembered that the X case decision did not bring about a change in the law on abortion in Ireland.  In the X case, the Supreme Court set out the correct interpretation of the law as it has stood since the eighth amendment.  The difficulty is that no statutory framework has ever been established to vindicate the equal right to life of the mother and her unborn.  Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which in various ways provide for a broad offence of doing acts with the intention of procuring the miscarriage of a woman, whether the act be committed by the woman or not, is, of course, qualified by the X case.  There is no legislative or regulatory framework which currently exists to determine whether a woman is entitled to a termination of pregnancy according the X case test.  This situation is dangerous for women who may be denied treatment to which they are entitled when a real and substantial risk to their life exists, and dangerous for the unborn as there is no procedure whereby unscrupulous operators who wish to abuse the X case test can be checked.</p><p>  As a result of this uncertainty, the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C <i>v</i>. Ireland found:<blockquote>the [Irish] authorities failed to comply with their positive obligation to secure to the third applicant effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which [C] could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland in accordance with Article 40.3.3&deg; of the Constitution.</blockquote>At no stage did the European Court of Human Rights require that the law should be altered or amended.  The decision simply called for a legislative or regulatory regime to be established to allow a woman to ascertain whether or not she qualified under the X case test, and to provide for a review mechanism where a woman is refused treatment.  The Government decided the most appropriate way to provide for this clarity was by legislation with regulations, strictly within the parameters of Article 40.3.3&deg; of the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court.  Legislation is required to amend the 1861 Act and provide for the general prohibition on abortion in Ireland in an effective way, and to set out clearly the situations in which doctors are allowed to intervene to treat a pregnant woman where a real and substantial risk to her life exists.</p><p>  In short, as matters stand, there is no clarity around the issue of terminations of pregnancy in Ireland.  This means that the chilling effect of the 1861 Act can cause uncertainty for doctors.  It also means that terminations of pregnancy can be performed under the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, by any doctor anywhere in Ireland at any gestational age if he or she believes that suicidal risk can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy.  The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill corrects all of this.</p><p>  For the first time, there will be legal clarity that any terminations are only carried out where the risk to the woman's life has been fully assessed and certified by specialists.  For the first time, information on these rare terminations will become publicly available.  It will become crystal clear to all of us whether certain hospitals or certain medical professionals are responsible for a disproportionate number of terminations.  If the legislation is abused I will have the power to suspend it and I will not be afraid to exercise this power.  For the first time, medical professionals will be provided with clear guidelines detailing where and when a termination can take place to save a woman's life.  Most importantly, Irish women can be assured that everything possible will be done to save their lives in Irish hospitals.</p><p>  I will now go through the Bill section by section to clarify its provisions.  The Bill is divided into three Parts and includes a Schedule.  Section 1 makes standard provisions setting out the Short Title of the Bill and arrangements for its commencement.  Section 2 deals with the interpretation of the Bill; it defines the meanings of some of the terms used for the purposes of the Bill, including appropriate institutions, reasonable opinion, and relevant specialty.</p><p>  Section 3 defines what is meant by &quot;appropriate institutions&quot; for the purposes of the Bill.  Locations for the delivery of this treatment will be limited to public obstetric units or, where needed, large public multi-disciplinary hospitals with critical and intensive care facilities.  This definition widens the definition of &quot;appropriate institutions&quot; somewhat from that set out in the general scheme published in April.  This was deemed necessary from the information provided by the Institute of Obstetrician and Gynaecologists to the Oireachtas committee and to the Department of Health.  It indicated a small number of pregnant women with severe illness, such as cystic fibrosis or congenital heart conditions, require delivery in locations with immediate access to intensive and critical care facilities which are not available in some obstetric units.  For this reason, the definition of &quot;appropriate location&quot; includes a small number of large multi-disciplinary hospitals with intensive and critical care facilities.  However, I believe the State's constitutional obligation and its responsibility to act in the common good demand that provision of terminations of pregnancy only be allowed in public health care facilities where they can be duly monitored and investigated, should the need arise.</p><p> Section 4 deals with regulations, allowing me as Minister to make regulations to bring the legislation into operation and other such procedural matters.  In this regard, I will be making regulations to set out the way in which medical practitioners will certify their opinions regarding the risk of loss of life to the woman and whether a termination of pregnancy is required.  These regulations will require, for example, certificates to indicate the clinical grounds for the opinion and other relevant details of the case at hand.  Under the legislation, any such regulation will need to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas for approval.</p><p> Section 5 repeals sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, as they are replaced by the provisions made in sections 22 and 23 of this Bill.</p><p> Section 6 allows that approved expenses associated with the administration of the Bill may be paid for from public funds.</p><p> Sections 7 to 9, inclusive, deal with medical procedures permissible under this Bill.  Section 7 deals with the risk of loss of life from physical illness.  It provides that it is not an offence for an obstetrician or gynaecologist to carry out a medical procedure in the course of which or as result of which unborn human life is ended under certain circumstances - those being that the procedure is carried out in an appropriate institution and that two medical practitioners registered on the specialist division of the Medical Council register, having examined the woman, have certified that, in their reasonable opinion, there is a real and substantial risk to her life, as opposed to her health, arising from a physical illness that can only be averted by carrying out that medical procedure.  Some people have interpreted the Bill's provisions as meaning that termination would be used as the best treatment.  The law is clear - termination must be the only treatment available to avert the risk.</p><p> The process requires an assessment on medical grounds to determine if the test set out in the Supreme Court judgment in the X case is met.  The Supreme Court held that the correct test was that a termination of pregnancy was permissible if it was established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, and that this risk could only be averted by the termination of her pregnancy.  It is not necessary for medical practitioners to be of the opinion that the risk to the woman's life is inevitable or immediate.</p><p> The definition of &quot;reasonable opinion&quot; requires that this opinion must be formed in good faith and must have regard to the need to protect the right to life of the unborn and preserve unborn human life where practicable.  The emphasis on preserving unborn human life means that a doctor will be obliged to make every effort to safeguard the unborn and, where it is potentially viable outside the womb, to make all efforts to sustain the life of the child after delivery.  The registered medical practitioners will be obliged to record this opinion in writing if certifying a procedure that will end unborn human life.</p><p> One of the two medical practitioners involved in the certification process will always be an obstetrician or gynaecologist and the other will be a medical practitioner in a specialty relevant to the risk to the life of the woman, for example, an oncologist, cardiologist, etc., or another obstetrician.  As indicated in the definition of &quot;reasonable opinion&quot;, the test requires a clinical diagnosis in respect of the risk to the life of the pregnant woman and a foetal assessment.  Therefore, the expertise of an obstetrician will always be required in ensuring patient safety, as well as in accessing services.  In addition, the Bill now makes it the duty of the obstetrician involved to deal with the issuing of the required certification so that the medical procedure may be carried out.  In such situations, the obstetrician or gynaecologist involved is responsible for making the arrangements with the appropriate institution.  Provision is also made in the legislation for consultation with the woman's general practitioner in the course of the diagnostic process where she has given her permission and where it is practicable and feasible to do so.</p><p> Section 8 deals with emergency situations where there is an immediate risk of loss of life arising from physical conditions only.  In an emergency situation, the opinion of one registered medical practitioner will be sufficient for the termination to be lawful.  Doctors should not be prevented from saving a woman's life in a situation of acute emergency because, for example, the required numbers of doctors are not available to certify or the woman in question arrives at a health facility that is not covered as an appropriate institution under this Bill - that is, not a public obstetric unit or large public multidisciplinary hospital.  Therefore, in emergency circumstances, the reasonable opinion of one medical practitioner is required to certify, after having examined the pregnant woman, that the medical procedure is immediately necessary to save her life.  The medical practitioner who carries out the procedure will be required to certify the reasons for his or her actions before carrying out the medical procedure.  If necessary, the certification for the procedure may be issued by the medical practitioner after the medical procedure has been carried out and reported as soon as may be, but in any event no later than 72 hours afterwards.  Again, this opinion must be formed in good faith and have regard to the need to preserve unborn life where practicable.  The emergency exception will not apply in the case of a risk to life from suicide.</p><p> Section 9 deals with a risk to the life of the pregnant woman from suicide.  Assessment of self-destruction is more subjective and there are recognised clinical challenges in accurately assessing suicidal ideation - for example, the absence of objective biological markers.  Therefore, this assessment requires that more safeguards be put in place.  In these cases, three medical practitioners registered on the specialist division of the Medical Council register must certify that, in their reasonable opinion, there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman's life by way of suicide that can only be averted by carrying out that medical procedure.  Of the three medical practitioners, one of them must be an obstetrician or gynaecologist practising in an appropriate institution and the other two must be psychiatrists, one of whom must practise in an appropriate institution and the other of whom must practise at an approved centre or for or on behalf of the HSE.  In addition, the Bill now specifies that at least one of the psychiatrists must have experience in providing mental health services to women during pregnancy and childbirth and after delivery.</p><p> This section contains similar provisions to those made in section 7 regarding the duty of the obstetrician involved to issue the required certification for the medical procedure and for consultation with the woman's GP with her consent where practicable.</p><p> I am aware that questions have been raised about the role of the obstetrician in this assessment.  However, the test in this case will always be a multidisciplinary one, as it requires a clinical diagnosis in respect of the risk to the life of the pregnant woman as well as a foetal assessment.  Therefore, the expertise of an obstetrician will always be required.</p><p> The establishment of a formal framework providing for an accessible, effective and timely review mechanism is one of Ireland's obligations under the judgment in A, B and C <i>v</i>. Ireland.  The purpose of this formal medical review process is to provide a mechanism for the woman, where she so requests, to have access to a review of the clinical assessment made by the original doctor or team of doctors.  In practice, this will only arise where the woman's request for a termination in line with the X case criteria has not been granted or when she has been unable to obtain an opinion in this regard.  The review process is provided for in Chapter 2 of the Bill, sections 10 to 15.  It is important to note that this formal review pathway is in addition to and not in substitution for the option of a woman's seeking a second opinion as in normal medical practice.</p><p> Section 10 sets out the process for applying to have a medical opinion reviewed.  The woman or a person acting on her behalf must apply in writing to the HSE for a review of the relevant decision.</p><p> Section 11 provides for the establishment of a review panel by the HSE, which may be drawn upon to form a review committee.  The panel will consist of at least ten relevant experts for the purposes of the formal medical review, all of whom must be medical practitioners under the terms of the Bill.  Members will be nominated by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, and the HSE.  The HSE will draw from this panel when it needs to establish a review committee to consider an application for a review made under the Bill.</p><p> Section 12 deals with the establishment of the review committee.  The Health Service Executive will act as the convenor for the purpose of the formal medical review process.  As soon as possible, but no later than three days after receiving a written request from a pregnant woman, the HSE will establish and convene a committee drawn from the review panel to consider the relevant decision in question.  The composition of the review committee will exactly mirror the requirements in sections 7 to 9, inclusive.</p><p> Section 13 specifies that the committee shall complete its review as soon as possible, but no later than seven days after it is established, and that it must inform the woman in writing as soon as possible as to its decision.</p><p> Section 14 sets out the procedures of the review committee.  It provides for the woman herself, or a person authorised to do so on her behalf, to be heard by the review committee.  It also aims to empower the review committee to obtain whatever manner of clinical evidence it requires to reach a decision and to call any relevant medical practitioners to give evidence in person.  It provides that the HSE will make administrative arrangements for the operation of the committee, including providing facilities and covering expenses.  The provisions contained in this section make failing to comply with a direction issued by the committee an offence, for which a fine may be imposed.</p><p> Section 15 provides that the HSE must submit a report to me, as Minister for Health, not later than 30 June each year regarding the operation of review committees.  Information that will have to be provided in the report includes the total number of applications received; the number of reviews carried out; in the case of reviews carried out, the reason the review was sought; and the outcome of the review.  This information is required to monitor the implementation of the legislation to ensure the principles and requirements of the system are being upheld.  This section also clarifies, however, that any information that might identify a woman who has made an application for a review shall be excluded from the report by the HSE.</p><p> The third Part of the Bill deals with miscellaneous matters.  Section 16 deals with consent, and states that nothing in the Bill will affect the law relating to consent to medical treatment.  The intention is that the provisions of the Bill will operate within the existing legal provisions in regard to consent for medical procedures.</p><p> Section 17 concerns conscientious objection.  In this regard, professional health personnel, namely, medical and nursing personnel, will not be obliged to carry out or assist in carrying out lawful terminations of pregnancy if they have a conscientious objection, unless the risk to the life of the pregnant woman is immediate.  Where a doctor or other health professional has a difficulty in undertaking a required medical procedure, he or she will have a duty to ensure another colleague takes over the care of the patient, as is normal in current medical ethics.  I point out that the right to conscientious objection is a human right, which is limited to persons only and which cannot be invoked by institutions.  The prohibition of conscientious objection for institutions was removed from the wording of the Bill because the provisions make it clear that this right is limited to persons involved in the delivery of the treatment.</p><p> Section 18 reaffirms the freedom to travel and freedom to information as per the 13th and 14th amendments to the Constitution, for the avoidance of doubt.</p><p> Section 19 deals with certification and states that it must be made in the prescribed form and manner and must contain the prescribed information, which may include the clinical grounds for carrying out the medical procedure.</p><p> Section 20 provides for a notification system in respect of all terminations of pregnancy carried out under the terms of this Bill.  I consider it very important to record the number and nature of terminations of pregnancy to monitor the Bill's correct implementation and to detect any potential abuse of its provisions.  Therefore, the legislation includes a clear requirement on providers to notify me, as Minister for Health, of all terminations carried out under this legislation within 28 days.  The report will contain the following information: the Medical Council registration number of the medical practitioner who carried out the procedure; the grounds for carrying out the procedure; the name of the appropriate institution concerned or other location used in emergencies; and the date on which the procedure was carried out.  This section also contains a requirement on me, as Minister for Health, to prepare and publish an annual report on the notifications received.  This will be done without disclosing the names of the women involved.</p><p> Section 21 amends section 9 of the Health Act 2007.  These amendments were necessary to permit me, as Minister for Health, to suspend relevant medical procedures in an institution when an investigation is being undertaken by the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA, in regard to a serious risk of failure by an institution to comply with the provisions of this Bill.  Such medical procedures may be suspended until I am fully satisfied that the institution in question is compliant with the legislation.</p><p> Section 22 sets out the offence of intentional destruction of unborn human life.  This updates the law in this area, which as I mentioned earlier, was until now governed by the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.  The penalty for the offence is up to 14 years imprisonment, or a fine, or both.  Prosecutions may only be brought by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions.  For the avoidance of doubt, the Bill clarifies that the offence does not apply to a medical practitioner carrying out a necessary medical procedure as laid out in sections 7, 8 and 9.  Section 23 provides for the offence by a body corporate.</p><p> I reassure the House that the only purpose of this legislation is to clarify what is lawfully available by way of treatment in cases where there is a real and substantial threat to the life of a pregnant woman, and to set out clearly defined and specific circumstances in which this treatment can be lawfully provided.  My Department has begun a consultation process with the relevant professional bodies, including the College of Psychiatrists of Ireland, the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and the Irish College of General Practitioners, with the ultimate aim of developing guidelines for their members on the implementation of the legislation following enactment of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill.  It is expected that a multidisciplinary committee to develop these clinical guidelines will be established before the Bill is enacted.  It will be asked to complete its work as soon as possible.</p><p> As Deputies will be aware, a significant amount of work was involved in producing the Bill.  More than 50 drafts were composed as we moved to produce what we believe to be balanced proposals that meet our obligations.  The public hearings held by the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children informed the composition of this Bill and I wish to express my gratitude to the Chair, Deputy Jerry Buttimer, and members of the committee for their invaluable contribution to the issue and for the assistance they provided to me and my officials.  I also wish to acknowledge the Deputies on both sides of the House who have discussed these matters with me and I thank all those who recognise the great sensitivities involved and the need for our discourse to be respectful of differing views.  I genuinely wish to reflect that such was the nature of the debate on this extremely sensitive and often divisive issue.</p><p> I am a doctor.  For more than 30 years, I have looked after patients with a view to helping them with their problems and improving their quality of life, and indeed sometimes saving their lives.  Sometimes we are presented with the most difficult and challenging problems.  I believe this legislation strikes the right balance in providing legal clarity around existing rights while at the same time providing the clearest reassurance that any attempt to abuse this legislation will be thwarted.</p><p>I would not support the Bill if I did not believe it strikes this balance.  This is about clarifying the law so that the women of this country who use our health services are in no doubt about what is legally available to them and how they can access these services, and the many excellent men and women who work in our health services know what is legally permissible for them to provide.  It will remove any doubt or danger of delay in the making of decisions that can be the difference between life and death.  I commend the Bill to the House.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.236" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/983" speakername="Billy Kelleher" time="11:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000012#K00200"><p>I support the Bill on a personal basis, although I fully understand the difficulties certain Deputies and Senators have in supporting it.  Some people will argue that the Bill does not go far enough.  When Deputy Clare Daly published her Private Members' Bill last year I stated that we would act responsibly by taking an approach that would not be divisive and would encourage an open debate to make life easy on Deputies who have strong views on this issue.  I like to think we have avoided the partisan political debates that have previously taken place in this House and elsewhere over many years.  In the 20 years I have been in the Oireachtas, this is the one issue that divides people not only within parties but also in wider society.  We must be respectful of the strong and deeply held views people hold.  Sometimes these views held on both sides are too extreme to allow for a calm and rational debate on the substantive issue of legislating for a constitutional right for women in this country under Article 40.3.3&deg;, as interpreted in the X case in 1992.</p><p>  It is important to put this debate in its historical context.  Once Article 40.3.3&deg; was enshrined in the Constitution it was inevitable that a court would have to decide how to vindicate the rights of the individuals concerned, namely, the pregnant woman and the life of the unborn.  Since the X case in 1992 there has been a lacuna in legislating for what is now the constitutional right for a woman to have a lawful termination in the event of her life being at real and substantial risk.  There were three referendums in 1992, in respect of which two amendments were passed by the people and one, on the substantive issue, rejected.  A referendum was held in 2002 on another amendment which I supported.  I consider myself pro-life in general.  I do not like to stereotype people or to put them in boxes but I am pro-life in the sense that I believe we should do everything possible to vindicate the life of the unborn.  It is something I hold personally dear.  I am not a member of any organisation that espouses that view but as a Deputy I believe it is something we should do.  It is the fundamental right of the unborn to be brought into this world.  However, we face conflicting difficulties when we must provide for complicated medical procedures.  I find it difficult to oppose this Bill because I would not like our clinicians and those who deal with this issue every day of the week to have their hands tied because there is not clarity or certainty in the law in terms of clear and definitive guidelines on when they can intervene to save the life of the woman without facing the prospect of a criminal sanction.</p><p>  The various aspects of the Bill have been extensively discussed.  I do not believe it will introduce a liberal abortion regime to this country because Article 40.3.3&deg; and some of the sections contained in the Bill will not permit a move towards abortion on demand.  It has been noted that when legislation was introduced in Britain in 1966 the outcome was more liberal than envisaged.  That may be the case but there is no chance of a liberal abortion-on-demand regime creeping into this country in the context of our constitutional obligation as legislators to vindicate the life of the unborn.  However, we also have an obligation on foot of the judgment in the X case to bring certainty and clarity to this area.  The legislation goes no further than that.</p><p>  I am sure the Minister will be open to discussion on amendments on Committee and Report Stages with a view to improving the Bill.  Perhaps he also will be able to address the concerns of those who oppose it without undermining its substance and purpose.  The committee hearings in January and April were useful in terms of dealing with my concerns and hearing from expert witnesses.  The difficulty in hearing from expert witnesses who have strong views from both sides is that we were left with the task of adjudicating on their claims.  We tried to find a middle ground but in the interest of fairness and avoiding partisan treatment we heard from various experts with strong pro-choice and pro-life views.  I do not believe we would have reached consensus had we discussed the issue for the rest of our days.  It is now up to the Legislature to find a consensus and this Bill offers a balanced approach to that objective.</p><p>  I accept the Minister's assurance that in the event of the legislation being undermined, for whatever reason, we will move quickly to address it.  Some people have asked for a sunset clause in the Bill.  Perhaps there are political reasons as to why such a clause could not be included but I do not want to go down that road.  We in this Chamber can amend legislation whenever we want.  We can introduce Private Members' Bills or the Government can bring forward its own legislation.  I do not believe this legislation is cast in stone forever and a day.  If difficulties arise, it is incumbent on us as legislators to bring forward amendments.  We are obliged to introduce legislation because of our duty to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.</p><p>  On the broader issue, we must accept that some people take the view that the Bill does not go far enough.  We should not make decisions on the basis of polls but recent polls indicate there are definite views on making provision for fatal foetal abnormalities, rape and incest.  It is wrong to suggest that we could cover those areas in this legislation, however, because we cannot go beyond what is provided by the Constitution.  However, people will raise these issues in the years to come.  In trying to persuade as many people as possible to take the middle ground, it is not helpful to raise matters that go beyond the legislation.  We must uphold the Constitution in our legislative activities, and this is why the Bill is clearly defined and narrow in focus.  None the less, it will have an important outcome in bringing certainty and clarity to the clinicians who deliver children into the world and save the lives of women in the process. </p><p>  We must also pay heed to our obligations as defined by the European Court of Justice in A, B and C.  This was an interesting judgment in many ways because it was claimed by some who are fundamentally opposed to the Bill that it would incrementally introduce abortion into this country.  All the judgment demanded was certainty with regard to when a woman could vindicate her constitutional right to a termination in the event of her life being at real and substantial risk.</p><p>  The Oireachtas hearings were helpful to those of us who were trying to decide our position on the Bill.</p><p>They allowed us to tease out issues and, in some cases, expose the extreme views held by some on both sides.  People on both sides are raising matters that either cannot be included in the Bill or were not proposed to be included in it.  I welcome the mature debate the House is having on this issue because this debate has been anything but mature for the past 20 years.  This issue has been used as a political football and in a distasteful manner for the purposes of garnering support and undermining others.  If this Bill is passed substantially as drafted, it will, I hope, will bring to an end the unseemly saga we have had in this society for many years.</p><p> Two referendums have been held on removing the risk of self-destruction as a ground for a lawful termination and on both occasions citizens voted &quot;No&quot;.  While we can argue about the reasons they did so, the people were asked twice and answered &quot;No&quot; on both occasions.  At some stage, we must accept the validity of the view expressed by the people when they were consulted.  In 1992, they were asked to vote on three questions in a referendum.  They voted &quot;Yes&quot; in the case of two questions and in the case of the third and substantive issue, they voted to reject the wording put forward at the time.  To bring further clarity to the matter, we held a second referendum proposing to remove suicide as a ground for a termination.  Again, the people voted &quot;No&quot; for many reasons.  Some will argue that the proposal was rejected because the pro-life side believed it went too far and the pro-choice side believed it did not go far enough, resulting in both sides voting against the proposal.  The political parties also became involved.  For example, Fine Gael opposed the referendum, and this muddied the waters to a certain extent.  Regardless of what arguments were made in the constituencies, the substantive issue was that the people told the Oireachtas to get on with the business of legislating in accordance with the Constitution and as laid down in the judgment on the X case.  This is what the House is doing today, no more and no less.</p><p> The Fianna F&aacute;il Party has had long discussions on the Bill, which we have studied in detail.  I attended all the hearings of the Oireachtas joint committee and read the expert group's report numerous times.  I expressed to party colleagues my belief that passing the legislation would not in any way undermine the right to life of the unborn.  I genuinely believe the purpose of the Bill is to save lives, bring clarity to clinicians and give certainty to women that their constitutional right will be vindicated in the event that their life is at risk.  The issue is not a woman's health but her life.  I do not believe anybody could argue that we should place obstacles in the way of clinicians and obstetricians who must make very difficult decisions on whether they can intervene to terminate a pregnancy and save the life of a woman.</p><p> Greater clarity is needed on the issue of term limits, which is sometimes lost in the debate.  People hold different views on term limits.  When I was asked whether they should be included in the Bill, I stated it would not be possible to do so because doctors and clinicians could have to intervene at any stage in gestation to save the life of a woman.  We cannot allow circumstances to arise where a woman's right to a lawful termination would be vindicated up to 22 weeks and no longer vindicated thereafter.  I do not believe the Attorney General would have allowed the Minister to proceed with such a proposal.  Nevertheless, the concerns expressed about this issue need to be addressed.  In a case where an unborn child is on the cusp of viability and it is found that the woman's life can only be saved by a termination, we must ensure every effort will be made to sustain the life of the unborn for as long as possible in order that it is, where practicable, brought beyond the cusp of viability.  Clarity is needed in this area, especially in the section on suicide and self-destruction.  Many people have raised this issue.  It should be addressed on Committee or Report Stage.</p><p> Where a woman's life is under threat of self-destruction, the Bill provides that she will go before a panel of an obstetrician and two psychiatrists who will make an assessment as to whether a termination is the only way to avert a real and substantial risk to the woman's life.  Many Deputies on all sides are concerned that this should not become a box-ticking exercise.  In such circumstances, the women should be given every assistance and support in making a decision.  Counselling, therapy and support are critical to women who are suicidal.  I ask the Minister to address this issue.</p><p> The suicidal ideation provisions are very restrictive.  In such circumstances, the woman will be required to go before a panel to be assessed by an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, and in the event that the panel refuses her request for a termination, a review panel may consider the matter.  In light of the number of tests to assess a woman's suicidal ideation, I do not believe many women will present on the suicidal ideation ground.  The statistics provided to the Oireachtas hearings show it is highly unusual for women to be suicidal during pregnancy, although such cases sometimes arise.</p><p> I hope, when we consider the Bill in more detail, that Deputies will have an opportunity to tease out issues, discuss amendments and express views in a non-partisan manner.  This could allay some concerns and persuade more people to support the legislation.  Most concerns about the Bill are genuinely held.  For some Deputies, it is a matter of conscience and they passionately believe the Bill undermines the right to life of the unborn.  People have formed their view on the basis of their faith or a fundamental view of when life begins.  I would not support the Bill if I believed it undermined the constitutional right of the unborn.  Notwithstanding this constitutional right, most people would like every effort to be made to bring the unborn into this world.</p><p> Every year, 5,000 Irish women travel to Britain for terminations.  We should not pretend this is not the case.  We should show moderation in our use of language when discussing this issue to avoid offending others and be conscious of the need to avoid being judgmental about the 5,000 women who travel abroad for terminations each year.  I do not want to make their decision any more difficult by using inflammatory language or making them feel bad.  They are our mothers, aunts, sisters, daughters and neighbours.  I feel very strongly that people should not use nasty, inflammatory language to try to vindicate an argument, because these women are living among us.  We should not be judgmental and our language and tone should reflect the fact that at least 150,000 Irish women have travelled overseas for terminations in the past 30 years and they are among us.  I welcome the fact that Members of the Oireachtas and people outside the House have, by and large, been responsible and moderate in the language they have used when expressing their views on this issue.</p><p> Having waited 30 years for this legislation, one would expect it to be substantial, but it is a short Bill.  While I do not seek to take credit for it, the Bill had been largely drafted previously, although it now includes the threat of self-destruction on the basis that the people rejected the 2002 referendum.</p><p>There are many safeguards in the Bill.  It is important there is confidence in the reporting of the figures and statistics but not in a way that we become obsessive at looking at every individual case where a termination may be carried out to save the life of the woman.  However, if there are genuine concerns they should be addressed in a very quick and meaningful manner.</p><p> The Minister happens also to be a doctor but the Minister for Health may not always be a doctor.  It is important that we look at that again.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.239" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/952" speakername="James Reilly" time="12:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000014#M00200"><p>Perish the thought.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.240" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1078" speakername="Damien English" time="12:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000014#M00300"><p>The Minister has 20 good years anyway.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.241" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/983" speakername="Billy Kelleher" time="12:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000014#M00400"><p>The point I am making is that the Minister of the day might have a very different view from that of the current Minister in which case the spirit of this legislation could be slightly undermined in terms of whether the reporting and actions on difficulties would be carried out.  There is no obligation on the Minister to take action in the event, for example, that a public facility is out of step with the norms in terms of the number of terminations being carried out.  The Minister might not always be Deputy Reilly and other Ministers might have different views.  That may need to be reconsidered in the context of giving more comfort to people in the House with concerns about the Bill.  I ask the Minister to look at that in the round.</p><p>  I could go back through the history of this whole issue.  Some people have said that the judgment in the X case was flawed and that we are now passing legislation on a flawed judgment.  Obviously it is a judgment of the Supreme Court and regardless of whether people like it, it is the judgment.  However, reading the judgment with regard to the particular case before it at the time - Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness has said this also - it was a very human decision.  The court was confronted with a very difficult case and as the Legislature had failed to put any clear legislation in place, it had to make the adjudication.  It made the adjudication that a 14-year-old girl who had been raped would commit suicide in the event of her being unable to be allowed travel to England to have a termination.  Clearly that is why we are now legislating for the X case itself.</p><p>  It is very difficult for us to understand the huge trauma facing any individual.  Every day many girls find themselves in crisis pregnancies for many reasons and they go to England for a termination.  We must also be mindful that we can support people in crisis pregnancies.  We need every support available and not only in the context of this legislation.  I know the Crisis Pregnancy Agency was set up to give support and some of the faith-based groups also give support.  However, we need to do more as a society and a Parliament to support women who are in a crisis pregnancy.  In previous times crisis pregnancies could have arisen because the child was being born out of wedlock.  That would have been a crisis pregnancy at one time when there were very strong particular religious views in the country and societal constraints.  There are now many other reasons why women may go to England.</p><p>  If we say we do not want a liberal abortion regime in this country, it is our obligation to assist every woman and girl going through a crisis pregnancy to make the decision not to go to England easier and that she can stay at home and be given support.  That is an area in which we are inclined to wash our hands.  They go to England and we do not discuss it very much.  We need to discuss that and see if we can assist girls and women who are in crisis pregnancies which arise in situations which are outside the scope of this legislation.</p><p>  The other key area that has been raised by many people is that of conscientious objection - not only in the context of parliamentarians having a conscientious objection but also individuals.  We all know the right to a conscientious objection is conferred on an individual and cannot be conferred on institutions.  However, I wonder whether that should be reconsidered.  A particular institution might decide that the only way for someone to get employment in that institution is by having a conscientious objection to carrying out terminations.  In effect, almost everyone in that institution would exercise his or her right to a conscientious objection thereby making that institution incapable of dealing with this legislation in terms of carrying out a termination where there is a real and substantial risk to the woman's life.  I presume the Minister has considered this, but on my reading of the Bill there is potential for institutions to ensure as many people as possible had a conscientious objection and thereby would not be able to carry out a termination in the context of the Bill.  It could limit in certain areas large institutions which may have all the facilities, supports and services in the institution but because there are a few key conscientious objectors the system cannot function as envisaged in the Bill.</p><p>  I welcome that the Minister has broadened the scope to cover 19 hospitals.  Clearly that issue was also raised at the Oireachtas committee hearings.  A woman whose life is at immediate and substantial risk for physical reasons would not necessarily present herself to a maternity hospital but her first port of call would be to an emergency department.  That issue was raised by obstetricians and clinicians at the Oireachtas committee hearings.</p><p>  Over the coming weeks I am sure the Minister will listen to the varying views.  I am sure many strong views will be expressed in this House by many Deputies.  It is important that we hear the view of as many Deputies as possible.  I am not saying this in any way to make it political.  There are many Fine Gael Deputies who have strong views on the matter.  I know the Whip is being applied on its Members, which is its entitlement as a political party and I have no difficulty with that decision.  I am not trying to make myself purer than white on this issue.  We decided on a free vote for many reasons.  Equally we could have taken a partisan approach and opposed the Bill thereby raising the temperature in this Chamber and in broader society.  However, I believe this issue is above and beyond that.  It has been with us since 1992.  The Minister has pointed out that this would not be the seventh Government to fail to legislate.  If my party and others made it more difficult for the Minister, this might have ended up being the seventh Government to fail to legislate.  It is important that we give space to the Government and society to discuss it.  That is broadly welcome.</p><p>  Some Deputies have raised the issue of term limits and clarity needs to be brought to them.  I would not suggest including it in the legislation.  However, a large number of people need an explanation regarding the efforts that will be made to save the life of the child in the event of a medical termination taking place.  There is a view that we could have abortions up to minutes before birth being due.  It seems to be lost in the debate the whole time, but there is an obligation in the Constitution and in this legislation that every effort is made to bring the child into the world alive.  However, I believe the Minister needs to explain that more to convince people that this is the case.  I heard obstetricians, gynaecologists and others say it is offensive to suggest that they would not do that.  People are saying there is no obligation on our obstetricians to make every effort to save the life of the child.  It is their duty to do that on a daily basis and they do it in such a way that we can all be proud.</p><p>  On the broader issue of maternity services, we have had the very tragic case of Savita Halappanavar in Galway.  We have had reports and are awaiting a further report from HIQA.</p><p>That woman died tragically in hospital because there was a lack of clarity and people were unsure when they could intervene.  I am not saying that was the only reason - she died from sepsis - but having read the report, I believe there was certainly a lack of clarity about when clinicians could or should have intervened.  The recent report indicated that certainty and clarity are needed in legislation to give confidence to clinicians that they are acting within the law.  Equally, we have obligations because of the A, B and C <i>v</i>. Ireland judgment of the European Court of Human Rights to bring clarity to vindicate the constitutional right of a woman to know when she is entitled to a lawful termination in this country to save her life.</p><p> I look forward to the debate and I hope we can have a constructive debate.  Certainly, I will be tabling amendments in a personal capacity and perhaps on behalf of my party over the course of Committee and Report Stages.  I hope that as many people as possible can contribute.  The last thing we need is for the debate to be short or cut down to the point where some views may not be expressed and then subsequently to be told that those views were not heard or taken into account.  It would be impossible to listen to everyone but we should try to accommodate the middle ground at least on this matter.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.243" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1029" speakername="Catherine Byrne" time="12:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000015#N00200"><p>Before Deputy &Oacute; Caol&aacute;in begins, I have been asked by the Minister if the Deputy would yield so he could offer a point of clarification before the Deputy begins.  Is that okay?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.244" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/969" speakername="Caoimhgh&iacute;n &Oacute; Caol&aacute;in" time="12:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000015#N00300"><p>Yes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.245" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/952" speakername="James Reilly" time="12:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000015#N00400"><p>I thank the Deputy and I appreciate it.  I noticed when I was reading my statement that one point could be somewhat confusing.  Where I said, &quot;If the legislation is abused I will have the power to suspend it and I will not be afraid to exercise this power&quot;, I meant that &quot;it&quot; to refer to the service, not the Bill.  That is for the purposes of clarity.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.246" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/969" speakername="Caoimhgh&iacute;n &Oacute; Caol&aacute;in" time="12:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000015#N00500"><p>Few tranches of legislation in the history of D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann have been as widely debated and anticipated prior to their publication as the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.  The issues have been addressed in great detail in the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, of which I am a member.  I participated in all the hearings on the report of the expert group and on the heads of the Bill.  While some cynics have dismissed these hearings, I believe they deepened awareness, in the Oireachtas and in public discourse generally, by giving voice to widespread expertise and to views across the spectrum.  It was an exercise in participatory democracy.</p><p>  Far better to have these complex issues addressed in a calm and considered way, based on evidence and reasoned argument, than to have the type of hysterical so-called debate on the issue of abortion that we have seen too often in the past.  That is not to say that there are not still strongly, and in most cases sincerely, held views on all sides on this most difficult issue.  Nor is it to ignore the ugly tactics engaged in by some, but by no means all, who are opposed to the legislation.  By and large, the debate has been conducted in a far more reasonable manner than before, and that is a positive.</p><p>  For our part, this necessary legislation is welcomed by Sinn F&eacute;in.  I take this opportunity - it occurs rarely but not uniquely - to commend the Taoiseach, the Minister for Health, Deputy Reilly, and the Fine Gael and Labour Party coalition on their follow through on this issue despite considerable opposition from church and advocacy voices.  We have stated consistently that legislation in line with the X case judgment and in compliance with the A, B and C <i>v</i>. Ireland judgment and the expert group recommendations is required.  In fact, it is long overdue.  There is now a widely held view - we believe it is a majority view - in society that legislation along the lines originally set out in the heads of the Bill and now in this legislation is necessary.  We must safeguard the lives of women.  We must provide legal clarity.  We must ensure there are clear guidelines for clinicians.  Let no one forget that we must act at all times in strict adherence to the people's wishes as laid down in the relevant articles of our Constitution.</p><p>  For many - I include myself - this has been and is a difficult issue.  I have always been and remain pro-life, yet I must face the fact that the lives of some are placed at a real and substantial risk due to their pregnancy and only a termination of the pregnancy, as distinct from the termination of the life of the unborn, though that can be a consequence of the intervention, is going to save their lives.  This is already accepted practice in Ireland.  It is also the current legal position, as is an intervention where the woman's life is at real and substantial risk due to the threat of suicide.  The Medical Council guidelines for all registered medical practitioners states:<blockquote>Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide.  You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.</blockquote>  As a legislator I have a responsibility, as do all Members of the D&aacute;il and Seanad, to evaluate all legislation as it will or might apply in practice, mindful of all the circumstances that do and that can present.  I must fulfil my role in the interest of all the people, not only those who may share my personal religious, moral or ethical outlook on any given issue.  This I have always strived to do.  It is not right that I or any section of Irish opinion should seek to impose our outlook or will on society generally, and certainly not where the consequences of doing so could result in the loss of a pregnant woman's life.  That could, in reality, be the loss of two lives.</p><p>  I have been baffled by the arguments of some who describe themselves as pro-life but who will, in their rigid adherence to a black and white view of the world, countenance the loss of a woman's life, always some other woman's life, or the life of another's wife, partner or daughter.  They never contemplate for one moment that it might be their life or their wife's, partner's or daughter's life.  What would their answer be if the woman in the hospital bed was not known by the name Savita, but bore their name or the name of someone they loved?  Would their position change or would they be prepared to take the risk or see her take it?</p><p>  I am pro-life.  I could not countenance risking the life of the wife I love or our daughters in such circumstances or in any circumstances.  It is beyond me how some can be so sure it will never be about them or those close to them.  God grant that it be so.  Let us make no mistake about it: this Bill is about what it states in the Title.  The legislation is about protecting the life and lives of women during pregnancy where a real and substantial risk presents.  It happens, all too sadly, and we cannot close our eyes to that fact.</p><p> The whole debate around this then promised Bill was of course thrown into sharp focus by the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.  The HSE report on her death was published last week on the same day as this Bill and because of its direct relevance to the legislation I wish to comment on it.  I take the opportunity to again extend deepest sympathy to Praveen Halappanavar and all the relatives and friends of Savita.  Like the outcome of the inquest, the report is a damning indictment and has far-reaching implications.  It is extremely serious and distressing that the report found that Savita's death resulted from inadequate assessment and monitoring of her condition, failure to offer all management options to her, and University College Hospital Galway's non-adherence to clinical guidelines relating to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock from when it was first diagnosed.</p><p> The report does not identify individuals involved in the care of Savita but there will be a justifiable public expectation that if serious lapses by individuals, as well as systems, occurred, then individuals should be held to account.  The HSE has pointed to the forthcoming HIQA report in that context.  A crucial question that needs to be answered by the HIQA report is whether the hospital was adequately staffed and resourced to provide the standard of care required by this dangerously-ill, pregnant woman.  That is a crucial question for all pregnant women in this State - for all women - including those who will be directly affected by the passage of the legislation.  Indeed, we may ask how workable the legislation will be if adequate staffing, management and resources are not in place.</p><p> In looking at the HSE report in the context of the Bill before us, the key recommendation is that which highlights the need for clear legislation and guidelines on termination to save the life of a woman.  We will never be able to say definitively that this Bill, if enacted at the time of Savita's hospitalisation, would have saved her life.  However, there are good grounds, based on expert evidence, for believing that this would indeed have been the case, as a termination would have been regarded as a life-saving option to which Savita should have had timely access.  I wish to quote from the HSE report in that regard: &quot;When the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of having a termination, this was not offered or considered by the clinical team until the afternoon of the 24th October, due to their assessment of the legal context in which their clinical professional judgement was to be exercised&quot;.  Some have argued that the clinical team could have provided a timely termination within the current law, but the point is that there was uncertainty and a lack of clarity which, combined with the identified serious lapses in the care of the patient, led directly to her tragic death.  The uncertainty and lack of clarity provides a very strong argument in favour of this legislation.  The gap in the law has been long identified and it is long past time it was rectified.</p><p> The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C<i>v.</i>Ireland case confirmed that there is an imperative to put into legal effect the judgment of the Supreme Court in the X case.  The European Court of Human Rights found that there was no accessible and effective procedure to enable Ms C to establish whether she qualified for a lawful termination of pregnancy in accordance with Irish law.  We must ask why that is so.  As the European Court of Human Rights accepted, Article 40.3.3&deg; of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case, provides that it is lawful to terminate a pregnancy in this State if it is established that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy.  Therefore, this State is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights in failing to give effect to the right identified by the Supreme Court in the X case.</p><p> The expert group report recited the sorry saga of the 1983 amendment and the later legal battle that had to be fought to establish the right to travel and the right to information, culminating in referendums and legislation which provide for those rights.  &quot;X&quot; was a 14 year old girl, pregnant as a result of rape, and put through the additional trauma of a High Court injunction to restrain her from leaving the State for a termination of the pregnancy.  The Supreme Court judged in the X case that if it were established as a matter of probability that there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother and that this real and substantial risk could only be averted by the termination of the pregnancy, such a termination is lawful.  Crucially also, the court found that the threat of suicide constituted a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother.  The immediate result of that case was the lifting of the injunction so the young girl could travel abroad.  I believe that any other outcome would have outraged the vast majority of people in this country, not to mention the likely international reaction.</p><p> The 1992 referendum followed, allowing for the right to travel and to information.  In 1992, and again in 2001, the electorate in referendums rejected proposals to exclude the risk of suicide as a ground for lawful termination.  Thus, over a decade ago, and long before the A, B and C <i>v.</i>Ireland case was initiated, the clear obligation on the Oireachtas to legislate in line with the X case judgment, including the threat of suicide as a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, was confirmed.  As well as the referendums there was the 1996 Constitution Review Group, the 1999 Green Paper on Abortion and the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on Abortion which reported in the millennium year, 2000.  Following the defeat of the 2001 referendum there was legislative inaction as successive governments again failed to face up to their responsibilities.  The A, B and C<i>v.</i>Ireland case begun in 2005 with judgement delivered in December 2010, effectively reaffirmed the Supreme Court judgment in the X case.  The absence of legislative implementation of these judgments has created very dangerous grey areas in which, as we now know all too well, women can die.</p><p> The European Court of Human Rights judged that there is what it called a &quot;striking discordance between the theoretical right to lawful abortion in Ireland on grounds of a relevant risk to a woman's life and the reality of its practical implementation&quot;.  It was against that background that we in Sinn F&eacute;in developed our policy on abortion to which I wish to briefly refer.  Like all parties and all sections of society we have members with varying and strongly-held views on the issue and we respect those views and their right to hold them.  However, we have a policy, democratically decided, and we as elected voices of Sinn F&eacute;in have a duty to articulate and uphold party policy irrespective of our own personal positions.</p><p>Over many Sinn F&eacute;in Ard-Fheiseanna, we have debated this issue and reached an agreed policy position.  It is the members of our party, as democratically delegated, who decide policy and all organs of the party and, as I have already said, all elected representatives are bound by those policies.  The policy as reaffirmed by our 2008 Ard-Fheis states that Sinn F&eacute;in is not in favour of abortion and nor do we believe that the British Abortion Act 1967 should be extended to the Six Counties.  Sinn F&eacute;in believes that all possible means of education and support services should be put in place to prevent crisis pregnancies.  It believes that Irish society has a responsibility both to address the issue of abortion and to address the fact that at least 5,000 Irish women travel to Britain each year for abortions.</p><p> When the abortion issue was discussed in the Northern Assembly, Sinn F&eacute;in placed on record our very firm opposition to the extension of the British 1967 Act to the North.  We supported an amendment that this complex matter should be referred to the Assembly Health Committee.  Following a discussion by the Health Committee and the recommendations made to her by all the parties, including the SDLP, the Women&rsquo;s Coalition and the Alliance Party, the then Sinn F&eacute;in Minister for Health, Bairbre de Br&uacute;n, extended the availability of the morning-after-pill.</p><p> Sinn F&eacute;in believes the way to reduce the number of women seeking abortions is by way of State provision of comprehensive sex education, full access to safe birth control options, full access to child care and comprehensive support services, including financial support for single parents.  Sinn F&eacute;in believes that full information and non-directive pregnancy counselling should be freely available.  It is opposed to the attitudes and forces in society that compel women to have abortions and which criminalise those who make that decision.  We accept the right of a woman to seek a termination of the pregnancy where her life is at risk or in grave danger and in cases of rape or incest.  Sinn F&eacute;in believes that women in crisis pregnancies have the right to receive accurate information by means of counselling that is impartial, non-directive and non-intimidatory.  We support the introduction of legislation to ensure this standard is met by all agencies providing crisis pregnancy counselling.</p><p> Sinn F&eacute;in's assessment of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, informed by the party policy as outlined above, is that it does offer greater protection for women and clarity for front-line practitioners and, accordingly, we will support this Bill's passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas.  It is not perfect legislation - far from it.  It diverges from Sinn F&eacute;in's policy in a number of respects but judged in the round and taking into account the pressing need for long overdue legislative certainty, we believe it is worthy of our support.  Sinn F&eacute;in of course has concerns about certain sections of the Bill and I will touch on one or two of them.  The issue of fatal foetal abnormalities is a serious and complex aspect of the abortion issue, which requires the most careful consideration.  The definition of the unborn in section 2 of the Bill is relevant to this question.  Sinn F&eacute;in has stated previously that the woman&rsquo;s voice must be at the centre of the process and that no undue obstacles or delays must be put in the way of necessary treatment and the party will assess sections 7, 8 and 9 in light of these requirements.  The criminalisation of women who have terminations outside the scope of this legislation and as the threatened imposition of a prison sentence of up to 14 years as penalty, as provided for in section 22 of the Bill, also are serious concerns.  Sinn F&eacute;in may address some or all of these and other matters on Committee Stage.</p><p> As I stated last December in the debate on the expert group report, as Members of these Houses we are obliged to legislate.  All Deputies have an obligation to address this need and to step up to the mark as legislators.  Members must approach this Bill with compassion, understanding and mutual respect.  I believe that now, more than ever, the majority of people know the complexity of this issue and know that simple black-and-white attitudes are inadequate and insufficient to address what is involved.  Members must face up to their responsibilities and this Bill, flawed in some respects though it may be, does exactly that and for this reason, I am pleased to confirm that Sinn F&eacute;in will support it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.249" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1015" speakername="Clare Daly" time="12:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000017#P00200"><p>I wish to share time with Deputies Wallace and Boyd Barrett.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.250" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="12:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000017#P00300"><p>Is ten minutes each agreed?  Agreed.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.251" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1015" speakername="Clare Daly" time="12:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000017#P00400"><p>I do not believe, as has been alleged by one contributor, that abortion is the divisive issue it once was.  Many people in Irish society have very different views on the subject, as is their right, but they also recognise it is a private health matter that primarily is one for the woman herself, as well as her doctors.  Repeated opinion polls have revealed the fact that the overwhelming majority of Irish citizens support the need for legislation for abortion where a woman's life is in danger, where she has been raped and impregnated as a result of the rape, in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities and in cases where a suicide risk occurs.  Many citizens also recognise that the choice should be the woman's, no matter what the circumstances.</p><p>  I am aware that because of the constitutional restrictions it would not have been possible for the Government to legislate for all of those circumstances but the Minister could have done a lot more, even within the confines under which he was operating.  I do not agree the legislation provides the necessary legal clarity and neither do I believe it makes the situation safer for women.  For me, it really is the absolute minimum with which the Minister could get away, to in part satisfy the European Court of Human Rights and to pacify some Government backbenchers.</p><p>  The deep irony is that the Labour Party which, when Members on this side moved our legislation previously, criticised us for not going far enough and told us it could not support our legislation because it did not make enough provision, is now putting forward this legislation, which could have gone further even within the constitutional restrictions.</p><p>  Other Members have explained why we are here.  Successive Governments have failed to legislate for the X case, to provide for abortion where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a woman.  That has been the legal position in this country for decades but because it was not legislated for and did not have an Act to back it up, no woman could avail of the provision.  I do not think the legislation clarifies the situation sufficiently.  In fact, the point made by the Chief Justice in the X case ruling, that the risk need not be immediate or inevitable, has not been addressed in the Bill.</p><p>That is something on which greater clarity could have been given.</p><p> We have had a good deal of discussion in the media but much of that has been a false debate.  It is as if what we are discussing is a way of minimising or restricting abortion in Ireland or providing for abortion in Ireland.  The reality is that Irish abortion exits.  We are just in a hypocritical situation in that we provide for it legally.  If she is Irish, a woman has an absolute legal right to have an abortion.  We have enshrined her right to travel but we do not allow her to have an abortion here at home.  That is not good enough.  That is a denial of the rights to more than 150,000 Irish women who have been forced to leave these shores in past decades.  All of the reasons those women had to travel, and none of them were easy, were invalid in my opinion.  The problem is that against the backdrop of increased austerity, the option to travel will be removed for many women on low incomes and will jeopardise women from non-national backgrounds.  I would look at this debate from a starting point of it being a basic human rights and health issue.</p><p> In some ways it is not the Minister's fault that this Bill is so limited.  The problem rests with our inadequate Constitution, a Constitution his colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, previously characterised as ensuring that not all our citizens are treated equally.  Under our Constitution, while there are no impediments to medical treatment for men when their health is in jeopardy.  That is a qualified right for women and means that some citizens are not equal to others.  That is not good enough.  The 8th amendment of the Constitution should be repealed.  It is something we have called for and will be pushing for beyond this, but I realise the Minister is operating within the confines of the Constitution as it stands.</p><p> I will refer to some points in that regard which we will tease out on Committee Stage through amendments because serious problems arise in this Bill.  It criminalises women and doctors.  The restrictions in it will continue to put the lives of women and girls at risk, and that is something we cannot stand over.  We intend to move a huge number of amendments to the Bill.</p><p> A major problem with the Bill is that it continues to pose abortion as a criminal offence, with a fine or imprisonment for a term of up to 14 years for women or doctors, including those who would use abortion pills to end an unwanted pregnancy.  It raises the spectre that a women who presents herself as suicidal and seeks an abortion potentially could face a period of imprisonment longer than the perpetrator of her rape would endure.  That is not good enough.</p><p> This legislation brands thousands of Irish women as criminals.  They have to sneak away or secretly get abortion pills, and in that sense it does not eliminate the chilling effect described by the European Court of Human Rights where women seek to get this treatment.  It will deter women from seeking aftercare where they have used abortion pills or where they travel abroad to seek an abortion.  As we know, criminalisation will not reduce the abortion rate.  It simply puts the lives of women and girls at risk, and that is something on which we will table an amendment because it is not good enough that it remains in the Bill.</p><p> The Bill does not overcome the difficulties outlined in the case of Savita Halappanavar and highlighted in the Health Service Executive report where it was clear that under law, as one of the consultants stated, if there is no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied as long as there is a foetal heartbeat.  That is a problem that is being enshrined in this legislation as well because what we are seeing is that medical conditions due to pregnancy are not, of themselves, life-threatening.  A miscarriage, for example, must be allowed to become life-threatening before a woman can legally get the necessary termination of pregnancy.  We will have the scenario of medical practitioners having to wait and see if their patient's health deteriorates to the point where their life is in danger before the matter can be addressed.</p><p> One of the issues the Minister's expert group dealt with was that under any circumstances, the opinion of only two medical practitioners should be sufficient.  We went to the trouble of convening an expert group.  That was its call on the matter for either mental health issues or medical issues, yet this Bill contains a requirement for up to four practitioners - an obstetrician, two psychiatrists and possibly the woman's own general practitioner.  They have to examine the woman, they must agree that she is suicidal and so on.  There is no doubt that will deter despairing women from even asking for an abortion in Ireland, especially when they have to face that type of tribunal.  It will drive them further overseas, and that is not good enough.  We could have done more.</p><p> One of the biggest problems with this Bill is the definition of the unborn.  Government Deputies will have to examine this matter.  We have all been struck by the tragedy of the families who have come forward with their very difficult stories where their foetus had a fatal abnormality and how those people had to endure the torture of either being faced with bringing that pregnancy to full term, with all the questions being asked of them such as when they are due and how they are getting on, or travelling to England like outcasts.  The existing legislative provision could have allowed the Minister to provide for cases of fatal foetal abnormality, but he has not done that.  That cannot be allowed to stand.  Not only has he not done it but by defining unborn human life, as he proposes to do in this legislation, as existing from the moment of implantation in the womb until delivery, and giving that an equal right to life as the woman or the girl, the Minister is removing the very possibility of legislating to deal with fatal foetal abnormalities.  He is closing off the D case ruling where the State argued that a fatal foetal abnormality could be grounds for a termination, even within the confines of the Constitution.  This is a cruel blow to the 1,500 women and couples who face that situation every year.  As an absolute minimum, that part of the Bill has to go.</p><p> We will have a debate over the coming weeks.  It is important that this Bill is before the House.  I am glad we have some legislation, but it could have been much better.  I hope we will amend it to ensure it is improved.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.253" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/956" speakername="Mick Wallace" time="12:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000018#Q00200"><p>This Bill is important symbolically but, in truth, very few women in Ireland will benefit from the legislation.  Very few women will avail of abortion in Ireland because of this Bill.  Women who require medical treatment will continue to be exported out of this country under a veil of silence - hidden, stigmatised, and away from the support network of family and friends.  The same mentality that saw women incarcerated behind the walls of the Magdalen laundries, unsupported and hidden from public view, will continue to prevail in Ireland.</p><p>  I am glad the legislation has arrived.  We regret that it does not provide for more comprehensive provision of abortion where a woman's life is in danger or in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities, which would have been possible even within the limitations of the current constitutional restrictions.</p><p>  It is ironic that the legislation was published the same day as the Minister of State, Deputy Kathleen Lynch, appeared before an Oireachtas committee to discuss the Government's suicide awareness strategy.  It is clear from this Bill that the Government's concern for those at risk of suicide does not extend to pregnant women.  Under this Bill, a suicidal pregnant woman could potentially have to deal with seven medical practitioners before she is granted access to an abortion.</p><p>  In A, B and C <i>v.</i> Ireland, the European Court of Human Rights expressed concern about the absence of an effective and accessible domestic procedure in Ireland for establishing whether some pregnancies pose a real and substantial medical risk to the life of the mother.  I ask the Minister to explain how the proposal around suicide in this Bill constitutes an effective and accessible procedure.  The Government should be mindful of other case law from the European Court of Human Rights such as the 2007 Polish case in which the court stated, &quot;once the legislature decides to allow abortion, it must not structure its legal framework in a way which would limit real possibilities to obtain it&quot;.  To quote Noeleen Hartigan of Amnesty International Ireland, for a law to be meaningful, it must be accessible.</p><p>The proposed Bill falls well short of international human rights standards on women's reproductive rights.  In my view, the proposal for suicidal, pregnant women in this Bill is barbaric.  It is tantamount to torture.  It tells women mental health is not real health.  It tells them the State does not trust them, that they must be interrogated and prove themselves not to be liars.  The Bill is based on the premise that women are manipulative and untrustworthy.  It is an insult to them.  No more than two medical practitioners should be required to assess a woman in such a situation.  The Minister's proposal is neither effective nor accessible for pregnant women.</p><p> What are the options for a suicidal pregnant woman who would rather not put herself through this inquisition?  If possible, she may travel abroad to seek a termination, which involves a significant financial cost, and God knows money is scarce in this age of austerity, or she may, like thousands of other women, order the abortion pill on-line and self-administer it at home in Ireland.  The Irish State ignores the former option but will potentially imprison her for up to 14 years for the latter.  The level of hypocrisy is shocking. </p><p> The severe criminal penalties for women and doctors in the legislation are completely out of step with international best practice.  Not only are they cruel and unduly harsh, they are ineffective because research has shown criminalisation does not reduce the number of abortions.  Only this week in <i>The Irish Times</i>, Dr. Peadar O'Grady wrote: <blockquote>A study published in the <i>Lancet </i>medical journal in 2012 reports that restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower rates of abortion.  The region with the highest rate, 32 abortions per thousand women aged 15-44, is Latin America, where 95 per cent of abortions are illegal.  The region with the lowest, 12 abortions per thousand, is western Europe, where abortion is available on broad grounds and almost all are safe and legal...Unsafe abortion, by untrained staff in unsuitable facilities, happens where there is restricted access to legal abortion services and is one of the top three causes of maternal mortality in the world.<br /><br /> One of the reasons Ireland can boast such low levels of maternal mortality is that we have access to safe and legal abortion, mainly in the UK. </blockquote> The UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health, Anand Grover, has called on states to decriminalise abortion.  He said, &quot;Criminal laws and other legal restrictions on sexual and reproductive health may have a negative impact on the right to health in many ways, including by interfering with human dignity.  Respect for dignity is fundamental to the realisation of all human rights.  Dignity requires that individuals are free to make personal decisions without interference from the state, especially in an area as important and intimate as sexual and reproductive health.&quot;  Criminalisation generates and perpetrates stigma.  Criminal laws and other legal restrictions disempower women who may be deferred from taking steps to protect their health to avoid liability and out of fear of stigmatisation.  The likely effects of the criminal penalties in the legislation is that they will make women afraid to disclose information to their doctors about previous abortions and to seek medical assistance in the event of complications arising from an illegal abortion.  Section 22 must be removed from the Bill.</p><p> According the latest opinion poll in <i>The Irish Times</i>, 83% of voters support abortion where the fetus is not capable of surviving outside the womb.  For those of us in this Chamber who have taken the time to listen to the harrowing experiences of women forced to terminate much wanted pregnancies abroad due to fatal fetal abnormalities, it is difficult to understand why the Minister refuses to cover these circumstances in the legislation.  As has been stated repeatedly, there are many strong and convincing arguments that abortion in cases of fatal fetal abnormality could be included in this legislation without the need for constitutional referendum.  The Government argued before the European Court of Human Rights in 2005 that given the circumstances the Irish courts were unlikely to interpret Article 40&deg;3.3 of the Constitution with remorseless logic.  Case law form the European Court of Human Rights indicates that the Council of Europe member states must ensure women seeking lawful terminations are not exposed to inhuman and degrading treatment, contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.  The Irish Council for Civil Liberties has argued that the current treatment of women with pregnancies involving a defined set of fatal fetal abnormalities potentially falls foul of Article 3 of the Constitution.  I commend the families of the campaign group Termination for Medical Reasons, who have worked tirelessly to make legislators and the public aware of this issue and who have shared their deeply personal experiences with us.</p><p> Ultimately we must ask if the Bill complies with Ireland's obligation with the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in the A, B and C <i>v</i>. Ireland case.  Does it comply with the European Convention on Human Rights or international human rights standards generally?  It is doubtful that it does for the reasons I have already mentioned.  This was an opportunity for the Government to break with the past and take a real step forward.  It was an opportunity to produce practical, accessible legislation for women whose lives are at risk because of pregnancy.  It is a lost opportunity.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.255" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="13:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000019#R00200"><p>This debate and this legislation are at least 20 years too late.  Given the tragic circumstance surrounding the X case, when a 14 year old rape victim was denied the right to have an abortion in this country, and initially denied the right to travel to Britain for an abortion, who then became suicidal, and only as a result of public outrage was the Supreme Court finally forced to acknowledge she had the right to an abortion because her life was threatened as a result of suicide, it is shameful that 20 years on we still have not acknowledged the legal right to termination in those circumstances, which was decided by the Supreme Court.</p><p>  That 20 year delay, a result of the cowardice of successive Governments, contributed substantially to the tragedies of the A, B, C and D cases and, most recently, the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.  Let me say before dealing with the specifics of the Bill, whether it passes or not - it probably will pass - it will still leave us with the disgraceful situation where, if a 14 year old is raped but not suicidal, she will be denied the right to have an abortion in this country and will be forced to travel abroad.  It will deny huge numbers of other women in crisis pregnancies where their mental or physical health might be threatened the right to terminate those pregnancies.  Thousands more women, irrespective of whether the Bill passes, will be forced to travel in the dead of night, with all the stigma associated with abortion, which this legislation sets out to reinforce with its continuing criminalisation of abortion, will continue.  Disgracefully, where the health of women is threatened, they will be forced to leave the country and their support and family networks to seek abortions elsewhere because the Constitution maintains an utterly false distinction between the life and the health of a woman.</p><p>Any doctor will tell the Minister there is no such distinction.  There is no distinction between the life and the health of a woman.  Whatever happens with this legislation, as soon as it is passed, as it probably will be, the campaign to repeal the eighth amendment, and to remove the prohibition on abortion that exists that results in a situation where thousands of women every year in tragic and difficult circumstances must travel abroad, must begin immediately.  That, in a way, is a campaign and a debate for another day.</p><p> I accept that the Government must deal with the current constitutional framework set down in the X case judgment.  However, this legislation is the absolute most minimal possible interpretation of the X case judgment and needs to be radically amended if it is not to leave us in a situation where many of the injustices and the ignominies that are inflicted on women in this country as a result of our laws on abortion will continue.</p><p> First, let me address the issue of fatal foetal abnormalities.  Here the Government has no excuse.  There is no reason whatsoever this legislation should not contain the right for women who are pregnant in situations where the foetus has fatal abnormalities which are incompatible with life to terminate those pregnancies.  As someone who had a daughter with fatal foetal abnormalities, I am aware that the diagnosis that one is given when one gets that terrible news from the doctors is that the condition is &quot;incompatible with human life&quot;.  Therefore, as a series of professors of law, barristers and solicitors have testified in a letter to <i>The Irish Times</i>this week, because such conditions are incompatible with life, to allow for terminations in that circumstances does not run foul of the Supreme Court judgment and of the current constitutional position.  The Government could legislate for that in this legislation and it should.  Its failure to do so is really quite reprehensible and will lead to a situation where people who have wanted pregnancies but get this terrible news that the foetus has fatal abnormalities will continue to be forced to have to travel to Britain where they do not have their family and support networks, etc.</p><p> Added to that, they will still have surrounding their actions in seeking terminations abroad the stigma that the terminations they seek will in this jurisdiction be considered criminal actions, and it is absolutely incomprehensible to me that the Government could include in this legislation a 14-year prison sentence sanction, for example, for somebody who had a pregnancy with fatal foetal abnormality and sought a termination in this country, and that she could be criminalised and, potentially, imprisoned for 14 years.  It is unbelievable that such a sanction would be included.  I seriously ask anybody on the Government side if he or she really believes that a woman in those circumstances who seeks an abortion in this country is a criminal and should be subject to a 14-year prison sentence?  Does any of them really believe any woman in a crisis pregnancy situation who, for example, takes an abortifacient should be criminalised?  Nobody in all of the committee discussions stated that should happen or such women should be jailed, yet it is included in this legislation.  It is simply unbelievable.  It means, with the stigma surrounding abortion, that the thousands of women who under whatever circumstances still have to travel abroad to Britain for an abortion will be under a veil of criminality that what they are doing is shameful and criminal according to the law of the State.  That is absolutely unacceptable and that section of this Bill should be removed.</p><p> Furthermore, in the situations of suicidal intent, it is unacceptable that a distinction is made in this Bill between mental health and physical health.  For doctors in the medical world, no such distinction exists.  The idea that there should be a higher threshold for someone whose life is threatened as a result of suicidal ideation or mental health issues and somebody whose life is threatened as a result of physical health issues, that any distinction of that sort should be made, is unacceptable.</p><p> The requirement that women who are suicidal should face interrogation by up to seven doctors is simply inexplicable.  There is no medical justification for it whatsoever.  For example, why do we need an obstetrician?  An obstetrician has no role whatsoever to play in assessing whether somebody is suicidal.  An obstetrician is simply not required in this equation.  There is only a requirement for one psychiatrist and for a GP, as in other cases where the life of the woman is threatened as a result of a physical threat.  Why make this distinction?  The only reason the Minister is making that distinction is to assuage the opposition of Members in this House who believe they have the right to impose their morality on the bodies of women in such a way as, potentially, would threaten the life and the health of those women, and that is unacceptable.</p><p> This legislation must be radically amended and I would appeal to the Government to accept the amendments that will come forward on those issues.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.257" nospeaker="true" time="13:15:00" ><p>Debate adjourned.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.258" nospeaker="true" time="13:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000020#S00250">Message from Joint Committee</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.259" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="13:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000020#S00300"><p>The Joint Committee on Education and Social Protection has completed its consideration of the Employment Equality Act, 1998 (section 12) (Church of Ireland College of Education) Order 2013.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.261" nospeaker="true" time="13:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000020#S00500">An Bille um an Dara Leas&uacute; is Tr&iacute;ocha ar an mBunreacht (Deireadh a Chur le Seanad &Eacute;ireann) 2013: Second Stage (Resumed) - Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad &Eacute;ireann) Bill 2013: Second Stage (Resumed)</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.262" nospeaker="true" time="13:15:00" ><p>Thairg an Taoiseach an tairiscint seo ar an D&eacute;ardaoin, 13 Meitheamh 2013:Go l&eacute;ifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.263" nospeaker="true" time="13:15:00" ><p>The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Thursday, 13 June 2013:That the Bill be now read a Second Time.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.264" nospeaker="true" time="13:15:00" ><p>At&oacute;gadh an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht ar leas&uacute; a 1:

Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:To delete all words after &quot;that&quot; and substitute &quot;D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann declines to give the Bill a second reading on the basis that it seeks to abolish Seanad &Eacute;ireann without affording the opportunity to reform Seanad &Eacute;ireann as set out in the Seanad (No. 2) Bill 2013&quot;.(Deputy Shane Ross)</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.265" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1021" speakername="Se&aacute;n Kenny" time="13:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000020#S00900"><p>Those who are in favour of retaining the Seanad would have to agree that the present Seanad is quite simply not up to the job of acting as the Upper House.  I have never been a Member of the Seanad but I believe it is out of date in terms of how it does its legislative business.</p><p>  As well as that, the electoral system that elects its Members is highly undemocratic and elitist.  It has been used as a preparation ground for aspiring political party candidates as well as a retirement ground for those who have served their parties, and as compensation for those party members who have lost their D&aacute;il seats.  That is not a positive sign that the present Seanad is working as it should.  Whatever the outcome of the referendum, the Seanad, as it currently functions, needs to be changed.</p><p>  All of that said, it must be acknowledged that there are Senators who have made excellent contributions and have done great work.  Public figures who have made significant contributions to politics in Ireland began their political careers in the Seanad.  I am thinking, particularly, of the current President, Uachtar&aacute;n Michael D. Higgins, former President Mary Robinson and former Taoiseach, the late Dr. Garret FitzGerald.  Irish society would have been a much poorer place without their contribution and owes much to them and to the Seanad for that.</p><p>  It is important to point out that the decision regarding the abolition of the Seanad will be a decision for the people, not the Members of the Oireachtas or the Government.  If the people decide that they want to retain it, as I do, it is their right to make that decision.</p><p>If the people make the decision to retain the Seanad, the Government must respect the decision and develop alternative proposals to deal with it.  If the referendum fails, I feel strongly that it should not be seen as the people wanting nothing to be done about the Seanad, and there is much unhappiness about the way it functions.  There is also much concern among the public about how this House functions and we as legislators, as well as the Government, must bear that in mind and respond in a serious, meaningful and constructive fashion.</p><p> The proposal to abolish the Seanad comes in conjunction with changes to local government in order to give councils more autonomy.  It is also fair to say that a unicameral system, where a country has one house instead of two in parliament, is common in countries of a similar size to Ireland.  Legislators and the general public must ask themselves if the State genuinely needs Seanad &Eacute;ireann and if there is an overwhelming argument that requires the second House to oversee the work done in the D&aacute;il.  The consequences of the referendum vote must be considered fully by the people.</p><p> Whatever views people have of the Seanad or whatever views they may form during the referendum campaign, they should study the option before them very carefully, as this vote is about amending our Constitution.  As with all referenda, the ability to make such a change should never be taken lightly.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.267" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1048" speakername="Arthur Spring" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00200"><p>I am in favour of saving the Seanad and I will outline my reasons.  The previous Deputy spoke of our current President, Michael D. Higgins, and one can also consider a former president and member of my party, Mary Robinson, and the contribution they have made to society.  One wonders if they could have had a platform on which to launch a political career of such importance to our country without a Seanad.  We also know a former Taoiseach from Fine Gael, Garrett FitzGerald, a good man for the people of Ireland, also started his career in the Seanad.  A certain calibre of people have come through the Seanad and they have gone on to make a significant political contribution not just in this House but also to the presidency and within political parties in instances where they have not become Deputies.</p><p>  There is as much enlightenment within the Upper House as there is in the Lower House, and we should not underestimate what will happen.  The appetite of the Irish public is not to keep on politicians who are costing the Exchequer significant amounts, and the lowest common denominator is often where we head to in politics and media coverage.  There is a need for enormous reform in how we conduct business in this House and in our relationship with the media.  We must also consider how people are provided with access to informed debate through media rather than headline arguments.  There is a level of cynicism directed at politics and the media which serves neither side well.</p><p>  Modern politics is far from where it was at the foundation of the State and we can agree that the complexity can only be met by expertise, specialty and dedication.  The Taoiseach has spoken about a four-day sitting week for the D&aacute;il and although I agree with many of his points, a four-day sitting every week will not keep us in touch with the people or the reality on the ground and it will not make this place more productive.  For example, when we are working during the course of the day on committees or elsewhere, if somebody decides there is to be a vote, we must all rise, with a disruption of business for half an hour.  With 166 Deputies disrupted for half an hour, the immediate loss is approximately 83 man hours.  No business, commercial entity or State organisation would put up with such a lack of productivity, and the simple solution is to group votes at the end of the week.</p><p>  There is also a need to consider best practice elsewhere, and we can consider Scandinavia as an example, where I was privileged to have studied for a year.  We can also consider the Germanic model of having two weeks on and two weeks off, where a politician reads documents and has access to committees and departments for research purposes.  There is also the possibility of speaking to interest groups before bringing forward proposals.</p><p>  We all like the idea of being significant and relevant in Irish society but the idea that the D&aacute;il is far more significant in how the Executive runs than the Seanad is something I do not believe in as a first-time Deputy.  My Labour Party colleague in Kerry provides a service to people, and people need and welcome this.  The idea of doing away with a second Chamber that examines the D&aacute;il indicates we have a monopoly on wisdom within this Chamber.  There are some fine people in the Upper Chamber we would like to see having a larger role in society.</p><p>  We have spoken about empowering committees but the most important factor for all committees is how much access they have to finance.  We should have a better budgetary system than the Ministers for Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputies Noonan and Howlin, coming here and producing a document that we either favour or do not favour on the basis of our political party membership.  Nevertheless, I have the utmost respect for those men.  There is an appetite in the people for us to say we are not in favour of such a process, and the electorate are educated and informed.  They find it a little crazy that we rubber-stamp a budget like that, and they would like to be far more informed about what is going on.  That is a bigger issue.</p><p>  The role of the Executive can be examined on many fronts and when a Minister has complete power, there must be a detailed examination of what that entails.  Far too often a Minister's weekly schedule involves a scissors and cheque book while travelling the length and breadth of the country, covering as many as 2,000 miles per week.  That is not just this or the last Government, and it is supposedly what Ministers are meant to do.  I would be delighted as a member of the Executive if that was the case because it would not leave time for consideration of a portfolio.</p><p>  We should consider single seat constituencies.  If we want policy-based politics, we should examine how to prioritise ideology rather than personalities.  Many of us in the Chamber have been told that we come from political dynasties, or as I say myself, a genetic disposition towards politics-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.268" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00300"><p>Some of us do not.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.269" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1048" speakername="Arthur Spring" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00400"><p>Others deal in populism, which also works quite well.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.270" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00500"><p>Excuse me, Deputy Spring?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.271" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1048" speakername="Arthur Spring" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00600"><p>How does the Deputy know I am referring to his good self?  There are plenty of others in the House.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.272" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00700"><p>A guilty conscience.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.273" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00800"><p>A guilty pleasure.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.274" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1048" speakername="Arthur Spring" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T00900"><p>I am in favour of much more reform and the Constitutional Convention should have a role to play in how we look at the Seanad and this House.  During Leaders' Questions it was mentioned that there are fine people in this House and 90% of Members have the common interest of the people of Ireland at heart.  They would like to see this place work more effectively.  At the last election there was the largest turnaround of Deputies, with 76 new Deputies introduced, and I have yet to hear any of them state that this place works according to how they want it to.  Many of us did not study politics and do not know the solution but one should not throw out what we have if there is no solution in place.  If we examine the matter and take it seriously, we should be able to formulate a solution.</p><p>  The Seanad has a role to play overall but how we elect people to the Seanad must be changed.  I was in the envious position of having three votes for the Seanad election due to having qualifications from colleges-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.275" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1076" speakername="Dominic Hannigan" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T01000"><p>The Deputy is overqualified.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.276" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T01100"><p>That would be handy for the D&aacute;il.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.277" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1048" speakername="Arthur Spring" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T01200"><p>Not quite.  Such a process is completely unfair and democracy must be brought into it.  There may be a need for a list system involving people such as experts in the legal or medical systems, and they may need to be aligned to political parties or groups being put forward for the betterment of the country.</p><p>  I look forward to this debate but I will not be knocking on doors and asking people to get rid of the Seanad.  I will be informing people that the system we have is not working and should be reconsidered and reformed.  We will have done a good deed for the people if we reform the D&aacute;il and Seanad while considering bringing more powers to the committees.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.278" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1076" speakername="Dominic Hannigan" time="13:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000021#T01300"><p>I thank Deputy Spring for kindly sharing his time.  He spoke earlier about family connections with this House and I remind him that it was 70 years ago this week when his grandfather was first elected to this House.</p><p>I congratulate Deputy Spring and his family on that anniversary.  Like many of the speakers in this debate, I have had the opportunity to serve in the Seanad.  I spent three and a half years there before entering this House in 2011.  Therefore, I have a knowledge and understanding of the role the Seanad plays in our political system.  I have also had the opportunity as a Member of listening to and learning from some of the greatest parliamentarians of our time.  I have seen the Seanad operate on good days but I have also seen it operate on bad days.  I was present for the debates on NAMA, civil partnership and the bank guarantee when voices from around the House raised issues that had not been considered in this House.  Senators put down amendments to Bills that had not been suggested by this House to help to improve legislation.  However, I have also been there on occasions which were not so positive.  I recall farcical situations when business was stopped to facilitate games of golf.  I listened to debates around claims for expenses by Members which were suspect, to say the least.  I have seen the Seanad vote to change legislation, only to see the Government of the day vote again to overturn the first vote.  During my time in the Seanad I saw the Government of the day and the Seanad of the day, by their actions, make the case for abolition.</p><p> In the context of this debate, one must ask if there is sufficient good being done in the Seanad to justify its continued existence.  I have no doubt that there are individuals of worth there.  I also have no doubt that the current crop of Senators are decent, well-meaning national servants.  The views explored and exposed by many of the Senators have not been shared and explored elsewhere.  However, the institution in which the Senators serve is rotten and in my view, rotten beyond reform.  There have been ten or 12 different proposals for reform of the Seanad since 1937 but none of them has come to fruition.  There has been much talk, for instance, of extending the franchise to all university graduates.  That is fine if one is a graduate but it is still elitist <i>vis-&agrave;-vis</i>my friends, family and neighbours who never had the opportunity to go to college in the first place.  There has also been much talk about extending the role of the Seanad, giving it more oversight on European issues and so forth but we have committees to do things like that.  Certainly, we should increase the power of committees where necessary and increase their ability to hold the Executive to account.  However, we do not need to reform the Seanad to do that.  People have spoken about how the Seanad holds the Government to account but that is being done elsewhere too.  It is being done in the broadcast, print and social media.  Indeed, Twitter in many ways is the Seanad of the people of today.  The simple fact is that the Seanad simply replicates what is going on elsewhere and what is being done well elsewhere.  It has become little more than an expensive cr&egrave;che for aspiring TDs and a nursing home for elder states-people.  We need to do what other small, mature democracies have done, namely, shut it down and move on.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.280" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1017" speakername="Finian McGrath" time="13:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000022#U00200"><p>I wish to share time with Deputy Seamus Healy.  I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of the Seanad) Bill 2013.  I strongly oppose the abolition of the Seanad.  In this debate, I would like to bring the fight to the abolitionists and challenge them in their efforts to damage the democratic process in this country.  I support the argument that we need change, reform and a more inclusive Seanad, with a better democratic mandate.  However, to the abolitionists I say, "You are wrong".  They are wrong in their assessment and wrong in wanting to end the second Chamber of the Oireachtas.  We on the reformist side want a new Seanad.  I propose to outline today my proposals for reform of both the D&aacute;il and Seanad.</p><p>  In the last general election my political manifesto contained a section dealing with reform of the Seanad and the D&aacute;il and I was elected on that platform.  An integral part of my manifesto was not to abolish the Seanad and I said that to the electorate when I went knocking on doors in Dublin Bay North.  My manifesto proposed that we create a real democracy with accountability at every level.  We do need to cut the fat.  We need to transform the Seanad, a point I fully accept.  We need to transform it into a genuine forum for civic society.  We need to introduce more vouched expenses for all politicians.  We need to be seen to make the Parliament work and to stop the use of the guillotine to pass laws that have not been scrutinised adequately.</p><p>  We must give Oireachtas committees the power to examine proposals for spending before it happens and to hold real inquiries with the power to compel witnesses and discover documents.  We must also make senior public servants responsible for their decisions and actions.  When I was a principal of a disadvantaged school, I was answerable to the Department for every single cent I spent, as well as being answerable to a board of management.  There is no reason why senior civil servants cannot take the hit and get on with it.  We must bring real transparency to the funding of political parties and make them publish annual accounts.  Some of this process of reform has started but we have a long way to go.</p><p>  We must register and control lobbyists, protect whistleblowers and make all appointments to State or public bodies and the Judiciary open to public competition and D&aacute;il scrutiny.  We need to ban any individual from being a director of more than three companies or public bodies.  We also need to conduct an urgent review of company law to ensure that white-collar criminals are brought to justice.  We need to restore the right to know through the Freedom of Information Act.  These are just some reform proposals that I am putting forward today.  I put it to the abolitionists that these are serious reforms.  There is no limit to what can be achieved by a community or a society working together.  In this context, I mean the citizens of this State, the D&aacute;il and the Seanad all working together.</p><p>  The Seanad Bill 2013, published a number of weeks ago by Senator Feargal Quinn and introduced in the D&aacute;il by Deputy Shane Ross, contains some excellent proposals for reform.  The Bill outlines how the Constitution provides that the Oireachtas shall be the national parliament and shall consist of the President and two houses; the house of representatives, to be called D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann and a Senate, to be called Seanad &Eacute;ireann.  The Seanad's role under the Constitution includes &quot;important safeguards for the citizens and the State and important checks and balances in relation to the performances of the Executive, legislative and judicial powers of Government in the State and in relation to the European Union&quot;.  That is very important in a country that is under the supervision of the troika.  It is also very important in the context of the amount of legislation emanating from the EU.</p><p>  The sensible Bill, namely the Seanad Bill 2013, opens up the Seanad to a wider electorate, including every person who is eligible to vote in any other parliamentary election in the State, as well as to Irish people abroad, eligible persons in Northern Ireland and graduates of other universities.  These are three sensible proposals.  I would love to see the Irish abroad being involved in the political process and having a House to represent them.  I would also love to see people from the Six Counties, who often feel excluded from the rest of this island, being represented in the Seanad.  There is a mindset in this D&aacute;il that believes that Ireland stops at Dundalk and I want to challenge that mindset.  Senator Quinn's Bill proposes that people from the North be given an opportunity to have their voices heard.  The Taoiseach spoke about the peace process yesterday, which we must embed.  Everybody has a role to play in the peace process and people in the North should be given a voice in our Seanad - a reformed Seanad.</p><p>  The good Bill, as I call it, is the Seanad Bill while the Government's Bill is the bad bill.  The good Bill also provides for a more open and inclusive Seanad whose elected membership will have an equal number of males and females.  This deals with the equality issue.  Many people jump up and down, shouting about the lack of women in politics but this legislation proposes to address this.  It puts equality on the table and puts it up to the Government.  I challenge the abolitionists on this.  The reformists are bringing forward realistic proposals to reform this country.  The Seanad Bill also provides that the process of nominating persons to be candidates for the Seanad be opened up to allow candidates to be nominated by popular support, which amounts to a citizens' Senate.  I would love to see that happening.</p><p>  The Seanad Bill also confers a range of additional powers on the Seanad in areas such as the scrutiny of legislation, the examination of public appointments as well as the holding of inquiries.  The legislation contains sensible proposals put forward by those on the reformist side.  It represents a challenge to the abolitionists.  We will continue to challenge the abolitionists in the D&aacute;il, in the media and in our constituencies.  We are putting forward proposals for real reform here.  Every single new Deputy in this House was elected on the promise of change and reform.  Now is our chance and our opportunity because democracy is under threat from the abolitionists.</p><p>It is very important that we state this.  Many people are anti-politics and not only Ireland has a crisis.  Other countries also have a disconnect and a lack of trust between the political system and the people.  Consider the turnout in by-elections and general elections.  In parts of my constituency more than one third of people regularly do not vote.  These are often the people who need a voice in D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann.  They also need a voice in a reformed Seanad.</p><p> The year 2012 was characterised by the sovereign debt crisis and weak political leadership throughout the political world.  This is what people stated throughout the European Union and the United States.  Popular confidence in political institutions has declined throughout Europe.  If we do not protect and defend them, other more extreme elements will move into this space.  This is why we should never take democracy for granted.  We should consider the countries in which it has collapsed and what happened in the 1930s and 1940s.  We cannot allow democracy to come under threat.</p><p> It does my head in when people jump up and down about the cost of the Seanad.  A Fine Gael Senator told me it works out at &euro;3 per year per taxpayer to keep the Seanad open.  What is wrong with this?  It is the cost of half a bottle of beer or half a pint of Guinness.  Let us not jump up and down about costs.  Democracy does cost money but we must defend it.  It is important that this is stated during the debate.  Countries in Latin America have had horrific examples of a negative impact on democracy.  Flawed democracies are dangerous for all countries and not just themselves.  When one has a flawed democracy one is under pressure.  We need a second chamber to do radical things, examine legislation and come up with new ideas and have fresh thinking.</p><p> According to <i>The Economist</i>, in some countries policy is no longer set by national legislatures and elected politicians but is effectively set by official creditors such as the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the IMF, and the severity of austerity has tended to weaken social cohesion and diminish further trust in political institutions.  I urge all Deputies to stand up and fight for democracy and join us, the reformers, and take on the abolitionists.  I urge all Deputies to reject the Bill and support a new reformed, inclusive and democratic Seanad.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.282" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/960" speakername="S&eacute;amus Healy" time="13:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000023#V00200"><p>I welcome the opportunity to speak on this legislation.  Historically the socialist movement has favoured a unicameral, or single-chamber, legislature based on universal adult suffrage.  It has opposed second chambers based on restricted franchise or hereditary privilege, as is the case with the British House of Lords.  This position is based on the principle of an equal say in government for all, irrespective of wealth or social status, and that legislators should be democratically accountable to all.  I agree with this position.  Today these principles are being circumvented by other means, including the funding of political parties by very wealthy interests, the control of information and the media by very wealthy interests and the evasion of real accountability by politicians.</p><p>  The problem with the Bill is that it is largely a political stunt.  There is no commitment from the Government to real Oireachtas reform, particularly real D&aacute;il reform.  I am sure the Government will point to some changes that have been made since it came to power, including Friday sittings and the Topical Issue debate.  The Friday sittings are a complete sham, with no Leaders' Questions, no Order of Business and no votes.  It is simply an expensive sham.  It is difficult to get a Topical Issue accepted for debate and if it is accepted the question or issue will almost certainly be answered by a Minister of State, almost always not from the Department relevant to the question, reading from a prepared script and answering questions from another prepared script.  This is not, in my view, D&aacute;il reform.</p><p>  The main duty of Deputies and Senators is to legislate, but there is no requirement to attend Leinster House to draw one's salary.  Even when a Deputy is present in Leinster House there is no requirement to vote for or against legislation or proposals or to register a formal abstention.  There would be an absolute outcry if an employee in wider society was not required to turn up for work in order to be paid.  Some politicians have attempted to confuse this issue with the assertion they are present in the building but not in the D&aacute;il Chamber, but this is completely beside the point.  A constituent is entitled to know the attitude of his or her Deputy on every Bill.  Under current arrangements in the House a Deputy can evade such scrutiny.  This requires the most urgent reform.</p><p>  In modern times Deputies, and particularly Ministers, who act in the interests of the wealthy need have no personal fear of defeat in the next election.  They will be looked after by wealthy interests with directorships and post-retirement employment.  With D&aacute;il terms set at five years it is possible for parties and individuals to promise the earth at election time and, having been elected, proceed with exactly the opposite policies for the full term.  This is a huge difficulty and brings the Chamber, the Oireachtas, politics generally and politicians into disrepute.  We have a perfect example of this with the two parties in government, who gave various commitments, but the minute they were elected they came in here and effectively took the clothes off Fianna F&aacute;il and the Green Party and are now comfortably implementing their failed policies, which are the direct opposite of the policies they stood for during the course of the last election campaign.</p><p>  Other jurisdictions have counterweights to this situation.  The title Teachta D&aacute;la means politicians are in this House to vote in place of their constituents.  If they fail to do so there should be a facility to have them recalled.  A facility must and should be put in place whereby a Deputy can be recalled by constituents following the presentation of a registered and scrutinised petition for a by-election.  This is the nub of the question of accountability in the House and the Oireachtas generally, and such a system should be brought into being.</p><p>  The guillotining of debates in the House is now commonplace.  A commitment was made by both Government parties that business here would be done in a transparent manner and guillotines would not be used, as they had been used too frequently and regularly by the previous Government, but this Government would not do so.  As we all know, we have guillotine after guillotine.</p><p>There may be emergencies in which guillotines are necessary.  In such situations, there should be a requirement that at least two thirds of Deputies must vote for the guillotine.  This would ensure the guillotine's use in emergency situations only.</p><p> The Standing Orders of the D&aacute;il are stacked against small party Deputies and Independents.  For example, no Independent or Deputy from a small party can address the Chamber on the Order of Business.  This unsustainable and undemocratic situation should be addressed immediately to ensure that their voices are heard.</p><p> The Government's energy, particularly that of the Labour Party, should be used to introduce the kinds of reform to which I referred.  This would be in the best interests of the country's labour and socialist traditions.  Such reforms should take precedence over the Seanad issue.  Instead, the Bill to abolish the Seanad represents a hypocritical, populist stunt.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.284" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="13:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000024#W00200"><p>Deputy Harris is sharing time with Deputies Dara Murphy and Buttimer.  Deputy Harris has seven and a half minutes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.285" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1106" speakername="Simon Harris" time="13:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000024#W00300"><p>Deputy Healy referred to what he believed were the Government's broken commitments.  That is ironic, given that the legislation before the House was a commitment by the Taoiseach in his capacity as leader of Fine Gael before the last general election and by him, the T&aacute;naiste and the Fine Gael and Labour parties in the programme for Government.  The commitment was to hold a referendum.</p><p>  In an energised contribution, Deputy Finian McGrath mentioned abolitionists versus reformists.  It is important to point out that the only people who have the opportunity to abolish the Seanad are the Irish people.  I thank the Government for its early establishment of a referendum commission and the appointment of a judge to chair it.  From past referendum campaigns, we know how essential it is that people be provided with all of the information and facts in an impartial fashion so they can make an educated and informed decision when voting.</p><p>  The decision to put to the people a referendum on abolishing the Seanad shows guts.  It would be easier for a political leader, including the Taoiseach, to keep trucking along without changing systems.  It would be easier for a Fine Gael leader with Fine Gael Senators not to propose that people currently employed in this building should lose their jobs if the Irish people abolish the Seanad.  It would have been much easier for the Government not to abolish town councils or not to reduce the number of councillors.  Through this referendum Bill, however, the Government is telling the Irish people that, since their private and public sector workplaces have been asked to change practices and, to use that famous phrase, do more with less, including fewer colleagues, so must the Oireachtas change.  While the entire world changes around us, we cannot stay in a Leinster House bubble operating a system that we inherited from the British establishment when it ran this country.  That history is the reason for our bicameral system and for us being so out of step with other countries of a similar size in the EU.  It does not have to do with a lofty, grand constitutional ideal.  Like many aspects of this country, we inherited it from the British.  As a modern republic that is recreating its economy and society and stabilising our country, it is time that we investigate whether our structures are fit for purpose.</p><p>  The Fine Gael Party, our leader and the Government have been consistent on this matter.  The only party in the last general election to campaign for a reformed Seanad rather than an abolished one was the Green Party, which won no seats in this House.  The manifesto of every other political party at least referred to considering the abolition of the Seanad.</p><p>  Many ideas have been suggested as to how to reform a second House.  When I vote on the referendum in the autumn, I will ask whether we need a second House.  In the opinion of the Government, myself and many others, we do not.  Many countries operate quite well with one house of parliament.  I respect many of those who argue to reform and retain the Seanad but some of their arguments are somewhat insulting, elitist and condescending, for example, the idea that the Irish people cannot be trusted to elect their leaders and that, since the people elected to the D&aacute;il are not up to the job, we need experts, specialists, elites and people with the God given right to sit and judge our laws.  I trust my electorate and the Irish electorate.  If they do not believe that I am up to the job, they can sack me.  Why do we need to second guess the electorate?  That is not a democratic or republican value.</p><p>  We have also heard arguments about the need for expert advice.  While I agree, I would argue that we were provided with a range of expert advice at the hearings on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.  Not one of those people who provided advice was a Member of the Oireachtas.  Regardless of their viewpoints, they gave compelling arguments and presented their evidence.  I would argue that many of the experts who appeared before the Oireachtas hearings impacted on the formation of legislation more than any Member did.  We have seen a format whereby experts can be engaged.</p><p>  I have heard a great deal about the Seanad amending legislation.  The overwhelming majority of the accepted amendments were tabled by the Government.  They were often technical in nature and could have been tabled by a Minister at a strengthened Committee Stage.</p><p>  Many people hold the sincere opinion that elections of the Seanad should be opened up to everyone but this would just create another D&aacute;il.  We do not need a second D&aacute;il that would mirror existing structures.</p><p>  The last argument, which is compelling when first heard, is that there are some very good Senators who would never get elected to the D&aacute;il because they are not involved in the parish pump politics that we too often see.  This is not true.  Deputy Ross was, as the longest serving Senator, the father of the Seanad.  I congratulate him on making the decision to seek election to this House.  He was elected with a huge vote.  I see no evidence to suggest that the many fine Senators who want to continue making a contribution cannot put their names before the people like every Deputy has done.</p><p>  It has been mentioned that we are not reforming the D&aacute;il.  Deputies and people in the media have mocked Friday sittings.  Perhaps many mock them because they have not been present.  Those who have been present know that our first job as legislators is to legislate.  Before there were Friday sittings, I would have had zero opportunity to table legislation as a Government backbencher.  My electorate can now ask whether I took the opportunity of the first Friday of every month to table a Bill on a local or national issue.  The efforts of Deputies Healy and Finian McGrath can be measured in this regard.  How many Private Members' Bills have they produced?  Instead of waffling, moaning or acting as talking heads on media programmes, Friday sittings give every Deputy rather than just Government members the chance to roll up our sleeves and table legislation.  I am involved in a cross-party group on mental health that has devised a Private Members' Bill.  We would not have had an opportunity to table it without Friday sittings.</p><p>  I welcome the referendum.  There has been a great deal of discussion on reforming the Seanad, but we do not need a second House.  This House can do the job.  Committees need to be further empowered.  Like Deputy Ross, those who are making valuable contributions in the Seanad can put their names forward to contest the next general election for D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.286" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/985" speakername="Dara Murphy" time="13:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000024#W00400"><p>I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate.  It is important that people acknowledge that we are undergoing significant reforms.</p><p>If the people vote to abolish the Seanad, Ireland will move to the position adopted by the great majority of countries, particularly small countries.  Only one country in the OECD has a bicameral or double-chamber system.  Deputy McGrath mentioned the cost of the Seanad.  I am not one to argue that the strongest argument for abolition is cost but, for every one of the young people in the Visitors' Gallery, as for every one of us in the State, the Seanad costs &euro;400.  That is not a significant amount of money but it is &euro;400 for an institution for which, unless one is an elected person or, in very narrow circumstances, if one is a graduate, one has no vote.  We need to have a local authority to which people can vote to elect councillors - not town or county councillors as they are now, but politicians who will work for them at a local level through their local authorities.  People need to be able to vote for an elected government and have the opportunity, at subsequent general elections, to recall that government.  What has been missed somewhat is that since the 1970s we have had a third layer of elections, for the European Parliament, and we have seen a significant increase in the power and role of that Parliament.</p><p> There has been discussion about the role of the Seanad in oversight and about what Senators missed and did not miss.  In reality, Senators have no power of veto.  Even if, on the night of the bank guarantee, they had questioned the decisions made, they had no power to stop anything that was happening, whether they determined it to be right or wrong.  It is curious to hear what some of the Independent Deputies, in particular, have to say.  We have a good sense of why Fianna F&aacute;il is supporting the retention of the Seanad.  In effect, de Valera established it to be a powerless institution that would allow a significant political input into party membership, and traditionally it has indeed benefited Fianna F&aacute;il in the main, as well as Fine Gael.  The Taoiseach broke that mould after the last general election by appointing Independent Senators.  If the Seanad remains, there is nothing to stop any subsequent Taoiseach from reverting to the bad old way of appointing whomsoever they like to that House.  The reality is that the Seanad does not have any power.  The reformists, particularly the Independents, by supporting the Seanad, appear to give no regard to the fact that apart from on the university panels, Independent Members have never been elected to that House.  It is this House that sees Independent Members have a voice through our single universal suffrage system.  It is surprising, therefore, to see the Independents going down that road.</p><p> Today one of the Independent Deputies had a list in his reform package which, on my count, is the sixth separate list of reform proposals I have heard, and I am certain there will be more.  The truth is that we must reform the D&aacute;il and the local authorities and must continue to get more from the European Parliament.  Having a fourth layer in the Seanad serves absolutely no purpose.  Some Senators do very good work and I hope many of them will run for the D&aacute;il.  I have no doubt many will be elected to this House, as has been the case before now. </p><p> I would like to see further development of local government reform.  We should have directly elected mayors, who would replace county managers.  The mergers of councils in Waterford and Limerick is welcome and I believe the same should be extended to Cork.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.288" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/989" speakername="Jerry Buttimer" time="14:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000025#X00200"><p>I speak as a former Member of Seanad &Eacute;ireann and am privileged to have served there.  I recognise the importance of the House and of a second chamber.  It is important that we look at the whole issue of bicameral chambers within a parliament and recognise that, whether we like it or not, the system we have, in respect of elections to the Seanad and how it operates, is broken.  Ultimately, the people will decide on this.  In reforming our political structures the Government recognised that our political class had lost its way prior to the last election.  The Bill before us is an example of a commitment by the Government to follow through on a promise made by several political parties whose members are now jumping through hoops to reclaim different positions on the political spectrum.</p><p>  Deputy Harris made an interesting point about Friday sittings, with which I agree.  If one looks at how this House debates certain issues on a Friday, it happens away from the glare of political heat that is present on Tuesdays and Wednesdays in particular.  I refer to the example of last Friday's Bill about access to the countryside, on which there was a measured debate between those in favour of the proposition, such as Deputy Dowds, and those against, such as Deputy &Oacute; Cu&iacute;v on the opposite side and Deputies Lawlor and Kyne on our side of the House.  It was a very good debate.  </p><p>  I attended the Constitutional Convention in Malahide during its last two sessions, which dealt with electoral reform.  I made the point on local radio and at the convention that electoral reform is one thing, but we ourselves must look to how we can reform this House in particular, and how we do our business.  We are the shop window of politics to the wider society.  What happens within the Houses of the Oireachtas, particularly in the D&aacute;il and in the committee system, is the view people get of how the political process and the system work.  Very often that view is tainted by media coverage but also by the way in which we present our cases and our ideology.</p><p>  The world has changed enormously.  I echo the point made by Deputy Dara Murphy.  I very much welcome the reform of local government and hope that in time, whoever is the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government - one hopes it is the present Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan - will allow in the city and county of Cork a joined-up super-local-authority with a directly elected mayor to serve the best needs of the capital of and gateway to the south.  Cork is recognised in the national spatial strategy as the gateway city and hub for the development of the south.  We need to look at local government to see how it can serve the people.  I was privileged to serve on Cork City Council.  We need to give a meaningful role to local authority members rather than taking away their role and duties.  In some local authorities there is now no accountability or responsibility and, as I am sure Deputy Barry Cowen will agree, one cannot even get answers to questions at times.  That needs to stop.  All of us, whatever level of the political ladder we are on, are there to represent the citizen and make the case and advocate for the community in which we live and, at a national level, enact policies that have the betterment of the people at their core.</p><p>  The Bill we are discussing will ultimately go to the people.  That is correct, and I am happy to support its passage through the House to the people.  They will make the decision but they will not be listening to any argument put forward by celebrity commentators, politicians or former politicians.  They will decide on the benefits and merits of a bicameral system, which is as it should be.</p><p>  In this debate Opposition Members have accused the Government of populism and of making a power grab.</p><p>Sinn F&eacute;in's manifesto called for the abolition of the Seanad in its current form.  Fianna F&aacute;il stated in its manifesto that second chambers are not an essential part of parliamentary democracy and &quot;it must be stressed that during the last decade the Seanad did not play a substantive role in challenging unsustainable policies.&quot;  The parties opposite are now challenging themselves to find the next cause to join.  When I heard Deputy Martin speak about wind farms yesterday, I wondered if he was the same man who championed different policies during the 14 years he was in Government.</p><p> The new practice introduced by this Government of bringing the heads of Bills before committees for discussion has had very positive outcomes.  I do not say this solely because I am Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children but the committee system had a light shone on it over six days this year.  To be fair to Deputies Kelleher, &Oacute; Caol&aacute;in and Healy and Senator van Turnhout, as well as Government members of the committee, nobody pursued party politics or adverserial engagement.  Generally in committees, we do not play politics.  The six days of hearings in January and May on the A, B and C <i>v.</i>Ireland case and the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill 2013 shows that we can act in a positive and constructive manner, with assistance from Oireachtas officials who demonstrated the brilliance and prowess of our public service.  Our politicians were able to show what is good about politics.</p><p> We need to give teeth to our committee system.  All of us remember the cost and length of the various tribunals and we saw what happened with Ken Starr in America.  If reformed, our committee system can play a pivotal role in the transformation of Parliament and how it is viewed.  It will ultimately become more valued by the population at large.  This Government is bringing change and reform.  It may be slow and incremental but it is happening.  People's cynicism about the Seanad is partly because of the number of reports on reform that are gathering dust.  As a political class we must see how we can reconnect with the public.  When the report of the Constitutional Convention comes before the House, I ask Members to read it and heed the views of the citizens.  I support this Bill and look forward to a referendum campaign which will bring value and positivity to our electoral system.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.290" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="14:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000026#Y00200"><p>This Bill emanates from a publicity stunt by the Taoiseach in October 2009.  There was no consultation process or internal discussion within his party.  He was courting publicity in an effort to attract the attention that the T&aacute;naiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Gilmore, was receiving at the time and he needed a big fish to catch if he was to restore his fortunes.  A policy announcement of this nature is normally the outcome of a process conducted within a party or organisation but the Taoiseach did not bother with that.  He now feels compelled to honour his solo run by attempting to score a point.  In light of the contributions by many speakers from his own party, he is clearly still on a solo run.  I refer to Deputies Charles Flanagan and Olivia Mitchell from Fine Gael, as well as Deputies Tuffy and Spring from the Labour Party.  I suggest that the contributions from these Deputies reflect the opinion of the majority of Members from their respective parties.  They spoke of reform and acknowledged that the public wants a more modern and relevant Seanad.</p><p>  A cursory glance at the Taoiseach's reform agenda as set out in manifestos and speeches during the course of the last D&aacute;il and the election campaign shows that it is high on rhetoric and spin but poor on delivery.  Prior to the election, he promised a new form of politics and a five point plan.  He was not going to pay another red cent to the banks or touch child benefit.  He was going to abolish upward only rent reviews.  Roscommon Hospital accident and emergency department, Garda stations and Army barracks were to be kept open.  With NewEra, he promised 100,000 jobs.  Some people thought it was only the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, who thought this is what one does at elections.</p><p>  Despite the failure to live up to any of these promises, the Taoiseach is adamant that he will honour the one promise he made on his own by giving the people an opportunity to abolish the Seanad.  He might refer to the many reports on Seanad reform that he and his party colleagues supported at various times over the course of his political career instead of deciding on a whim to pursue this course.  The content of the referendum has also been decided on a whim.  Despite his misgivings about its current structure, which are evidently shared by many speakers in this debate, he is giving the people a simple choice between abolishing the Seanad or living with it.  His attitude is that if the voters do not agree with abolishing the Seanad, they can live with it as it is.</p><p>  This attitude has crept in to many aspects of his leadership in recent months.  His means of dealing with dissenting voices is, &quot;do as I say, not as I do&quot;  Government Deputies recently got the privilege to say what they wanted on this Bill but they still must vote as directed.  Debate and formulation of policy is normally reserved as a democratic function of parliamentary organisations, whether Fine Gael, Fianna F&aacute;il or the Labour Party, but that does not appear to apply in respect of the dominant party in Government.  In such a context, how can we expect real reform or action that back up the Taoiseach's rhetoric?</p><p>Actions to back up the rhetoric are as far away today as consultation was when the Taoiseach embarked on this solo run.</p><p> The democratic revolution, which was the utterance of many members of Government and the Taoiseach, excited people and Members.  In a similar manner to the pathetic attempts of the T&aacute;naiste earlier today to defend the indefensible in regard to a 25% cut in special need assistants' hours, the Taoiseach and his trusty Government Whip, Deputy Paul Kehoe, say there has been huge reform.  They will say the D&aacute;il is sitting longer, a half day once a month to be exact.  That, unfortunately, is a pathetic excuse for reform.  On that half day once a month, no questions are asked of the Government and no votes are called.  It simply seeks to pander to reform.</p><p> Members, in particular those in Government parties, should ask themselves whether they believe the mantra from Government that there has been a democratic revolution and that the D&aacute;il been reformed and is more modern and relevant.  I am afraid that is not the case.  Until mid-March this year, 57% of Bills passed by the D&aacute;il were guillotined on the instructions of the Government.  Some 40% of Topical Issues in the House were dealt with by Ministers of State who were not even from the Department to which the Topical Issue was addressed.  That is far from the promise made on how Topical Issues would be addressed.  Friday sittings are nothing more than a farce.  There are fewer committees and reduced membership of those which remain.  There has been no movement on the promise to increase time allocated for oral questions.  The Government promised, whether one agrees with it, to reduce the number of Deputies by 20 but instead reduced the number by eight.  There has been no progress on the promise to relax rules on Cabinet confidentiality.  A Minister went on another solo run when appearing on &quot;The Late Late Show&quot; in regard to ministerial report cards which were another whim, not that we ever expected them to be adhered to.  Like everything else promised in the context of reform, it has not been adhered to.  We were promised a constitutional day within 12 months, but of course that did not happen.  The Constitutional Convention was to be set up and report to the House within 12 months, but of course that did not happen.  I could go on about other detailed promises related to appointments to State boards, constituency staff and doing away with the constituency work of the Taoiseach and his Ministers.  There were promises to tackle cronyism, or the Government's interpretation of it over 14 years.  It was promised that the Taoiseach's Department would be halved in size.  That is the constitutional reform and revolution which has taken place and something to stand over.  All those promises have gone in the wind, but the one which remains is that made on a whim which sought to court publicity and favour and was the big fish caught to address the Taoiseach's popularity and standing but not that of his party.</p><p> I and my party believe that the Seanad as constituted by the people and drafted by the de Valera Government had potential, was well-meaning and had a significant role.  I accept over time it has been hijacked by all political parties bar none.  It is outdated in terms of its configuration and election and selection processes.  The electorate is of the same opinion.  I and my party believe the electorate deserves the option of a reformed Seanad and Oireachtas, and should be offered the opportunity to vote on such an option rather than on the contents of a whim, namely, whether to abolish the Seanad or live with it. </p><p> A fundamental overhaul of our political system is needed to tackle the big problems in politics.  It requires a lot more than political and publicity stunts.  The short-sighted solo run by the Taoiseach reminds me of the failings of his County Mayo as a footballing entity over recent years.  They had a lot of possession and solo runs but were not good at putting the ball over the bar and winning all-Irelands.  I saw them last year and this year and they seem to have corrected a lot of their failings.  They have the potential to win an all-Ireland and might just do so.  They were each man enough to stand up and address their failings.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.292" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1000" speakername="Dinny McGinley" time="14:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000027#Z00200"><p>No comment.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.293" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="14:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000027#Z00300"><p>None was expected.  The Taoiseach continues his solo run.  He might not get this shot over the bar when he decides to take it.  He will have no one to blame but himself because it will not be the fault of the Ministers, Deputies Shatter, Reilly or Hogan, rather it will be the Taoiseach's fault.  He is on his own on this issue, make no mistake about it.  The only way in which he might survive in his mind and that of his Government is by putting before the people a proposal to abolish or live with the Seanad.</p><p>  He and the Government do not have the guts to put a proper referendum before the people asking them whether they want to use or lose the Seanad, which would put reform at the heart of this and the other House and would have the actions to back up the rhetoric which was flowing profusely from the Taoiseach and his colleagues during the previous general election campaign.  It would be an injustice to the people to allow the referendum in its current form to go before them.</p><p>  It is a waste of time, effort and money to ask people to abolish or live with the Seanad as it is currently formed.  What sense or reason is in that proposal?  As I said, we were well able to support many recommendations on reform as instigated by many of the Taoiseach's colleagues over the past 30 years.</p><p>The Government, however, has not referred to any of the alternative proposals or made any attempt to put a meaningful referendum before the people.</p><p> During Leaders' Questions this morning we had to listen to the T&aacute;naiste churn out every statistic and figure relating to the provision of supports for special education needs.  What he failed to mention, however, is the impact of the latest proposal on the children throughout the country who are in need of such assistance.  We acknowledge that money has been ring-fenced for this purpose and that a cap, which has been retained by this Administration, was initially put in place by the previous Government.  It is safe to safe to say, however, that my party would take cognisance of the increase in the number of children requiring the service and would move heaven and earth to facilitate them.  The T&aacute;naiste essentially went on a ramble this morning in his effort to defend the indefensible.  To be fair to the Minister for Education and Skills, he has admitted the numerous mistakes he made since coming to office.  I have no doubt that he will acknowledge that the latest proposal is also a mistake and that it will, in due course, be rescinded.</p><p> The Taoiseach fixed on his proposal to abolish the Seanad on a whim.  This publicity stunt and power grab will come back to haunt him by virtue of what is happening parallel to this debate.  For all his talk of efforts to repair the economy in the context of G8 summits, EU summits and so on, the reality is that our society is not making much progress.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.295" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1104" speakername="Billy Timmins" time="14:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000028#AA00200"><p>I propose to share time with Deputy Michael Creed.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.296" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/999" speakername="Charlie McConalogue" time="14:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000028#AA00300"><p>That is agreed.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.297" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1104" speakername="Billy Timmins" time="14:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000028#AA00400"><p>In attempting to get my thoughts together on this subject prior to the debate, I discovered several contradictions in my position.  One of the reasons I was motivated to contribute today was in order to increase my participation.  I suspect that if a survey were conducted among Members, the results would indicate an inverse relationship between length of time spent in the D&aacute;il and participation in debates, unless one is a Minister or party leader.  Whether it is a cynicism or weariness which takes hold after a certain period of time in this House, it is difficult not to conclude that although one can make the finest speeches in the land and produce the most wonderful proposals, unless one is a member of Government one will have very little influence or impact.</p><p>  I recall Vincent Browne doing a survey of D&aacute;il contributions on his radio show prior to the 2002 election.  Every night he would proclaim his shock and surprise at the quality of speeches made in the House.  The reality, however, is that many excellent proposals and suggestions have been made in this Chamber only to fall on deaf ears for a myriad reasons.  During the Celtic tiger years, for example, there were many calls for a halt to spending in the area of housing and elsewhere.  Some of these contributions were reported and others were not.  There certainly was no continuum of reportage which would have allowed such proposals to resonate with people.  The public has a short memory, particularly during difficult economic times when social issues and matters such as political reform are unlikely to engage it at a meaningful level.</p><p>  In considering the question of Oireachtas reform, I am reminded of an observation by Boris Pasternak, the Russian writer, who observed that Adam might have turned to Eve as they were leaving the Garden of Eden and observed that they were merely going through a period of transition.  In our discussion of political reform it is important to remember that we do not necessarily have a monopoly of wisdom, notwithstanding our insistence that mistakes made in the past must never recur.  In preparing for this discussion I came across a relevant extract from a debate which took place in this House some 20 years ago, which I will outline in due course, time permitting.  It is illuminating because it highlights the point I am making here.  The week before last I visited Normandy where the message that kept coming up at the various visitor attractions was that what happened in the First World War should never again be permitted.  Yet here we are, almost 100 years later, hearing about atrocities taking place in Syria, in central Africa and elsewhere.  It seems the more we talk about change the less actual change is achieved.</p><p>  I support any legislation which allows the people to have their say.  It is important to bear in mind Article 27 of the Constitution, which permits the calling of a referendum on a particular issue where one third of Members of the D&aacute;il together with a majority of Members of the Seanad request it.  If the Seanad is abolished, that constitutional provision will have to be replaced by a similar mechanism in a situation where the D&aacute;il is the single House of Parliament.  Notwithstanding my enthusiasm for allowing the people their say, I am also very wary of referenda because it is so difficult to get one's message across.  The referendum commission is obliged to be perfectly balanced in its provision of information to the public even where a proposal enjoys unanimous political support.  A classic example of the difficulties that can arise in this regard was last year's referendum on children's rights.  An opinion poll three weeks before that vote showed only 4% of respondents intending to vote &quot;No&quot; whereas the actual &quot;No&quot; vote was some 48%.  Incidentally, 91% of poll respondents indicated an intention to vote, but only 33% of the electorate turned out 21 days later.  Opinion polling in the context of referenda on social areas reflects the fluidity of public opinion over the course of a campaign.</p><p>  I support this legislation.  Until quite recently I was indifferent to the prospect of the abolition of the Upper House and, like others, weary of the talk of Seanad reform.  I could make a great case for the abolition of the Upper House or for its retention.  Likewise, there is a case to be made for either the abolition or retention of the D&aacute;il.  Certainly, if a proposal to abolish this House were put to the people I would be nervous about the outcome.  While the Seanad receives nothing like the attention given to the D&aacute;il, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of Mr. Jimmy Walsh of <i>The Irish Times</i> over many years.  He always managed to identify the pertinent contributions for inclusion in his report on Seanad proceedings.  We in politics are inclined to criticise the media.  We are lambasted when the Chamber is empty, but I cannot help but notice that the Press Gallery is not very busy today.  Perhaps the members of the press are, like many Deputies, working in their offices.  As a result of the failure to report Oireachtas proceedings in a comprehensive way, very important debates are not made known to the public.  I am the first to admit that a great deal of waffle is spoken in this House, but many useful contributions are simply not reported.</p><p>  One of my concerns regarding the potential abolition of the Seanad relates to the power of the Executive.  My Private Members' Bill, the Good Samaritan Bill 2005, involved no cost for the Exchequer, was demonstrably in the common interest and was, everybody agreed, a worthwhile proposal.  It was rejected by the then Government, however, on the basis that similar proposals were under consideration by the Law Reform Commission.  When I subsequently brought forward a second Bill which reflected the recommendations made by the commission, it was again rejected.  Finally, the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Dermot Ahern, included the same provisions in one of his own Bills.  This type of refusal to take on board the contribution of ordinary Members of the House is a shortcoming of our parliamentary system.  Instead of abolishing the Seanad, we should perhaps focus on decommissioning that mindset.  We are all aware of the wonderful achievement that was the decommissioning of weapons in the North, but there will never really be peace and harmony in that jurisdiction until we also decommission mindsets, which can only be done through amalgamated schooling and so on.  A similar decommissioning of mindsets here in the Oireachtas is vital if we are to have effective reform.</p><p>  Although a member of one of the parties of Government, I am not a member of the Executive.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.298" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/986" speakername="Michael Creed" time="14:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000028#AA00500"><p>Not yet.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.299" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1104" speakername="Billy Timmins" time="14:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000028#AA00600"><p>I am not holding my breath.  However, it may be the case that I would not behave any differently in office from other members of the Government.  I say this with all due respect to the Minister, Deputy Phil Hogan, who is one of the more enlightened members of Government and who is unfairly apportioned blame on many occasions for unpopular decisions.  I see the Minister smiling; he is engaged in a labour of love.  However, it seems generally to be the case that when people cross that tunnel, irrespective of who they are, a certain mindset descends and a sprinkle of dust falls over their grey matter.  I observe them from my office every day, which is conveniently located for that purpose.  People seem to go into lock-down mode.  I concede, however, that there might not be a better system than the one we have.</p><p>Maybe we are reinventing the wheel.  We could spend a generation here doing things but end up where we are.</p><p> To return to the issue of the control of the Executive, Deputy Buttimer spoke earlier about the Oireachtas hearings on the termination of life Bill, about how experts were able to make their contribution, how great it was to hear them and about how there was no need for a second Chamber.  I attended those hearings and I must admit I received some good information.  However, it seems that was the only purpose the hearings served, because none of the information was acted on.  If it was, the legislation would differ greatly from that we have currently.  That particular issue is a very emotive and serious issue of concern for me.  Since the hearings, I have sought to find out certain information regarding the establishment of the expert group, but I have not been able to find that information, either through tabling parliamentary questions or the use of other avenues.  This is totally unacceptable.  When a Member of the Oireachtas cannot find out how an expert group on a certain subject was established, there is a shortcoming in the system.</p><p> In recent days we have heard much about the freedom of Members to vote &quot;No&quot;.  Strangely enough, I am a strong advocate of the Whip system and I believe we must have a Whip system in place to ensure coherence and to enable the implementation of certain policies.  That said, anybody who needs to hide behind a Whip system should not be in politics.  If people cannot face pressure from a pressure group or stand up to those groups, they should not be in politics.  They should not need the protection of the Whip system.  The Whip system should not exist to protect somebody, but to facilitate cohesion, because otherwise it might be very difficult to implement a policy.</p><p> This issue has brought forward the concept of a free vote.  My colleague, the Minister of State Deputy Brian Hayes, floated the idea a number of months ago, but it seems to have been shot down fairly rapidly.  In this regard, a debate held on 30 June 1993 has come to my attention and is of interest.  I do not know whether the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, was in the D&aacute;il at the time, but perhaps he was.  It is ironic that I will be quoting my good colleague, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, on this.  He has a very enlightened approach to many issues and while I disagree with him on some, I must acknowledge that with regard to others he is doing significant work.</p><p> The debate in question was on the hare coursing Bill and took place 20 years ago next week.  I will not go through all the matters mentioned by Deputy Shatter, but he mentioned Woodstock, the generation of the booming sixties then entering Irish politics and Stephen Spielberg's &quot;Jurassic Park&quot;.  I do not remember those things, but I will cite what he had to say on the hare coursing Bill.  He asked:<blockquote> Why should grown men and women be forced to behave in such an undignified and demeaning way?  Why should they be forced on an issue such as this to let people down and add to the public cynicism of politicians and the workings of this House?</blockquote>I admit I am being selective in what I am quoting.  He went on to say:<blockquote>There are other issues to which the tyranny of the Whip or indeed the protection of the Whip should not apply.  Most people outside this House cannot understand Deputies who say one thing and vote for the opposite.  We have heard much about muzzling dogs during this debate.  It is time for us to remove the self-imposed political muzzles.  It is time for us to allow Deputies of all parties to behave and act on occasion like legislators and not just as lobby fodder.  The new Ireland is the politics of free choice and personal responsibility.</blockquote>This was 20 years ago.  Strangely, in the same debate, Deputy Shatter referred to the 1983 protection of life amendment and myself and Monica Barnes voting against it.</p><p> In a nutshell, Deputy Shatter finished up by saying: &quot;Put simply, it is about keeping faith with people with whom I have been in contact over the years and it is about fulfilling a promise.&quot;  On that occasion, Deputy Shatter, now a Minister, and two other Deputies at the time, Deputy McGahon and Deputy Flaherty, voted against the Fine Gael Party position.  There was not a free vote on the issue.  Strangely enough, although they voted against the party system, they did not lose the Whip.  While Deputy Shatter points out at the time that we were unenlightened, it looks like we have become more unenlightened as time has passed.  I do not know when the rules changed, but now in our party if one votes against party policy, one immediately loses the Whip.  I am an advocate of the Whip system in general, but I think that after the next few weeks, on social and certain other issues and on Private Members' time, we should have a free vote system, where people can come and live and die by their vote, rather than hide behind the Whip system.</p><p> The D&aacute;il could be made more meaningful.  I acknowledge the job done by the Ceann Comhairle, Deputy Se&aacute;n Barrett.  However, the Ceann Comhairle should be elected by Members of the D&aacute;il.  The position should not be the preserve of the Government or the Opposition.  Equally, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle should be elected by the D&aacute;il.  That position should not be the preserve of the Leader of the Opposition or main party, the Taoiseach or anybody else.  This is where we need to start reform.</p><p> With regard to committees, I brought forward a document on the reform of committees which got me into some difficulty in my party, but I will not go into that.  I am not the best contributor in the world to committees, but they have not changed much over the years.  We go down and sit in the committee room for an hour or two and get the opportunity to contribute one line or so.  This system does not work, but I do not have a solution to the problem.  I cannot stand here and say I have the solution to improving the system.  What we need to change is our mindset.  I agree we must be disciplined and must vote here for things we might prefer not to vote for.  However, there should be areas where we have freedom of choice and the right to choose.  We also need to look at the issue of Private Members time and Bills.</p><p> Reference was made to Friday sittings.  I have a very poor record for attending on Fridays.  Deputy Buttimer said the Friday debates were wonderful and that wonderful contributions are made, but I wonder what concrete proposals arise from them or whether anything is implemented following them.  I suggest there is very little result from them.  I do not support Friday sittings.  If we sat and used the time we have here on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays adequately, that would be fine, because we must also get out among the public.  Ministers have a role to play around the country and it is important they do not end up sitting in their offices all the time.  On one hand we are accused of not enacting sufficient legislation, and on the other we are accused of staying in our ivory towers.  Three days in the House is ample if the time is used properly.</p><p> I welcome the fact this issue is being put before the public and hope it leads to a coherent, non-confrontational debate.  I hope it awakens all of us to the fact that it is not the institutions that need to be abolished, but the mindset that has accumulated here after decades of government run in the same manner.  How we can enlighten people and improve this mindset is easier said than done.  It is easy to identify problems, but it is a little more difficult to come up with solutions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.301" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/986" speakername="Michael Creed" time="14:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000029#BB00200"><p>I thank Deputy Timmins for sharing time.  Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  We are advocating the abolition of the Seanad on three bases - cost, ineffectiveness since the 1930s and the lack of a real role or necessity for it.  Notwithstanding the fact this House has considerably curtailed its costs, it is a more expensive House to operate per Member, its effectiveness as a mechanism of holding the Government to account is questionable, as long as it has existed, and on that basis we could equally question the necessity for it.  However, the D&aacute;il is a tool of our democracy.</p><p>  To be honest, I will shed no tears and I hold no brief for the defence of the Seanad.  I lost my seat in 2002 and did not contest the Seanad elections then.  In that sense, I can speak with an uncompromised view on the matter.  However, in the context of this legislation, which I support, I would prefer the Government to rearrange its deckchairs in a slightly different form.  It is not too late to do this.  What I mean by this is that we need to prove as a legislative Chamber that we are committed to a more effective system of holding the Executive to account, rather than simply passing legislation here, at the stroke of a pen or the press of a button, to abolish our Upper House, without proving that we are enabled to step into the breach and hold the Government to account more effectively.  In a sense, we have put the cart before the horse, which is unfortunate.</p><p>  More often than not in my time in this House I have sat on the Opposition side.</p><p>Sitting on the Opposition benches, I frequently agreed with the contributions made by Members on the Government side but could not speak my mind because of the Whip system.  On rare occasions, I have also disagreed with the approach taken by this Government but had to go along with it.  Our democracy is immature.  As Deputy Timmins noted, the issue is one of mindset.  On the first sitting after every election, Deputies divide along party lines to elect the Ceann Comhairle and Leas-Cheann Comhairle.  We assume our respective sides have a monopoly on wisdom and the crowd opposite does not have any good ideas.  This diminishes the standing of the House and the electors who send us here to perform a specific role.  If we could find a way to harness effectively the collective energies and opinions of all Members in the national interest, we would do a better job without compromising our political or party identities.</p><p> Reform is necessary.  Friday sittings and other recent measures are mere window dressing, which barely scratch the service in terms of achieving what is needed to hold the Executive to account.  By its own admission, the Government's reform programme is appallingly weak.  Members of the public may well vote in favour of abolition of the Seanad.  Members are taking a leap into the unknown, however, because we are proposing to remove a Chamber of the Oireachtas and a level of accountability before putting our own house in order, as it were, to ensure we can more effectively perform our role.  Every Executive would behave in a similar manner because all governments want unfettered and untrammelled powers and do not want to be tripped up by pesky back bench or Opposition Deputies.  Friday sittings keep the drones busy while the Government gets on with its business.  This type of attitude sets in after a time in all Governments.</p><p> Occasional reform is not sufficient.  We should embrace continual reform to make the Houses of the Oireachtas more effective in serving the citizens who elect us.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.303" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1028" speakername="Aengus &Oacute; Snodaigh" time="14:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000030#CC00200"><p>Is trua go bhfuilimid ag caint ar an mBille seo mar n&iacute;l an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht at&aacute; tar &eacute;is a bheith ann i gceart roimh an Bille seo a bheith curtha le ch&eacute;ile.  T&aacute;imid ag d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le Bille inniu chun reifreann a chur faoi sheol chun f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis an Seanad.  Cib&eacute; taobh den arg&oacute;int ar a bhfuil duine, ar an taobh f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis n&oacute; &eacute; a choimead, ba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht sin t&oacute;gtha as na Tithe seo agus t&oacute;gtha chuig an phobal i gcoitinne.  Sh&iacute;l mise agus a l&aacute;n daoine eile, nuair a buna&iacute;odh an Coinbhinsi&uacute;n ar an mBunreacht, go mbeadh muid ag d&eacute;ile&aacute;il leis na ceisteanna m&oacute;r bunreacht&uacute;la istigh san coinbhinsi&uacute;n sin.  N&iacute; sheasann an Seanad leis f&eacute;in.  Toisc sin, p&eacute; athr&uacute; a thagann, agus sa ch&aacute;s seo, is athr&uacute; suntasach at&aacute; i gceist, ag f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis an Seanad go huile agus go hioml&aacute;n, t&aacute; impleachta&iacute; ag an athr&uacute; ar gach uile chuid eile den saol pholaiti&uacute;il ina l&aacute;n bheala&iacute;.</p><p>  N&iacute;lim anseo chun a r&aacute; go mba ch&oacute;ir go gcoimeadta&iacute; an Seanad mar at&aacute; s&eacute;.  Sh&iacute;l mise i gc&oacute;na&iacute; go raibh an toghch&aacute;n don Seanad agus an modh a roghna&iacute;odh na hiarrth&oacute;ir&iacute; agus na Seanad&oacute;ir&iacute; i ndiaidh an toghch&aacute;n sin go huile agus go hioml&aacute;n m&iacute;-daonlathach agus gur ch&oacute;ir i gc&oacute;na&iacute; &oacute; th&uacute;s go mbeadh athr&uacute; c&oacute;ras toghch&aacute;na&iacute;ochta ann.  Sh&iacute;l mise i gc&oacute;na&iacute; go mba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh an toghch&aacute;n don Seanad ar an l&aacute; ceannan c&eacute;anna agus an toghch&aacute;n don D&aacute;il.  D&aacute; r&eacute;ir, bheithe&aacute; ag d&eacute;anamh an cinneadh, d&aacute; mbeithe&aacute; mar iarrth&oacute;ir don Seanad, gur seo an rogha Teach an Oireachtais a bhfuiltear s&aacute;sta obair ann.  D&eacute;anfadh sin deighilt idir an d&aacute; Teach i mbealach an-shoil&eacute;ir don phobal.  T&aacute; molta&iacute; den s&oacute;rt sin curtha chun cinn, n&iacute; hamh&aacute;in ag mo ph&aacute;irt&iacute; ach ag a l&aacute;n daoine eile thar na blianta.  Ba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh an Seanad difri&uacute;il.  N&iacute; ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh s&eacute; mar macasamhail den Teach seo, ach n&iacute;os l&uacute;.</p><p>  Is trua nach raibh an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht sin i measc an phobal, mar an rud at&aacute; i gceist ag an bpobal faoi l&aacute;thair n&aacute; f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh le polait&iacute;ocht ina ioml&aacute;n.  D&aacute; gcuirfe&aacute; focla&iacute;ocht difri&uacute;il &oacute;s comhair an phobail chun f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh le D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann, bheadh siad s&aacute;sta go maith f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis mar sh&iacute;leann siad, m&aacute; chreidtear na gn&aacute;th me&aacute;in, n&oacute; the popular press, gur caitheamh am&uacute; airgid go mbeadh daonlathas againn agus gur caitheamh am&uacute; airgid Tithe an Oireachtais ina n-ioml&aacute;n.  Caithfimid bheith an-ch&uacute;ramach nach bhfuilimid ag l&eacute;im le cheol at&aacute; &aacute; sheinnt ag daoine gur cuma leo an daonlathas agus an deis at&aacute; ann chun Rialtas a choim&eacute;ad ar an port ceart.  T&aacute; an dains&eacute;ar sin ann agus le tamall le blianta, go h&aacute;irithe le deich n&oacute; 15 bliain anuas, t&aacute; s&eacute; amuigh ansin gur caitheamh am&uacute; airgid &iacute; an pholait&iacute;ocht n&oacute; nach bhfuil aon fi&uacute;ntas le polaite&oacute;ir&iacute; i gcoitinne.  Caithfimid d&eacute;anamh cinnte de nach bhfuilimid ag l&eacute;im isteach sa phort sin.</p><p>  Nuair at&aacute; an Rialtas seo cr&iacute;ochnaithe leis an Seanad, c&eacute;n s&oacute;rt casadh a dh&eacute;anfaidh s&eacute; ansin?  N&iacute; hamh&aacute;in an Seanad at&aacute; i gceist &oacute; thaobh daonlathas de.  Cheana f&eacute;in t&aacute; an Rialtas ag f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis na comhairl&iacute; baile.  T&aacute; athruithe suntasach d&eacute;anta ar &Uacute;dar&aacute;s na Gaeltachta.  N&iacute; thoghfar &eacute; a thuilleadh.  Toghfar n&iacute;os l&uacute; Teachta&iacute; D&aacute;la amach anseo.  Ar&iacute;s is ar&iacute;s eile, t&aacute; laghd&uacute; &aacute; chur ar an l&iacute;on ionadaithe a bheidh ar f&aacute;il don phobal.  Is a mhalairt de threo go mba ch&oacute;ir d&uacute;inn dul.  Ba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh n&iacute;os m&oacute; ionadaithe ionas go mbeadh n&iacute; hamh&aacute;in an rialtas &aacute;iti&uacute;il ach an rialtas l&aacute;rnach chomh maith gafa leis an bpobal &oacute; bhun go barr.</p><p>  Measaim go bhfuil sin caillte sa d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht seo toisc nach raibh s&eacute; lasmuigh de na Tithe seo.  Bh&iacute; an deis ag an Rialtas agus d'ardaigh m&eacute; agus daoine eile na ceiste seo ag an Coinbhinsi&uacute;n ar an mBunreacht.  D'ardaigh mo ph&aacute;irt&iacute; na ceiste nuair a roghna&iacute;odh na h&aacute;bhair a bheadh curtha os comhair an choinbhinsi&uacute;in.  D'imp&iacute;omar ar an Rialtas gan ligean don choinbhinsi&uacute;n cr&iacute;ochn&uacute; agus gan an cheist seo a bheith d&eacute;ile&aacute;ilte le.  Bh&iacute; a threo roghnaihe ag an Rialtas cheana f&eacute;in, &aacute;fach, go mbeadh an cheist faoin Seanad curtha os comhair an phobail, n&iacute; i dt&eacute;arma&iacute; ceart ach i dt&eacute;arma&iacute; an bhfuiltear s&aacute;sta f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis n&oacute; &eacute; a choime&aacute;d.</p><p>  T&aacute; rogha eile go mba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh curtha os comhair an phobail, s&eacute; sin an ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh athruite agus leas&uacute; d&eacute;anta ar an Seanad.  T&aacute; tuairim&iacute; ag a l&aacute;n den phobal agus fi&uacute; a l&aacute;n de na daoine sa Teach seo conas is f&eacute;idir an Seanad a leas&uacute; ionas go mbeadh r&oacute;l, seasamh agus toghch&aacute;n ceart aige agus go mbeadh s&eacute; in ann f&aacute;s amach anseo ionas nach an Teach seo amh&aacute;in a bheadh ag d&eacute;anamh fiosr&uacute;, ag coime&aacute;d s&uacute;il ar an Rialtas agus ag d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le polasaithe ach go mbeadh an Seanad in ann &eacute; sin a dh&eacute;anamh chomh maith, agus i sl&iacute; i bhfad n&iacute;os m&oacute;.</p><p>  Sa t&iacute;r seo anois, seachas an coinbhinsi&uacute;n at&aacute; ann ar feadh tamall beag, n&iacute;l aon f&oacute;ram ceart do saor&aacute;naigh ann.  D&aacute; mbeithe&aacute; ag aistri&uacute; n&oacute; ag athr&uacute; an Seanad, d'fh&eacute;adfadh go mbeadh s&eacute; sin mar an r&oacute;l l&aacute;rnach a bheadh aige, tuairim&iacute; an phobail i gcoitinne n&oacute; fi&uacute; na gr&uacute;pa&iacute; sin a phl&eacute; agus d&eacute;ile&aacute;il leo i gceart.  An dains&eacute;ar at&aacute; ann anois, n&iacute; hamh&aacute;in toisc go bhfuil an Rialtas ag iarraidh f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis an Seanad, n&aacute; go bhfuil n&iacute;os l&uacute; coist&iacute;, mar shampla, sa Teach seo, agus beidh n&iacute;os l&uacute; amach anseo toisc go mbeidh n&iacute;os l&uacute; Baill againn chun d&eacute;ile&aacute;il leis an reachta&iacute;ocht agus gach rud eile.</p><p>N&iacute; bheidh coist&iacute; na D&aacute;la amach anseo in ann d&eacute;ile&aacute;il leis an m&eacute;id sin iarratas &oacute;n phobal &eacute;isteacht a thabhairt d&aacute; gc&aacute;sanna, mar cheana f&eacute;in t&aacute; na coist&iacute; i gcruach&aacute;s.  N&iacute;l go leor ama n&oacute; sp&aacute;is ann chun na coist&iacute; at&aacute; againn f&eacute; l&aacute;thair a reacht&aacute;il chomh h&eacute;ifeachtach agus chomh maith agus is c&oacute;ir.  Chomh maith le sin, n&iacute;l fi&uacute; na hacmhainn&iacute; cu&iacute; tugtha do na coist&iacute; mar a thugtar do choist&iacute; i parlaimint&iacute; eile.  I sl&iacute; amh&aacute;in, t&aacute; s&eacute; r&oacute;-dheireannach imp&iacute; ar an Rialtas d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le na ceisteanna seo, mar t&aacute; s&eacute; tar &eacute;is an seasamh a ghlacadh an Bille seo a fhoilsi&uacute; c&eacute;, mar a d&uacute;irt m&eacute;, n&aacute;r tharla an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht lasmuigh de na Tithe seo f&oacute;s.  D&aacute; mba rud &eacute; go raibh an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht sin lasmuigh de na Tithe againn - b'fh&eacute;idir go dtarl&oacute;idh s&eacute; thar an ch&eacute;ad c&uacute;pla m&iacute; eile agus b'fh&eacute;idir go dtiocfaidh an pobal ar ais chuig an Rialtas ag r&aacute; nach bhfuil siad s&aacute;sta f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis an Seanad - bheadh sin sp&eacute;isi&uacute;il.</p><p> Cad a tharl&oacute;idh m&aacute; dhi&uacute;lta&iacute;onn an pobal f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis an Seanad?   Go bhfios domsa, n&iacute;l &eacute;inne ag iarraidh go bhfanfaidh an Seanad mar at&aacute; s&eacute; n&aacute; n&iacute;l &eacute;inne ag iarraidh go bhfanfaidh an D&aacute;il mar at&aacute; s&eacute;, ach n&iacute;l aon leas&uacute; ar an chl&aacute;r oibre faoi l&aacute;thair i gceachtar Teach.  T&aacute; an sc&eacute;al n&iacute;os measa f&oacute;s, mar t&aacute; an Rialtas ag iarraidh f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis an Seanad, ach n&iacute;ltear ag r&aacute; cad a tharl&oacute;idh ina dhiaidh sin m&aacute; tharla&iacute;onn sin.  N&iacute;or leag an Rialtas amach conas mar a rithfear an Teach seo tar &eacute;is an reifrinn.  Cad iad na hathruithe m&oacute;ra a dh&eacute;anfaidh an Rialtas ansin?  An mbeidh g&aacute; le reifreann eile chun leasuithe a dh&eacute;anamh don D&aacute;il.  T&aacute; a l&aacute;n ceisteanna n&aacute;r freagra&iacute;odh f&oacute;s ar an &aacute;bhar seo, n&iacute; amh&aacute;in ag an Aire seo ach ag an Taoiseach.  Is trua sin.  Ar a laghad, d&aacute; mbeadh freagra againn ar na ceisteanna sin, bheadh a fhios ag an pobal cad go d&iacute;reach ar a bhfuil siad ag v&oacute;t&aacute;il.  N&iacute; h&eacute; go bhfuil siad ag v&oacute;t&aacute;il ar f&aacute;il reidh leis an Seanad amh&aacute;in, ta impleachta&iacute; le sin.  </p><p> Mar shampla, d&uacute;irt m&eacute; cheana go raibh impleachta&iacute; ann do na coist&iacute;.  T&aacute;im mar ball den Joint Oireachtas Committee on Public Service, Oversight and Petitions, ach is iad na Seanad&oacute;ir&iacute; is m&oacute; at&aacute; gafa at&aacute; gafa le obair an choiste sin.  Tarla&iacute;onn sin mar go bhfuil muidne sa Teach seo gafa le obair reachta&iacute;ochta, mar t&aacute; n&iacute;os m&oacute; reachta&iacute;ochta ag teacht tr&iacute;d an Teach seo n&aacute; mar a bh&iacute; riamh.  T&aacute; an Teach ag su&iacute; n&iacute;os minic&iacute;, t&aacute; n&iacute;os m&oacute; dualgas orainn, ach amach anseo beidh n&iacute;os l&uacute; d&iacute;nn ann.  Ansin, t&aacute; s&eacute; ar intinn ag an Rialtas breis oibre a thabhairt d&uacute;inn, gan tuilleadh ama a bheith againn, mar n&iacute;l ach m&eacute;id &aacute;irithe uair a chloig sa l&aacute;.  T&aacute; d&aacute;ins&eacute;ar ann go mbeifear de sh&iacute;or ag creimeadh ar am Teachta&iacute; D&aacute;la agus amach anseo nach mbeidh daoine s&aacute;sta seasamh i toghch&aacute;n, n&iacute; toisc an tuarastal ach mar nach bhfuil aon bhu&iacute;ochas ag dul d'ionada&iacute; ar aon chaoi. Feiceann muid go l&eacute;ir &eacute; sin, n&iacute; amh&aacute;in ionadaithe ar thaobh an Rialtais ach ionadaithe ar an dtaobh seo den Teach chomh maith.</p><p> B&iacute;onn daoine ag caitheamh anuas orainn de sh&iacute;or.  Daoine aineolacha iad don chuid is m&oacute;.  D&eacute;anann siad ionsaithe ar Theachta&iacute; D&aacute;la de bharr nach bhfuil siad ag su&iacute; i dTeach na dTeachta&iacute; an t-am ar fad, mar feiceann siad ar an teilif&iacute;s nach bhfuil ach duine n&oacute; beirt sa Teach.  Tarla&iacute;onn ionsaithe mar seo i gc&oacute;na&iacute;.  Deireann daoine nach bhfeiceann siad muid ag freastal ar na coist&iacute; agus mar sin nach bhfuil muid ag d&eacute;anamh na hoibre.  Deireann siad n&aacute;r chuala siad muid ag labhairt ar seo n&oacute; si&uacute;d.  Ar a l&aacute;n beala&iacute;, n&iacute; thuigeann an pobal cad a tharla&iacute;onn anseo.  Fi&uacute;, roinnt d&oacute;ibh si&uacute;d a thuigeann cad a tharla&iacute;onn agus conas mar a dheineann Teachta D&aacute;la &oacute; aon taobh den Teach a chuid ama a roinnt - na me&aacute;in ach go h&aacute;irithe - c&eacute; go dtuigeann siad conas a oibr&iacute;onn muid, uaireanta toisc go bhfuiltear ag iarraidh gnaoi an phobail a bheith orthu,d&eacute;anann siad ionsaithe orainn chomh maith.</p><p> Caithfimid a bheith c&uacute;ramach nach bhfuil muid ag creimeadh de sh&iacute;or ar an daonlathas agus ar na hionadaithe at&aacute; tofa ag an bpobal amach anseo.  Mar a deirtear i mB&eacute;arla, &quot;Be careful what you wish for.&quot;  M&aacute; tharla&iacute;onn an rud at&aacute; &aacute; lorg ag roinnt de na commentators n&oacute; na me&aacute;in amach anseo, n&iacute; bheidh aon ionadaithe tofa sa t&iacute;r seo.  In ionad sin, beidh deacht&oacute;ireacht n&oacute; a leith&eacute;id againn.  B'fh&eacute;idir go mbeidh gr&uacute;pa n&oacute; cabal beag i mbun na t&iacute;re a bheidh smacht aige ar ghach uile rud.  B'fh&eacute;idir go nd&eacute;arfaidh daoine &aacute;irithe gur sin at&aacute; againn cheana f&eacute;in leis na hAir&iacute; Rialtais, ach n&iacute;limse ag r&aacute; sin in aon chor.  B'ait dom agus m&eacute; ag ullmh&uacute; don d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht seo c&eacute; chomh l&uacute; glaoch n&oacute; r&iacute;omhphost a fuair m&eacute; &oacute;n bpobal i gcoitinne.  Measaim nach dtuigeann siad go d&iacute;reach na himpleachta&iacute; a bhaineann le seo.  Fuair m&eacute; r&iacute;omhphost &oacute; duine i gContae Corcaigh agus bh&iacute; tuairim&iacute; sp&eacute;isi&uacute;la aige maidir le leasuithe don D&aacute;il agus conas ar c&oacute;ir na leasuithe sin a chur i bhfeidhm.  Sin an s&oacute;rt ruda a bh&iacute; ag teast&aacute;il uainn roimh teacht chuig an Ch&eacute;im seo.  Is trua n&aacute;r tugadh an deis don duine seo n&oacute; do daoine eile a dtuairim&iacute; a nochtadh go poibl&iacute;.</p><p> T&aacute; a fhios agam gur chuir an Seanad fo-choist&iacute; ar bun thar na blianta le d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le leasuithe a dh&eacute;anamh ar an Seanad, mar at&aacute; againn sa D&aacute;il.  T&aacute; mise ar choiste leas&uacute; D&aacute;la &oacute; toghadh m&eacute; ar dt&uacute;s i 2002.  Chuir m&eacute; doicim&eacute;ad le ch&eacute;ile thar ceann mo ph&aacute;irt&iacute;, mar a dhein gach uile p&aacute;irt&iacute; eile sa D&aacute;il deireannach agus sa D&aacute;il roimhe sin, faoi chonas is f&eacute;idir linn uaireanta na D&aacute;la a leas&uacute; agus conas is f&eacute;idir obair an T&iacute; a dh&eacute;anamh n&iacute;os &eacute;ifeachta&iacute; agus mar sin de.  Tugadh roinnt de na leasuithe sin chun cinn.  Bhain leas&uacute; amh&aacute;in a mhol m&eacute; leis an obair a dh&eacute;anann muid ar an Mh&aacute;irt.  Seachas an maidin sin a fh&aacute;g&aacute;il saor, mhol m&eacute; go mbeadh seans againn d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le reachta&iacute;ocht ar an mhaidin sin, n&oacute; ar a laghad go bhf&eacute;adfadh muid d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le tuairisc&iacute; &oacute; choist&iacute;.</p><p> T&aacute; sin chun teacht i gcr&iacute;ch don ch&eacute;ad uair riamh an Mh&aacute;irt seo chugainn.  N&iacute; h&eacute; go raibh m&eacute; ag lorg go mbeadh ar Aire a bheith sa Teach, mar an fhadhb a bh&iacute; ann i gc&oacute;na&iacute; n&aacute; go mb&iacute;onn cruinni&uacute; na nAir&iacute; ar si&uacute;l an mhaidin sin agus nach f&eacute;idir leis an D&aacute;il su&iacute; ag an am sin.  An arg&oacute;int a bh&iacute; agamsa n&aacute; seachas gach duine a tharraingt isteach sa Teach ar feadh leath lae ar an Aoine, go raibh tromlach na ndaoine anseo cheana f&eacute;in ar maidin ar an Mh&aacute;irt.  N&iacute;lim ag r&aacute; nach c&oacute;ir go mbeadh muid in&aacute;r su&iacute; ar an Aoine, ach m&aacute; t&aacute; muid ag su&iacute; ar an Aoine, gur c&oacute;ir go mbeadh a fhios againn i bhfad roimh r&eacute;.  Ba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh sin ar an sceideal n&oacute; an f&eacute;ilire parlaiminte agus ba ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh reachta&iacute;ocht cheart ar si&uacute;l agus go leanfadh s&eacute; ar aghaidh an l&aacute; ar fad.  Ba ch&oacute;ir sin a dh&eacute;anamh seachas daoine a choime&aacute;d &oacute;na nd&aacute;ilcheantair ar feadh an lae agus seachas Teachta&iacute; &oacute;n tuath a choime&aacute;d i mBaile &Aacute;tha Cliath o&iacute;che breise.</p><p> T&aacute; cuid de na hathruithe a mholadh tar &eacute;is tarl&uacute;.  Mar sin, sa deireadh thiar t&aacute; daoine ag &eacute;isteacht.  Is iad leasuithe mar seo a bhf&eacute;adfa&iacute; a dh&eacute;anamh, n&iacute; amh&aacute;in sa Teach seo ach sa Seanad chomh maith.  Is f&eacute;idir leasuithe beaga a dh&eacute;anamh ar dt&uacute;s b&aacute;ire, ach b'fh&eacute;idir go bhf&eacute;adfa&iacute; leasuithe n&iacute;os m&oacute; a dh&eacute;anamh ansin le d&eacute;anamh cinnte de go bhfuil an Seanad n&iacute;os &eacute;ifeachta&iacute;, go bhfuil r&oacute;l ceart aige agus go bhfuil muid ag &eacute;isteacht leis an bpobal i gcoitinne.</p><p> An cheist is m&oacute; a bh&iacute; ann i gc&oacute;na&iacute; nuair a bh&iacute; mise &oacute;g n&aacute; conas a thoghann muid daoine don Seanad.  Sin an scannal is m&oacute;, n&aacute;r athra&iacute;odh an bealach a roghna&iacute;tear baill an tSeanaid &oacute; buna&iacute;odh &eacute;.  Maidir leis na Seanad&oacute;ir&iacute; ollscoile, n&iacute; raibh ach dh&aacute; ollscoil, Trinity College agus An Ollscoil N&aacute;isi&uacute;nta in ann na Seanad&oacute;ir&iacute; sin a roghn&uacute;.  Bh&iacute; sin elitist amach is amach.  Bh&iacute; ar duine a bheith ina ch&eacute;im&iacute; &oacute; cheann de na hollscoileanna sin le v&oacute;ta a bheith aige n&oacute; aici.  Seachas sin, bh&iacute; ar duine a bheith ina chomhairleoir contae n&oacute; Teachta D&aacute;la.  I roinnt c&aacute;sanna, bh&iacute; dh&aacute; v&oacute;ta ag duine.  T&aacute; sin go huile agus go hioml&aacute;n neamhdhaonlathach.</p><p>N&iacute; raibh iarracht riamh chun &eacute; sin a athr&uacute;.  B'fh&eacute;idir, leis an athr&uacute; sin, go mbeadh an r&oacute;l aithrithe.  N&iacute; raibh iarracht riamh r&oacute;l a thabhairt do saor&aacute;naigh an oile&aacute;n seo san Seanad.  Is cuimhin liom, sna 1970&iacute; agus san 1980&iacute;, daoine ag caint faoi r&oacute;l sa Seanad a thabhairt d&oacute;ibh si&uacute;d a bh&iacute; ar imirce, ach n&iacute;or th&aacute;rla s&eacute; sin.  Is &eacute; sin an fhadhb.  N&iacute; tharl&oacute;idh s&eacute; anois.  Beidh s&eacute; sp&eacute;isi&uacute;il f&eacute;achaint c&eacute;in chaoi ina dh&eacute;anfaidh an Rialtas d&eacute;ile&aacute;il leis na haithrithe m&oacute;ra is g&aacute; chun obair na D&aacute;la a leas&uacute; chun v&oacute;ta&iacute; a thabhairt do gach saor&aacute;nach ar an oile&aacute;n.  Conas is f&eacute;idir leis an D&aacute;il d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le v&oacute;ta a thabhairt d&oacute;ibh si&uacute;d at&aacute; ar imirce agus saor&aacute;naigh at&aacute; thar lear?  An bhfuil an Rialtas chun D&aacute;ilcheantar domhanda a bhun&uacute;?  N&iacute;l na ruda&iacute; sin os &aacute;r gcomhar.  Beidh "preferendum" seachas referendum i bhfad n&iacute;os fearr don phobal agus bheadh an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht i bhfad n&iacute;os sp&eacute;isi&uacute;la.  Sa ch&aacute;s sin, bheadh daoine ag chaitheamh v&oacute;ta le eolas faoi chonas mar a oibr&iacute;onn an D&aacute;il agus an Seanad, agus chonas mar a oibr&iacute;onn an tarna teach i dt&iacute;ortha eile.</p><p> B'fhi&uacute; d&uacute;inn, fi&uacute; ag an am seo, aire a thabhairt ar na d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireachta&iacute; a bh&iacute; ag an Coinbhinsi&uacute;n ar an mBunreacht.  Ar feadh c&uacute;pla deireadh seachtaine, d'fhreastal m&eacute; ar agus bh&iacute; s&eacute; an sp&eacute;isi&uacute;il an sl&iacute; a dhein an ghn&aacute;th phobal - seachas na polaiteoir&iacute;, a dhein go maith freisin - d&eacute;ile&aacute;il le ceisteanna m&oacute;ra casta cos&uacute;il le v&oacute;t&aacute;il don D&aacute;il.  N&iacute; ch&oacute;ir go mbeadh eagla orainn riamh ceisteanna a chur roimh an phobal cos&uacute;il leis an cheist conas is f&eacute;idir an Seanad a fheabhs&uacute; seachas f&aacute;il r&eacute;idh leis.  Bheadh s&eacute; an deacair an Seanad a chur ar si&uacute;l ar&iacute;s leis an r&oacute;l gur cheart a bheith aige tar &eacute;is deireadh a chur leis san reifreann seo.  Imp&iacute;m ar an Rialtas gan dul n&iacute;os faide le seo go dt&iacute; go n-&eacute;ist&iacute;onn siad leis an bpobal.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.306" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="15:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000032#EE00200"><p>The next speaking slot is shared by Deputies Andrew Doyle, Brendan Ryan and Robert Dowds.  Deputy Doyle, you have five minutes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.307" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1103" speakername="Andrew Doyle" time="15:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000032#EE00300"><p>I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Thirty-second Amendment of the Constitution (Abolition of Seanad &Eacute;ireann) Bill 2013.  I welcome the fact that the Referendum Commission was put in place at the earliest possible point to ensure that the information is given to the public to consider as quickly as possible.</p><p>  I have read the legislation.  One item struck me and it relates to the Presidential Commission.  Article 14 of the Constitution deals solely with the role of the Presidential Commission and its composition where the President is not in a position to act.  Currently, the Presidential Commission is made up of three members: the Chief Justice, the Ceann Comhairle and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad, three independent officers whom a general election does not affect.  Under the Bill it is proposed to amend Article 14.2.1&deg;, Article 14.2.3&deg; and Article 14.2.4&deg; of the Constitution.  These amendments would alter the members of the Presidential Commission.  In particular, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be interested to note, it is proposed that the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad would be replaced by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but a general election affects the Office of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.  The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may be pleased to hear what I am going to suggest.</p><p>  The issue with this legislation is that if the referendum results in the abolition of the Seanad and if a future Leas-Cheann Comhairle were to retire or not be re-elected, then his or her post would fall.  Such a situation could potentially arise following a general election.  This would mean there would be only two remaining members of the Presidential Commission and that could cause a deadlock if they disagreed in a situation where they were asked to act.  Up to now, the three independent officeholders have not been affected by a general election because at such times the Chief Justice remains <i>in situ</i>, the Ceann Comhairle is automatically returned to the D&aacute;il and the Cathaoirleach of the Seanad is <i>in situ</i> because the Seanad does not dissolve until 90 days after the dissolution of the D&aacute;il.</p><p>  As a result of this current structure, the Presidential Commission continues to have full membership even between election periods of both Houses.  The Bill appears to bring about a potential lapse in the membership of the commission during the period of the dissolution of an outgoing D&aacute;il and before the reconvening of the next one.  Based on the proposed amendment to the Constitution before us, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle or third member of the Presidential Commission either retired or failed to retain his seat, who would act in his or her place as the third person on the commission?  I have some suggestions about how to avoid such a scenario.  The first is to make the Leas-Cheann Comhairle an automatically re-elected position for the next D&aacute;il to ensure constant and consistent full membership of the Presidential Commission in a situation where the President is unable to act. </p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.308" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1101" speakername="Barry Cowen" time="15:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000032#EE00400"><p>Call a vote now.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.309" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1103" speakername="Andrew Doyle" time="15:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000032#EE00500"><p>The Leas-Cheann Comhairle may wish to call a vote on it now.  That scenario would maintain the commission intact and the position would not be affected.</p><p>  There is a second option.  Instead of allowing the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to become a member of the commission as provided for under the Bill, we could allow another independent constitutional officeholder to be the third member of the commission.  This could be the Attorney General, perhaps, although that post is held by a political appointee, the Comptroller and Auditor General or the President of the High Court.  Each of these positions are unaffected by a general election and would allow consistent and full membership of the commission.</p><p>  No doubt this matter will be trawled over by legal experts.  It was brought to my attention by someone and when I read the details I decided it was something that should be considered at this stage.  It is an unlikely occurrence and it is rare when the Presidential Commission is called to act, but it is not unforeseeable that it could come to pass.  I believe now is the time to deal with it before the Bill goes through all Stages.  I understand the legislation is due to conclude this evening and therefore perhaps it is as well to consider it now.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.310" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="15:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000032#EE00600"><p>That was very interesting Deputy, thank you.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.311" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1013" speakername="Brendan  Ryan" time="15:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000032#EE00700"><p>I am on record as stating that I am in favour of reforming the Upper House and my position has not changed.  I am also on record as stating that the Seanad in its current form should not be retained and my position has not changed.  I am, therefore, in favour of reform and not abolition of the Seanad.  If the Seanad cannot be adequately reformed then it ought to be abolished but I believe it can be so reformed.</p><p>  Unfortunately, reform has never been attempted.  I recognise my party's views are mixed on this matter.  A cursory look at public statements from Labour Party representatives during the past month will show the divergence of views.  I respect and welcome that divergence.  It represents a divergence of opinion among the public and this is why I would prefer a real discussion on reform before any question is put to the people on Seanad abolition.</p><p>  The Constitutional Convention would have been the perfect forum for that discussion.  This was my party's position and policy before the last general election.  Unfortunately, our position did not make it to the programme for Government.  I am not one of my party's representatives at the Constitutional Convention but I know from the reports of my colleagues that the convention is a dynamic forum for debate, discussion and ideas.  I believe we need stronger Houses of the Oireachtas to hold Government to account.  That requires major reform, especially of the Seanad, but also for the operation of the D&aacute;il.</p><p>  There is an appetite in the country to punish politics and politicians after the abject failure of the State by the previous Government.  The Seanad is an easy target for that punishment but this is not simply a numbers game.  I have heard the arguments about the number of politicians we need to best represent our citizens.  No argument holds a candle to that made by my colleague, Deputy Joanna Tuffy, in the House yesterday who argued strongly against its abolition.</p><p>I agree with my colleague Deputy Tuffy that the proposed cut in the number of Deputies, councillors and Senators will move us in the wrong direction and only lead to a further centralisation of power in the Executive and in unelected advisers.  I equally respect the strongly held views of other party colleagues, such as Deputy Eamonn Maloney and others, including the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Howlin, who hold different and strongly argued views on abolition.</p><p> Less representation does not equal better representation and it is the latter for which we should strive.  We must build a strong Oireachtas to propose, scrutinise and deliver legislation which will improve the lives of all in this country.  A reformed Seanad, reflective of what the public demands, has the capacity to improve the body politic in Ireland.  We need more scrutiny of legislation, particularly emergency financial legislation.  Proposals to do that by way of additional committee scrutiny do not convince me, as that would not be a constitutional requirement and could be diluted or removed by way of Government decision.</p><p> Other Members of the House criticised the inaction of the Seanad for failing to delay emergency financial legislation in 2008.  However, I believe that is an argument for reform rather than abolition.  The mistakes of 2008 were made in this House, predominantly by the Fianna F&aacute;il Party.  The mistakes were not made in the Seanad.  The composition of the Seanad, including the Taoiseach's nominees, meant it was impossible to delay legislation such as the bank bailout Bill in 2008.</p><p> Over the years there have been reports calling for reform.  That the reports were not acted upon was due to Government inertia rather than anything that went on in the Seanad.  An example of that was the failure to implement the seventh amendment of the Constitution from 1979, which would broaden the franchise of the university panel of the Seanad to include all third level institutions.  That would have been simple to implement but there was no appetite and no action by successive Governments.  However, we are beyond tinkering with the elitism of the university panels, or the exclusive and indirect franchise for the vocational panels.  The Seanad requires major reform and reconstitution and that should be done through discussion with the Irish people and should not just be abolished.</p><p> The choice presented to the people should be by way of preferendum, rather than a simple referendum.  The people of Ireland should have a choice on whether a reformed Upper House is preferable to the current House or no House.  The simplicity of choice in this Bill will ensure the debate surrounding the Seanad referendum will be about everything but the Seanad.  It will be a Punch and Judy debate, as referendum campaigns always seem to be.  That has already started in the discussion of the Bill which is disheartening.  We should not abolish one of the Houses of the Oireachtas lightly.  Many of my constituents take a different view and cannot wait for an opportunity to vote to abolish the Seanad.  We must present the people with an opportunity to make a decision on the Seanad, as per the programme for Government commitments.  It is now up to the people to decide.  That is the beauty of our constitutional democracy.  Go raibh maith agat.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.313" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1011" speakername="Robert Dowds" time="15:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000033#FF00200"><p>I will diverge from my colleague&rsquo;s view on the debate.  I have no problem with the abolition of the Seanad, as such, because it is elitist and does not live up to the corporate ideals that inspired de Valera&rsquo;s reconstruction of the Seanad in the 1930s.</p><p>  That said, I recognise that many Senators made valuable contributions to political life in this country.  It would be unfair not to acknowledge that.  I refer, for example, to contraception, which was first discussed many decades ago in that arena led by Mary Robinson.  I acknowledge the good work that has been done by the Seanad.</p><p>  My next point will not be popular with the public.  If we abolish the Seanad it is important that we look after Deputies who lose their D&aacute;il seats because we must not allow a situation to develop whereby people of small means cannot get involved in politics.  It is important that this Chamber would be as representative of the general public as possible.  As part of that we must ensure that it is not an insurmountable risk for one to seek election.  We must examine the situation carefully if the Seanad is abolished.</p><p>  There is no Government incentive currently to encourage Deputies to try to get the referendum across the line.  The Cabinet&rsquo;s ideal is that we would all be good boys and girls and come in and press the right buttons at the right time, but we must do more than that.  The Cabinet accepts that backbench Deputies must be more than that but if Ministers are being honest with themselves, that would be the ideal; it would be less hassle and they could get on with life more easily.  Politics is not about an easy life, however, so we must avoid that situation.</p><p>  There is a need to present a strong package of parliamentary reform as part of the debate.  We may well find that, unless such reform is put in train, the people decide to retain the Seanad.  Regardless of whether the Seanad is to be abolished, reform is necessary.  I refer to reform at two different levels.  First, at local level it is important that we build on the reform we started in terms of giving local authorities more control over their financial resources.  The property tax, unpopular and all as it is, is a start in that direction.  It is important that the authority of councils is held by those who are elected and that staff such as county managers serve the people rather than the other way around where so much power is the hands of the unelected.</p><p>  At D&aacute;il level there is a pressing need to improve the situation.  First, we must work to ensure greater powers for committees.  There was an attempt to progress the situation in the inquiries referendum last year but we must try to get to a situation where we have compellability of witnesses so as to bring about a better reformed society.  We require direct input from Deputies from all sides of the House, if possible, at heads of Bill level, and an ability to influence the Cabinet at that stage.  We also need a satisfactory way to deal with Private Members&rsquo; Bills.  I had the honour of bringing a Bill before the House on Friday last.  It is not easy to progress a Bill, either mine or any other and we must work out how to do that.  I do not see why there cannot be a free vote on Bills that have no negative financial impact on the Government.  I accept that if a proposed Bill were to lead to expenditure of &euro;500 million the Government would have to apologise and say it did not have the money but we must get away from the mindset that there can never be a free vote.</p><p>  I accept this is not perhaps the best time to raise the issue.  I appreciate that the Whip system protects some Deputies in the current debate on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill.  We must grasp the issue and deal with it.  Other parliaments have a much easier approach.  In our case it is probably due to the fact that most Governments, with the exception of this one, have slim majorities and therefore a Whip system is important to get legislation passed.  Deputies must have more influence in terms of pre-budget submissions.</p><p>More extensive oral questioning of Ministers is also required, as is the need for Ministers to respond in person to Topical Issue debates, because far too often the Minister who is responsible for a matter does not answer the Member raising the issue.  Another possibility is to allow a certain number, perhaps 40%, of backbenchers to institute parliamentary inquiries.  As Ireland is part of the European Union, a much better method of interaction between our national Parliament and the European Union institutions must be worked out because the decisions made there have such an influence on us.  An effective conduit is required to bring our views to those institutions and to get a chance on a regular basis to interact with senior people at EU level.</p><p> If the situation is not handled properly the people might well decide to retain the Seanad.  We must grasp the opportunity to use this occasion to introduce substantial and real parliamentary reform in a way that has often been discussed but rarely instituted.  I have to hand a document produced by one of my colleagues, now a Minister, on new and better government, which goes through a list of important areas of parliamentary reform.  One could do well to go through it and consider a great many of the suggestions it contains.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.315" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000034#GG00200"><p>As far as I am concerned, the Seanad must be abolished.  There is no justification for the current set-up, which is elitist, is not representative of the majority of people and has not had any serious political function on behalf of the citizens.  Consequently, it must go.  Most Members, in one way or other, have accepted this in the course of the debate.  While there is a question before Members as to whether it should simply be abolished and left at that or whether there should be some other tier of democracy or other new democratic institutions to replace it, there can be no doubt but that the existing set-up must go.</p><p>  However, before one addresses that question, one must ask the reason Members today are discussing the abolition of the Seanad in the first place.  The reason they are doing so is that politics as a whole, not just the Seanad, has been thoroughly discredited.  People are deeply alienated from politics and are extremely angry at politicians right across the political spectrum.  To be honest, there are times when, were people given the opportunity, they would not simply abolish the Seanad but would abolish the D&aacute;il as well and probably the local councils.  That is where we are, and that is the level of anger and alienation that exists with regard to the political system.  I must state that were Members being honest, they would admit that this anger is justified.  As to the reason that anger exists, it is because the current political system brought us to this unprecedented economic crisis.  At best, it did little to prevent it from occurring and at worst, most people would state that the political set-up in this country facilitated it.  They would refer to the culture of cronyism, personal ambition and following one's own personal interests ahead of the interests of society as a whole, which was present among developers, bankers and certain corporate interests, and would state that this culture crossed over into and was facilitated by the political establishment and the political structures in the State.  This is what most people think, and they have a point.</p><p>  People also would state, as a common observation on politics, that no matter whom one elects one always gets the same government, and nothing ever changes.  Politicians make and then break promises and people have no way to make them accountable for that.  One of the most powerful sentiments that is driving rage against the political system at present is the belief that politicians and the political system operate in such a way that they can play fast and loose with the trust of the people in order to get themselves into position but can then protect themselves from any degree of accountability.  The belief is that politicians, who have regularly done this to people, cannot be recalled or held responsible for so doing.  In addition, since at least the time of the former Taoiseach, Charles Haughey, and the beef scandals, there has been an entire litany - a relentless line - of scandals involving graft, corruption, cronyism and so on.  People would say that at best the political system has failed to prevent this, and at worst it has been responsible for it.  It has facilitated all of that and has engendered a political culture and a political class that is rank and rotten and has little to do with representing the needs, wishes and aspirations of ordinary people.</p><p>  Consequently, this debate should be about how to achieve a real democracy that functions and in which politicians are accountable.  It should be about how to achieve a democracy that eliminates the potential for corruption or cute-hoor politics and in which politicians can be held accountable for the promises they made when going before the people.  It should be about how to achieve a democracy that will ensure we are not plunged into the sort of economic crisis this State is in at present.  It is important to point out that these are old problems.  In the context of the Private Members' debate earlier this week on the 1913 Lock-out, I read through some articles written by James Connolly at the turn of the century.  While he was apparently writing about a different constitution and a different political set-up at that time - namely, British rule - if one reads the article one sees resonances that are simply astonishing.  Allow me to read out a few brief passages.  Connolly talks about the power of the Cabinet and states:<blockquote>The cabinet formed out of the members of the party strongest numerically constitutes the government of the country and as such has full control of our destinies during its term of office.  But the Cabinet is not elected by Parliament, voted for by the people nor chosen by its own party.  The Cabinet is chosen by the gentleman chosen ... as the leader of the strongest party.  The gentleman so chosen ... selects certain of his own followers and invests them with certain positions, and salaries and so forms the Cabinet.</blockquote>While Connolly rightly rails against this, 100 years on nothing has changed.  Moreover, he was talking about a colonial parliament imposed on this country.</p><p>The problem of immense amounts of power concentrated in a Cabinet that does not even have constitutional status and that essentially can impose its will by fiat on the Parliament and on the population in general persists 100 years on, even after we got so-called independence.  Connolly further states:<blockquote>The powers of Parliament are...arbitrary and ill-defined.<br /><br />If Parliament, elected to carry out the wishes of the electors on one question, chooses to act in a manner contrary to the wishes of the electors in a dozen other questions, the electors have no redress except to wait for another general election to give them the opportunity to return other gentlemen under similar conditions and with similar opportunities of evil-doing.</blockquote>It is archaic language but the Minister gets the point.  Nothing has changed from what Connolly described.  That is what people feel.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.317" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000035#HH00200"><p>Is that from the book of St. Michael?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.318" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000035#HH00300"><p>The Minister should not be smug about it because that-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.319" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000035#HH00400"><p>I am not being smug.  I am about among the ordinary people also.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.320" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000035#HH00500"><p>Does the Minister not think they feel that anger?  He is living in cloud cuckoo land if he does not think they feel that anger.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.321" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000035#HH00600"><p>I meet some of the Deputy's friends now and again on protests.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.322" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000035#HH00700"><p>He goes on to state:<blockquote>Parliamentary Democracy gives [people] the right to a voice in the selection of [their] rulers but insists that [they] shall bend as a subject to be ruled.</blockquote>In arguing for the alternative he states:<blockquote>[We need a democracy that] will change the choice of rulers which we have to-day into the choice of administrators of laws voted upon directly by the people; and...substitute for the choice of masters...the appointment of reliable public servants under direct public control.  That will [be] true democracy.</blockquote>That is actually what people want.  The language is a bit archaic but they want direct control.  They want a direct say in the laws.  They do not want to see people get elected on the basis of certain promises and then implement other policies and laws which people did not vote for and in which they have no say.  They want to have a say in the issues that directly affect them.  Connolly was so right, and that challenge remains.  If we do not meet that challenge by giving people the real democracy and accountability they want and of which they can have real ownership, we face a dangerous situation.  One only has to look at the growth of the far right in Europe to see the chilling reminders of what happened in the 1930s, when faith in the democratic system broke down completely.  The greatest horrors in human history were unleashed on our society across Europe and the world.  It is frightening to see the rise of Golden Dawn and other neo-facist organisations across Europe.  As Yeats put it at the turn of the century:<blockquote>Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;<br /><br />Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.</blockquote>He was describing the situation in the 1916 to 1919 period including the First World War, the economic collapse, the crisis and the political polarisation that took place.  It happened again in the 1930s and in the face of anther economic crisis, we are seeing the worrying signs of that developing again.</p><p>  Where does that assessment of the crisis of democracy that I believe exists, and I think most people believe exists, lead us in terms of trying to deal not just with the issue of the Seanad but the way we could have democratic institutions that command respect, where there is a vibrant democracy that functions as opposed to the dysfunctional one we have now?  We first have to have a democracy in which there is recallability and accountability for decisions made.  People are screaming for that.  In the Meath by-election the group that shocked and surprised many people in the vote it got was Direct Democracy.  It was precisely on the basis of arguing for that kind of direct participatory democracy that it surprised everybody and got a huge vote.  We must have a democracy which has that level of accountability rather than simply electing people for five years during which time they can do whatever they want.</p><p>  We also have to have a democracy that is genuinely representative of all sectors of society.  There have been ups and downs in regard to that but in general terms there is a decline in the numbers voting in elections compared to a few decades ago.  Generally speaking there is a decline in the western world in the number of people voting, and that decline tends to be concentrated among young people, the less well off and the disadvantaged sectors of society but there is a definite decline in enthusiasm for, involvement in and engagement with democracy.  That tells us that we must have a democracy that is genuinely representative of all sectors of society.</p><p>  We have to have a democracy that is not just a political democracy but one in which people have real control over the economic forces that govern and dictate their lives.  There is a fundamental deficit in democracy if a small minority of people have control of the vast majority of wealth and resources in a society because they can use that wealth and resources to undermine democracy.  That is where corruption has come from; it is not something that is unique to Ireland.  We have had corruption scandals where big money has bought off, corrupted and corroded the democratic system in almost every major western country, not to mind the global south.  It is always the same pattern.  People with a great deal of money use that money, power and influence to corrode, undermine and corrupt the democratic system.</p><p>  It follows logically from that that if we have a more democratic system and a more democratic society, the more equally we distribute the wealth and the control of the resources in society.  If wealth and resources are privately owned, regardless of the democratic structures we have, the people who control that wealth and resources use them <i>de facto</i> to control what goes on in society.  The heavy concentration of control of the media in this country by two of the wealthiest individuals in the country is symptomatic of that fact.  That is just one example.  We have to address that inequality.</p><p>  It is obvious that the privatisation of State assets and natural resources, which are key to the functioning of our society, is also antithetical to democracy because if we hand over those resources, assets and infrastructure, which are vital to the functioning of society, and remove them from any kind of democratic control or accountability, it hollows out democracy itself.  It makes democracy a meaningless side show to the day to day reality where those who control those resources, assets and infrastructures decide who does or does not access them.  We are seeing that is the case even in areas like health and roads.  One has to pay to travel on roads now.  One has to pay to access decent health services.  One can get a higher class of education if one can pay extra for it.  These things are corrosive and they undermine democracy.  Those are the issues we have to address and if we do not address them, we will be in trouble.</p><p>  I want to speak about protest in this regard.  Some people, particularly professional politicians, are contemptuous of popular campaigns of protest.  They like to present them as mindless activities that people engage in, that people like serial protesting, and that there is no reason for it.</p><p>This was evident yesterday when I said the decision on the selling off of Coillte was a victory for people power and there were hoots of derision from Government and some Opposition TDs.  They were laughing at and deriding the idea that ordinary citizens might have had an influence on the Government decision on the sale of the harvesting rights of Coillte when they should celebrate the fact the public engaged so much with that issue.  They should celebrate the fact that such a wide and diverse coalition of our society engaged with an issue that was critical to our society and if that meant they changed the Government's mind on something, that is good.  It is an indication of democracy working at some level and the Government and our political system should not be afraid of that or seek to insulate itself from it but should seek to embrace it and learn from it how to develop a thriving, dynamic, functioning democracy.</p><p> Where does that leave us in terms of the Seanad?  Abolish it, but the D&aacute;il is dysfunctional as well.  We  must establish new institutions, starting at local level, that are genuine popular assemblies that represent all sectors of society, ensuring worker representation, small business representation-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.324" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00200"><p>Communes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.325" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00300"><p>The Minister is contemptuous.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.326" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00400"><p>Communes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.327" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00500"><p>The present system is working so well, is it not?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.328" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00600"><p>Communes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.329" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00700"><p>The Minister will be saying that as the political system sinks further into-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.330" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00800"><p>Communes.  The Deputy will sink it with his own arguments.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.331" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ00900"><p>If that is the manner in which the Minister treats the debate, we are going nowhere.  The Minister does not understand how angry people are.  The principle on which the Seanad was set up was on the basis of different sectors, but the problem was that the sectors were representative of elites.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.332" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ01000"><p>Like the Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.333" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ01100"><p>They should be representative of all sectors of society and if they were elected at local level from among the disabled, young people, student groups and so on, they would be accountable to those groups at local level.  They could then select people to go forward to a national assembly that would be accountable to assemblies at local level.  People could have a real say in the laws that are made by putting forward proposals for legislation and influencing the decisions the Government makes on a day-to-day basis.  That is the sort of democracy we need.  It is obvious from the Minister's demeanour that he has nothing but contempt for the anger and disillusionment out there.  If the Minister thinks it is just coming from me, he is sadly deluded.  He will learn.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.334" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ01200"><p>I know the Deputy is in favour those people and that he is in favour of damaging property.  He condones damage to property.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.335" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/949" speakername="Martin Heydon" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ01300"><p>I am happy to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill, which will allow for a referendum offering people the opportunity to have their say on the future of the Seanad.</p><p>  In the run-up to the last general election, Fine Gael had a much-heralded five-point plan, one of the key components of which was new politics and political reform.  Even though we have not reached the halfway point of the Government yet, this has been the most reforming Government in the history of the State.  We have cut politicians' pay and expenses, we have increased D&aacute;il sitting days by 30% and we have established the Constitutional Convention, which has given citizens a direct voice.  We have addressed the gender imbalance in Parliament with the introduction of quotas and next year the abolition of town councils will see a reduction of more than 600 councillors.  At the next European elections we will have one MEP less and after the next general election the D&aacute;il will be reduced to 158 seats from 166.</p><p>  This Bill is about the next part of that process, giving the people a choice on the future of the Seanad and whether it is to be retained or abolished.  Whether we agree or disagree with the changes that have been implemented, from gender quotas to the abolition of town councils, a huge amount of work has been done in a short period.  The town councils gave rise to a huge amount of duplication, particularly at administrative level, where town councils existed for historic reasons.  Athy, with a population of 10,000 people, had a rate-collecting urban district council, while the town of Newbridge, with a population of 25,000, had a town commission with little or no power and very little funding.  In north Kildare, Leixlip had a full town council while Celbridge, a town of equal size, had no representation at all at town council level.  The town councils have a huge tradition, which I respect, and that is why there has been a lot of upset about their abolition, but tradition and history are not reasons to retain them.</p><p>  We must now embark on a debate on the future of the Seanad.  Some will say that its role, like that of town councils, is more suited to history than to the present day and that it is no longer fit for purpose.  Others will point to the important role of oversight they believe the Seanad might provide, but what oversight does it provide now?  All contributors to the debate I have heard have admitted that the Seanad, at the very least, needs to be reformed.  I have not heard anyone make the argument that the Seanad must kept as it is at present, which points to a flawed establishment.</p><p>  Financial savings are a consideration.  The Government has had to trim down the spending of Departments, so when we get out of this recession we will have a leaner, more efficient economy that is cheaper to run.  We have seen reductions in spending in all Departments and reductions in Civil Service numbers through the moratorium on recruitment.  Politics cannot be immune from that, and &euro;20 million per year, or &euro;100 million over a five-year term, is not insignificant.  That is an important point, because if there was full agreement that the Seanad is a vital part of our democracy, the financial argument would not be a reason for its abolition.</p><p>  If the Seanad is abolished, it will change how the D&aacute;il operates.  At present we have a Cabinet that is particularly strong compared to other countries, but the Seanad in its present form does not have much influence on that power.  We must move towards a debate on the role of TDs in tandem with this.  If the Seanad is abolished, there will be more sitting days and more Stages for legislation going through this House, with more power devolved to the committees and a greater role for TDs in the scrutiny of legislation.  At present a TD's role is divided between local constituency work and the work of a legislator.  While I take my role as a legislator extremely seriously and scrutinise all Bills laid before me very seriously, come the next general election, the people of Kildare South will judge me more on what I have done in the constituency than on any contributions I have made in this House.  That might not be right, but it is the reality.  If we are considering changing the role of TDs with the abolition of the Seanad, people must change their expectations of the role of TDs.  I look forward to the debate on the referendum and the campaign ahead of us.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.336" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/964" speakername="Ann Phelan" time="15:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000036#JJ01400"><p>I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this very important and historic topic.  We need a reasoned debate on the issue.  There are many diverse opinions on the Upper House of Oireachtas &Eacute;ireann and the question is whether we should abolish the Seanad or reform it.  The Labour Party has taken a long, hard look at the Seanad and in our view, the case for its retention has been lost.  It is not possible to identify any body or section of society, such as university graduates or county councillors, that should be singled out as constituting a special or separate electorate whose members who should be entitled to vote in their own special House of the Oireachtas.</p><p>In a small country such as Ireland, there is no need for a second House and that has been shown throughout as best practice.</p><p> Many hold the view that it is simply a nursing home for politicians who have served in the D&aacute;il and at the same time a nursery for those seeking higher office later in life, a view which is perhaps unjustifiable in some cases.  The Seanad has a very restricted constituency in that it is made up of persons elected by county councillors, graduates of some universities only, and another 11 persons nominated by the Taoiseach.  Wherever people stand on this issue, one point is clear.  The Seanad cannot remain on in its current form.  It must be either reformed or removed.</p><p> Historically, two-tier parliaments like our own were set up so that the upper house could hold the lower house to some kind of accountability.  It usually did so by delaying legislation where it was felt that the lower chamber was trying to rush through some law, or it did so by delaying the passing of a budget.  However, most upper houses, including our own, have been somewhat weakened over the years and now do not exercise any real power.  As a consequence, they are seen by the public as redundant to the needs of the parliament, but this is a view with which I do not always agree and I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge the hard work done by my Labour colleagues in the Seanad.</p><p> The Seanad is seen as undemocratic and, in reality, since its inception, its role has been limited.  It is a historical institution borrowed from the British Administration of the past.  Many hold this view, even cross-party.  Many who have gone before us in this House have outlined their dissatisfaction with the Seanad and have clearly articulated that it has fulfilled no real part in national affairs, despite being a costly burden on the taxpayer.  &quot;One vote, one voice&quot; has always been the primary principle in a democratic system.  This principle rings hollow in the Seanad, where many can be nominated at the discretion of the Taoiseach.  The ordinary man or woman has had no hand, act or part in this selection.  Real or perceived, the public view is that the Seanad is an elitist, aloof institution and it has stayed too long to be of any use to anybody.  However, practitioners here in the Oireachtas do not always see this to be the case.</p><p> If we were to reform the Seanad, we would have to change the way in which it is elected.  As it stands, it is an affront to democracy.  We would have to make it stronger and give it more power and more of a say in the legislation of the country.  Is this possible or even practical?  We have a legislative assembly already, that is, the D&aacute;il.</p><p> Like some of my Labour Party colleagues, especially Deputy McNamara, I am concerned at the proposal included to delete Article 27 of the Constitution, entitled &quot;Reference of Bills to the People&quot;.  Article 27 gives power to the Oireachtas to seek the views of the people on legislation which contains &quot;a proposal of such national importance that the will of the people thereon ought to be ascertained&quot;.  There were many occasions in the past where this should have been used.  For example, the bank guarantee was an issue of national importance and where the will of the people could have been sought.  This is an invaluable tool of democracy and one not to be dismissed lightly.  I hope the Minister will take this on board.  Real power should lie with the people and not only must they be able to have their say but also they must feel they are being listened to.</p><p> In the past we have looked at countries such as Sweden to examine best practice in child care and care for the elderly.  They may also have a lesson for us in this issue.  The Swedish system of government is based on subsidiarity, which is one of the main themes in decentralisation where a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.  To that end, the Swedish system is made up of three branches - national, regional and local.  The national level is self-evident.  The regional level is divided into 20 different counties.  Each of the county councils is responsible for overseeing most of the tasks of which we are aware.  I note that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Hogan, is making certain changes in the local government system.  Some of my colleagues, as town councillors, are not happy about that, but so be it.  The Minister is making some good changes.  If the people vote to abolish the Seanad, it gives us great scope to strengthen the local authorities even further.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.338" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1085" speakername="Frank Feighan" time="16:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000037#KK00400"><p>I rise to speak on this issue of the abolition of the Seanad.  As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be aware, I have fond memories of five years spent in the Seanad, from 2002 to 2007, and I shared that space with him.  We were fortunate to have such great speakers there, such as former Senator Joe O'Toole, Senators Feargal Quinn and David Norris, the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, Deputy Ross and, indeed, the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, who was measured at all times, which I appreciated.</p><p>  The Order of Business in the Seanad was much more flexible than the Order of Business in the D&aacute;il where one could raise any issue of the day and one had a platform.  I have fond memories of the Seanad because it certainly gave me the platform on which I could raise issues and articulate views from my county and my constituency, and national ones as well.</p><p>  I remember spending at least two months on the Seanad campaign in 2002.  One would drive 10,000 or 12,000 miles and meet every county councillor, from one's own party, Independents and, perhaps, Labour.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.339" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1054" speakername="Se&aacute;n &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l" time="16:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000037#KK00500"><p>And maybe an odd Fianna F&aacute;iler.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.340" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1085" speakername="Frank Feighan" time="16:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000037#KK00600"><p>As the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will recall, one knew that one might not get a big vote from the Opposition and vice versa.  It was a joy to behold when one sat in councillors' kitchens and really got to understand how one's own party operated.  The one benefit is it gives one an education and information, which is the stock-in-trade of where one's party is going at the time.</p><p>  It was the one time I realised, sitting in the kitchens, that there was a strong republican element within Fine Gael.  I sat in kitchens having tea with councillors with a strong republican background.  It was something on which we, in Fine Gael, have always been very open.  In my opinion, the Anglo-Irish Agreement was the forerunner to the Good Friday Agreement.  In every party there are different strands of opinion, but it was one time when I found that the councillors had a very republican mind and background and were prepared to work within the Fine Gael Party to articulate it in a much more cohesive and embracing manner.  That is merely one of my observations.</p><p>  However, we must look at what has happened in the Seanad.  When I went in there in 2002, the first issue was reform.  On every radio programme, television station and newspaper, we heard the reform would definitely happen.  It was one of ten issues for reform.  I remember asking a certain gentleman who was involved in the Seanad what this reform would do and he checked it out and came back to me to say that the reform was going nowhere.  In effect, over the years there was this kind of nonsense of putting considerable time and expense into producing papers on reform.  We knew they were never going anywhere because those who were going to reform themselves had neither the capability nor the will to do so.  Where reform has been ignored since the foundation of the Seanad, it has come to its abolition and that is going before the people.</p><p>  I remember an interesting debate on the dual mandate.  We were very much against it.  Many councillors were against the fact that if they left the council, they could not be a member of a VEC and various boards.  To me, it was the right legislation.  It was madness to think anyone could have been a Deputy or Senator here in Dublin trying to run the affairs of the country and of their constituency and at the same time sit on the board of the Western Regional Authority, a VEC, a council and various boards.</p><p>The policy that was introduced was opposed by many Senators but it was effectively the correct course of action.  Today, this Government is leading by example.  What other government would do it?</p><p> We are reducing the number of seats in the D&aacute;il and I will lose 40% of the vote in my constituency by going from south Leitrim to east Galway.  Every time my team of Galway is playing Kilkenny, I am very enthusiastic in supporting my newly adopted county in hurling.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.342" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="16:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000038#LL00200"><p>It needs the Deputy's help.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.343" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1085" speakername="Frank Feighan" time="16:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000038#LL00300"><p>I am also in with the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I wondered how we would do against Kilkenny in last year's all-Ireland final.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.344" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/964" speakername="Ann Phelan" time="16:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000038#LL00400"><p>The Deputy found out.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.345" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1085" speakername="Frank Feighan" time="16:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000038#LL00500"><p>I am glad the Deputy helped me out.  We have not been the greatest advocates of openness and transparency.  The Seanad sittings have been planned in a way to facilitate golf buddies or members attending an Ard-Fheis, and that does not send out the right signal.  People are tired of that kind of belittling of a Chamber of the Parliament.  I take my politics seriously and as Government Deputies and Senators, we must lead by example.  This issue will go to the people, who will make their decision.  If they decide to abolish the Seanad, we must acknowledge that, but if they want to retain the Seanad we must have absolute reform and none of the nonsense of more reports coming out that will never be acted upon.</p><p>  Reform has been ignored in the past but I thank the Minister for the work he has done.  Sometimes I may not feel like thanking him, as my local authority will be reduced to 18 seats: although this is democracy, it is affecting many councillors.  The only town council in my constituency is in Boyle and it is being abolished.  Once again, as politicians and a Government, we are leading by example and although I do not like doing certain unpalatable things, we must be united in showing that we are capable of change, which can be exacted in a fair manner.  It is up to the people in the coming months to decide what will happen to the Seanad and I wish them well in that regard.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.346" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1054" speakername="Se&aacute;n &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l" time="16:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000038#LL00600"><p>I admit that this is one of the most important debates we will have as the issue affects how we do politics at a national level.  I am also conscious that for a brief period between 2000 and 2002, I was a member of the Upper House.  I was elected in the company of Mr. Jim Glennon after a by-election and at the behest of my party.  It was made very clear to both of us that we were being elected to the Upper House to ensure we would go forward and try to get elected to D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann.  I am glad the Minister is here because he knows about this better than anybody in Fine Gael, as he was charged through his party in ensuring the Upper House was used in just that way by Fine Gael over the years.  It was utilised as a launching pad for potential candidates who would be elected to the D&aacute;il, and to a certain extent it was a relaunching pad for those who had been in the D&aacute;il, lost their seats but wanted to return at some stage.</p><p>  In that we must all put up our hands and admit that the system was effectively abused by political parties, although the aspirations and sentiments that surround the Seanad and are expressed in the Constitution are none the weaker by virtue of the fact that political parties sought to use and abuse the systems.  Considering the Seanad over the years, we find there was much talk about reform and many reports were published but the reason reform was never implemented was because the Governments of the day never followed through in the way the Taoiseach - rightly or wrongly - has done with a particular set of proposals.  I believe he is wrong on this occasion.</p><p>  The contention is that the Seanad has not done what it was supposed to but that is incorrect.  I look back at my brief period there with great respect and admiration for people like Maurice Manning, Joe O'Toole and the late Tom Fitzgerald, who through the Seanad availed of the opportunity to serve this Legislature and, through it, the public.  There is an issue with the role of the Seanad, and those who favour reform - as I do - are trying to formulate areas of potential additional involvement.  However, the primary responsibility of the Seanad in the Constitution is to examine legislation, which it has done.  Deputies Tuffy and &Oacute; Cu&iacute;v, in the course of very thoughtful presentations in the last day or so, have set out just why that happened and how effective the Seanad was in the role.</p><p>  The Taoiseach went to Glenties in 2009 and spoke at length while advocating the reform and retention of the Seanad.  He was enthusiastic about the process in that respect.  One wonders what would have happened if events were different in 2002, when the Taoiseach was in some difficulty in his own constituency and only managed to scrape home in that election, which was a bad result for Fine Gael.  Would the Taoiseach have been very happy to find a roost for himself in Seanad &Eacute;ireann had he failed to be elected to the D&aacute;il?</p><p>  What makes us all very uncomfortable is that there is no enthusiasm for this particular set of changes among Government parties.  This has been clearly evident in the Labour Party and it has also been clear in many members of the Fine Gael Party.  There is a recognition that this is something of a solo run by the Taoiseach.  In a position where Fine Gael may have needed a boost in the polls in the run-up to the last election, the Taoiseach thrusted around to try to find something that would endear him to a very cynical electorate and the abolition of the Seanad was the issue he selected.  It was bad judgment at the time and he is following through on it now because he argues it is a promise in the programme for Government.  However, there are many other promises in the programme for Government which the Taoiseach has already admitted he will not be able to progress.</p><p>  What we are expected to believe is that we will get rid of the Seanad - which most of us see as being a very important part of the democratic political process - and it will be replaced with a reformed D&aacute;il.  Reform has been very slow to come and reform of the Seanad has not happened because the Governments of the day have not followed through.  The reform promised in the course of this D&aacute;il session has not happened at anything close to the extent suggested.  We are halfway through the term and the Government Chief Whip has declared that the level of co-operation with the reform process by Ministers is deplorable.</p><p>  I attend the Whips' meeting on a weekly basis and we are party to the process of D&aacute;il reform.  I know the Whips from the various political parties could sit around the table and formulate a set of proposals to reform the D&aacute;il.</p><p>At the end of the day, however, those proposals have to go back to Government, be accepted and implemented.  At present there are two areas of worthwhile reform, namely, the Topical Issues Debate and the Friday sittings.  These are worthwhile, good initiatives.  However, during Topical Issues, we are seeing that Ministers are not coming into the House to address the issues that arise.  Senior Ministers have failed to appear in the D&aacute;il three times out of four, on average, to respond to the topical issues that are raised each day, with 40% of issues being dealt with by a Minister of State from a non-relevant Department reading from a script.  This very good idea, which emanated from Government and was supported by all the political parties, is not working because Government Ministers are not co-operating with it.  </p><p> The other issue is that of sitting days.  I acknowledge that the number of sitting days has increased.  Indeed, sitting days increased under the last Government and the current Government has continued to work to significantly increase the number of sitting days.  However, I made a point during Leader's Questions earlier in the week that merits repeating.  My point relates to the number of sittings that we have and the times to which those sittings extend.  We meet at 10 a.m. or 10.30 a.m. and continue, increasingly, until 10 p.m. or midnight.  That is creating a situation where this D&aacute;il is not an attractive place to be for someone who, for example, is interested in rearing a family, whether male or female.  How on earth could one suggest that the sort of hours that are kept here are anything approaching family friendly hours?</p><p> How does one reconcile the type of reform we talk about with the work of the convention on the Constitution, for example?  We know, as others have said, that the convention was not allowed to look at the question of Seanad abolition.  Obviously, the Government did not trust the convention to come up with the right set of answers on that question.  How do we hope to attract young people into this profession, which the convention has indicated is desirable and which we, as practising politicians, know to be so?  How do we get the huge number of additional women that we need to be involved in politics if we are going to pursue the sort of approaches we are currently pursuing in terms of D&aacute;il reform?  I put it to the House that one would want to be slightly mad to become involved in a system where the working hours are so far removed from any concept of what is family friendly.  </p><p> The Friday sittings, which are part of the reform, are designated for consideration of Private Member's Bills.  Again, this is a very good idea on the face of it.  We have probably seen the production of more Private Member's Bills in the course of this D&aacute;il than ever before.  That is a very positive development and I salute the Government and the Chief Whip for bringing forward that proposal.  However, after two and a half years, not one of the Bills that have been identified at a Friday sitting, even from among those that have ultimately got Government support, has been actually written into law.  The question arises as to whether there is any intention on the part of the Government at any stage to write any of these Private Member's Bills into law.  </p><p> We have seen more use of the guillotine in the course of this D&aacute;il, despite the assurances we were given.  In June 2011, the Chief Whip, Deputy Paul Kehoe, said the following:<blockquote>The extensive over-use of the guillotine to ram through non-emergency legislation, as in the last D&aacute;il, will be cut back so legislation can be debated in full.  The over-use of the guillotine in the last D&aacute;il was one of the great frustrations for Deputies of all parties because they were denied the opportunity to have their voices heard on vital issues passing through this House. </blockquote>However, despite this promise on the use of guillotines, 52 out of 90 Bills were guillotined.  That represents 57% of all Bills passed.  What we are seeing here is the ramming through of legislation.  If we get rid of the Seanad, it will give this Government another opportunity to make use of its massive majority and its grip on power to push forward its own agenda, without scrutiny or questioning.  That is the real difficulty here.  Add to this the loss of representation at local level and it represents a direct assault on how we govern ourselves.  It represents a concentration of power in the hands of even fewer people.  Is this the type of democracy we want?  </p><p> The Seanad is at the heart of our Constitution and the proposed 23rd amendment will require 75 direct deletions from the document that is the basis of our democracy.  This is by far the most radical amendment in our country's history and has come about without any advance consultation.  Abolition will close down debate and therefore reject legitimate challenge.  It effectively stops an important aspect in our parliamentary system of checks and balances.  When we look at what has happened in this country in recent years, we see that regulators and others charged with the task of checking and balancing did not do their job.  It seems to me to be particularly appalling that at a time when checks and balances are more important than ever before, we are moving now to take out of the legislative process one of the most important checks and balances that exists.  We are told that reform of the D&aacute;il will compensate for that but the reform we have seen to date has been minimal in the extreme.  We are told that one of the alternatives that we might have is an expert committee, to be appointed by the Taoiseach, to help him and help the Government to peruse legislation.  I doubt that the general public will have great confidence in that particular approach.  </p><p> The mere existence of a second House allows for voices that would not normally be heard or listened to.  It prevents our elected politicians from fast-tracking inadequate legislation that is sometimes not fit for purpose or, indeed, desirable.  The point I am making is best summed up by a direct quote from Philip Pettit, professor of politics at Princeton University, who is Irish by background and training.  He wrote recently in <i>The Irish Times </i>as follows: <blockquote>Closing down an important base for dissident voices, in particular voices that are not bound to party platforms, is a recipe for frustration and alienation among those out of the mainstream.  And it promises to homogenise public debate, shutting down sources of diversity that can enliven exchange and give a voice to alternative, often liberating, perspectives.</blockquote>Furthermore, the Constitutional Convention, set up by the Government to examine, in detail, how we govern ourselves will not, as I said earlier, discuss the Seanad at all, which is a laughable situation.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.348" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00200"><p>I am sorry to interrupt.  The Deputy is listed here for 15 minutes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.349" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1054" speakername="Se&aacute;n &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00300"><p>How long have I left?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.350" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00400"><p>The 15 minutes are now up.  Is the Deputy sharing time with anyone?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.351" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1054" speakername="Se&aacute;n &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00500"><p>No, I am not sharing time with anybody.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.352" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00600"><p>The slots are 20 minutes in duration so I do not know why the Deputy is listed as having 15 minutes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.353" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1054" speakername="Se&aacute;n &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00700"><p>Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle will give me 20 minutes and I will try not to antagonise the Minister too much.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.354" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00800"><p>The Deputy is doing fine, unlike some of the previous speakers.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.355" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1054" speakername="Se&aacute;n &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l" time="16:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000039#MM00900"><p>The discussion here today should centre, instead, on the reform of the Seanad.  The 1922 Free State Constitution established a more powerful Upper House than we currently have.  Its composition was designed to ensure representation for the Unionist minority in the South.  The Taoiseach of the day, Mr. Eamon de Valera, frustrated by the Seanad's efforts to block the repeal of the oath of allegiance and other aspects of the Treaty, abolished it in 1936.  However, a reformed Seanad, with less power, was included in the 1937 Constitution, with its composition based on the idea of corporatism, whereby separate sections of society would be represented in it.  This led to the establishment of five panels - agriculture, labour, industry and commerce, national language and culture, and public administration - to reflect differing sectors of Irish life.  The remaining seats, including Taoiseach's nominees, reflected Government control and additionally, the tradition of university representation.</p><p>  As Members have said, since 1922, over a dozen separate reports have been commissioned on the reform of the Seanad.  However, its composition and role has remained fundamentally unchanged by successive Governments since 1937, including many led by my own party.  </p><p> We need to address the two main issues found in Mary O'Rourke's report, namely, that the Seanad has no distinct role in the Irish political system and that its arcane and outdated system of nomination and election diminishes Senators' public legitimacy.  With these issues properly addressed it should be possible to showcase a new improved Seanad which is reflective of Irish life as we know it.  Some of the changes advocated by Fianna F&aacute;il involve legislation, such as that a formal system of public consultation should be put in place in the Seanad to allow for consultation with interested groups and individuals early in the legislative process.  The Seanad should be given a new role in EU affairs.  It should assume the role of principal policy reviewer in the Houses of the Oireachtas.  It should be assigned responsibility for the scrutiny of senior public appointments.  The question of the Leader of the Seanad attending at Cabinet and given a role of Minister or Minister of State should be investigated.</p><p> It is important to stress the work done by groups such as Democracy Matters and documents such as Open It, Don't Close It.  The work done by Senators Zappone and Quinn constitutes the best proposal for reform in the confines of the Constitution and should not be readily dismissed by the Government or anyone else.</p><p> It is clear there is an important place for the Seanad in Irish political and public life.  We should not rush this decision or discussion or hastily arrive at the point the Government proposes.  Now is the time for real political leadership and not political point scoring.  Deputy Boyd Barrett mentioned we are at a point in our history when the public has never been more cynical about politics and politicians.  It is my contention the type of adversarial politics we have practised in this country through the generations has been extremely bad for politics, politicians and the public.  Rather than abolishing the Seanad in what is simply a grab for additional power by the Government and the Taoiseach acting on a whim which occurred to him in 2010, we should be more pragmatic and carry out actual reform of the Seanad and, in tandem, have meaningful reform of the D&aacute;il so through Seanad and D&aacute;il reform we can give the people the type of representation they richly deserve.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.357" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="16:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000040#NN00200"><p>I call Deputy Bernard Durkan who will share time with Deputy Mary Mitchell O'Connor.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.358" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/957" speakername="Bernard Durkan" time="16:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000040#NN00300"><p>I am glad to have an opportunity to speak on this issue in respect of which my views are fairly well known.  I have long since expressed my opposition to the concept of the abolition of any element of our democratic structures, the Seanad being one.  That said, I have no difficulty in having a referendum where the people are called upon to make a decision as to what lies in the future.  It is appropriate.  I would like to see a number of options placed before the people in the referendum on whether the Seanad should be abolished or reformed.  In such circumstances the people would go for reform.</p><p>  I wish to particularly address some of the issues raised by my colleague with regard to cynicism.  Cynicism is very dangerous and should never be allowed overtake or overcome a democracy.  Any time in history cynicism overtook democracy there were appalling consequences.  I listened with interest to Deputy Boyd Barrett, who seemed to think there was appalling anger out there which manifested itself in his admission to the House, because we presume this is the basis on which people come to the House.  He also quoted Lenin at some length and went on to discuss a new form of democracy which would be a people's assembly.  Parliament is a people's assembly whereby the people take the responsibility of electing people to Parliament.  In return, the parliamentarians do their best to do the job they are given to do, whatever the circumstances may be.  Sometimes it is done well and sometimes it is not, but the power to remove them is always in the hands of the people, and this should be at intervals.</p><p>  When I was a child a fairly large European country used to have a new government every six weeks.  This was the case in more than one European country.  The reason was the economic difficulties in the aftermath of the war.  At times of economic difficulty we should be very careful not to interfere with democracy because this is the time when the most serious damage is likely to be done.</p><p>  Of course one can harness cynicism.  What is the real problem which made the people so cynical?  The people felt there was no change and Deputy Boyd Barrett referred to this.  Why was there no change?  I spoke about this in the House at least 20 years ago after an election when there had been no change even though the outgoing Government was defeated.  The reason it happened, not only in this country but in other European countries also, is because the outgoing main party selected one group from the Opposition and continued in government regardless of losing its mandate in the election.  This is what has undermined democracy in many European countries and is what has annoyed the people.  It is one of the major causes of the paralysis which has developed over the past ten or 15 years throughout Europe.</p><p>  The proposals suggested to remedy the deficiencies in our democratic system are already in place in other European countries.  These include list systems and unicameral parliaments.  They did not stop the play from going wrong or the economy from falling into jeopardy.  They did not stop anything.  This is not what the issue is.  The issue is something totally different, but unfortunately it is at times of economic distress that people look around for a suitable whipping boy and identify democracy as part of the problem.</p><p>  I totally dismiss the argument we cannot afford a second House.  It is unbelievable this has been suggested.  If we cannot afford a second House we cannot afford democracy.  If we cannot afford democracy we have a serious problem.  This is the way it has always been.  We must always remember democracy costs something.  It cannot be dismissed or toned down.  We should be very careful not to curtail democracy because every time we do so we increase bureaucracy and the power of the unelected appointees and those who could never get elected and I hope never will get elected.  We get into a situation whereby we, as Members of Parliament, become dependent on the activities of people who were never elected.</p><p>  I remember once having an argument with colleagues from the Netherlands and Italy only to discover halfway through the conversation that neither of the two had ever been elected anywhere.  I found myself at a complete disadvantage.  Here I was in my own humble way trying to represent the views of the people who elected me, from the Parliament which delegated particular responsibilities to me, to find my colleagues on the opposite side had never been elected anywhere by anybody but were lucky enough to be on somebody's list at somebody else's cost to get into their position.</p><p>  This means more power to the Executive, which is a dangerous thing, and I have heard criticism from both sides of the House in this regard.  I notice the Opposition has harped on quite a bit about the extensive arrogance of the Government, the lack of democracy and the use of the guillotine.  If they had been on that side of the House for the past 14 years they would have known all about it.  On many mornings I stood up on that side of the House after 25 parliamentary questions I had tabled had been rejected by the Ceann Comhairle as not relevant because the Minister had no responsibility to the House, even though all the services about which I was inquiring were funded by the State.  I was told again and again the Minister had no responsibility to the House to such an extent I began to inquire whether the Minister had any responsibility to anybody.  This was another part of the failing which led to the people becoming cynical about politics.</p><p>  The most important issue about cynicism in politics is that the power is in the hands of the people.  What has happened in this country over the years is that the public has been encouraged to disassociate the consequences of its activity in the ballot box with what happens afterwards, and this is sad.  My colleague, Deputy &Oacute; Feargha&iacute;l, spoke at some length about promises being kept.</p><p>Had the Fianna F&aacute;il Government that was elected that year with a large majority not kept its lavish promises, the fiscal independence of the State would not have been undermined and the country would have been far better off.  These are not my words, but the admission by a former Minister.  It was the saddest time ever.  Do Members remember what happened?  Two and a half years after the 1977 general election, the Taoiseach of the day had to resign because the country was in hock up to its ears thanks to the lavish promises made.</p><p> The members of the public must recognise their power and responsibility.  We must explain it to them regularly.  In the 2007 general election, everyone in the House knew that the country was broke, but the voting public did not believe it.  This was the case to such an extent that Opposition parties needed to make promises that they knew were unsustainable.  The public voted to retain what they had.  This is the public's weakness.  We must explain to them in greater detail that proceeding in a particular direction can be to the detriment of democracy.</p><p> The suspicion of the democratic process is not new in Europe.  I was amazed by the extent to which Deputy Boyd Barrett skirted around this fact when he quoted Lenin.  He could have quoted a number of people who became prominent in Europe in the 1930s when the direction the system was taking was easily recognisable.  Democracy was suspended in many European countries.</p><p> Regarding the question on the need for a bicameral system, it has been stated that we should compare Ireland with eastern European countries.  I disagree, as democracy has different meanings for different people.  In some European countries, it is a relatively new development.  They went from feudalism to war and from oppression to democracy.  We should not need to compare ourselves with anyone to determine whether democracy is failing.  We should set the highest standards for ourselves and be unapologetic.  To the cynical public, we must explain that it can change the democratic process at every election.</p><p> I wish to address the necessity of a second House.  In any democratic system, it is a good idea to have a second House with a different perspective of legislation.  Our Bills go through ten Stages instead of the five Stages that would apply in a unicameral Parliament.  As proof, Ministers have accepted countless amendments in the Seanad.</p><p> To those who claim there is no longer democracy in the D&aacute;il, I remember when, upon tabling more than 100 amendments to a Bill while sitting on the other side of the House before the last general election, I was told by a committee Chairman that the Bill would be dealt with in two or three hours regardless of whether I liked it.  The guillotine was alive and well, nor did we need to wait until 14 July to see it.</p><p> There is a strong case for improving the Seanad and for relying on a vocational body with a different perspective.  The original intention behind the Seanad was to give a different electorate - an electoral college - an overview.  To those who assert that it is undemocratic, what is undemocratic about it?  There are electoral colleges across Europe and the US.  Many countries elect their presidents and politicians through electoral colleges.  There is nothing wrong with it as long as the system is not entirely based on electoral colleges.  In Ireland, there are direct elections to the D&aacute;il and, as a balancing influence, an electoral college of councillors and vocational groups for the Seanad.</p><p> Disparaging remarks have been made about the quality of the Seanad.  A number of distinguished people who contributed significantly to public life started or spent some of their time in the Seanad, including the Minister sitting before me, the former Taoiseach Garret FitzGerald, the late Brian Lenihan, former Minister Pat Cooney, Maurice Manning, the Ministers for Education and Skills and Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputies Quinn and Howlin, respectively, John Robb, Seamus Mallon and a host of others.  This fact should not be overlooked.  The Seanad was good enough in those times, some of which were not great, and the people I have mentioned were intelligent, capable of discerning between the frivolous and the necessary and took their decisions seriously.  We should revert to that situation.</p><p> By all means, let us reform and make the Seanad effective, but let us not have a place that we despise or for which we have contempt.  Those who were elected to the Seanad have given a good account of themselves.  I do not doubt that others would be well able to do so again in the future.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.360" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1004" speakername="Mary Mitchell O'Connor" time="16:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000041#OO00200"><p>Much of what is wrong with the D&aacute;il and the Seanad has to do with the fact that there is too much talk and not enough action.  Prior to 2011, the current Taoiseach gave a commitment to the effect that, if elected, we would put the question of the Seanad's continuation to a decision of the people by way of a referendum.</p><p>  Through the years, many interesting and valuable people have been appointed and elected to the Seanad and have given much to public life.  However, there is too much rhetoric and not enough decisions.  The Seanad was needed to check and balance the D&aacute;il.  Unfortunately, it did not do so.  Dramatic reform of the D&aacute;il's guillotine and Whip systems are necessary.  Such changes would make a profound difference in this House.</p><p>  Seventy-five constitutional amendments would be necessary to abolish the Seanad and entire articles would be deleted.  In recent months, at least six reform packages have been proposed, but they are too much talk and far too late.  Not enough decisions are being made.  For all of the reform packages, not enough solutions have been proposed.  I welcome debate and acknowledge its importance but action is necessary.</p><p>  A main issue is that the public is not connecting with the Seanad or, for that matter, the D&aacute;il.  I have heard the term &quot;disconnect&quot; several times in this debate, particularly in terms of the Seanad.  At times, it has rung true.  If the public cannot relate to what we are doing, it will impact on trust and support for politicians.</p><p>  The way through which Senators are elected and appointed is archaic and should not be aspired to by our forward-looking and reforming Government.  Various sectoral interests, including the NUI and Trinity College Dublin, elect representatives.  This is questionable.</p><p>  The Seanad has been helped to survive by <i>The Irish Times</i> newspaper.</p><p>It has a certain section which reports on the House, thus giving it a life and a life chance.  Given that, the Taoiseach has appointed many good experts to this Seanad.  Senators Katherine Zappone, Eamonn Coghlan, Aideen Hayden, Martin McAleese, Fiach Mac Conghail, Mary Ann O'Brien, Marie Louise O'Donnell and Jillian van Turnhout all have, or have had, much to offer in the Seanad.  However, I have heard, as have many of my colleagues, that the Seanad simply does not work.  This leads us to make only one sensible decision, to put a referendum to the people.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.362" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="16:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000042#PP00200"><p>Deputy Se&aacute;n Crowe is down for ten minutes, I do not know why that is so.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.363" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1037" speakername="Se&aacute;n Crowe" time="16:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000042#PP00300"><p>We will do our best.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.364" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="16:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000042#PP00400"><p>The Deputy is entitled to 20 minutes but here it says ten.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.365" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1037" speakername="Se&aacute;n Crowe" time="16:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000042#PP00500"><p>I will play it by ear. I listened to some of the debate in my office.  Many people share my belief that this State has a democratic and governance deficit.  That is a view shared across all parties and none.  We know from opinion polls that people hold politicians and political institutions in low esteem and low voter turnout across the State is another manifestation of this standing.  If we were to read certain sections of the media we would all pack up our bags at this stage.  Speakers have mentioned people being cynical about politics and political institutions.  That is understandable if one bears in mind what we have been through, and given the aspirations of people as they look at their livelihoods and see things crashing down around them.  For them, this pillar in society called &quot;politics&quot;, which includes politicians and political institutions, has been pulled down, probably rightly.</p><p>  This Government was elected in 2011, with one of its main promises centred on political reform.  The programme for Government contains 69 separate references to political reform but all we have got after two and a half years is rhetoric and piecemeal reform.  There is talk of D&aacute;il reform but I have yet to see any reasonable and concrete suggestions come from the Government on this issue.  The only idea that has been strongly suggested, the one that has curried favour according to spokespersons on radio and television, is cutting the number of Deputies by eight.  That is a great idea.  That will reform things.  The Ministers who promote this will not let it happen in their constituencies and it will not be their seats that will be done away with.  This will not offer anything by way of reform given the expectations people have.</p><p>  There were commitments in the programme for Government to end the practice of Ministers of State reading scripts, as I am doing now, or as happens in a number of Departments, replying to Topical Issue debates on matters not covered by their brief.  The Ceann Comhairle has probably heard this complaint from all sides of the House.  The Topical Issues debate was a new mechanism to address urgent issues, a system where the body politic could respond to urgent or vital issues, but what has happened?  Research by <i>The Irish Times</i> shows that on average Ministers fail to appear in the D&aacute;il to answer Topical Issue matters appropriate to their Departments a whopping three times out of four.  People believed this would be a change from the previous system but there has not been any real reform.  The same research showed that 40% of issues were dealt with by a Minister of State from a non-relevant Department who merely read from a script.  This is frustrating for any of us who use this mechanism to ask questions.  A Minister looks blankly at the speaker and is clearly not aware of the issues.  This can happen even with a Minister connected to the Department in question.  It is hardly meaningful reform.</p><p>  Research also highlights the fact that the Government guillotines the majority of Bills going through the D&aacute;il.  The argument against the guillotine was put when people sat on different seats but this Government has some of its most ardent advocates.  Figures show that 52 of 90 Bills, some 57% of all Bills passed, were guillotined.  Again, we say one thing but do the other in respect of reform.  This will be surprising to some considering that the programme for Government states its commitment to restricting &#8220;the use of guillotine motions and other procedural devices that prevent Bills from being fully debated&#8221;.</p><p>  There is a strong view across all parties that the Friday sittings are nothing but window-dressing and that real power has been centralised even more within the Cabinet, in particular around the four male-only members of the Economic Management Council which has significant powers.</p><p>  The Government also took the hatchet to several tiers of local government.  Town and borough councils are going and the number of council seats is to be reduced from 1,627 to 949.  It is becoming increasingly clear that not only is this Government using the recession as an excuse to implement harsh and cruel cuts under the name of austerity but it also seems to be using the cover of reform as an excuse to cut away at political institutions.</p><p>  I and my party completely support reform of the State's political system.  If one talks privately to people most will say the current structures are definitely not fit for purpose and, more important, are not delivering for citizens.  We do not stand over reform being used as a substitute for cuts, however.  We need to look at where change can come.  Reform must involve making changes and improving the role and remit of our political institutions, not centralising power around men in grey suits.  I am wearing my brown suit today and I note the Minister is not wearing his grey one.</p><p>  Sinn F&eacute;in believes Government and political reform should be guided by the key principles of democracy, accountability, devolution to local government and stronger public services.  These principles must be the cornerstone on top of which we can build a national all-Ireland democracy.  In its current form the Seanad is not fit for purpose.  That is no reflection on current or past Members.  Sinn F&eacute;in has always stated its belief that the current structure is elitist and undemocratic.  In many cases the Seanad simply rubberstamps the decisions of the D&aacute;il.  People may take a different view on that.  Other speakers have addressed how Members are elected, the question of university seats and how these can be opened up.</p><p>  The Government had a real chance to improve the Oireachtas by placing the issue of Seanad reform before the Constitutional Convention before it proposed a referendum to abolish the Seanad.  That view has been reflected by speakers across the House and Members of all parties express this both publicly and privately.  I do not know why the decision was taken to go down this road.  The Government could have proposed direct elections of Members to the Seanad, extending the vote to all citizens of this island over the age of 16.  That would be a radical reform.  People spoke this way about opening up the presidential elections and my party suggested that anybody aged over 16 should have that vote.  The Government might have examined the somewhat controversial prospect of reserving seats for Irish Unionists.  It could have explored the option of reserving seats for immigrants to Ireland, or having representatives for Irish emigrants, better known as the diaspora.  We could have opened up to minorities or created mechanisms to involve civic society.  There is a community forum deficit in that regard, both North and South.</p><p>  The Government rejected this democratic and egalitarian approach to follow what many would call a crude and harsh route.  It has pushed forward to promote a referendum with only two options, to abolish or to maintain.  This does not fit with the views of many people and again reflects what so many say, that we say one thing in regard to reform but what is proposed is not real reform.  We are only tinkering around the edges.</p><p> The Government is quick to argue that other countries function well with one chamber but it is not comparing like with like.  Most of the countries in question have built in checks and balances to ensure proper accountability, transparency and representation for all their citizens, as well as effective systems of local government that ensure power is not as centralised as in Ireland.  The parliamentary committees of these countries are not dominated and controlled by their governments.  I have spoken to a number of people across Europe who expressed surprise that the committee system in Ireland is dominated by the Government.  Other committees have strong powers to direct Ministers, unlike our system in which committees can only make a suggestion or send a polite letter.  In many of these countries the division between the executive, the cabinet and the legislature is clearer than in Ireland.</p><p> A reformed Seanad would have an opportunity to right some of the wrongs in this State's political system by opening it up to a wide variety citizens and making it directly answerable to all the people of this island.  That view has been expressed by a number of commentators.</p><p> The Government is using this debate as a smokescreen for the absence of real political reform.  It is neglecting to tell the people that its programme of reform would result in a D&aacute;il that is even more dysfunctional, a weaker system of local government and a Legislature dominated by the Executive.  That is a criticism which other speakers have made during this debate.  There is general agreement that governance reform is badly needed and the Seanad as it currently exists is not fit for purpose.  The question arises, however, of what will replace it.  If it is abolished, I cannot see it returning in a more enlightened form.  People are saying they will bring it back if they get into power but if it is gone, it will not return.  We have a real opportunity now to bring about change.  I urge the Government to reflect on what has been said during this debate.</p><p> We should refer this important issue to the Constitutional Convention, which was supposed to be a mechanism for debating constitutional reform.  The convention could propose alternative options to the current either-or choice.  People will be frustrated when they come to the ballot box.  If we asked people tomorrow whether they wanted to abolish the D&aacute;il they would probably vote &quot;Yes&quot;.  I speak as a person who previously lost a seat in the D&aacute;il.  Reform is needed but we must work collectively to improve our system.</p><p> Many good people have passed through the Seanad and it has produced useful Bills.  I am not aware of its day-to-day business.  At one stage I could have been nominated to Seanad but my party decided to pick someone else.  The Seanad was seen in the past as a place where people were put out to grass, but so was the European Parliament.  That does not reflect the hard work many Senators do on a daily basis.</p><p> I appeal to the Government to reconsider this proposal.  I do not expect it to change course on foot of what I say, but this debate has been useful.  If we can come up with ideas for reform of this House and the Seanad, this will be a good day's work.  We need to examine how this House is structured.  I am as frustrated as everyone else about some of the carry-on in which Members engage.  The committee structure certainly needs to be reformed and strengthened.  I can understand why the Government might be reluctant to introduce radical change for fear that people might delay legislation or cause embarrassment, but if that happened, it would strengthen democracy in Ireland.  It certainly would go down well with the electorate.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.367" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/987" speakername="Michael Moynihan" time="17:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000043#QQ00200"><p>I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate.  This Bill is the result of an off-the-cuff commitment given in 2009 that the Seanad would be abolished.</p><p>  The public tends to support any proposal to get rid of politicians but the democratic process across the world has also been a vehicle for change.  The European Parliament is a good example of this.  Brussels is built around the European Parliament.  It is almost a city of bureaucracy.  When we implement the various directives from Europe and have to explain to communities, including in particular the farming community, the nature of bureaucracy in Europe, we tend to overlook the value of the European Parliament.  I once had a conversation with an official from the Parliament who told me that the bureaucracy beats war.  The Parliament was born out of the ruins of the Second World War and the other conflicts that tore Europe apart over the previous century.</p><p>  In the run-up to the Second World War, the Wall Street crash of 1929 caused difficulties across the world and created massive poverty.  People took polarised positions on the extremes of the right and left.  Many asked whether democracy was the right form of government or if an alternative system would have avoided the financial morass of the time.  Some looked to dictatorships or other alternatives to democracy.  However, democracy has stood the test of time despite its faults.  Even now, the Americans are speaking to extremists in Afghanistan and elsewhere to try to build a democratic political process.  We have enjoyed the enormous benefits of the democratic process on our island.</p><p>We have seen how the extremes in Northern Ireland have co-operated in the Assembly and in town and borough councils and made decisions that serve the community.</p><p> It is easy to propose to abolish this, that or the other when newspapers run articles on the salaries and expenses of politicians in local authorities and the D&aacute;il, Seanad and European Parliament.  The age-old approach is to propose to abolish something because one will get a clap on the back from media commentators and appease a certain section of society.  Unfortunately, the issue is much more serious than that.  By extension, the proposal to abolish the Seanad casts aspersions on the way in which the Seanad has operated over the past 75 years and raises questions about the contribution the Upper House has made to society.  Speakers referred to the great contributions made by former Senators in challenging the <i>status quo</i>on social and economic issues.  All modern democracies must have a place for second chamber, although I accept the case for Seanad reform.  </p><p>  Seanad &Eacute;ireann, as structured under the 1937 Constitution, had great potential as a second Chamber.  I come from Kiskeam, a village in north County Cork which was also the birthplace of Sean Moylan, one of the first Senators to be appointed to the Cabinet.  Sean Moylan made a major contribution during his period as a Minister and Senator.  The former Taoiseach, the late Garret FitzGerald, subsequently appointed Senator James Dooge to the position of Minister for Foreign Affairs in early 1981.</p><p> The Minister has proposed to abolish town councils, whose contribution to local communities has not been acknowledged.  For example, some of them have vigorously marketed the tourism and commercial identity of their locality.  Everything has weaknesses but we must also focus on strengths.  As other speakers noted, if we were to hold referendums on the abolition of the D&aacute;il, the President or the European Parliament, they would probably be passed and democracy would be finished.  One of the lessons of history is that the democratic process has served the world extremely well.  For this reason, we should strengthen democratic principles and institutions.  In the case of Seanad &Eacute;ireann, the electoral system should be reformed and the House should use its potential to improve representation for minorities. </p><p> The bottom-up approach taken to Leader funding when the programme was introduced in rural communities in the early 1990s has stood the test of time.  One has to question whether, under the changes the Minister has introduced to Leader, the programme will be able to serve communities as well as it has done for the past 20 years.  The Minister should reconsider his proposals.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.369" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00200"><p>More money will become available for projects and less will be spent on administration.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.370" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/987" speakername="Michael Moynihan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00300"><p>I ask the Minister not to interrupt.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.371" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00400"><p>What do Leader projects have to do with the Seanad?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.372" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/987" speakername="Michael Moynihan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00500"><p>Despite being applauded elsewhere in Europe, our bottom-up approach to Leader funding is about to be dismantled.</p><p>  The abolition of a House of Parliament is a wrong step to take.  Previous speakers referred to there being too much talk but problems occur when talking stops.  In Northern Ireland, for example, we engaged with people and a democratic process emerged as a result.  We need to get people to re-engage with Seanad &Eacute;ireann.  The concept of having different backgrounds represented in the second Chamber served us well in the 1930s and 1940s.  For example, the Seanad's record of challenging the <i>status quo</i> had resulted in changes in policy. </p><p>  On a different note, I question the wisdom of having Michael McDowell front the campaign to save the Seanad because I am not sure people have bought into him - I certainly have not bought into him.  </p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.373" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1020" speakername="Tommy Broughan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00600"><p>Is he not working with Fianna F&aacute;il?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.374" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/987" speakername="Michael Moynihan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00700"><p>While we may be on the same side, he is certainly not working with us.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.375" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1020" speakername="Tommy Broughan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00800"><p>He is a subcontractor.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.376" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR00900"><p>Exactly.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.377" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/987" speakername="Michael Moynihan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR01000"><p>My party would be in a much better position if we had never allowed him or the founders of his party to work with us.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.378" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/967" speakername="Phil Hogan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR01100"><p>Fianna F&aacute;il allowed him to do so for a long time.  He provided it with a form of free legal aid.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.379" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/987" speakername="Michael Moynihan" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR01200"><p>Unfortunately, that is true and we paid an electoral price for doing so.  The lesson to be learned is that there are no quick fix solutions.  The Progressive Democrats Party offered a quick fix solution in 1985 and 1986 by pursuing the same policies as Thatcher and Reagan.  These policies led us into our current predicament and were similar to those that caused the world economic crash in 1929.</p><p>  The proposal to abolish the second Chamber is an attack on democracy.  It must be viewed in the context of other periods of European history when people were applauded for destroying democracy in times of economic crisis.  We must look beyond the rhetoric and consider the damage the proposal will do to society. </p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.380" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="17:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000044#RR01300"><p>I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the Bill.  This morning, on the Order of Business, I called on the Government to withdraw this legislation.  It is proposed to hold a referendum in the autumn which, if passed, will not take effect to 2016 at the earliest.  Moreover, the abolition of the Seanad will not proceed unless Fine Gael and the Labour Party can stay the course.  This stand-alone referendum will cost the State approximately &euro;14 million at a time when we can least afford it.</p><p>  Numerous Deputies from both Government parties have expressed reservations about the proposal to abolish the Seanad.  No one has spoken in favour of retaining the <i>status quo</i> and there is agreement on the need for reform.  Rather than propose to reform the Seanad, the Bill takes a lazy and minimalist approach.  It has been introduced because the Taoiseach wants to keep a commitment he gave at a time of great personal political turmoil prior to the previous general election when he believed it would sound good to propose the abolition of the Seanad. </p><p>  Previous speakers noted that one of the points in the Fine Gael Party's five-point plan in its election manifesto was to reform of the political system.  Another one, about which we do not hear much, was an undertaking to create 100,000 new jobs in the lifetime of the Government.  We are almost halfway through the cycle of the Government, yet it has certainly not created half the number of jobs promised.  Time after time, the various reports setting out progress on job creation have scaled down the Government's commitment on job creation.  </p><p>  The Government came to power with an unprecedented majority.  It argued that the election amounted to a democratic revolution and promised greater transparency, accountability and so forth.  We have yet to see greater transparency and accountability or any of the major reform it promised.</p><p> We are being asked here to buy a pig in a poke.  The Government has suggested it will reform this House if the Seanad is abolished.  However, there is no mention of the types of reforms to be introduced into the D&aacute;il if the Seanad is abolished.  This legislation has been in the making for approximately two years.  I do not know why the Government did not take an holistic approach and tell us the precise reforms it plans for this House.  Even the Fine Gael Party chairman yesterday said that not many people are interested in looking at what happens here because it is stage-managed like a theatre and is not relevant to what is going on in people's lives.</p><p> Earlier this month we had a week in recess and I used that opportunity to knock on people's doors.  Not a single person answering the door asked when we were going to abolish the Seanad.  Instead they were asking what the Government was going to do to support the retail sector.  Shops in towns and villages are closing every day with no supports coming from the Government.  The Government has claimed credit for the fact that the rate of unemployment has stabilised in recent months.  While that is welcome it has only stabilised because an unprecedented number of our men and women - mainly young but some not so young - are taking to airplanes and ferries to leave the country in search of a better life.  They are talking about the crisis in the social welfare system where people applying for a disability allowance, domiciliary care allowance or carer's allowance are waiting approximately 12 months to have their applications processed even though they are entitled to those payments.  No one is in a mad rush to abolish the Seanad except for a small number of people at the helm of the Government who are involved in a power grab.  A few Cabinet Ministers want to ensure they take as much power as they possibly can.</p><p> The Government established the Constitutional Convention and, to my amazement, it failed to refer to it one of the main issues that should have been referred to it, which is the abolition of the Seanad.  Why did the Government not refer this legislation to that body?  It has suggested that we will have a reformed D&aacute;il, yet it has failed to outline how those reforms will work.  Since the Government has come to power we have only seen token reforms.  To a point the Friday sittings are welcome because they give an opportunity for an Opposition Member or a Government backbencher to introduce legislation.  However, because there are no votes, no Order of Business and no Leaders' Questions to the Taoiseach or T&aacute;naiste, nobody is in here listening or debating in regard to the Friday sittings.  Why would we not extend the sittings later on a Tuesday evening when so many Deputies from the furthest parts of the country are already in the capital?</p><p> The Topical Issues Debate was supposed to be a great advance.  It replaced the Adjournment Debate because it was felt it was not appropriate to have it on last thing at night.  I am thankful to have had my matter selected for the Topical Issues Debate tonight.  We will debate the demise of our town centres at 9 p.m. and I hope the Minister will be present because one of the commitments made when the Topical Issues Debate was introduced was that the Minister responsible for that area would come in and reply to the debate.  That happened for the first four or five weeks and then it slowly eroded.  First one Minister was responding to two or three issues, next the Minister of State in a Department started to respond, and then a Minister of State from another Department started coming in to read out a prepared script.  That is not good enough.</p><p> We talked about reforming the committees and a number of committees were abolished and streamlined.  When I was first elected, I sat on a committee that dealt with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, and the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, which was far too big.  I am now on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Health and Children, which deals with two separate and important Departments.  Each Department should have its own committee, allowing appropriate time to debate the legislation and other key issues.</p><p> When the Government came to office, it was proposed that we would be allowed to submit parliamentary questions all year round, including periods of recess, but that has been forgotten about.  I do not blame people being cynical towards politicians and towards the Government.  It came in with an unprecedented majority and a great sense of hope, but it has all been dashed.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.382" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1112" speakername="Se&aacute;n Barrett" time="17:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000045#SS00200"><p>I call Deputy Broughan, who is sharing time with Deputy Naughten.  The Deputy has ten minutes but will not complete that, as we must adjourn at 5.45 p.m.  However, he may come back the next day.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.383" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1020" speakername="Tommy Broughan" time="17:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000045#SS00300"><p>I thank Deputy Catherine Murphy and the Technical Group for facilitating me and giving me the chance to speak.</p><p>  I am strongly in favour of the abolition of the Seanad.  I have been a Member of this House for more than 20 years and during that time I have observed that our second House is, on the whole, ineffective, lacks real teeth and does not have a proper role in the political system.  I have believed for many years that the abolition of the Seanad and a move to introduce greater D&aacute;il reform coupled with radical reforms in local government is the way forward in improving democratic accountability.  On the issue of costs alone, I agree that the Seanad should be abolished.  I am happy to go forward with 170 senior politicians - 158 Deputies, an tUachtar&aacute;n and the 11 MEPs, but the savings made through the abolition of the Seanad should be ploughed back into enhancing the resources of D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann and into local government.</p><p>  I first visited the Oireachtas as a teenager when I was in the Irish politics class of Dr. Maurice Manning.  While I might not have agreed with the Fianna F&aacute;il and Fine Gael dominance of D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann then - as now to some extent - I could see on that visit that D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann had major and influential figures such as Frank Cluskey, Brendan Corish, John Kelly, Jack Lynch and Charles Haughey.  When we visited the Upper Chamber, it seemed as if we had stepped into the somnolent parlour of some sporting or business club.  The contrast certainly was a shock for our class.</p><p>  Over ten years ago, when the former Deputy, Mrs. Mary O&rsquo;Rourke, was Leader of the Seanad and held a public consultation on the operation of the House, I proposed the abolition of the Seanad because of its fundamentally undemocratic nature and its history of providing only a minimal contribution to Irish governance since Eamon de Valera reinstituted it.  We should not forget that Eamon de Valera abolished the first Seanad.</p><p>  Of course, I recognise that many Senators on an individual basis have made a considerable contribution to civic society and Irish politics over the years.  Over decades past, people like T.K. Whitaker, Maurice Hayes, President Michael D. Higgins, Mary Robinson, the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello and the late great Pat Upton have graced the Seanad.  Senator David Norris continues to make an eminent contribution, as have other Independent Senators, including Deputy Shane Ross and Senators John Crown and R&oacute;n&aacute;n Mullen, who have always contributed well to the wider public debate.  As in every Seanad, the current group of Labour Senators led by Senator Ivana Bacik have always contributed well to Irish politics.  Many of the talented cohort of current Senators of course could and should stand for election to D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann during the next general election campaign, whenever it happens.  Despite the good individual contributions made by a number of outstanding people, the Seanad remains a profoundly ineffective institution.</p><p>  Montesquieu, of course, proposed the tripartite system of governance based on the separation of powers.</p><p>This is a feature of so many political systems today and it influences the famous constitution of the United States.  The importance of the checks and balances between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary was also a feature of Montesquieu's theory.</p><p> Anyway, the current operation of our Legislature is regrettably largely controlled by the Executive of the day and many Members and commentators believe rightly that control is growing each year.  Proponents of Seanad reform, including the newly established group, Democracy Matters, have argued that the abolition of the Seanad would further erode the ability of the Parliament to hold the Government to account.  I do not agree with that proposition but I believe that any potential role the Seanad could play in this regard could just as easily be performed by the 158 D&aacute;il Deputies of the next D&aacute;il.</p><p> The Seanad has had little input in providing a meaningful contribution to legislation going through the Oireachtas.  Professor Manning has noted in his history of the Seanad that only two Bills have been rejected in the Seanad.  The first in 1959 related to proportional representation and the second in 1963 was the Pawnbrokers Bill.  Furthermore, a potentially strong power of the majority of the Seanad along with one third of the D&aacute;il to initiate a so-called ordinary referendum has never been initiated.</p><p> Coakley has pointed out that Ireland and Slovenia are the only two countries in the OECD that are unitary states with a population of less than 10 million which have a bicameral parliament.  Ireland and Slovenia are also the only two countries in which the second chamber was designed to represent functional and vocational interests.  De Valera's ideal that our second House would represent vocational interests has been largely illusory since most of the representatives who have come through the vocational system are politicians.  Real vocational representatives have, generally, never been elected.</p><p> Most Seanaid, including the Seanad I first witnessed, are composed of older former Deputies or candidates who missed out on election, young and upcoming D&aacute;il candidates, figures from civic society who have performed services to our nation and a few, sometimes independent, Senators who are long-standing professional Senators who would contribute to civic society whether they were Members of the Seanad.</p><p> In his speech the Taoiseach noted that the savings to be accrued from the abolition of the Seanad would be of the order of &euro;20 million initially with a further &euro;100 million saved over the electoral term.  Others have put the overall related costs of the Seanad at approximately &euro;200 million.  Obviously, in the current challenging economic situation with which our country is faced savings of this nature are important.  There is indeed a need to reduce the number of politicians in this country overall, but we cannot abolish a political institution simply to save money.  Some savings should be made and the Taoiseach has also referred to savings that will be made under the Government's proposed reforms of local government.  I strongly believe that reform of the D&aacute;il system and the re-launching of true local democracy is the right way forward.</p><p> The sad reality is that the Seanad is impossible to reform and there is no real scope to reform it.  In this small unitary State there is no political role the Seanad can be given.  As has been pointed out in two excellent briefings from the Oireachtas library and research service, several European countries, including some from Scandinavia, as well as New Zealand, have abolished their second chambers in modern times.  Those Scandinavian democracies and New Zealand function perfectly well with unicameral parliaments.  What is striking about those countries that are now unicameral is that they continue to have strong local government systems.</p><p> Reform of the Seanad is impossible because it would inevitably lead to what in the United Kingdom used to be referred to as the House of Lords problem.  If the Members of the Seanad were elected directly by the people, inevitably the larger constituencies needed would give Senators a better mandate than Deputies have.  Greater powers would have to be given to such a democratic Seanad and, inevitably, clashes would occur with the people's House, the D&aacute;il.  The Liberal Government of pre-First World War England had to deliberately break the power of the House of Lords to stop it obstructing the will of the people.  Ultimately, in a small unitary state such as Ireland the people themselves represent the checks and balances and are effectively the second Chamber.  With the growth of online communications we can look forward to a time when the people could be invited to make key decisions on many more issues, for example, on the budget in October.  We are not quite there yet but the day will come.</p><p> Not nearly enough reform of the D&aacute;il has occurred since the Government took office in March 2011.  We need real and substantial powers for the D&aacute;il to examine fully legislation without the frequent threat of a guillotine and we need stronger committees.  One small reform that has emerged since the start of this D&aacute;il is that Government Deputies can now question the Taoiseach.  This reform was led by several Members, including Deputy Joanna Tuffy, Deputy Durkan and myself.</p><p> I commend the Ceann Comhairle on his strong attempts and efforts to assist backbenchers and protect them during Friday sittings.  Such sittings take place once a month but we still encounter a rigid whip system in the consideration of legislation of this nature.  I have heard the Ceann Comhairle protest on several occasions that the Order of Business on that day should be set by Deputies and that the role of the Ceann Comhairle should be to guide us and conduct us through the day.  I hope the Minister will take that point on board and that the whipping of Business on a Friday will stop.  It is refreshing on Fridays that one can simply put up one's hand, come forward and say a few words.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.385" nospeaker="true" time="17:35:00" ><p>Cuireadh an d&iacute;osp&oacute;ireacht ar athl&oacute;.

  Debate adjourned.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.387" nospeaker="true" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT00400">Ceisteanna - Questions - Priority Questions</major-heading>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.388" nospeaker="true" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT00450">Haddington Road Agreement Savings</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.389.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT00600"><p><i>1.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide a detailed breakdown of the public sector pay and pensions savings from planned retirements, the targeted voluntary redundancy scheme, changes to pensions in payments and the provisions of the draft Haddington Road agreement as approved by him and put to ballot of public sector staff; and if he will make a statement on the matter. <b>[29859/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.390.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT00700"><p>The voluntary redundancy scheme is expected to give rise to savings in three areas where it will be initially rolled out.  These include the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and specific parts of the health and education sectors.  The relevant Departments have estimated that there will be scope to effect approximately 2,000 exits from these areas over time, mainly from back-office, support areas and management and administrative grades.  How this estimated number of exits translates into actual money savings over the next few years will be determined by several variables, including the take-up rate among staff in the targeted areas, their number and grade mix and the timing of departure.  Information on outcomes in respect of these variables will not become apparent until the scheme is offered to those affected.</p><p>  Public service trade unions are continuing to consider the various proposals put forward under the Haddington Road agreement ahead of the implementation date of 1 July.  The composition of the savings arising can only be finalised when responses to the proposals from all the unions are to hand.  However, the measures set out in the agreement, taking account of savings from pension adjustments, will enable the Government to achieve the targeted savings that I have set out of &euro;300 million in the public service pay and pensions bill this year, including savings in local government.  It is estimated that the measures set out in the Haddington Road agreement and the related legislation will reduce the public service pay bill by &euro;1 billion by the end of the agreement.</p><p>  Savings arising specifically from pension reductions are expected to begin from 1 July when changes to the existing public service pension reduction are due to take effect, as provided for in the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013.  These changes will apply to public service pensioners with pensions greater than &euro;32,500 and are estimated to amount to &euro;12.9 million this year and &euro;24 million in 2014.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.391" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT00800"><p>I put down this question for the Minister to get some information on the breakdown of the savings from the targeted voluntary redundancy scheme, the changes in the pension payments, which he has provided, and the changes in the draft Haddington Road agreement, which the Minister approved and which went to ballot.  I have not really got an answer to my question.  I tabled a parliamentary question on 12 June on a similar topic, the difference between the savings under the Haddington Road agreement and the Croke Park agreement.  The last paragraph of that answer is identical to the response I have just received.</p><p>  I asked the previous question more than one week ago.  The last time the Minister took Oral Questions he undertook to give us a breakdown of the savings.  He could not do it that day even though the agreement had been reached.  I realise this matter is subject to agreement but my question was whether there was an agreement.  I realise SIPTU and various others have voted for an agreement and that is to be welcomed.  We are pleased that public sector workers were wise enough to throw out the first proposals, which were unfair, but they have accepted this proposal which is slightly better.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.392" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT00900"><p>A question please, Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.393" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000046#TT01000"><p>Will the Minister give us the figures in terms of retirements?  How can the Minister say he will reach his target of &euro;1 billion if he maintains the savings from the 2,000 exits in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the HSE and the education sector have yet to be determined because they are dependent on the scheme when offered?  The Minister cannot provide a breakdown but yet he has stated in reply after reply that he will achieve savings of &euro;1 billion.  If he does not know the make-up of the &euro;1 billion he should not give that figure.</p><p>Will the Minister give a more detailed breakdown, as requested in the original question?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.395" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00200"><p>I understand the question, and I understand the Deputy&rsquo;s eagerness to get the information.  I am anxious to give him an accurate answer but I am not in a position to do it right now.  While the pieces on the deck will certainly amount to &euro;300 million in the current year and &euro;1 billion between now and 2015, the exact make-up of those pieces will not be known until the ballots are over.  It will be a different make-up, for example, if the education sector is subject to the FEMPI legislation or whether it is subject to the Haddington Road agreement.  The actual component parts of the money to be achieved are not determined until the outcome of the ballot is known.  I will be in a position to give definitive answers when we have an overall picture of how the individual component parts are to gel together.</p><p>  As Deputy Fleming is aware, under the FEMPI legislation, we will achieve the savings either through the pay reductions, which will be implemented, or through measures that line managers, Ministers or those responsible employers designated under the Act, will be required to take to save the money in each sector.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.396" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00300"><p>I understand that the Minister had indicative figures of what would be achieved under the Croke Park II agreement but it was not accepted.  He said the higher pay cuts would be approximately &euro;250 million.  We did not get the figures from the Minister because he has never given a figure in the House but they were obtained elsewhere.  Figures were given for the redundancy, agency reductions and overtime cuts.  The Sunday premium was due to save approximately &euro;65 million in the period as well as savings on increments and substitution and supervision in education, which has changed a little in the agreement.</p><p>  I do not know whether we will have another opportunity for Question Time before the summer recess but I seek an undertaking that when the agreement is reached, whether the D&aacute;il is still in session or if it is a week later, that the Minister would publish a breakdown of the figures so that we would know how much the different components in the different sectors are adding to the &euro;1 billion.  The target is &euro;1 billion and people need to know whether it is a real target.  I urge the Minister to make a commitment to provide the figures at the earliest possible date.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.397" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00400"><p>It is not only a target, it is a target that will be achieved because we have enough pieces in the legislation and in the agreement to make it.  The exact make-up in terms of how much of it will be from the Haddington Road agreement and how much will be achieved through the FEMPI legislation will depend on the outcome of the ballots.  I cannot give the definitive breakdown until I have the result but I will give it to the Deputy as soon as I have it.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.398" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00500"><p>As Deputy Mary Lou McDonald is not present we will move on the Priority Question No. 3 in the name of Deputy Joan Collins.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.399" nospeaker="true" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00550">Pension Provisions</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.400.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00600"><p><i>3.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his views on whether the An Post pension scheme and the fact that certain pension scheme trustees may have a conflict of interest between their role as a trustee and Executive Directors of an Post; and if he will make a statement on the matter. <b>[29625/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.401.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00700"><p>This question is properly for the Minister for Social Protection and the response I am giving is from her Department.  The Deputy will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for the Minister for Social Protection to comment on issues arising in regard to a particular pension scheme.</p><p>  In general, pension schemes in Ireland are established under trust.  The trust deed and scheme rules provide for the appointment and responsibilities of the trustees of a scheme.  Under trust law, the trustees of a scheme are required at all times to act in the best interest of all scheme members; to act fairly between beneficiaries and to administer the trust in accordance with trust law.  A trustee who is negligent, does not act in good faith or breaks the rules of the trust can be sued by the beneficiaries.  They can be held personally liable for the entire amount of any loss that has occurred.</p><p>  The provisions in the Pensions Act builds on trust law and sets out in Part VI of the Pensions Act the range of duties and responsibilities of a trustee of a pension scheme, including the general duties of trustees, the qualifications required to be a trustee of a scheme and also makes provision.  The Pensions Act requires the large-funded occupational pension schemes with more than 50 employees and pensioner members to allow members to select or approve the selection by the employer of one or more &quot;member trustees&quot;.  Conflicts of interests can arise where trustees appointed directly by the employer may include members of the board of the company or senior executives or where a member trustee has discretion under the trust deed and scheme rules in relation to the payment of scheme benefits.  A person appointed as a trustee could be in a position where there may be a conflict between their duty as a trustee and their other interests.  Their duty as a trustee must prevail when taking decisions.  Where a trustee is conscious of a possible conflict of interest it may be necessary, before a decision is taken, to obtain legal, actuarial or other professional advice, as appropriate.  Any further questions can be directed to the Minister for Social Protection who has responsibility for occupational and State pensions.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.402" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00800"><p>I thank the Minister.  It is difficult to respond given that the Minister has indicated that the response to the question came from the Minister for Social Protection.</p><p>  A few peculiar things happened to the questions I tabled.  I had submitted three questions, one priority and two oral.  One priority question went to the Department of Social Protection and I was not told about it in accordance with the normal procedures.  The priority question was removed and the oral question was put onto the agenda.</p><p>  Workers in An Post are hugely concerned about the change in the pension fund which has been capped now at 2%.  In December 2012 we were told there was a deficit of &euro;320 million if the scheme was wound up on the day in question.  We subsequently found out that &euro;80 million more has been put into the pension scheme and that there is now a deficit of &euro;240 million.  All the information and examples given to members in a booklet are based on a deficit of &euro;320 million.  There is a general feeling that rather than the pension board acting in the interest of members, it is acting more in the interest of the company to deliver cost savings.  Questions arise as to how some of the conclusions were reached in terms of the proposals and examples given.  The booklet is very hard to read and it is very misleading.</p><p>  I raised the matter today to put the huge concern on record.  There is also considerable concern about deferred pensions.  A total of 360,000 people are covered under deferred pensions and questions are being asked as to whether the pensions will be viable in the future.  I am a member of the An Post pension scheme so I have an interest in the matter.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.403" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU00900"><p>I fully understand and appreciate the Deputy&rsquo;s difficulty.  I am sorry that I am not the appropriate person to respond.  I have outlined the general law on the legal obligation of trustees, which gives some reassurance to the Deputy.  I undertake to bring the Deputy&rsquo;s direct concerns to the attention of the Minister for Social Protection.  I will ask her to reply directly to the Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.404" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU01000"><p>I will table a question to the Minister next week.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.405" nospeaker="true" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU01050">Capital Expenditure Programme Issues</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.406.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU01100"><p><i>4.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the impact on job creation he expects from the July 2012 stimulus plan and the recent announcement regarding capital spending; his views on the extent to which these plans will make up for the ongoing cut to the Exchequer capital programme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. <b>[29860/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.407.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000047#UU01200"><p>The stimulus package announced in July 2012 included investment of &euro;1.4 billion in a new public private partnership, PPP, programme.  This investment is additional to the direct investment by the Exchequer in infrastructure which was outlined in the medium-term Exchequer framework published in November 2011.  Earlier this month, and as a follow on to last year's package, I announced an additional Exchequer investment of &euro;150 million to fund school building projects, local and regional road maintenance and retrofitting of local authority housing.</p><p>  Investment in projects included in both announcements is expected to support significant numbers of jobs across the country.  Previous analysis of each sector indicates that the investment in the PPP pipeline may support in the region of 13,000 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs.  It is envisaged that the additional Exchequer funding of &euro;150 million, which I announced last week, can support in the region of 3,000 jobs over the period of the roll-out of both projects.  These initiatives will of course also create much needed social and economic infrastructure and aid economic recovery.  The Exchequer projects, in particular, involve mostly smaller scale capital works which are known to be labour intensive.</p><p>  I am anxious that projects associated with both packages can be rolled out as quickly as possible so that we can create the extra jobs on the ground without delay.  In relation to the PPP projects, it is well recognised internationally that these are large-value investments and by their nature are complex and take time to develop and deliver both for the public and the private sector.  From the public sector side, my Department is working closely with the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, and sponsoring Departments to progress projects and to accelerate delivery of the programme.</p><p>  My Department, together with the NDFA and the sponsoring authorities, are also looking at how to maximise job creation as part of each tender competition and in line with procurement regulations.  With the NDFA, we are also examining ways to encourage SME participation by facilitating access to the programme.  The NDFA is working with Enterprise Ireland to organise awareness-raising events for SMEs, one of which was held last week.</p><p><i>Additional information not given on the floor of the House</i></p><p>The projects identified for delivery through the additional &euro;150 million Exchequer funding will begin to be rolled out over the summer.  While this additional funding was only recently announced, I expect that it will have an immediate impact as most of the preparation work for the relevant projects is already well advanced.  The capital plan has, by necessity, been reduced in recent years to contribute to fiscal consolidation.  However, it is important to note that since the publication of, Infrastructure and Capital Investment 2012-2016: Medium Term Exchequer Framework, in November 2011 no further cuts have been made to the capital programme.  That publication was the result of a major review of capital expenditure.  It prioritised investment in infrastructure which would be most beneficial to supporting economic growth, thereby supporting sustainable employment growth in the medium term, meet urgent social needs and maintain our existing stock of infrastructure.  It also took account of the fact that &euro;70 billion had been invested in the previous decade.</p><p>  The State will spend some &euro;17 billion over the period of the framework on capital projects throughout the country and this will help support employment in many key areas.  Much of this investment will be in smaller scale locally based projects and, as I have already mentioned, this kind of less expensive re-fit, refurbishment, and upgrade works can be more labour-intensive than larger capital-intensive projects.</p><p>  At the time of publication of the report I noted that, should a funding source become available, there was much more that I wanted to deliver through investment in infrastructure.  The deal I negotiated with the troika with regard to the proceeds from the sale of State assets and the recovery of the PPP market are allowing us to progress additional projects which we could not include in the five-year framework.  All of these measures which I have taken represent a significant commitment to continue to invest in infrastructure, create jobs and improve quality.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.408" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00100"><p>The Minister will understand my frustration in respect of this second question, because I have asked him about the impact on job creation but he has not given me any figures.  I genuinely am finding-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.409" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00200"><p>I have given figures to the Deputy.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.410" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00300"><p>I mean specifics with regard to the numbers of jobs created.  I wish to ascertain how that compares with-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.411" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00400"><p>I gave figures to the Deputy, namely, 13,000 jobs in respect of public private partnerships, PPPs, and 3,000 jobs from the stimulus package I announced last week.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.412" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00500"><p>Yes, but that is for the package over the five-year period from 2012 to 2017.  My question related to the reduction in the Exchequer capital programme, which has been reduced by &euro;1 billion from &euro;4.5 billion when the present Government came to office in 2011, to the present figure of &euro;3.43 billion.  There must be a commensurate reduction each year in the number of jobs.  The essence of my question was whether this new additional funding will go anywhere near making up for the actual reduction in the capital expenditure.  There is no point in stating the Government intends to invest an additional amount under a PPP if it also is reducing capital expenditure by a greater amount.  I seek confirmation from the Minister because he stated the &euro;150 million he announced recently was additional funding.  However, as I understand it, it forms the first phase of the stimulus package announced last year.  Does this then represent the first phase of the Exchequer element of the stimulus plan or is this a new stimulus plan on top of the &euro;850 million?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.413" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00600"><p>Yes, it is new money.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.414" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00700"><p>While last year's stimulus plan has not yet happened, another one is being announced.  Will there be an annual stimulus plan?  That really is what I am trying to ask the Minister because the annual announcements seem to happen but the actual jobs and follow-through in respect of job creation does not seem to happen.  Overall, does the Minister believe this additional stimulus plan will go some way towards making up for the reductions the Government is making on the other hand in respect of the capital budget?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.415" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00800"><p>Let me be clear.  The Government made decisions back in 2011 in respect of the capital plan to reduce the quantum of money in order to lessen the reduction in current expenditure.  For example, rather than taking a further &euro;1.5 billion out of social welfare this year, as Fianna F&aacute;il had planned, the Government took additional money of approximately half a billion euro out of capital funding.  The capital projects that were delayed were those major heavy capital projects in the transport area that are not actually job-rich projects.  There is a significant difference in the job benefit between such projects and, for example, the &euro;150 million spent on the stimulus plan I announced last week.  Projects that will retrofit 25,000 houses across the country or build new schools or repair the county roads, for which there is a &euro;50 million project, are much more beneficial in terms of real jobs now than would be &euro;150 million spent on planning for a project such as the access tunnel to the airport or similar very big infrastructure projects.  To answer the Deputy's question in general terms, the Government made rational decisions to protect current expenditure as best it could because the Government did not think the volume of cuts the previous Administration had planned in social welfare and other areas could be taken.  Second, the Government is releasing other capital to have jobs-rich projects through the sale of State assets, through further funding the Government is negotiating with the European Investment Bank and other lenders and hopefully through releasing moneys from our own banks, now they are in a more robust position to support PPPs.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.416" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV00900"><p>Finally, I wish to make a helpful suggestion to the Minister with regard to the capital programme.  I have examined the figures for the capital programme in the Estimates on a Department by Department basis over the past couple of years and note that even this year, it still is planned to invest &euro;1 billion in transport, &euro;700 million in environment, of which funds for water services may comprise quite a bit, &euro;400 million in health and perhaps a smaller amount in education.  Will the Minister consider examining the totality of the capital budget and these additional stimulus packages to ascertain whether the right mix of capital expenditure is in place across the Departments?  A massive amount was invested in transport over the years and there may be a case for now spending a smaller proportion of the total on road and rail projects than was the case over the past four or five years, as some additional infrastructure has been put in place.  Perhaps a greater amount could be invested in health and education, where it may be needed to cater for the younger population.  Do those Departments that historically had high capital expenditure still come in with fairly high projections?  The Minister should take a holistic approach to ascertain whether, were he starting today with the aforementioned &euro;3.4 billion plus his stimulus plan, that would be how he would break it down.  I am worried that the State may be trapped in the old spending patterns.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.417" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV01000"><p>The Deputy has a point, which is the reason the Government did look afresh.  The Deputy is correct, in that there is a predilection to look at the traditional projects.  While roads, hospitals and schools fall into that category, they are needed.  For example, the next project I wish to advance before the end of the year on the road side will be the N17-N18 in the west.  That is an important regional link to a part of the country that needs infrastructural investment.  However, the Deputy is correct and the Government must examine other types of projects, whether they are in energy or in retrofit generally.  There also is a strong argument to look for capital investment in education outside the normal school focus.  I certainly am open to any suggestions in that regard, as well as to suggestions from the other side of the House in that regard.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.418" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV01100"><p>We will now return to Priority Question No. 2 in the name of Deputy Mary Lou McDonald.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.419" nospeaker="true" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV01200">Haddington Road Agreement Savings</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.420.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV01300"><p><i>2.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to impose additional reductions in pay and changes to working terms and conditions to those public sector workers who through their unions do not sign up to the Haddington Road agreement. <b>[29864/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.421.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV01400"><p>The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest Act 2013 was enacted on 5 June 2013.  The primary purpose of the legislation is to implement the proposed pay reduction for public servants earning salaries of &euro;65,000 and the parallel reduction in public service pensions of more than &euro;32,500.  Contingency measures that may be deployed to secure the necessary reductions in the public service pay and pensions bill also are included, including provisions for a universal freeze on pay increments.  The Act also affirms that the person, which may be a line Minister or other public service body, that has the power to determine terms and conditions of employment may exercise that power to reduce non-core rates of pay or to increase hours worked.  However, as Members are aware, under the legislation a facility is provided for unions and representative associations to conclude collective agreements with their public service employers.  Where a union has signed up to a collective agreement, now called the Haddington Road agreement, that will avoid the need for those contingency measures to be used.</p><p>  It is a matter for public servants and their representative unions and associations to decide if they wish to conclude a collective agreement with their employers.  This issue is currently subject to consideration by ballot by those unions and those members concerned.  I do not wish to comment directly during that process, although I welcome the decision today of SIPTU, the biggest union, to endorse the Haddington Road agreement by a significant margin of 76%.  With regard to those grades represented by a union which does not conclude a collective agreement under the Act, as well as the increment freeze that will apply directly under the terms of the Act, the relevant decision maker will be obliged to take the necessary measures to meet the targeted pay-bill savings this year and in following years.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.422" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="17:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000048#VV01500"><p>I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for taking this question now and I apologise to the Minister and colleagues for my late arrival into the Chamber.  In this question I am trying to establish, for the purposes of clarity, that the Minister intends to make operational those contingency measures, as they are called, in the emergency legislation in respect of those trade union members who do not sign up to or endorse the Haddington Road agreement.  The Minister has not said it as bluntly but I take from his reply that this is his intention.  He mentioned the capacity for a freeze on increments and longer working hours and consequently, I can only take it that this is the formula he envisages for those workers who are not prepared to sign up to the Haddington Road agreement.  I put it to the Minister that to say or do this on the one hand, while claiming on the other hand that collective bargaining rights are not just respected but are supported by the legislation the Minister brought through this House simply does not tally at all.  It now will be clear to workers it has been a case of getting workers to sign up to these cuts voluntarily or having the Government imposing them unilaterally.</p><p>That makes a farce of any claim the Minister might make to support free collective bargaining.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.424" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00200"><p>I fundamentally disagree with the Deputy.  The reverse is the case.  This process has been honest with workers from the start.  We laid out the requirements of the State in terms of the pay bill, as everybody knows, the condition of the public finances and the view of Government that we needed to make a further contribution to solving the deficit hole through reducing the pay and pensions bill.  We opened the books so that people could understand, and then we engaged to see how we could do that with as much agreement as possible.  The first set of negotiated agreements through the Labour Relations Commission, LRC, were rejected, and we gave further time to the LRC to see if that discussion could be reopened.  Unions that did not really engage the first time around engaged the second time around.  That was a good, open, democratic and honest process.  However, like any employer, we could not allow a situation in which there would be no consequences for those who did not accept the agreement while those who accepted it would face the consequences.  The Deputy knows that.  We will make the savings, hopefully through agreement across all sectors.  It is still the Government's wish that every employee be subject to the Haddington Road agreement, but where there are sectors that exclude themselves from it, the financial emergency measures in the public interest, FEMPI, legislation will apply.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.425" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00300"><p>There is not a person in the country, much less in the public service, who does not understand the state of the public finances and the economic crisis, not of their making, into which we have all been plunged-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.426" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00400"><p>I agree.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.427" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00500"><p>-----but it does not add up to say that the only mechanism available to the Government to fix this hole in the public finances is to target members of the Civil and Pubic Service Union, including clerical workers who looked at the Haddington Road agreement and felt that, given everything they have endured in the past few years and the fact that they are very low-paid workers, an extension of their working hours, a pausing of their increments, a running down of their terms and conditions and what in reality amounts to a pay cut through an extension of hours was not something they could live with, and it was not fair.  There were other things the Minister could have done.  There are other things he could still do with an eye to mending the public finances.  The Minister repeats again and again that the only ones to take a hit under these proposals are people earning in excess of &euro;65,000.  That is just not true.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.428" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00600"><p>What is true is that the only employees getting a direct pay cut are those earning in excess of &euro;65,000, and the Deputy knows that full well.  It is interesting that the Deputy has now moved away from groups she was highlighting on the last occasion - who have now, by and large, accepted the Haddington Road agreement - to the CPSU.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.429" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00700"><p>I have been raising the case of the CPSU consistently.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.430" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00800"><p>Its members are currently being balloted and, unlike the Deputy, I do not want to involve myself in their ballot.  I agree that everybody in the public service is affected, because everybody is asked to make some contribution, but those represented by the CPSU are minimally affected.  Their core pay is not touched at all.  They do not do overtime, by and large, and they have been asked to work additional hours.  That is what is being asked of them in that instance.  That is a reasonable request when we are asking everybody in the public service to work a couple of extra hours.  They represent a category of workers that are minimally touched in that regard.</p><p>  On the general point the Deputy makes that this is not the only option, of course this is not the only option.  We are looking at significant reductions across every aspect of public expenditure, and the Deputy will be shouting at me for all of those; she has done so for years.  We will be increasing taxes, and the Deputy will be opposing that also.  She will be opposing the local property tax and everything else.  It is certainly not the only option but it is part of the range of options that will bring this country back to a sustainable path of recovery.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.431" nospeaker="true" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00850">National Lottery Funding Disbursement</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.432.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW00900"><p><i>5.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if following the recent launch of the competitive process of the new National Lottery licence if the current level of good causes funding will be maintained. <b>[29865/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.433.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW01000"><p>Under the next national lottery licence, annual contributions for good causes will be set at 65% of gross gaming revenues.  Gross gaming revenues are defined as the level of sales less the amount deducted for prizes.  The current licence does not have a specific formula in place under legislation for good causes.  The level of contribution is the amount remaining when prizes and costs are deducted from the value of total sales.  It is worth noting that the level of returns for good causes from the national lottery has been falling in recent years.  Under the next licence, the national lottery operator will be well placed to reverse this trend and boost the level of sales of national lottery tickets.  This increase will be facilitated by the terms of both the next licence and the National Lottery Act 2013, which we passed in this House and the other House, and will offer the holder of the next licence greater flexibility for the growth and development of lottery games and distribution channels, including interactive channels.  However, it is important to emphasise that this will be achieved in a responsible manner, as we have debated at some length, which protects the interests of national lottery players and the long-term sustainability of the lottery itself.</p><p>  I am very confident, under the new arrangements, that the level of annual returns for good causes, which include sport, culture, community health and the natural environment, will grow significantly from the 2012 amount of &euro;225 million.  The outcome will be funding for more worthwhile projects in more places across the country.</p><p>  I should also point out that the successful bidder for the next licence will make an up-front payment to the State in return for a 20-year licence.  Part of this up-front payment will be used to fund the construction of the new national children&rsquo;s hospital.  In addition, some moneys which will accrue from the payment in respect of the national lottery licence are being allocated to help fund Exchequer capital projects this year and next year.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.434" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW01100"><p>I thank the Minister for that answer.  He has set out that under the new licensing arrangement, 65% of gross gaming revenue will be directed towards good causes.  What I am trying to establish is a certainty that the level of funding for good causes will not be damaged by the new regime, which, as the Minister knows, I opposed in the course of our debates.  We will not open that up again.  The Minister told us that last year the figure for good causes was &euro;225 million.  Can he tell us whether his Department has run figures based on the revenues from last year and whether he is satisfied that that figure will be matched, if not surpassed - in other words, that that is the correct formula with which to move forward?</p><p>  In respect of the up-front payment, I know the Minister cannot speculate as to what that figure might be and therefore I will not ask him for a bald figure, but I ask him for an assurance that a large up-front payment will not be used by a bidder as an incentive for the system to perhaps be a little slack in terms of the other terms and conditions of the licence.  I invite the Minister to comment on that.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.435" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000049#WW01200"><p>No.  The Deputy makes a number of valid and fair points.  This is a balance that I and the Government have sought to strike in terms of maximising the up-front payment without damaging the constant annual flow of money for good causes.  It is our estimate that we can increase the volume and flow of money for good causes.  All of these are theoretical until we see the structure of the new licence at work, but we have taken the best advice.  We have looked at operations internationally.  The nature of the lotto is changing.  For example, for scratch cards, which are a chunk of the lotto, the prize fund is much bigger and therefore the actual sum accruing to good causes under the current regime from scratch cards is not great.  There is no limit to the prize fund under the current legislation.  We are looking, in the round, at a robust system.  I picked a figure of 65% for good causes, which is considerable.</p><p>There would have been suggestions from some of our advisors that we go for a lower figure that would ensure we would get a bigger up-front payment but I was willing to take a smaller up-front payment if it meant we would have a good growing annual fund for the good causes that are so important into the future.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.437" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00200"><p>I agree with the Minister and I welcome the confirmation that there will not be any possibility of a trade-off between a larger up-front payment that might cause damage to that revenue stream for good causes.</p><p>  I had asked in a parliamentary question that the new formula be applied to the most recent revenue figures we have for the national lottery, although I appreciate that the contingencies of increases or decreases in sales must be taken into account, such are the vagaries of the market.  It would be very useful to see this formula applied to the most recent sales figures for the national lottery so we can see the maintenance of the revenue flow.  I submitted a question on that to the Department and received an unsatisfactory answer; it had a lot of interesting information but it did not answer the question.  For those of us who are concerned about the national lottery, particularly the funding for good causes, it would put our minds at rest if the Minister's officials could take the known data from the most recent period, apply the 65% of gross gaming revenue formula, and show us the figure so we can see if it tallies with the &euro;225 million figure.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.438" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00300"><p>I have done that in another question and I am looking for it now.  It is not a direct comparison, because things will be different over time.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.439" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00400"><p>It is Question No. 22.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.440" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00500"><p>Is that where it is?  Unfortunately I did not bring Question No. 22 with me, I did not expect to reach it.  I might have it in my own notes.  If we applied it precisely to the revenue declared for last year, when the good causes contribution was &euro;225 million, it would have been of the order of &euro;214 million.  Given the nature of the gaming, my advice is that this is a much more robust formula than the 30% I had intended to put in.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.441" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00600"><p>Applying that formula gives a figure that is &euro;11 million less.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.442" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00700"><p>For last year, yes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.443" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00800"><p>That is all the more reason why the terms and conditions of the licensing arrangement must be robust.  If we are to move into this new arrangement, which I continue to oppose, all the more reason for the Minister to ensure there are strong incentives to grow the business.  It would be a slap in the face if we were to be down &euro;11 million for the good causes next year.  I urge the Minister to ensure that is not the case.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.444" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00900"><p>I fully accept what the Deputy is saying.  I do not want to be prescriptive about this but I must strike a balance.  I do not want to grow the national lottery at the expense of those who might spending money they should not be spending.  There are checks and balances all the way.  I am advised that it is possible under this structure in a way that does not impact negatively on people who should not be gambling too much to grow from the current position to a contribution to good causes of &euro;300 million over a period of five or six years.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.445" nospeaker="true" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00925">Other Questions</major-heading>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.446" nospeaker="true" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX00950">Office of Public Works Projects</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.447.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1044" speakername="&Eacute;amon &Oacute; Cu&iacute;v" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01000"><p><i>6.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the timetable for the completion of the Dublin Cultural Quarter project around Parnell Street which is being supported by the Office of Public Works; and if he will make a statement on the matter. <b>[29675/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.448.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01100"><p>The Deputy is aware Dublin City Council is planning to develop a cultural quarter in the environs of Parnell Square.  The Commissioners of Public Works have engaged with Dublin City Council on property asset transfers to facilitate this specific development.</p><p>  Any further information required on this key cultural project is a matter for Dublin City Council.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.449" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01200"><p>I asked this question specifically because of the role of the OPW.  Perhaps the Minister does not have the full details but Dublin City Council announced a proposal on a new cultural district in Dublin city that involves the construction of a new and innovative library on the site of Col&aacute;iste Mhuire on Parnell Square, which is owned by the OPW.  This new library and the existing spectacular Hugh Lane Gallery will be connected by a civic plaza.  During the launch of that project, some of which has already been funded from philanthropic sources, Dublin City Council stated it is looking at arrangements with the OPW for the transfer of the Col&aacute;iste Mhuire site to the council to enable it to do it.  Other than the transfer of the title of the property, has the OPW any other ongoing role in the project?  Will it make any investment in it or will any other Department invest in it?  It is a fine project for the city and the area needs this development.  Private funding has been made available and the OPW is directly involved so I would like to the Office of Public Works having slightly greater involvement.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.450" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01300"><p>The OPW has no more involvement than the involvement I have outlined.  I have seen the presentation and it is an exciting project for that part of the city.  Whether it might be subject to other funding would fall within the general capital expenditure plan and if it made sense, perhaps on a co-funded basis if philanthropic money is available, it would be eligible to be considered for funding under the stimulus plans we have announced.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.451" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01400"><p>Can the Minister confirm that &euro;2.5 million was donated by Kennedy Wilson?  Perhaps the Minister will ask his OPW officials to have another discussion to see if there is any mechanism for funding as a capital project through the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht or the Minister's own Department to see if the Government can give any further assistance on this project.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.452" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01500"><p>The capital budget of the OPW is quite rigid, with a large chunk of it now going to flood maintenance.  It might be a cultural project to be supported by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, or an environmental project supported by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.  I am writing to every Department to look for projects that might qualify for future stimulus plans.  I am not guaranteeing any of them will be advanced but the more competition there is for good ideas, the less we will fall into the trap of looking to the old reliables to do this.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.453" nospeaker="true" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01550">Public Sector Staff Issues</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.454.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1094" speakername="John Halligan" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01600"><p><i>7.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he intends, in the interests of efficient expenditure of public money, to conduct a study of the cost of outsourcing in the public sector as against the cost of direct employment in the public sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. <b>[29688/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.455.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000050#XX01700"><p>The public service reform plan sets out a commitment to evaluate alternative models for the delivery of non-core services in a more cost effective and flexible approach, with a focus on customer service improvement.  In July 2012, the Government agreed a range of actions aimed at achieving a focused and integrated approach to external service delivery of non-core processes with the objective of reducing costs and focusing staff resources on priority areas.</p><p>  Public services vary in their suitability for outsourcing.  Some are best provided by the private sector, some by the public service and others when shared between the two.  Any study of the merits of outsourcing would have to consider each function carried out by every public body on a case by case basis.</p><p> For this reason, a rigorous appraisal process will be applied to any functions considered suitable for external delivery.  It is expected that each such appraisal will evaluate the existing in-house service and the external delivery option, and compare both.  As part of this evaluation, consideration will be given to whether the service can be retained in-house but with business process improvements.  Any final decision to change how a service is delivered will take account of a number of factors, including overall cost, quality of service provided, effectiveness and the public interest.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.457" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00200"><p>I thank the Minister for his answer.  I raised this issue with him on a number of occasions.</p><p>  It would be useful to conduct an overall study of this.  In the first year I got into the D&aacute;il I asked about the relative cost of direct labour as against outsourcing to agencies, consultants or whatever.  I submitted one question but got more than 50 answers - a considerable thick file spread over weeks.  I would have to do the same again every year.  It is difficult to get an overall picture of the value for money or otherwise from outsourcing.</p><p>  However, the former Federated Union of Government Employees, FUGE, branch of IMPACT which deals with cleaners, porters, attendants, service officers etc., has indicated to me that, for example, with the &euro;2 million the Department of Social Protection spent on outsourcing cleaning work last year it could have directly employed 96 full-time cleaners, and that with the &euro;1 million spent on private security which was outsourced instead of having directly employed service officers, the Department could have employed 70 service officers.  This IMPACT branch contests that outsourcing in all Departments in its area covering such grades added up to approximately &euro;16 million whereas the same number of staff could have been provided for &euro;9 million - a difference of &euro;6 million.  In my own investigations, I have certainly found several examples.  How representative these are is difficult to say for the reasons I mentioned but it looks as if it would be much cheaper to employ staff directly rather than outsource the work to agencies, consultants etc.  Should we conduct a comprehensive overall study and analysis of this because we are looking for savings everywhere and workers would prefer, if they can make an argument that it provides value for money, for there to be directly employed secure employment rather than the more casual outsourced work which, obviously, is not as favourable to them?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.458" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00300"><p>I have an open mind on how we provide services.  As I stated, the criteria are what provides the best service to the public on a cost-effective basis, complies with all legal requirements and is efficient.  Sometimes that will be an in-house service where there are significant skills built over time.  Sometimes it will be a bought-in service because there are large private companies which have skills developed that it would not make sense to replicate.  For example, for years every hospital had its own laundry where the unit cost of doing laundry in some of the hospitals was phenomenal whereas there are now very large industrial-scale laundries which are merely much more efficient.  It makes no sense to replicate scores of laundries as opposed to using one large commercial one.  There are horses for courses.</p><p>  Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about individual skill sets like cleaners or security staff.  In many instances, it makes sense, because of the uniqueness or isolation of a place, to have full-time staff members do that sort of work.  On other occasions, if they are in a city, one has competent firms doing it.  As long as there is robust and transparent evaluation, we can make rational decisions.  In my Department where we do the evaluations, we would be open to test any analysis done by a trade union or anybody else.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.459" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00400"><p>I welcome the Minister's openness to looking at this.  On the specific examples I cited, I hope he would engage with the former FUGE branch of IMPACT.  They have compiled an analysis, the facts of which I have given the Minister, in which they maintain the Department could get the same services for considerably less money.  Obviously, they would favour full-time staff employed in these low-paid jobs.  Often it is thought that IMPACT represents higher-paid workers.  In fact, IMPACT represents a substantial number of low-paid workers in the Government service.</p><p>  I agree with the Minister that there must be robust scrutiny of these matters.  One cannot generalise too much, but it has been acknowledged that we had a problem, for example, with hygiene in many hospitals.  A case at least has been made to me - it must be looked into - that part of the decline in hygiene standards in hospitals is because there are outside contractors which do not have the same allegiance to the hospital.  They are in and out and the company or agency picks up its money.  They get the job done in the minimum time possible, whereas directly employed staff would have a real feeling, passion, loyalty for and an association with the hospital on a fixed base.  There is a case for looking at whether there is a connection between those two issues because we are seeing a much greater degree of outsourcing of such services in the health service.  For example, is there a connection with MRSA?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.460" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00500"><p>I agree that the issue of quality is important.  It is a matter not simply of the cost, but of the quality and product one gets.</p><p>  I have other explanations as to why the hygiene standards might not be as robust as they used to be.  From my experience in Wexford General Hospital when it was run by a matron of the St. John of God Order, I shall simply say that a tight ship was run and you could eat your dinner off the floor.  That is the truth of it.  That level of oversight no longer exists.  Maybe it is not possible or there should not be the level of oversight that existed in those days, but certainly a tight ship was run.  Maybe that is an explanation of it.</p><p>  In terms of the general issue Deputy Boyd Barrett raises, it is important that we conduct robust analysis of the outcome.  I am conscious that we constantly measure the inputs into education and other areas, but we seldom measure the outputs.  With the new budgeting system, we try to establish what we get for the inputs.  We all must ask constantly because our response to every issue is to seek more resources as opposed to asking what we are getting for the resources we are putting in.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.461" nospeaker="true" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00550">Consultancy Contracts Expenditure</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.462.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/998" speakername="P&aacute;draig MacLochlainn" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00600"><p><i>8.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will provide details and the projected monetary value of the savings in consultancy contracts his Department expects to make. <b>[29565/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.463.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000051#YY00700"><p>My Department was established in 2011.  A large part of the work of my Department is associated with the reform agenda plan and, as such, we have a rolling programme of work which will vary from year to year and require varying degrees of external consulting support.  In the current year, this includes a number of shared services projects, in payroll, in banking, in financial management reporting and in procurement, together with work on the statute law revision project, support for the implementation of procurement reform and the re-tendering of the national lottery licence.</p><p>  In the context of this environment, a targeted percentage cost-base reduction is not an appropriate approach to budgeting.  We have instead adopted a zero-based budgeting approach to consultancy costs.</p><p>In other words, provision is only made for defined projects which have the Government's approval.  We continue to seek to minimise these costs and projects, and projects are only progressed when there is a clear business case to do so.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.465" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00200"><p>In the Haddington Road agreement we just discussed, there is a paragraph on the use of external consultants by public bodies which states:<blockquote>The staff side have expressed considerable concern at what they believe to be excessive use of external consultants in the public service.  The Government, for its part, shares these concerns ... The recent procurement reform programme to achieve between &euro;250 million to &euro;600 million of savings is welcomed.  It is expected that savings in consultancy contracts will be a key element of this programme.</blockquote>As it is obviously envisaged that this will be a substantial chunk of the savings, will the Minister shed some light on them?  What is the total annual cost of external consultants to the public service?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.466" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00300"><p>I do not have that figure with me and the Deputy should table a question on the matter.  To get a figure would mean trawling across all Departments and well beyond my own Department of responsibility.  If the Deputy table a question, I will see what we can do to get that figure.</p><p>  There was a tendency, which may sometimes have been a default position, to have consultants do work rather than line Departments, but in so far as it is practicable, we should have line Departments do the work.  Often when complicated work is being done, we may need particular expertise that does not exist in the public service and we have to buy it in.  I am trying to have an economics evaluation service within the public service, and we recruited last year a range of young economic graduates trained in my Department who will be allocated across line Departments to provide expertise.  There are other skill sets required in the public service that should be recruited and embedded on a permanent basis and I hope, over time, that will mitigate the need to hire consultants.  There will always be some issues so we should consider matters case by case.  Where there is a robust business case to engage consultants, we will continue to hire them.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.467" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00400"><p>My intention is not to enter into a debate on the merits or otherwise of the use of consultants but very substantial savings are envisaged in the order of &euro;250 million to &euro;600 million, according to the agreement.  It is also indicated in black and white that savings in consultancy contracts would be a key element of the programme, and the Minister does not contend the fact.  I am very surprised that the Minister does not have a figure for the overall cost of consultancy services across the public sector.  Is it just that the Minister does not have the figure with him or has the figure not been calculated?  I cannot imagine how a Minister could argue that a substantial chunk of the savings would come from consultancy contracts if he has not established the cost of those consultancies across all Departments.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.468" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00500"><p>As I indicated, it is not a uniform annual sum and much depends on what issues are being dealt with each year.  Last year we hired consultants and, for example, Accenture examined procurement generally across the public service.  The report was published and it indicated a sum of between &euro;200 million and &euro;600 million that could be saved through better procurement.  Part of that procurement will be in the consultancy area, although we will make savings in other areas of procurement as well.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.469" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1008" speakername="Mary Lou McDonald" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00600"><p>If I were to ask a parliamentary question citing a particular year, would the Minister be in a position to provide us with the figures?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.470" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00700"><p>I will do my very best.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.471" nospeaker="true" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00750">Public Private Partnerships Cost</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.472.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1057" speakername="Niall Collins" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00800"><p><i>9.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the reason he is proposing to make compensation payments to unsuccessful tenderers for public private partnership projects; the estimated cost to the taxpayer of this provision in 2013 and 2014; and if he will make a statement on the matter. <b>[29654/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.473.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ00900"><p>In July last year I announced the Government's &euro;2.25 billion infrastructure stimulus package, which included &euro;1.4 billion for the first phase of a new public private partnership, PPP, programme of projects in key areas of infrastructure.  Given the very limited PPP activity in the preceding few years coupled with the difficult recent period for the financial and construction sector, it was clear that a range of supporting measures were needed to help reactivate the Irish PPP market, which was moribund, and instil market confidence in the new PPP programme so as to ensure maximum potential participants, both domestically and internationally.</p><p>  Following advice from the National Development Finance Agency, NDFA, the State's centre of expertise for the specialist procurement of PPP projects, in December 2012 the Government decided that on a temporary and exceptional basis, provision mould be made for some reimbursement of bid costs for accommodation projects in the new PPP programme to ensure competitive tension in the tendering process.  Competitive tension is essential to ensure we get best value for money for the State.  The Government agreed that compliant tender fees would be issued to two unsuccessful final stage bidders.  In addition, in the unlikely event that it was decided not to progress any of these projects, payment would be made to the three short-listed tenderers.</p><p>  The NDFA advised on the level of reimbursement of costs required to deliver market engagement and achieve the results required.  Payment amounts will vary from project to project, reflecting the capital value and complexity of the project, as well as the level of any inputs provided by the sanctioning authority, with a cap on the maximum amount to be paid.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.474" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01000"><p>That background is a summary of what was in the press release on 5 June, which spoke about investing in infrastructure jobs.  The paragraph caught my eye and the Minister can understand why I tabled the question.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.475" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01100"><p>This is for total transparency.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.476" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01200"><p>This is my third time asking about the cost of this and-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.477" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01300"><p>Nothing, yet.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.478" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01400"><p>-----my third time to stand up without getting an exact answer.  I understand this is potentially commercially sensitive but to the extent that it is possible, will the NDFA supply a briefing note as to how its advice came about?  I know of companies that lost much money on previous PPP arrangements having gone as far as being the preferred bidder.  They had gone through the final planning stage at their own cost before the bottom fell out of the market and the projects did not proceed.  They did not get a cancellation fee despite speaking to the Office of Public Works and different people who were involved.</p><p>  The Minister has indicated there are two issues, with one being a cancellation fee.  I understand this is for people who have travelled a road but will the Minister address the preferred bidder issue?  A cancellation fee could be higher in some respects, and when one narrows the selection to a preferred bidder and the project is into outline or detailed planning and specification, the costs can mount for them.  Will the NDFA provide further information to give us more of an understanding of the issue?  Will there be an element of retrospection or will this only apply to new projects?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.479" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01500"><p>I am afraid retrospection will not be possible as this is to stimulate future interest in PPPs.  I do not want to open a can of worms and have people come after us for projects that have been cancelled, particularly when the construction industry collapsed.  It looks forward rather than back.  I am anxious to get PPPs moving and it was a cause of great frustration that for nearly two years, we did not have PPP projects despite robust PPPs being on offer.  We had no takers because people such as architects, designers and construction companies had been burned, having spent good money in making applications for projects that did not go ahead.  We needed to bring confidence back to the market, and the strong advice I had from the NDFA was to introduce these measures.  I will ask the NDFA to contact the Deputy and perhaps give a direct briefing on the matters, as it might be worthwhile to ensure he understands exactly the rationale and reasoning behind the NDFA's recommendations on the matter.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.480" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1100" speakername="Se&aacute;n Fleming" time="18:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000052#ZZ01600"><p>I appreciate it and I am happy to take up that generous offer.  The Minister might comment on why some of the PPPs collapsed, as my understanding is that this happened because of a lack of financing arising from credit market conditions.  The projects were good, well priced and ready to go but all of a sudden when the companies tried to borrow money over 20 or 25 years, the international financial market withdrew credit and the cost of finance went through the roof.</p><p>In that context, can these projects be given some funding through the European Investment Bank or similar institution so that finance could be freed up for commercially-viable projects for the private sector which would also be of benefit to the public?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.482" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00200"><p>As the Deputy knows, I am always looking for sources of capital to invest in infrastructure in Ireland.  The vice president of the European Investment Bank was in Dublin yesterday and I had a very long and fruitful meeting with him.  The European Investment Bank has certainly been very helpful in this regard.  It has a number of new schemes in progress.  It wants to move away from direct lending into creating financial instruments, perhaps of the type the Deputy is talking about.  We are exploring how a financial instrument that would leverage money - perhaps State money as well as European Investment Bank money and private capital - would be available to invest in projects in this State, either in the public or private sphere.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.483" nospeaker="true" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00250">State Properties</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.484.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1001" speakername="Thomas Pringle" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00300"><p><i>10.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform if he will outline the roll-out of the next round of reforms aimed at streamlining the State&rsquo;s extensive property management portfolio; the targets he has set regarding same; and the extent to which he aims to reform the property asset portfolio across the wider public service. <b>[29686/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.485.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00400"><p>The Chairman of the Office of Public Works, OPW, is the senior responsible owner for driving reforms in public property asset management.  The Chairman chairs the steering group established in October 2012, drawn from public service property stakeholders, to review existing property management arrangements across the public sector and develop a framework to drive efficiency and value for money from the State's property portfolio.</p><p>  The group is finalising a property management delivery plan, which will set out how each of the elements identified in the Government's property asset reform programme will be managed in the short, medium and longer term.  The plan will identify the planned changes, without impacting significantly on the ongoing service delivery of public bodies.  The plan will focus on measures that maximise the efficient use of State assets, improving information sharing and decision-making capacity and streamlining arrangements for intra-public service property asset sharing and transfer.</p><p>  The objective of the reform programme will be to achieve efficiencies through shared protocols, standards and policies around space allocation and more open-plan working.  A cross-disciplinary committee within the OPW is developing a set of standards for office accommodation in accordance with international practice.  These measures will be supported by a more effective communication process throughout the public service through the introduction of an intra-public service map-based property register and web portal.  The map-based register is intended to facilitate intra-public service data sharing.  The OPW is finalising a prototype with data from OPW's property holdings initially and this will be available to public service property holders shortly.</p></reply>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.486" nospeaker="true" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00450">Sale of State Assets</minor-heading>
    <ques id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.487.q" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/954" speakername="Joe Higgins" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00500"><p><i>11.</i> To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform when he expects the possible sale of State assets to be discussed at a meeting of the Government. <b>[29692/13]</b></p></ques>
    <reply id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.488.r" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00600"><p>As the House will be aware, the Government has initiated a programme of State asset disposals as part of commitments made in the programme for Government and under the EU-ECB-IMF financial assistance programme, with a view to generating resources for additional investment in job creation initiatives in the economy.</p><p>  Various aspects of this disposal programme have been discussed at Cabinet on a number of occasions since the Government came to office in February 2011 and Ministers had a further opportunity to discuss the Coillte harvesting rights aspects of the programme during the Government meeting yesterday.  On foot of yesterday's meeting, I can inform the House that the Government has agreed with the joint recommendation of myself and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine that now is not the appropriate time to proceed with the sale of harvesting rights in Coillte.  Instead, the focus needs to be on the restructuring of Coillte as a company to address the issues that were identified in the reviews undertaken.  To that end, I wish to further inform the House that Coillte is to undergo a fundamental restructuring, to be overseen by NewERA and the relevant stakeholder Departments, which will include operational streamlining, financial de-leveraging and a critical examination of the disposal options for its non-core activities such as telecoms and wind.  A robust analysis will also be carried out to evaluate how to give effect to a beneficial merger of Coillte with Bord na M&oacute;na to create a streamlined and refocused commercial semi-State company operating in the bio-energy and forestry sectors, as committed to in the programme for Government.  A priority in this regard will be the annual delivery of a material financial dividend to the State by Coillte.  Finally, we intend to fill the significant number of vacancies that will arise on the Coillte board this year by persons with relevant experience and commercial expertise to drive the restructuring process and the merger with Bord na M&oacute;na if this is approved by Government.</p></reply>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.489" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/954" speakername="Joe Higgins" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00700"><p>We learned of the decision not to proceed with the privatisation of Coillte and its harvesting operations at the meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance yesterday.  I really welcome the fact that the Government was forced to recognise the massive opposition that existed around this country to any moves in the direction of the privatisation of our woodlands.  That message came through loud and clear to the Minister and the Government.  I ask that the reform of Coillte referred to by Minister be done in a different way from what reform and restructuring usually means for this Government, namely, downsizing, crude restructuring, job cuts, worsening of conditions and so forth.  I ask that the Government reforms Coillte in a way that brings the workers in Coillte and Bord na M&oacute;na to the heart of the management of the process in these vital areas of national life and economic activity, to give them real democratic ownership of the valuable work they do.  I ask that the Government also bring in the woodland devotees, those people who are genuinely devoted to the woodlands and all they represent for our people, into the process.  In that way, we will get an entirely different approach.</p><p>  I had to leave the committee meeting yesterday for duties in this Chamber and therefore I missed some of the Minister's further elaborations.  The troika said that the Government had to raise &euro;3 billion, 50% of which was to be used to pay off bondholders.  What is the arrangement with regard to that particular demand by this dictatorship, in view of the Government's decision on Coillte?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.490" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000053#AAA00800"><p>During the negotiations on the programme for Government, one of the issues that arose from the Fine Gael side was that party's plan to promulgate a share-holding entity, NewERA, which mirrored what happened in a number of progressive countries, including all of the Scandinavian countries and Britain, to get better value from State assets.  I must say it has been a very worthwhile exercise.  One of the things we discovered, in the drilling down of the work done by NewERA, is the situation within Coillte, namely, that even with all of the commercial forests which the Deputy has lauded, Coillte has struggled to generate cash from its trading operations to date.  A large portion of Coillte's profits and cash flow has come from the sale of land and from exceptional gains on the sale of immature forests.  In other words, what Coillte has been involved in is selling not only harvesting rights, but also land, on a piecemeal basis.  That has been generating such cash flow and profits as the company has.  We must fundamentally restructure that company and must make our decisions rationally and on a commercial basis.</p><p>  I do not know for certain but I believe that the synergies between Coillte, with its very significant land holdings across the State, and Bord na M&oacute;na, which has a great track record but whose core business - the production of turf - is running out, could be harnessed to develop a very important, new State bio-energy company.  Our objective between now and the end of the year is to test that thesis commercially to ascertain the benefits, assets, liabilities and requirements to make that a reality.  When we have that due diligence or analysis completed, I will return to the House and present the findings to Deputies.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.491" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/954" speakername="Joe Higgins" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00100"><p>People who I respect and who had many dealings with Coillte were massively critical of the leadership and management of the organisation.  This was the fault of successive Governments which allowed them to do this.  Bringing the Coillte workers, woodland devotees and people who appreciate our woodlands to the heart of the management of a reformed entity is the critical issue.  The Minister did not answer my question on the &euro;3 billion and the 50:50 divide demanded by the troika dictatorship to pay off the bondholders.  What is the arrangement in this regard?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.492" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00200"><p>I should have mentioned it.  Deputy Higgins is aware the original requirement for the troika was to use all of the proceeds from the sale of State assets to retire debt.  I have spent considerable weeks and months trying to change this view with some success.  After much negotiation the agreement was that 50% of the take could be used directly for job creation and would be rolled into the stimulus package.  It will be part of the variety of elements we will use, including the new Irish strategic investment fund which will be created when we transfer the &euro;6.4 billion from the National Pensions Preserve Fund into the new investment vehicle for Ireland.  While it was originally agreed the balance of the money would be used to retire debt, after further interaction with me the troika has agreed for it to be used as a backstop in the first instance.  It will eventually be used to pay down debt, but in the first instance it can be used as a backdrop to leverage funding including for public-private partnerships, because one of the problems we have had in getting these off the ground is no triple A rated bank in Ireland to partner banks such as the European Investment Bank.  Other countries have used funds, either asset sale funds or structural funds, as a backstop.  This is the type of model we are using.  In the short term, all of the money from the sale of State assets in one form or another will be used in job creation.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.493" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/954" speakername="Joe Higgins" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00300"><p>The Minister should pull back from all privatisation.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.494" nospeaker="true" time="18:55:00" ><p>Written Answers follow Adjournment.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.495" nospeaker="true" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00400">Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012: Second Stage (Resumed)</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.496" nospeaker="true" time="18:55:00" ><p>Question again proposed: &quot;That the Bill be now read a Second Time.&quot;</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.497" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1040" speakername="Michael Kitt" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00500"><p>I understand 11 minutes remain in the slot for the Technical Group and Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett has possession.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.498" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00600"><p>I will not take all of the time, but I might take the opportunity to ask the Minister-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.499" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00700"><p>I am afraid I am due elsewhere at 7 p.m. so forgive me.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.500" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00800"><p>Fair enough.  I was hoping to make some points to him.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.501" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1097" speakername="Brendan Howlin" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB00900"><p>I thought we had three hours yesterday.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.502" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB01000"><p>Yes, but I have supplementary questions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.503" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB01100"><p>Perhaps Deputy Boyd Barrett might like to save them for Committee Stage when the Minister will be present.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.504" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1003" speakername="Richard Boyd Barrett" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB01200"><p>I will keep this extremely short.  Prior to the adjournment of Second Stage I stated my problem with the Bill is that it is part of a suite and architecture of economic control and surveillance which is demanded by the fiscal treaty and the EU Commission.  It is fundamentally misconceived in that it identifies the problem which led to the crisis and the solution to preventing further economic crises as being public spending, and therefore setting ceilings, even on a multi-annual basis, is somehow a recipe for economic stability, growth and development.  This is clearly the view the Government holds.  I disagree because it identifies the wrong problem.  It was not out of control public expenditure which caused the crisis.  There were gross examples of misspending, particularly at the top by consultants, politicians and top executives of Semi-state bodies, but the fundamental reason for the crisis was not out of control spending, it was out of control markets, banks, developers and greed, mostly in the private sector but facilitated by politicians in the public sector.  Therefore, to create an architecture which puts very strict limits on public spending does not necessarily solve our problem and may hamper our ability to get out of the crisis.</p><p>  I will give an example of what I mean, and ask the Minister of State for a quick reply.  It follows on from the earlier discussion on privatisation.  We have made the very positive decision, with some dispute about how it was arrived at, that Coillte will remain in public ownership.  If Coillte is to be used as a vehicle for job creation there should be substantial public investment in it and the State should employ people in forestry to reach our re-afforestation targets and develop the potential of forestry in tourism, timber and a range of areas.  This could be best done by employing more people in a body such as Coillte; not just employing them for the sake of it, but with a specific plan in mind about how, through greater levels of timber production and enhancing our tourist amenities, we could create jobs and therefore fuel economic growth.</p><p>  The type of ceilings included in the Bill will preclude our ability to do this, and we will not be able to invest money in these areas if, for example, we decide at a particular point that substantial public works programmes would be a way to get people back to work.  One could make the same argument about social housing and the value it might have in terms of saved revenue to the State, given all of the money going into rent allowance at present.  If we build more social houses by employing people directly in the local authorities to do so, we could save money and create employment.  These rules preclude and prevent this type of stimulus by the State in creating the employment and growth we need.  It locks us into a particular ideology, to which the Minister of State may subscribe, but at some point he, or another Government, may decide we need to do things differently but will be prevented from doing so because of these straightjackets the EU Commission and the fiscal treaty impose on us.  This is my question to the Minister of State.  I probably know what the answer is but I thought I would ask it anyway.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.505" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="18:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000054#BBB01300"><p>The Bill has been brought forward to provide a statutory basis for the multi-annual medium-term expenditure framework.  I am pleased Deputies have engaged on the Bill and would like to respond briefly to some of the points raised on Second Stage and which we can debate further on Committee Stage next week.</p><p>  Deputy Fleming raised the fact that non-voted expenditure is outside the scope of the expenditure ceilings being legislated for in the Bill.  The position is that non-voted expenditure represents expenditure which the Oireachtas has declared by law is to be paid from the Central Fund without annual reference to the D&aacute;il.  These are items which are a permanent charge on the State revenues and represent those services which are payable out of the Central Fund by the continuing authority of statutes and are not, therefore, subject to the same type of annual process as voted expenditure.  The largest item is the service of the national debt.  Other items include Ireland's contribution to the EU budget; the salaries, pensions and allowances of the President, Judiciary and Comptroller and Auditor General; and the expenses of returning officers.  It is not true the D&aacute;il is not made aware of Central Fund activity.  It is regularly reported in Exchequer statements and the Department of Finance each year publishes detailed accounts of the Central Fund for the previous year, known as the finance accounts.  The accounts are prepared under section 4 of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 and contain detailed analysis and classification of receipts and issues of the Central Fund as well as details of the national debt.  They must be laid before D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann not later than 30 September.  The Bill does not deal with debt service or other Central Fund charges and consequently does not propose any change to this long-standing practice, which is in accordance with the Constitution.</p><p>  The Government is in favour of, and is taking further actions to bring about, improvements in fiscal reporting and fiscal transparency generally.</p><p>This will enable Ireland to realise a number of benefits from enhanced fiscal disclosure, primarily in respect of the understanding of and access to fiscal information, which should help to promote and encourage market investment in Government debt.</p><p> With this in mind, the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, with the Department of Finance and other agencies, will take appropriate steps to provide more comprehensive, timely and reliable data for fiscal decision making, demonstrate the Government's awareness and management of fiscal risks, promote a more informed public debate on fiscal policy challenges and choices, reassure markets of the overall sustainability of the public finances and facilitate compliance with current and future EU fiscal reporting requirements.</p><p> Deputy McDonald raised the issue of equality budgeting, which we can discuss further on Committee Stage.  The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform considers the effect of measures across all elements of society when assessing proposals for changes in spending.</p><p> Among other matters, Deputy Donnelly raised the issue of the timetable for the annual budgetary process.  I am happy that the Government has reformed the process substantially and that, in line with our EU commitments, we will have this year's budget in October and the Revised Estimates will be published before the year end.  As Deputies will acknowledge, this is an improvement on the present system, whereby the budget is in December and the Revised Estimates volume, REV, is discussed in the middle of the year.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.507" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1020" speakername="Tommy Broughan" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC00200"><p>When will the Bundestag see the budget?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.508" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC00300"><p>In addition, an initiative has been introduced to allow committees to conduct an <i>ex ante</i> examination of the Votes for which they are responsible with the relevant Ministers.  There is also a drive to produce published performance measurement information in the REV.  The Department is engaging proactively with the Oireachtas committee secretariat to improve the timeliness and quality of the material being supplied to committees in consideration of the annual Estimates with a view to enhancing the understanding of these issues.</p><p>  On behalf of the Minister, I thank everyone who has contributed on the debate.  These topics will be debated further with Deputies on Committee Stage.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.509" nospeaker="true" time="19:05:00" ><p>Question put and declared carried.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.510" nospeaker="true" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC00500">Ministers and Secretaries (Amendment) Bill 2012: Referral to Select Committee</major-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.511" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC00600"><p>I move:<blockquote>That the Bill be referred to the Select Sub-Committee on Public Expenditure and Reform pursuant to Standing Orders 82A(3)(<i>a</i>) and (6)(<i>a</i>) and 126(1).</blockquote></p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.512" nospeaker="true" time="19:05:00" ><p>Question put and agreed to.</p></speech>
    <major-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.513" nospeaker="true" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC00800">Topical Issue Debate</major-heading>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.514" nospeaker="true" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC00900">HIV Incidence</minor-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.515" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/989" speakername="Jerry Buttimer" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC01000"><p>I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this issue.  HIV and AIDS are back in the news for all the wrong reasons.  Recently, the HIV in Ireland 2012 Report was published by the HSE's Health Protection Surveillance Centre, HPSC.  It indicates a worrying trend in the incidence of HIV that needs to be tackled as a matter of urgency in a concentrated, joined-up way by all of the relevant agencies and non-governmental organisations, NGOs.</p><p>  In 2012, 341 people were newly diagnosed with HIV, an increase of 7% on 2011, with a crude notification rate of 7.4 per 100,000 of population, 30% higher than the EU-EEA rate of 5.7 per 100,000 population.  These trends and statistics are worrying in themselves, but when one analyses them more closely, they highlight an urgent need for action.</p><p>  Undoubtedly, gay and bisexual men are most likely to acquire HIV.  The diagnosis rate in this group increased by 160% between 2005 and 2012, representing 48% of all new HIV cases.  This is a key point.  The remaining cohort of 52% are not in this category.</p><p>  Along with an increase in the overall number of diagnoses, the median age for newly diagnosed cases in the group in question has fallen to 32 years, one year younger than the median age for all those newly diagnosed with HIV.  This indicates a reluctance among some young men to engage in safe sex practices and, more importantly, to consider greater health challenges.  Another significant worry is that gay and bisexual men represent an increasing proportion of diagnosed cases.  We must communicate the message to young men in particular that HIV and AIDS remain a risk and can have a catastrophic effect on life.  Many people are under the illusion that HIV will no longer kill them and, as a result, do not think sensibly and engage in practices that are less than beneficial to their overall health and welfare.</p><p>  It is not just gay and bisexual men who are affected by these increasing rates.  In 2012, there was a 12% increase in the number of heterosexual cases, from 116 to 130.  The lack of awareness and testing leads to late diagnoses.  In 10% of cases of people diagnosed with an AIDS defining illness, HIV was diagnosed at the same time.  Of these 34 cases, 56% were heterosexual.  This is a significant number.</p><p>  The HPSC's report indicates that the current policy does not reduce the incidence of HIV cases and that there is a need to increase awareness of HIV and sexual health.  It is important that we praise and acknowledge the work of the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, GLEN, particularly its director of gay HIV strategies, Mr. Tiernan Brady.</p><p>  While there is no cure for HIV, advanced medical treatments, including combination therapies, can improve a person's quality of life vastly and slow down the progression of the virus, preventing it from continuing to damage the immune system.  Although we have moved away from the devastating consequences of the 1980s, serious repercussions for the health of all men remain.  As a society, we cannot afford to let an increase in incidence rates continue without the Government taking measures to counteract it.</p><p>  To address these issues, we must increase awareness, enact a Government strategy involving the Department of Health and NGOs, communicate a message on how infection can be avoided and, more importantly, make young men aware of the risks associated with their actions so that they can be informed when making decisions about protecting themselves.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.516" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000055#CCC01100"><p>I thank Deputy Buttimer for raising this Topical Issue.  The HPSC collects data on new HIV and AIDS diagnoses.  Data for 2012 showed that the total number of HIV infections reported in all years up to 2012 had risen to 6,629.  While the annual numbers of newly diagnosed HIV infections had been decreasing since 2008, there was a slight increase in the overall numbers of new HIV diagnoses in 2012, amounting to 7%, as the Deputy stated.</p><p>  Of the new diagnoses, there were 166 among gay men, the highest number ever recorded in that risk group.  This is the predominant mode of transmission of HIV in Ireland.</p><p>While some aspects of the prevention agenda have proven successful in the past and have reached large proportions of the population, the statistics continue to show that increasingly people are either not hearing or are choosing to disregard the messages, and are engaging in risky behaviours.  We need to deliver targeted prevention programmes in order to address this situation through partnership between non-governmental organisations, NGOs, and the statutory services.</p><p> The ongoing high incidence among the MSM group, specifically among the younger MSMs, is a particular cause for concern especially since the MSM group had responded well to awareness and prevention campaigns in the past.  Clearly, not only must the messages reach the target audience, but they must make an impact when they do.  We must do this in a cost-effective manner that delivers the biggest impact for investment.</p><p> The Gay Health Network, GHN, and the HSE ran an awareness campaign specifically focused for men who have sex with men, or MSM.  This campaign, Man2Man.ie, was promoted over a 12-month period, from December 2011 to December 2012, and comprised four phases, with key messages developed by a peer youth group facilitated by BeLonG To Youth Services.  It is therefore very timely and relevant that tomorrow the HSE and the Gay Health Network will launch the results of the joint national HIV prevention and sexual health awareness programme for men who have sex with men.  Subject to resources, it is hoped to extend this awareness campaign.  The 11th annual Gay Health Forum programme targets younger MSMs and aims to raise awareness, build self-esteem and equip men to be able to make safer sex choices.</p><p> In the area of responsible sexual behaviour, the ongoing stigma attached to HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, STIs, is undoubtedly one of the underlying reasons for the ongoing high incidence level of new cases of HIV and other STIs.  On the wider issue of sexual health, the Department of Health has established a high level steering group to oversee the drafting of a national sexual health strategy.  It will focus on improving sexual health and well-being and will address the surveillance, testing, treatment and prevention of HIV and STIs, crisis pregnancy, and sexual health education and promotion.  Moreover, the strategy will be in line with the framework for health and well-being, which provides a policy framework that addresses the wider determinants of health and health inequalities.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.518" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/989" speakername="Jerry Buttimer" time="19:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000056#DDD00200"><p>It is important that we not only develop a high level steering group, but that we have a national sexual health strategy which targets young men in the age group I mentioned.  I should put on record that the Gay Men's Health clinic and Gay Health Network, along with GLEN do powerful work in communicating and working with young men.</p><p>  What cannot be lost in the bureaucratic maze of the Department of Health and the HSE is the fact that there must be outreach between the NGOs, and a joined up kind of thinking.  The largest ever level of increase of HIV cases has just happened.  There are many reasons for that but one is the complacency that may exist for some young men who feel they are immune from transmission of disease.  We must eradicate that mindset and reach out to people</p><p>  I welcome the Minister of State's reply.  It is about communicating and creating a strategy that has a joined up approach.  It is about education and not just about having that high level steering group to report back.  We must see the implementation of that strategy which will pay dividends in the long run.  It is important that the wider population be aware there is no cure for AIDS or HIV.  Some of the drugs and combination therapies will prolong life and ultimately we hope the level of investment will bring about a cure.  It is important that we do not become complacent and that we take note of these figures.  The figures are people, not just a statistic and a report, but people whose lives are affected as a consequence of the transmission of this disease.  It is important that we acknowledge this is an illness that has repercussions on the quality of life for people.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.519" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000056#DDD00300"><p>To reiterate, I agree wholeheartedly with the points made by Deputy Buttimer, specifically his point that 52% of those concerned are from the heterosexual community.  We must bear that in mind in determining strategies.</p><p>  I am not aware of the membership of the high level group affected but I hope it is reflective of all communities.  To reinforce the point made by Deputy Buttimer, there is a very strong role for NGOs to play in the health promotion agenda and in making progress on this issue.  I acknowledge the points made.</p><p>  There is a role for this House, too, to be proactive in this area through the health committee and by whatever means possible.  This is something that affects all of us.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.520" nospeaker="true" time="19:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000056#DDD00350">Anti-Social Behaviour</minor-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.521" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1020" speakername="Tommy Broughan" time="19:15:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000056#DDD00400"><p>Most people agree that the winter of 2012-13 was one of the most miserable, wet and cold in living memory.  For that reason, about four weeks ago, when bright sunny weather finally arrived, most citizens and families did their best to enjoy the wonderful outdoor facilities with which our country is blessed.  For many families in my constituency of Dublin Bay North, that meant flocking to Clontarf, Dollymount, Sutton, Howth and Portmarnock.</p><p>  Unfortunately, in recent years, serious concerns have been expressed by my Portmarnock and Howth constituents about the misuse of alcohol and anti­social behaviour by a small minority of visitors on a number of brilliant sunny days.  This spoiled the enjoyment of most visitors and created threatening and unpleasant situations for both the visitors and residents of Portmarnock and Howth.  Some three years ago, for example, there were disturbing scenes on Balscadden Beach in Howth on a beautiful sunny Sunday.  Last year, during the June bank holiday weekend, I heard at first hand the concerns of Portmarnock residents when a small section of the 30,000, perhaps even 40,000, visitors to Portmarnock's famous Velvet Strand brought large quantities of alcohol onto the strand and created a threatening and dangerous situation.</p><p>  In the current welcome spell of good weather there have been further episodes of bad behaviour in both locations.  On Thursday 30 May, a large gathering of young people, apparently organised via Facebook and Twitter, descended on the Velvet Strand.  Unfortunately, some of these visitors consumed alcohol and behaved in a manner which upset both the families visiting the beach and Portmarnock residents.  On the days leading up to and on Saturday, 8 June, a similar phenomenon occurred at Howth Harbour and environs.  I witnessed a vast crowd of young people on the West Pier in Howth on the Saturday evening, with a strong force of garda&iacute; deployed to protect visiting families, children and local residents.  Marine leisure enthusiasts, small boat owners and parents of young families enjoying Howth Harbour on that and previous evenings told me how threatened and upset they felt.  Although young people are very welcome to enjoy the coastal facilities, they may not realise how intimidating for parents and children enjoying the seaside is the sudden appearance and concentration of hundreds and even thousands of young people in a small location.</p><p>  I warmly commend our local Garda superintendents, Ronan Galligan in Portmarnock and Joe O'Connor in Howth, and Chief Superintendent Frank Clerkin of the Garda North Division on their dedicated, painstaking and intelligent approach to protecting residents and visitors and for addressing the serious problems I have outlined.  The Fingal joint policing committee, of which I am a member, has also discussed the issue and local policing plans have been deployed in the past few years.</p><p>  An Garda S&iacute;och&aacute;na, Fingal County Council, Dublin Bus and Irish Rail, public representatives, residents and business associations of Howth and Portmarnock need to liaise closely to ensure there is no repetition of anti-social behaviour later this summer or in any future year.  There is a particular responsibility on the grocery and drinks industry to prevent vast quantities of alcohol being brought to coastal locations.  At meeting after meeting with constituents, bitter complaints are made about the irresponsibility of some multiple supermarkets, off-licences and garages in selling large quantities of alcohol to young people.  Garda&iacute; have reported that significant seizures of alcohol were made at strategic Garda checkpoints along the entrances to Portmarnock Beach on 30 May. </p><p>  It is clear that we need to strengthen sale of alcohol legislation to include full product identification of retailers and a strict sanctioned code of conduct for sales to young people during festivals or good weather weekends.  Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council might also look at what additional food and light beverage facilities can be developed in the coastal areas.  Although social media provide wonderful means of communication, they must also be aware of their responsibilities in keeping young people safe when they get together in vast numbers in such locations.</p><p>  In spite of the Minister of State's references to the forthcoming budget, which keep us in apprehension and fear, the last three or four weeks of good weather have cheered up the country.  The great majority of citizens have enjoyed the weather in a happy and responsible relaxing manner at locations such as Portmarnock and Howth.  Unfortunately, through anti-social and threatening behaviour, a small minority has spoiled this for them.  I ask the Minister for Justice and Equality and other Ministers to ensure there is no recurrence.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.522" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000057#EEE00100"><p>I am taking this matter on behalf of the Minister for Justice and Equality, who is attending an engagement in Brussels in his capacity as Minister for Defence.  I thank Deputy Broughan for raising a matter of significant public importance.</p><p>  Extended periods of good weather are no excuse for the type of anti-social behaviour referred to by Deputy.  The Minister has been informed by the Garda Commissioner that sufficient Garda resources were available and deployed to deal with all the incidents arising.  The House will be aware that the Commissioner is responsible for the detailed allocation of resources, including personnel and transport, throughout the organisation and the Minister has no direct function in this.  Allocation of resources is constantly monitored by the Commissioner and his senior management in the context of demographics, crime trends, policing needs and other operational strategies on a district, divisional and regional level to ensure optimal use of Garda resources.</p><p>  A regional operation plan called Operation Irene has commenced in the Dublin metropolitan region incorporating a range of policing actions to be implemented at identified hot spots, such as public parks, laneways and other open spaces, which may experience an upsurge in anti-social behaviour associated with alcohol consumption with the advent of milder weather, longer evenings and school holidays.  The operation commenced on 1 June 2013 and will continue until 31 August 2013.  Specifically in regard to the incidents at Howth and Portmarnock, garda&iacute; established checkpoints to identify persons bringing alcohol into the areas in question.  A number of arrests were made and significant quantities of alcohol were seized.  There was close co-operation with local businesses and in one instance a store owner agreed to remove alcohol from sale, which is be commended.</p><p>  A range of strong legislative provisions is available to the Garda to combat anti-social behaviour.  The Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 2003 provides garda&iacute; with powers to deal with anti-social conduct attributable to excessive drinking, including exclusion orders in respect of premises and closure orders for licensed premises and catering outlets following anti-social behaviour related offences.  The Intoxicating Liquor Act 2008 provides for the seizure of alcohol in the possession of a person under the age of 18 which a garda suspects is for consumption in a public place.  Garda&iacute; may also seize alcohol to forestall public disorder or damage to property.  Fixed charge notices may be issued for the offences of intoxication in a public place or disorderly conduct in a public place.  This option has the benefit of a more efficient use of Garda and court resources, while also allowing an offender who complies with the notice to avoid a possible criminal record.  While the Minster is satisfied that sufficient legislative powers are in place to deal with these issues, he will keep the matter under close review in consultation with the Commissioner.</p><p>  Garda management is satisfied that a full and comprehensive policing service is being delivered to the communities in the area concerned and that current structures in place meet the requirements of the delivery of an effective and efficient policing service.  The Minister is determined that Garda resources will be used in the best, most effective and efficient manner.  He remains confident that the primary Garda objective of combating crime will continue to be achieved and that notwithstanding the pressure on the public finances it will be possible for the force to operate to the optimum benefit of our communities in a manner that will facilitate the prevention and detection of offences.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.523" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1020" speakername="Tommy Broughan" time="19:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000057#EEE00200"><p>The Minister of State has indicated that adequate resources are provided but the Fingal coastline is unique in that it contains several major beach and harbour resorts in close proximity to heavily populated areas.  Social media is a new factor in that an invitation can be sent to significant numbers of people to congregate in a particular place.  Garda resources need to be strengthened in light of these factors.</p><p>  When is it intended to bring forward further legislation on the misselling of alcohol?  Will the Government bite the bullet on minimum pricing, as has been done in Scotland and when will quantity discounts be banned?  Finally, will the issue of sponsorship of sports by drinks companies be addressed given that such sponsorship is mainly targeted at young people?</p><p>  I ask the Minister of State to raise with the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy Alan Kelly, the concerns expressed about Dublin Bus and Irish Rail by Portmarnock Community Council and others, which have asked why it is not possible to prevent people from transporting large quantities of alcohol on buses and trains.</p><p>  I would also expect Fingal County Council to arrange meetings to plan for the remainder of what I hope will be a sunny summer.  My colleagues on the council, Cian O'Callaghan and Judy Dunne, are prominent in this regard.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.524" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000057#EEE00300"><p>To be frank and honest with the Deputy, as I am not the line Minister I am not in a position to answer his specific questions about legislation on minimum pricing and transport.  I will, however, refer his questions to the relevant Ministers.</p><p>  The Portmarnock and Howth areas are patrolled from Malahide and Howth Garda station.  Malahide Garda station is in the Coolock Garda district, while Howth Garda station is in the Raheny district.  These districts in turn form part of the Dublin metropolitan region north Garda division, the personnel strength of which was 733 on 30 April 2013.  The personnel strength of Raheny and Coolock districts on 30 April were 176 and 221, respectively.  The personnel strength of Malahide and Howth Garda stations were 36 and 40, respectively, on 30 April.  While Malahide Garda station is not open on a 24-hour basis, this does not in any way diminish the policing service to the area in question because it frees up garda&iacute; for operational policing.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.525" nospeaker="true" time="19:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000057#EEE00350">Special Educational Needs Expenditure</minor-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.526" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1107" speakername="Stephen Donnelly" time="19:25:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000057#EEE00400"><p>Yesterday the National Council for Special Education announced a cut of 10% in support hours for children with special needs.  This brings the total in cuts per child to 25% since 2010.  The INTO has argued that the cuts are even worse than this figure suggests because the Department of Education and Skills and the council are hiding the true extent of cuts from parents.  The needs of these children have not decreased by 25%.  Some time ago, when we were trying to reverse the cuts to special needs assistants, I met a parent in Leinster House who told me that an official from whom she was trying to get support asked her if the child was still autistic.</p><p>  In County Wicklow, nearly 400 hours will be cut at primary and post-primary level.  The figures on the level of need in County Wicklow are not available.</p><p>We know that need is growing by 10% per annum nationally, and I have no reason to believe the position is different in County Wicklow.</p><p> I know as well as any Deputy that money is tight.  However, public money is being put to a variety of uses.  For example, hundreds of millions of euro have been used to meet the cost of pay increments in the public sector over the same period and the Health Service Executive is buying drugs at several times the price being paid by the British National Health Service.  It is not acceptable to force children with special needs to pay for the sins of politicians and bankers.  I call on the Government, specifically the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruair&iacute; Quinn, to immediately announce that the budget will be scaled up to ensure resource hours are not cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.528" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="19:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000058#FFF00200"><p>I mean no offence to the Minister of State in pointing out that I submitted this matter with a view to having the Minister for Education and Skills come before the House to discuss it.  His failure to do so highlights the need for D&aacute;il reform.</p><p>  As Deputy Donnelly pointed out, support hours for children with special educational needs are about to be cut again, this time by 10%.  With an additional 4,100 children who need resources about to start school, the Government has indicated it will not fund the additional resources they require and will instead maintain spending on special educational needs at current levels.  This decision will mean that a child who would have received five hours' support from a special needs assistant in 2010 will receive only 3 hours and 45 minutes of SNA support from next September onwards.</p><p>  This savage, sickening and unacceptable cut has been condemned across the board, including by the INTO, the joint managerial body which represents secondary schools and Down Syndrome Ireland.  It is being made at a time when backbench Deputies are recommending giving children with Down's syndrome access to special needs assistants.  The Minister must announce in the next day or two that he intends to reverse the cut.  This must not be done at the expense of other services, as occurred when maintenance grants were cut to fund the cost of reversing cuts to DEIS schools.  The Government must provide the additional moneys required to fund special needs education for children. </p><p>  At Stewarts hospital, resources will not be provided for children moving into adult services because the HSE refuses to fund education for 18 year olds.  This is another case of people being refused the support they need.  The authorities are aware that the young people in question have been in the system for the past 18 years, yet they are refusing to provide sufficient resources to allow them to move into adult services.  The position is disgraceful.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.529" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/956" speakername="Mick Wallace" time="19:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000058#FFF00300"><p>I have been contacted by parents of children attending Scoil Mhuire in Wexford who are shocked and saddened by the decision to cut the school's allocation of special needs assistants by 2.5 full-time positions, which follows a cut of six SNAs a couple of years ago.  This is the tenth anniversary of the establishment of the ASD unit in Scoil Mhuire.  At that time, the Department agreed to provide one-to-one SNA support for each child enrolled with a diagnosis of autism.  The ASD unit at Scoil Mhuire became the most successful unit of its kind in the country and one of the most successful in Europe.  It succeeded in integrating 57% of its pupils into full-time mainstream classes in a period when the national average was 19%.</p><p>  In 2011, the National Council for Special Education, following a review of the allocation of special needs assistants to the unit, axed six SNA positions, citing as the reason that pupils were presenting with diminished care needs.  The parents of the children in the unit did not agree with the NCSE's assessment but were denied a right of appeal.  Two years later, and for the first time since the unit was opened, while some children are partially integrated into mainstream classes, not one child will move from the ASD unit into a mainstream class this September.  Effectively, therefore, full-time integration has declined from 57% to 0% in two years.</p><p>  Parents have nothing but praise for staff in Scoil Mhuire who have done everything possible to make the system work.  The challenges facing them, however, are unbearable.  Children who are partially integrated may not be in a position to continue with partial integration because the latest cut of 2.5 SNAs will make it impossible for the few remaining special needs assistants to leave the ASD unit to support the children in question.  The ASD unit was attached to Scoil Mhuire for the specific purpose of enabling children with autism to enter mainstream classes.  Its sole purpose has been all but removed.  Denying a child access to an education is one of the forms of abuse specified in the Government's Children First guidelines.  The absence of SNA support will mean that education will no longer be available for some children.  It would be hard to make this up.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.530" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:35:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000058#FFF00400"><p>I thank the Deputies for raising this issue as it gives me an opportunity to clarify the position on behalf of the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Ruair&iacute; Quinn.  While I acknowledge the point made by Deputy Joan Collins regarding the presence of the senior Minister, it should be noted that I am a Minister of State at the Department of Education and Skills.</p><p>  The Government has maintained the &euro;1.3 billion of annual funding for additional teaching resources and special needs assistants, SNAs, to support children with special educational needs at a time when there is a requirement to make expenditure savings across a range of areas.  As the T&aacute;naiste outlined to the House this morning, two out of every five adults working in our schools are solely dedicated to catering for the needs of children with special educational needs.  We have no doubt about the value of the service that these staff provide and the value children and their parents derive from it.  However, we are not in a position to dramatically increase the number of special needs assistants or any other service for reasons of which everyone is aware.</p><p>  No one can doubt the Government's commitment to special education.  We have maintained the number of resource teachers and special needs assistants in the system since coming into office, despite enormous budgetary pressures in education and every other front-line service.  That said, as a public representative, I am acutely aware of the concerns that have been expressed by parents and teachers in the media in the last 48 hours.  We need to be clear in all debates, both in this House and elsewhere, about what these changes mean to ensure we avoid creating any unnecessary distress or alarm.</p><p>  The provision for SNA support for the next school year will remain at exactly the same level as the provision for the current school year.  In its announcement the National Council for Special Education pointed to an increase in demand for resource teaching posts of the order of slightly more than 10%.  Deputies will be aware that children with learning support and special educational needs are supported through learning support provision and NCSE-allocated resource teachers.  In primary schools, learning support is provided through the general allocation model and similar direct provision is made in post-primary schools.  These supports have been maintained for this year.</p><p>  The year-on-year growth in the overall student population is approximately 1.3%.  This year, the demand for additional resource teachers from the NCSE has grown by more than 10%.  While the NCSE is not yet in a position to provide a clear analysis of the underlying reasons for the very large increase in demand this year, it is clear that some of this increased demand arises from the migration of students from learning support provision to NCSE-allocated resource teacher support.  This has created a significant additional pressure on the resources available to the NCSE.  However, it should also have reduced, by equal measure, the pressure on the learning support resources already allocated to schools.</p><p>  Schools are encouraged to make maximum use of their resource and learning support teaching allocations through appropriate grouping and pairing of children, as appropriate, to ensure children do not lose out on teaching time.  This is a vital point for parents to hear because an increase in the use of more collaborative, team-based approaches to teaching can help ensure that no child will face a significant reduction in the amount of time spent with his or her resource teacher.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.531" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1107" speakername="Stephen Donnelly" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00100"><p>I know the Minister of State did not make this decision, but it is very difficult to speak calmly and with parliamentary language about what is happening in the country.  Listening to what the Minister of State said, one would not know anything was wrong.  He said the Government was maintaining funding.  Let us at least do the children and their parents the decency of being honest about this - it is a cut.  For the children with special needs and their parents, it is a cut of 25%, and for the other children, who are in a class where there is a child with special needs, and their parents it is a cut of 25%.</p><p>  The social welfare bill goes up and down as people sign on and go back to work.  If the Government reduced the total amount of social welfare support by half because twice the number of people signed on, it would be a cut.  I do not believe this cut is necessary.  I believe the money could be found elsewhere.  I see other places which are less deserving of support than children with special needs and their parents.  Let us find the money and let us please at least acknowledge what is happening to these children and their parents, and call it what it is - per child it is a cut.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.532" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00200"><p>I agree with Deputy Donnelly.  It is very hard for me to hold my temper when I hear the calculated response from the Government the Minister of State represents in trying to play a three-card trick and claim there is not a cut.  One of today's newspapers highlighted the case of the Sacred Heart senior national school in Killinarden in Tallaght which applied for 90 resource teaching hours for September but has been given only 63 hours - the same as this year - despite having four more pupils with this entitlement.  This year the school has seven special needs assistants, SNAs, which will be cut next year to six even though there are more pupils with an entitlement.  That is plainly a cut.  The Minister of State cannot dress it up as anything else.</p><p>  I received an e-mail from Liscarroll national school in County Cork.  One particular student because of his needs attends school solely for his resource hours times which were already cut this year.  This student will now require to stay at home even longer because of the cuts imposed.  I hope the Labour backbench Deputies will stand up for the rights of these children as much as they are standing up for the rights of the Seanad next door that should be put in the dustbin of history.  The same set of Deputies are not backing what is needed desperately to support these young children and their parents.  It is scandalous to see this happening and we see no outcry from those backbenchers who are supposed to be defending children's rights.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.533" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/956" speakername="Mick Wallace" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00300"><p>The parents who rang me today found it difficult to listen to the T&aacute;naiste as he played with words this morning because it just did not come across well.  We know that SNA support has been very costly and still is.  However, it is something that Ireland can be proud of because it sent out a signal that we were a caring society and prioritised those who most needed our help.  Are we as caring a society today as we were a few years ago?  The manner in which we are organising our society is beginning to leave much to be desired.  Things could be different.  We set priorities and make choices.  We are cutting resources from people who most need our help and it is not fair.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.534" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00400"><p>I wish to reiterate two points.  The year-on-year growth in the overall student population is 1.3% and the demand for additional teaching resources from the NCSE has grown by 10%.  If we are to be serious about this issue, we must interpret that dynamic, which has not yet been done.  The NCSE is not yet in a position to provide a clear analysis of the underlying reasons for the large increase in demand this year.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.535" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00500"><p>These are people at the coalface.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.536" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00600"><p>There is no overall reduction in resource teacher numbers for the coming school year.  The number of posts available to the National Council for Special Education for allocation is 5,265, which is the same as last year.  We must ensure we provide the service.  That 5,265 is in addition to the 4,450 learning support teachers provided to all schools to support children with less complex learning needs, giving a total of 9,950 teachers for children with special educational needs.  We need to hear from the NCSE as to why there is an increase in the overall population of 1.3% and the correlation between that and the massive increase in demand.  That needs to be interpreted in some way.</p><p>  We must also ensure we get the best possible use of the &euro;1.3 billion spent annually to support children with special educational needs.  That is why we asked the NCSE last year to provide the policy advice on how students with special educational needs should be supported in future.  One of the recommendations made by the NCSE in its policy advice is that a new model should be developed for the allocation of additional teaching resources to mainstream schools based on the profiled need of each school.  On foot of this advice, the Minister asked the NCSE to proceed immediately to establish a working group to develop a proposal for consideration of a revised allocation mechanism as set out in the principal recommendation of the report.  The aim of this new mechanism will be to ensure all learning support and resource teacher posts are allocated to schools in line with the schools' educational profile and need for such support rather than using other mechanisms such as the number of students in a school or the number of class teachers in a school.</p><p>  We are conscious there are challenges, and in making any changes to our supports for children with special educational needs, we also need to protect the gains we have made.  Based on the allocation of resources from 1993 to now, there has been a massive increase in the level of support by the State for this area.  I wish to give assurance that consultation will be a key aspect in the implementation of any of the recommendations.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.537" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1032" speakername="Joan Collins" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00700"><p>I have never heard anything so callous in my life.  The Minister should talk and listen to the people on the coalface in secondary and primary schools, and not the NCSE.</p></speech>
    <minor-heading id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.538" nospeaker="true" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00750">Decline in Town Centres</minor-heading>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.539" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="19:45:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000059#GGG00800"><p>I take it the Minister of State, Deputy Sherlock, has drawn the short straw as he is responding to all the Topical Issues this evening.  With no disrespect to him - he is a Minister of State I admire and he has been obliging to me in the past and is very approachable - this is disgraceful on a day when we talk about political reform.  The Government promised that the Topical Issues Debate would be taken earlier in the day and would be answered by the Minister responsible for the issue raised.</p><p>  Having said that, I welcome the opportunity to put on the record of the House the crisis facing many of our towns.  Every day businesses are closing down.  I see the Minister of State nodding in agreement because I am sure it is happening in his constituency as it is happening in mine.  Less money is in circulation and yet business costs are increasing as opposed to decreasing.</p><p>The Government is doing absolutely nothing to address this.  Businesses believe, rightly, that this Government is not doing anything to help them.  Prior to the last general election, the Minister of State's party made a great play by saying it would abolish upward-only rent reviews.  The Labour Party has reneged on this.  It is a major issue for many in the retail sector.</p><p> There is a major issue with commercial rates and the method of calculating commercial rates is archaic and outdated.  It needs to be addressed now.  I have spoken to people in businesses in Mullingar, Athlone and Longford.  They all tell me that this is one of their biggest overheads, an overhead that is totally and utterly controlled by the State.  Energy costs have risen significantly.  There have been double-digit increases in recent years in this area and the Government has allowed the Commission for Energy Regulation to pass on those increases to businesses.</p><p> I have been contacted by people in several businesses who are at their wits' end.  They are not getting any support from the State or from the banks.  These are men and women who have invested their time, money and many of their own resources to create jobs in our towns, but they are not being supported.  The Government introduced the Living City Initiative for the city of Limerick only.  Will the Government consider expanding that in order that businesses in all towns will be able to benefit if they reinvest in the community?</p><p> The Minister of State may not be able to answer my next question.  Where do Mullingar, Athlone and Mullingar stand in respect of the national spatial strategy?  It was announced that the Government was reviewing the national spatial strategy but businesses in those areas are unsure when the review will be completed and what the outcome will be.</p><p> Longford town has been totally forgotten by this Government.  It has had no IDA visits in the past two years.  Despite the lack of support from the State, the local authority, local businesses and the local chamber of commerce are doing their best.  They are running a project, supported by Leader programme, as part of which last year they renovated 48 derelict buildings and unoccupied shops to ensure that the physical appearance of the town was kept well.  This year, the project had a further 37 premises to work on, but what has happened?  The Leader project funding that they had been reliant on has been cut.  The Leader programme was a great support for the town, supporting market days and such initiatives.</p><p> What is the Government going to do?  I acknowledge that the Government has had success in the foreign direct investment area and in attracting multinationals to the country.  However, for the past two and half years the Government has taken its eye off the ball in respect of small and medium-sized businesses, indigenous firms and family businesses on the streets of every town throughout the country.  What is the Government is going to do?  The Government must prioritise investment and support job creation in this vital sector.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.541" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="19:55:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000060#HHH00200"><p>I am rather disappointed because I thought there might be some imaginative ideas from the Deputy opposite in respect of discussing the actions the Government is taking to address the decline of town centres throughout the country.  The Deputy referred to towns within his constituency which are probably similar in character to those in my constituency.  I have analysed the situation in the towns I familiar with.  During the boom years section 23 investments prevailed and in some instances one could argue these were put together by the party opposite.  Now, there is a lack of occupancy in many of the buildings and there are empty storefronts throughout the country as a result of those taxation policies and the ill-informed Government policies of the past.  They have led us to the point where many of our towns throughout the country have been hollowed out.  If we are to have a reasonable and rational debate on this issue we should not start from the premise that economic history or the decline started only two years ago.  We need to go back to 2007 and 2008 onwards in order to figure out where towns are now.</p><p>  I will give the response that I have been given on the rates issue.  The action programme proposes rates harmonisation to cater for differences between annual rates on valuation of towns and counties.  The approach of the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government to rates harmonisation seeks to ensure that, on the one hand, harmonisation does not lead to significant net loss of revenue in individual counties with consequential implications for services, and, on the other, increases in rates do not impact negatively on business and employment.  In this regard local authorities have already been asked by the Department by way of circular to exercise restraint, and, where possible, reduce commercial rates in 2013.  In fairness to many local authorities, this is what they have done or they have maintained rates at pre-existing levels.</p><p>  There are several issues.  Why have town centres declined?  There significant property rights in this country such that it is very difficult for a town council or a local authority to intervene where a building is not occupied or where it is falling into decline.  The property rights of the owner seem to take precedence over the wider social responsibility in respect of the upkeep of the premises.  That is one challenge for local authorities in terms of attracting new activity to the main street.  There is also the fact that in any town throughout Ireland at the moment there is an increasing number of courier vans delivering goods that have been purchased online.  This is having a serious impact in terms of high street retail sales as well.  One need only discuss the matter with one's peers, friends and family to get a sense of how much activity is being driven online nowadays.</p><p>  The Deputy made a point about IDA visits.  I have no specific knowledge in respect of IDA visits in the areas he referred to but I know from my experience in my region that there have been significant IDA visits.  However, often the decision is made by the relevant person, business or company that they wish to locate to larger conurbations because of the particular type of business that is coming into Ireland at the moment, especially in the information and communications technology sector.  In this sector, younger companies and younger people are looking to move to clusters around larger conurbations because it is deemed to be more attractive than locating to more regional towns such as my town of Mallow.  That is a major challenge as well.</p><p>  Domestic demand has flat-lined.  Therefore, to say that the Government is at fault for the flat-lining of domestic demand makes no sense.  The Government, in fairness, is trying to create the jobs and replenish the jobs that were lost.  A total of 250,000 jobs were lost between 2008 and 2011.  Nobody can convince me that if one puts all one's eggs in the construction basket and if that fails, then it would not have a detrimental effect on retail or the shape of towns and retail businesses within towns.  We must create the jobs to create domestic demand and we are making a good fist of it although it is taking time.</p><p>We must be more imaginative in terms of how the planning guidelines, which were issued recently, will impact.  We must ensure, as per the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, that the planning system plays a key role in supporting competitiveness in the retail sector in order that there is an advancing choice for the consumer while promoting and supporting the vitality and viability of city and town centres and contributing to a high standard of urban design.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.543" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1010" speakername="Joanna Tuffy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00200"><p>The Minister of State is over time.  Could he quickly complete his response?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.544" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00300"><p>The objective of the guidelines in the manual is to provide a clear framework for the continued development of the retail sector in a way that provides certainty for retailers and communities by strengthening national planning policy requirements for all planning authorities.  The remainder of the response will be available to the Deputy.  I will respond to Deputy Troy&rsquo;s supplementary questions.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.545" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00400"><p>I thank the Minister of State for his reply.  As is the current theme of the Government, it is a hands-off approach.  It is not the Government's fault; it is someone else's fault.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.546" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00500"><p>What ideas does Deputy Troy have?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.547" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00600"><p>The Minister of State should allow me to speak for my two minutes.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.548" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00700"><p>I will stay here for a while.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.549" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00800"><p>I thank the Minister of State.  I have acknowledged that there is less money in circulation and a reduction in domestic demand, but I also asked the Minister to acknowledge the State&rsquo;s responsibility and the costs the State can control such as rates.  The payment of rates should be based on a business&rsquo;s ability to pay according to profits made not on an archaic basis such as the size of a premises.  It was a core commitment of the Labour Party before the general election to deal with upward-only rent reviews but that did not happen.  Energy costs have been allowed to increase, not just in the past two years but prior to that also.  It should not be allowed.  They are the three major costs associated with doing business in this country.</p><p> I asked about the spatial strategy for Athlone, Tullamore and Mullingar but I do not expect the Minister of State to respond today.  He might refer the matter to the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O&rsquo;Sullivan.  I also inquired whether it would be possible to roll out the living city initiative that has been introduced in Limerick to larger towns throughout the country.  I further inquired about the detrimental effect cuts to Leader funding is having on businesses and chambers of commerce that are trying to do their best for businesses in towns.</p><p>  The Minister of State asked what constructive proposals Fianna F&aacute;il had made.  We launched a document called Streets Ahead, which is a new vision for keeping Inish towns alive.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.550" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ00900"><p>When was that?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.551" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01000"><p>It was launched four or five weeks ago by our party spokesperson on the environment, Deputy Barry Cowen.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.552" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01100"><p>How long was Fianna F&aacute;il in government?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.553" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01200"><p>The Minister of State asked me for suggestions and I am giving him some.  I was not in government.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.554" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01300"><p>Can Deputy Troy not understand the cynicism on this side of the House when we hear proposals of that nature?</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.555" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1065" speakername="Robert Troy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01400"><p>The Minister of State is in government now.  Businesses are suffering.  The Minister of State sought proposals and I am making them.  First, the Government must review and amend how valuations and rates are charged.  If, according to the advice of the Attorney General, it is necessary to introduce a constitutional amendment to bring about the abolition of upward-only rent reviews then the Government should do so.</p><p>  The Government must change the parking charges structure to encourage people into town centres.  It must look at the building usage strategy and develop an initiative to encourage people to take on empty shops.  We must change the planning laws to encourage town centre development.  That should be done.</p><p>  We were fortunate that the town of Mullingar did not allow large shopping centres on the outskirts of the town because when that happened it had a detrimental effect on town centres.  I acknowledge that mistakes were made but two wrongs do not make a right.  We must learn from the mistakes and support businesses which find the situation difficult.  Family businesses that are providing employment for up to ten people must be supported.  The biggest costs such businesses are facing at the moment are costs that are controlled by the Government, namely, rates, upward-only rent reviews and energy costs.  All I ask is that those matters would be given the priority they deserve in the coming months because the people affected deserve support.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.556" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01500"><p>The memorandum of understanding, MOU, signed by the troika introduced the property tax.  Fianna F&aacute;il negotiated agreement with the troika, which is a sovereign agreement.  I do not know the Deputy&rsquo;s position on the property tax but it should be a significant revenue stream for local authorities and should redress the balance in terms of the burden over many decades that has been placed on businesses in regard to the annual rate of valuation.  It will be an opportunity, for instance, for councillors of the Deputy&rsquo;s party to have a clear policy document and prerogative on how it would be implemented at municipal or local authority level.  I look forward to seeing some of those ideas within my own local authority, Cork County Council.</p><p>  The cost of parking is competitive in most towns around the country because there is good interaction between business and local authorities and many businesses are represented on local authorities.  The issue is how one regenerates towns.  I accept Deputy Troy&rsquo;s point about energy costs, rates and ability to pay but the singular issue relates to demand.  It will take some time to reverse the economic morass in which we find ourselves, such that we can create the jobs to ensure a sufficient level of retail demand.  The approach is demand led.  I acknowledge the points made about coming forward with ideas for empty shops but because of property rights the local authority cannot force specific types of retail activity into specific areas.  It is a difficult thing to do.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.557" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/1010" speakername="Joanna Tuffy" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01600"><p>I must ask the Minister of State-----</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.558" speakerid="com.kildarestreet/member/979" speakername="Se&aacute;n Sherlock" time="20:05:00" url="http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2013062000061#JJJ01700"><p>I beg your indulgence, Acting Chairman.  We saw the demise of development contributions which were a major source of income for local authorities during the boom years.  Cork County Council spent wisely on building up social infrastructure but the funding has practically disappeared.  I agree that one can no longer rely on rate payers &ndash; businesspeople &ndash; to fund local government.  That is why I look forward to Fianna F&aacute;il members of local authorities supporting and striking the new rate on the property tax when the time comes in terms of the deviation that is allowable in the legislation to support the type of activity to which Deputy Troy refers.</p></speech>
    <speech id="com.kildarestreet/dail/2013-06-20a.559" nospeaker="true" time="20:05:00" ><p>The D&aacute;il adjourned at 8.20 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Tuesday, 25 June 2013.</p></speech>
</publicwhip>