D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann

Deputy James Bannon: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of local and national importance; namely, the shocking state of the health services. This week a 91-year-old woman was left for nine hours on a trolley at Midland Regional Hospital Mullingar, County Westmeath——

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Shame on the Government.

Deputy James Bannon: ——and an 11-year-old boy was put in a life-threatening position by being forced to travel to Portlaoise hospital due to the lack of an anaesthetist at Mullingar hospital, with his appendix almost bursting on the journey. This is despite the Minister’s claim that there have been no cutbacks in services at Mullingar hospital. Such claims are par for the course for Ministers, but no amount of spin can hide the fact that the Government has failed Longford-Westmeath again.

[358]Deputy James Bannon: Despite assurances of assistance, B3 Cables in Longford is to close today with the loss of 100 jobs, which the Government failed to secure, with the company’s business going to Sweden, Spain and Germany.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: Good on Deputy Bannon.

Deputy James Bannon: It is a massive body blow for the already hard-hit midlands. Shame on the Tánaiste, the Minister and the Government for the manner in which they acted in this situation and in their delivery of health services for the people of Longford and Westmeath.

Deputies: What about the Green Party?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please.

Deputy James Bannon: On six different occasions this week——

An Ceann Comhairle: There is an agreed way of dealing with matters raised under Standing Order 32, and the Deputy is outside the framework.

Deputy James Bannon: ——I have raised these matters under Standing Order 32. I also raised them as special notice questions——

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to resume his seat. There are five more Deputies who wish to raise matters.

Deputy James Bannon: ——but the Ceann Comhairle failed to take them.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, resume your seat, please.

Deputy James Bannon: What forum do we have to deal with issues of concern to our constituents?

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Hear, hear.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: The Deputy should try Joe Duffy.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, there are so many other ways of raising these matters.

Deputy James Bannon: What forum do we have when the Ceann Comhairle refuses to hear these issues?

Deputy Noel Dempsey: He should write to the county council.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, resume your seat, please.

Deputy James Bannon: He is in cahoots with the Government.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, just resume your seat.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: They are in cahoots.

Deputy Michael Ring: There are the stags’ heads over there.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Finian McGrath.

[359]Deputy James Bannon: Where is the forum?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Bannon, resume your seat. I do not want to ask you to leave this morning.

Deputy James Bannon: Do I have a commitment that my special notice question will be taken today?

An Ceann Comhairle: Yes.

Deputy James Bannon: Is that a firm yes?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, just resume your seat.

Deputy James Bannon: Thank you.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy McGrath.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I am sorry; I could not hear the Ceann Comhairle above the noise.

I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to discuss an issue of national importance and concern, namely, the urgent need to support those who work in the taxi industry. I am concerned that in the legislation that created the Commission for Taxi Regulation, no facility was granted for an appeals procedure should drivers disagree with any decision taken by the commission, which since its inception has amassed €23 million in funds from the sale of licences, licence renewal fees and on-the-spot fines. I call on the Minister and the Government to support taxi drivers with common-sense policies, particularly at this difficult economic time.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: You must accept that for the Government backbenchers, a Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Ba mhaith liom an Dáil a chur ar athló faoi réir Buan Órdú 32 chun déileáil leis an ghné rí-thábhactach seo gur cóir a phlé sa Dáil: the urgent need for the Government to use the summer months to reflect on the grave damage it has done to the country and its people, as demonstrated by the growing numbers unemployed, the mortgage arrears crisis, the hugely disproportionate cuts to the community and voluntary sector, on which more and more people now depend, the slashing cuts and restrictions imposed on some of our most basic social welfare schemes, its steadfast refusal to tax the rich, and its lack of acknowledgement that it no longer has a mandate from the people to run the country, a fact that underpins its refusal to hold three by-elections which it now knows it could never win.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: And the tent as well.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil to discuss the following specific and important matter of public interest requiring urgent attention: the need to reopen the respite house at Clonile, Caherdavin, County Limerick, immediately in order to restore respite services to families in the mid-west who are caring for adults with intellectual disabilities and the need to resolve the issue in advance of the adjournment of the Dáil for the summer recess. I acknowledge that the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Moloney, came to the House around midnight last night and gave us the good news that the Galway services are safe until the end of this year. However, the Limerick service remains closed and we must have an announcement today that the service will reopen for those families.

[360]An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has done well.

Deputy Pádraic McCormack: It was people power that did it.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: The Ceann Comhairle told me before I had done well, but I will not have done well until that respite house reopens.

Deputy Michael D. Higgins: Well done.

Deputy Dan Neville: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to debate the following matter of urgent national importance: the fourth annual report of the independent monitoring group on A Vision for Change, the report of the expert group on mental health policy, which states that there was little substantial progress in 2009 in implementing the recommendations of the report, expresses frustration and confusion about the constantly changing management structures, and states that there is an absence of mental health leadership at a corporate level.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I seek the adjournment of the Dáil under Standing Order 32 to raise a matter of national importance, namely, to call on the Minister for Heath and Children — who is in the House — and on the Taoiseach to make an announcement before the House here today that the respite services for intellectually disabled adults at Clonisle, Caherdavin, Limerick, run by the Brothers of Charity, Bawnmore, will be reopened with immediate effect to provide the vital necessary respite services to the 63 individuals and families who have been put through three weeks of extreme hell and anxiety with the loss of this vital service, at a cost of just €150,000. I thank the Minister of State, Deputy John Moloney, for coming before the House last night. However, what we want is a commitment from the Government today that this respite service will be reopened. Elderly people came to Dublin yesterday about this issue. I would like to hear what the Minister for Health and Children has to say.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is embellishing the story.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: This is so important. What we want is for the Minister for Health and Children or the Minister with responsibility for disability to come before the House to say this service will be reopened. This is about real people’s lives. Yesterday, the Taoiseach was here talking about 130 people as if they did not exist.

An Ceann Comhairle: Will the Deputy please resume his seat?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Are we going to get a commitment today to have this respite service reopened? This is too important an issue to be passed over.

An Ceann Comhairle: The point is well made.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: The Government needs to take this issue seriously. We will not leave today until we have a response.

An Ceann Comhairle: Having considered the matters raised, they are not in order under Standing Order 32.

The Tánaiste: It is proposed to take No. a11, motion re membership of committees; No. 11, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the ratification by Ireland of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, back from committee; No. 11a, motion re referral [361]to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the borrowing agreement between Ireland and the International Monetary Fund; No. 11b, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the draft Commission of Investigation (Banking Sector) Order 2010; No. 11c, motion re referral to joint committee of macroeconomic policy lessons as set out in the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson, entitled A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis; No. 19, Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second and Remaining Stages (resumed); No. 20, Criminal Procedure Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Order for Report, Report and Final Stages; and No. 22, Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 [Seanad] — Second Stage (resumed).

It is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. tonight and business shall be interrupted on the conclusion of Question Time, which shall be taken for 75 minutes on the conclusion of No. 22, and in the event of a private notice question being allowed, it shall be taken after 45 minutes; and the order shall not resume thereafter; Nos. a11, 11 and 11a shall be decided without debate; Nos. 11b and 11c shall be debated together and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 1 hour ten minutes and the following arrangements shall apply: the speeches shall be confined to a Minister or Minister of State and to the main spokespersons for Fine Gael, the Labour Party and Sinn Féin, who shall be called upon in that order, who may share their time, and shall not exceed 15 minutes in each case, and a Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply which shall not exceed ten minutes; the following arrangements shall apply in relation to No. 19: the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion after 30 minutes, the proceedings on the Committee and Remaining Stages shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 4.10 p.m. today 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 the Environment, Heritage and Local Government; the Report and Final Stages of No. 20 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 6.10 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 Justice and Law Reform; the proceedings on the resumed Second Stage of No. 22 shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. tonight; and in the event a division is called, it shall be postponed until immediately after the Order of Business on Wednesday, 29 September 2010; and the Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 September 2010.

Deputy James Reilly: I must object.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, there are seven items to be put to the House and I will call the Deputy at the appropriate time.

Deputy James Reilly: I understand that, but may I just make one comment?

An Ceann Comhairle: At the appropriate time, please not at this time.

Deputy James Reilly: This is all strung together by a common theme, namely, that the Government wants to run away for three months while the rest of the country must face the reality of 452,000 people unemployed, people without respite for their loved ones for the whole of the summer and the rest of this year——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy may make his point later when we progress the items which I have to put to the House.

[362]Deputy James Reilly: ——bankers running amok pulling the wool over the eyes of the Minister for Finance.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, the Deputy is out of order.

Deputy James Reilly: Well, it is entirely out of order for the House to rise for three months in the face of an economic crisis and huge and unprecedented unemployment.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should allow the Chair to put the proposals to the House and then he can deal with them as we go along.

Is the proposal that the Dáil shall sit later than 4.45 p.m. tonight agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. a11, 11 and 11a, motions re membership of committees, proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the ratification by Ireland of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and referral to select committee of proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the terms of the borrowing agreement between Ireland and the International Monetary Fund, without debate, agreed to? Agreed.

Is the proposal for dealing with Nos. 11b and 11c, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the draft Commission of Investigation (Banking Sector) Order 2010 and referral to joint committee of macro-economic policy lessons as set out in the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson, entitled A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis, agreed to?

Deputy James Reilly: It is not agreed. Once again the guillotine is being applied to motions. Fine Gael intends to oppose every guillotine. Not alone that, the motion before us, the proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the draft commission of investigation very conveniently leaves out any hand, act or part of the Ministers or the Department of Finance in this. That is totally unacceptable to this side of the House. It is very clear now that the Minister for Finance had the wool pulled over his eyes. Plainly and simply, he was conned by the banks. It appears that the only people left now to pick up the tab are the taxpayers, who are decreasing in number daily as more and more people lose their jobs.

Deputy James Reilly: We need to see real action and a commitment from the Government side of the House that section 7 of the NAMA Act, which provides for jail terms of five years and fines of up to €5 million for an individual and €20 million for a bank who have been found to mislead NAMA and the Government, will be acted upon. Action must be taken. People must be held accountable and people must go to jail. That is what people want to see. People found guilty have committed an offence and must pay the penalty, or else this commission is just more window dressing by the Government.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Government proposal is for a commission of investigation, for which the Minister has set aside a budget of €1.8 million to be spent by the end of this year. That is a significant amount of money for an international expert who will come and tell us why the banks failed. That is important. The Government has accepted the extension of the terms of reference, as proposed by the Labour Party, to cover the period to 15 January. However, the commission of inquiry will not look at the role of the Taoiseach or of Ministers for Finance or the role of the current Taoiseach when he was Minister for Finance. They are all carefully excluded from the terms of reference of this investigation and of the other two investigations. There is to be a private benchmarking inquiry into the Department of Finance [363]and its failures and there is to be a Dáil committee to look at the macro-economic lessons we can learn.

An Ceann Comhairle: There is no permission for a debate at this time. We can have brief comments, but not a debate.

Deputy Joan Burton: No, this country is going to drown in inquiries, but that will not result in an extra euro of credit getting out to businesses in the country that are hanging on by their fingernails and letting employees go. This inquiry will take into account the actions of banks that have, clearly, lied to NAMA. The Government accepted those lies uncritically and told us the Irish banks were fine because stress testing showed they were fine. It is proposed that we deal with this matter in one hour and ten minutes and that the debate will be guillotined. That time will allow approximately only one person from each of the parties, including the Government, to speak briefly. In terms of parliamentary democracy, that is completely inadequate. The guillotine is not appropriate to this particular motion. It used to be the case that before the summer recess there would be a two to three-day Adjournment debate on the performance of the Government, the situation of the economy and the plight of the unemployed. This Government is running away from telling people how it proposes to recover the economy, rebuild the country and get people back to work.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: These proposals relate to motions, not legislation, and ordinarily we would understand in the circumstances of the last day of the session that they must be timeframed. However, the import of the motions cannot be addressed in an hour and ten minutes. That is an absolutely inadequate timeframe to address what is of huge importance. What is contained in all of this is absolutely at the core of everything that has gone wrong in terms of our economy and its impact on the daily living conditions of so many ordinary people the length and breadth of this State.

It is important to be balanced in one’s contribution on this. We welcome the extension of the period, up to January of last year, that the commission of inquiry will investigate; that is an important step forward. However, there are many other matters that must be addressed. While the joint committee will consider the matter, it should be also debated in plenary session. This Dáil Chamber needs to devote more time to this very important issue which, as I said, is at the core of all our economic difficulties. We oppose the time allotment in this case.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 69.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Andrews, Chris.
Aylward, Bobby.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Browne, John.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Connick, Seán.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Flynn, Beverley.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Hoctor, Máire.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.	Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.	Mansergh, Martin.
Martin, Micheál.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M.J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Donoghue, John.
O’Flynn, Noel.	O’Hanlon, Rory.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Edward.
O’Rourke, Mary.	O’Sullivan, Christy.
Power, Seán.	Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.	Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.	Wallace, Mary.
White, Mary Alexandra.	Woods, Michael.

Níl
Bannon, James.	Behan, Joe.
Breen, Pat.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.	Burke, Ulick.
Burton, Joan.	Byrne, Catherine.
Carey, Joe.	Clune, Deirdre.
Connaughton, Paul.	Coonan, Noel J.
Costello, Joe.	Coveney, Simon.
Crawford, Seymour.	Creed, Michael.
Creighton, Lucinda.	Deasy, John.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Feighan, Frank.
Ferris, Martin.	Flanagan, Charles.
Flanagan, Terence.	Gilmore, Eamon.
Hayes, Brian.	Hayes, Tom.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hogan, Phil.
Howlin, Brendan.	Kehoe, Paul.
Lynch, Ciarán.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McEntee, Shane.
McGinley, Dinny.	McGrath, Finian.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.	O’Donnell, Kieran.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Mahony, John.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
O’Sullivan, Maureen.	Penrose, Willie.
Perry, John.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Reilly, James.
Ring, Michael.	Sheahan, Tom.
Sheehan, P.J.	Sherlock, Seán.
Stagg, Emmet.	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Tuffy, Joanna.
Upton, Mary.	Varadkar, Leo.
Wall, Jack.

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

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 19 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with No. 20 agreed to?

[365]Deputy James Reilly: This is another Bill to be guillotined and this will not allow enough time for people to make a contribution. I realise the Minister for Justice and Law Reform is across the way. The amount of crime continuing in our country, including serious gun crime, has not been ameliorated by the statutes brought in to date.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: We need a proper and full debate on this matter. This side of the House has been opposed to guillotines. I realise we will come to the matter later but this House will rise for three months. Why not sit until the end of July and hold a proper debate on these issues?

Deputy Dermot Ahern: Dream on.

Deputy James Reilly: These issues are of serious concern to the people and to the many victims of crime in the country.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: The dogs are more important.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: I will help Deputy Ahern look up those trees.

An Ceann Comhairle: Can we have Deputy Ó Caoláin without interruption, please?

11 o’clock

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: To stand up on each of the individual tranches of legislation, namely, Nos. 19, 20 and 22, would be repetitious and inappropriate given the business we must address here today. I take this opportunity to indicate that we oppose the guillotine being imposed on each of these tranches of legislation, including No. 19, to which the Ceann Comhairle referred one moment ago and which had not been objected to at that time. For each of the three tranches of legislation, that is, the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill, the Criminal Procedure Bill and the Multi-Unit Developments Bill, the guillotines applied are inappropriate and unnecessary.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I have objected to the use of the guillotine throughout this week and last week. However, on this occasion I must acknowledge that the Government has acceded to a request from the Labour Party that the Multi-Unit Developments Bill would be passed on Second Stage before the summer recess to allow it to go on Committee Stage. This is legislation the Labour Party has sought for some considerable time. There are significant problems in various apartment blocks with the operation of management companies and their functioning and this area has been unregulated for a long period.

Some time ago we moved proposals and we pressed Government to introduce and pass legislation dealing with multi-unit developments, management companies and everything that goes with that. I acknowledge that the Government has included Second Stage of the Multi-Unit Developments Bill in today’s Order Paper, the conclusion of which will allow it to go on Committee Stage during recess. However, I very much regret that it will be three months before the Bill can come back into the House for Report and Final Stages and be enacted. That is something I will deal with when I contribute on proposal No. 7. I should acknowledge, in fairness, that the Government has acknowledged to the Labour Party that this Bill be taken today.

[366]Question put: “That the proposal for dealing with No. 20 be agreed to.”

The Dáil divided: Tá, 75; Níl, 70.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Andrews, Chris.
Aylward, Bobby.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Browne, John.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Connick, Seán.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Flynn, Beverley.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Hoctor, Máire.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.	Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Mattie.
McGrath, Michael.	McGuinness, John.
Mansergh, Martin.	Martin, Micheál.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.	Nolan, M.J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Hanlon, Rory.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Edward.	O’Rourke, Mary.
O’Sullivan, Christy.	Power, Seán.
Ryan, Eamon.	Sargent, Trevor.
Scanlon, Eamon.	Smith, Brendan.
Wallace, Mary.	White, Mary Alexandra.
Woods, Michael.

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

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

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal for dealing with No. 22 agreed to? Agreed. Is the proposal for the adjournment of the Dáil agreed to?

Deputy James Reilly: No. It is the Government’s intention to rise and not return until the final days of September.

Deputy Shane McEntee: It gave into RISE yesterday.

Deputy James Reilly: The Taoiseach let this slip yesterday. The Green Party has fully colluded in this. When its Members were on this side of the House, they were the most vociferous objectors to such proposals.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: It is not a revolution; it is a coalition.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: The Green Party is the stag’s head.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Reilly, without interruption. He should not take too long before I put the question to the House.

Deputy James Reilly: I will wait until the Ceann Comhairle restores order. I hope he will afford this side of the House the same protection he affords the Government.

Yesterday, we debated the imposition of prescription charges on the most vulnerable in the country, yet not a single member of the Government parties was present for the debate. Deputy Harney, an Independent, was the only Government representative present. People are outraged by this. That is an interesting point.

Deputies: That would be a first.

An Ceann Comhairle: I ask Members to restrain themselves because we have much business to transact.

Deputy Michael Ring: We should have a bit of order for God’s sake and a bit of respect.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please, Deputies, there is much work to be done.

[368]Deputy Michael Ring: We are not talking about stags and dogs now, we are talking about people. You have no understanding about people.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ring, please.

Deputy Michael Ring: You are worried about the stags and the dogs but you do not care about the people.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: You sold half of rural Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle: Allow Deputy Reilly to proceed without interruption.

Deputy Michael Ring: You have the stag’s head over there.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: You paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Ring, allow the Deputy to proceed.

Deputy Michael Ring: If they had their way, they would close it down until Christmas. Will we be back for Christmas Eve?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: We are talking about two weeks.

Deputy James Reilly: I am glad there is such mirth on the other side of the House. They obviously look forward to their break of three months. They do not have much time or regard for the 452,000 people who have no job and will get no respite or break from the mistakes of this Government. They do not have regard for the people who have no respite care for the summer or the rest of the year. Galway might have been given a reprieve but the people of Limerick, Dublin and elsewhere will get none. These are the people we are supposed to serve. However, this Government has become increasingly self-serving. We are facing an economic crisis with rising unemployment. If this House were a company, it would be laughed out of court for taking holidays at such a time. The people are outraged and aghast at what is happening. They cannot fathom how the House can be so detached from the realities of the lives of ordinary people.

We utterly oppose this recession, or should I say recess.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: This is what I call serendipity.

Deputy James Reilly: I certainly utterly oppose those who created the recession and continue to preside over the recession, and who preside over the amount of unemployment we have and the hardship they have inflicted on our people.

Deputy Michael Ring: They think it is funny.

Deputy James Reilly: They continue to protect bankers. Where is section 7 of the National Asset Management Agency Act? Will it be acted upon or is it just window dressing? Will people who misled the Government and the Minister for Finance go to jail if they are found guilty of such offences? That is what people want to see. They will then believe there is some fairness in this country. At present, there is no fairness.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should get back on track.

[369]Deputy James Reilly: We utterly oppose this long break. The Government shames us all by doing this.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: The proposal before us from the Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government is to close down the Dáil until 29 September.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke: That is a safer word.

Deputy Paul Kehoe: You are a fair woman to talk.

Deputy James Bannon: Puss in boots.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Gilmore without interruption.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: Even by the standards of this Government, closing down the Dáil until 29 September is exceptional. We must go back to 2003 to find a later date for the resumption of the Dáil that the Government is proposing for this year. Undoubtedly, when the Government uses its majority shortly to get this proposal passed, and it will be opposed by the Labour Party, it will inevitably be reported that the Deputies are taking holidays for three months. That misses the point. This is not about holidays, but about politics. The reason the Government is doing this is that it will have three months in which it will not run the risk of being defeated in a vote in this House. It will be three months of the period of time it is serving out its notice in which it will not be challenged or questioned in the House about any of its proposals.

The Government will have three months to carry out openings, launches, events and news management in the hope——

Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae: What about Puck Fair?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Gilmore without interruption.

Deputy Joan Burton: It would be a disaster if the Taoiseach opened it.

Deputy Jackie Healy-Rae: And Sam Maguire.

Deputy Shane McEntee: We will see about that, Jackie.

An Ceann Comhairle: Could we have some ciúnas?

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: If I were Deputy Healy-Rae, I would keep well clear of Killorglin in mid-August. I hear they do strange things to old bucks.

Deputy Conor Lenihan: You are the master of the hunt.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The stags will be back in Meath.

Deputy Martin Mansergh: Not according to the Labour Party.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The stags will be back in Meath.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy McEntee, stop engaging across the floor and allow the Deputy in possession to speak.

Deputy Noel Dempsey: The Labour Party has three months to develop policy.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I have a suggestion for the Government if it insists on a recess until 29 September. Will it reconvene the House for one day at the beginning of September to [370]introduce the Bill to hold the referendum on children as well as table a motion to move the writ for the three by-elections for the three vacancies in the House? We could at least use the month of September to put the referendum on children before the people, have it adopted and hold the three by-elections. The last time the writ was moved in the House the Government said it did not wish to interrupt Dáil business by holding the by-elections. It can now hold them in September if it reconvenes the House for one day at the beginning of that month to move the writ, as well as introduce the Bill to hold the referendum on children. These could be held at the end of September and, at least, have some political business carried out in September if the Government insists that the Dáil cannot be back in session until 29 September. The Labour Party is absolutely opposed to the proposal that the Dáil be closed down until 29 September.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: We do not agree to a recess until 29 September. This is, of course, almost a ritual on the last sitting day of each pre-summer term. From our point of view the date the Dáil will reconvene is not an issue. This is not about a recess. We do not want the Government back, but a dissolution of this Dáil. The problem is not the length of time the Dáil will go into recess for the summer, but the Government that holds office over the State. That it would not return is the best answer we could get today. It should agree to a dissolution because it has no mandate.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The 2007 general election.

Deputy Billy Kelleher: There are only four in the Deputy’s party.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: It has no mandate for what it has rammed through the House over the past 12 months in particular — severe budget cuts, NAMA and a €22.5 billion deposit into a black hole called the Anglo Irish Bank. The list is endless and the record of this Government is shameless. What we want is not a proposal to recess until 29 September but this Government to face the fact that it has no mandate to continue in office. We want a decision on its part to go before the people not only in three by-elections, an Údarás election and a Dublin city election, although there is a question about that, but in a general election so the people can decide who they will trust to continue to govern the affairs of this State into the future. They do not trust this crowd here, Fianna Fáil and the Greens. The point was lost here. Deputy James Reilly made a very valid observation and it was lost in the melee of laughter. The fact of the matter is that legislation went through this House last evening, shoved through this House, the prescription charges Bill. Deputy Mary Harney, as Minister, sat there from the beginning to the end. There was not a single Fianna Fáil or Green Party Minister, Minister of State or backbencher present while that matter was being rammed across the 1.3 million people who depend on medical cards, at 50 cent per prescription item and €10 per month, but leaving the Minister and the Minister for Finance the opportunity to raise that at their behest and without any further reference to this House. There is no end of shameful decisions and failures on the part of this Government——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point and we must move on.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: So, recess be damned. Let us have this Dáil dissolved and let the people decide.

The Tánaiste: It is an injustice to every Member of this House that on the occasion of deciding when the summer recess will happen, we create a presumption in the public mind that Members of this House will not be working when in fact, each Member of this House will be working during July, part of August and September. They will be participating in their normal duties as Members of this House and all of the committees, which have done a considerable amount of work this year, will continue in that vein.

[371]During this session we have participated in discussions in the provision of 23 pieces of legislation and I think it appropriate we have that recess to allow time for every Member of this House to take a justifiable occasion of at least two weeks off. I want to take this opportunity to wish everyone well during this recess. We will continue to do our work in hand which is very important. Therefore, the Government, proposes the date I will put to the House.

Deputy James Reilly: On a point of order, what the Tánaiste seems to miss is that this Chamber does not sit, there are no plenary sessions——

An Ceann Comhairle: That is not a point of order. I ask the Deputy to resume his seat.

Deputy James Reilly: ——we cannot vote, we cannot pass legislation. The Tánaiste wants us to rise when people with disability will not have any respite care——

An Ceann Comhairle: I am putting the question.

Deputy James Reilly: She wants us to rise when 452,000 people are unemployed——

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made those points already.

Deputy James Reilly: ——and facing total uncertainty.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am now putting the question.

Deputy James Reilly: It is not good enough. People outside are trying to stay on a——

Deputy James Reilly: The only person who takes as many holidays as the Government does is Kathryn Thomas but she gets paid for it.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the proposal that the Dáil, on its rising today, shall adjourn until 2.30 p.m. on Wednesday, 29 September 2010, agreed?

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 74; Níl, 68.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Dermot.
Ahern, Michael.	Ahern, Noel.
Andrews, Barry.	Andrews, Chris.
Aylward, Bobby.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Browne, John.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Connick, Seán.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Flynn, Beverley.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Hoctor, Máire.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.	Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Mattie.
McGrath, Michael.	McGuinness, John.
Mansergh, Martin.	Martin, Micheál.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.	Nolan, M.J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Donoghue, John.	O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Hanlon, Rory.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Rourke, Mary.	O’Sullivan, Christy.
Power, Seán.	Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.	Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.	Wallace, Mary.
White, Mary Alexandra.	Woods, Michael.

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

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

An Ceann Comhairle: Before concluding on the Order of Business, I wish all Members a pleasant and restful holiday in August. While the plenary session has concluded, work on the committees will continue for the rest of this month and will recommence in early September.

[373]Deputy Finian McGrath: Hear, hear.

An Ceann Comhairle: I wish to express my gratitude and thanks to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle and the panel of Acting Chairmen. It would be difficult to maintain and progress the work of the House without their assistance and co-operation. I thank the Clerk of the Dáil, Kieran Coughlan, the staff of the Houses and the political staff for their work, sometimes over very long hours.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: Hear, hear.

Deputy James Reilly: I echo the sentiments of the Ceann Comhairle. I wish all sides of the House a safe and good summer holiday. I thank the staff of the House who have worked so hard to make the workings of this House run more smoothly than it otherwise would. Many people work very hard here.

I refer to the reference pricing for drugs Bill. We were told last night by the Minister for Health and Children that it might be introduced in September but it has been long-fingered so often that I would like to know there is a commitment from the Government side to introduce it this year. This Bill could save hundreds of millions of euro in drug costs. We know we pay ten to 20 times the amount paid for generic drugs in Northern Ireland. That has not been addressed by the Government. Only the Government can address this, it is not a matter for pharmacists or manufacturers of mainstream drugs that remain under patent. It is an issue for generic manufacturers and providers. It puts into stark contrast the savings that may be made on the Health (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill. I would welcome an indication on this point.

The public health (sunbeds) Bill is due to come before the House. There is an indication that it will include a prohibition on individuals using sunbeds. We need to see the heads of this Bill in order to see precisely what is in it. Reports in the newspapers suggest those with type 1 fair skin will be prohibited from using them. This seems unconstitutional. People must take responsibility for their health but no more than we can stop people smoking, we cannot stop people using sunbeds if they are over 18 years of age. They have a constitutional right to do as they see fit, notwithstanding medical advice. Finally, I wish the media a good summer.

The Tánaiste: The Minister indicated legislation on the reference pricing of drugs will be published later this year. Approval was given by the Government to prepare draft heads of the Bill on sunbeds. I will try to find out the updated position and when we expect publication.

Deputy Eamon Gilmore: I echo the good wishes of the Ceann Comhairle to all who work in this House — members, staff and media. I return to the issues I raised with the Tánaiste when we were debating the date for the resumption. I refer to the Government’s plans for the children’s referendum and the three by-elections. What is the Government’s intention with regard to these matters? Will the Government consider recalling the Dáil for one day in early September to pass legislation to allow the referendum to be held and to pass the required motions to move the writs for three by-elections? From a democratic point of view it is unacceptable that three constituencies — Dublin South, Donegal South-West and Waterford — are without representation in this House. Over the course of the past week we have seen votes where the margin by which matters were decided was less than three. People in those constituencies are entitled to their full representation in the Dáil. What are the Government’s plans regarding the by-elections in the referendum?

It has been decided the Dáil will not be back until 29 September and it would be sensible to hold the children’s referendum and three Dáil by-elections in September. It would have the advantage of not disrupting Dáil business later in the year and would achieve what has been [374]agreed on an all-party basis, that the rights of children are written into the Constitution by referendum. This can be put to the people and the people of Dublin South, Donegal South-West and Waterford will be fully represented in the House.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I join with each of the colleagues who have spoken in wishing everyone a deserved short break over the period ahead. I emphasise that because I concur with the point made by the Tánaiste. I know the limited opportunity for a break in real terms that I will enjoy. Across this House, we will all be working throughout the rest of this month and for much of the period until the Dáil resumes. I wish everyone in the Houses of the Oireachtas, the media, who were missed out so far, and everyone who contributes to the smooth running of this institution a pleasant and restful holiday.

I support Deputy Gilmore’s proposal and I reiterate it now. A formula should be adopted to avoid having to come back on 29 September, as has been agreed by the House, and face the constant haranguing that is part of the daily performance with regard to matters not yet decided or progressed by the Government. We are speaking specifically about the promised referendum enshrining children’s rights in the Constitution and the three outstanding by-elections in Donegal South-West, Dublin South and Waterford. We should recognise that much time has been taken up on these matters. No clarity has been provided and the Taoiseach’s response on this point gives no certainty that these important excursions for the electorate will happen this year. It is the view of Sinn Féin that they should all happen.

The most important of those four opportunities to consult the electorate is the referendum on enshrining children’s rights in the Constitution. An all-party committee recommendation was made on wording and this was not only a construction of elected representatives with varying degrees of legal abilities, it was backed up by the support of four counsel engaged by the committee over the period. There is considerable legal scrutiny of the work of the committee and the content of the third report and its recommendations, including the specific wording offered and signed off on by all parties. The Taoiseach made the point that he must go through this with a fine-tooth comb. Much work was done over 62 meetings and it was not a vague notion pulled out of the sky. The scrutiny employed by the elected representatives and the counsel engaged by the committee was considerable. It will be difficult to replicate even in the Office of the Attorney General. We hope there will be an early indication that these matters will be progressed. Deputy Gilmore’s proposal that this be done and dusted before we resume on 29 September makes eminent sense and I formally support it.

The Tánaiste: Briefly, I understand that last week, the Taoiseach articulated that the Attorney General and a number of Ministers and Departments are working through the issue of the referendum on children, arising from the work that was carried out by the committee. As the Government wishes to avoid unintended circumstances, this work is ongoing. Clearly, however, the Government intends to have a referendum. With regard to the by-elections, nothing has been decided.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: While the Ceann Comhairle probably thinks that I am like a dog with a bone, I ask for a minute or two be to made available for the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy John Moloney, to update the House regarding progress on opening the respite home in Limerick. I do not believe Members should leave this House today without ensuring that those people also get a break. I only seek a minute or two because he has been having meetings.

Deputy James Reilly: Hear, hear.

[375]The Tánaiste: The Minister of State will have a meeting at approximately 5 p.m. or 6 p.m. this evening and I will ask him to inform personally the Deputy of matters arising from that discussion himself.

Deputy Jan O’Sullivan: The Tánaiste will inform me.

The Tánaiste: Yes.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: On a related matter, the Minister of State with responsibility for disability, Deputy Moloney, came before the House last night. While Members obviously can be updated individually, if possible, in the interests of complete clarity, the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, should come before the House at some point this evening to make a brief statement to the effect that the respite services will be restored at the centre run by the Brothers of Charity in Limerick. This would bring great certainty.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, time appears to be a problem.

The Tánaiste: I will ask the Minister of State to advise the Deputies in their constituencies.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Can the Tánaiste tell me the reason the Minister for Justice and Law Reform counts himself so precious and above all other members of the Cabinet by refusing to account to this House for the expenditure of public funds? Last week, I tabled a parliamentary question——

An Ceann Comhairle: This sounds like material for a parliamentary question.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: I tabled a parliamentary question to all Ministers and I now seek the assistance of the Ceann Comhairle on this matter in respect of the expenditure of taxpayers’ money on legal fees by each Department. Every Minister responded by stating the figures involved or by stating they would respond when the figures had been collated. Even the Minister for Health and Children, who is renowned in this House for avoiding questions, responded to me. However, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform refused to account——

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy——

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: ——to this House for the expenditure of public funds.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must revisit this matter later in the year.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: The Ceann Comhairle should wait a moment. How is it that every other Minister in the Cabinet was able to respond positively but the Minister for Justice and Law Reform stated he was not in a position to so do?

An Ceann Comhairle: All right. The Deputy should table an item for the Adjournment on 29 September.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: I note that Members cannot debate everything in the first week of October.

An Ceann Comhairle: No.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Moreover, Members may not get the chance to do so either.

An Ceann Comhairle: I suggest the Adjournment.

[376]Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Second, I tabled a question to the aforementioned Minister for Justice and Law Reform in respect of amending legislation that is urgently required for many women and children. However, I received a letter from the Ceann Comhairle disallowing the question on the basis that a similar question had been tabled by my colleague, Deputy Clune, last week and naturally, he forwarded a copy of those replies to me. In those replies, the Minister stated that he is currently in consultation with the Attorney General following a judgment of the High Court last year in respect of women seeking maintenance orders for themselves and their children.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy——

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: I will conclude by asking the Tánaiste——

An Ceann Comhairle: There is a work programme from now until midnight in front of me and we must make progress.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: ——whether she can clarify matters. The High Court decision was made nearly a year ago and these women and children are only entitled to seek back payments for 14 weeks.

An Ceann Comhairle: No, Deputy.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: This House is going to adjourn for 12 weeks after today, which means the Minister is abandoning them.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Can the Tánaiste assure me that this measure is a matter of urgency or is the Government ignoring these women and children and denying them their rights as granted by the courts of the land?

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Quinn.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Can the Tánaiste give me an assurance in this regard?

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy must raise this matter when we resume on 29 September. The Tánaiste does not have that information to hand here in the Chamber.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Members will not return for another three months.

An Ceann Comhairle: Moreover, the Deputy, as a long-time Member of this House, knows that.

The Tánaiste: To be helpful to the long-term Member from Goleen, I will ask the Minister for Justice and Law Reform to advise him as to when he anticipates a further response.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for his earlier comments with which I wish to be associated. The people in this House work very long hours and I wish they did the same in the Department of Education and Skills.

The Tánaiste: The Deputy is a wild man.

Deputy Ruairí Quinn: If they did, the legislation for the community national school model would be available. It was to have been debated during this session but, sadly, productivity [377]north of the Liffey does not appear to be the same as south of the Liffey. When will the legislation at least be published?

The Tánaiste: This month.

Deputy Michael Ring: I wish to raise two issues with the Tánaiste. First, I refer to legal costs and legal charges. This week, the Taxing Master expressed his outrage in respect of the costs the legal profession was charging. When will the legal costs Bill come before the Dáil? I urge the Tánaiste and the Government to push this forward because the charges that some legal people are charging are outrageous. There is only law in Ireland for the rich, not for the poor.

Second, I note the Tánaiste once had responsibility for this portfolio and as she is aware, the Department of Social Protection issued letters recently in respect of child benefit. Some people did not respond to the letters because of a change of address or different reasons and, consequently, the telephone lines to the child benefit section are inundated with people trying to contact it. People are obliged to wait on the telephone for two or three hours. What will the Department do with regard to people who need their child benefit payments but who cannot get through to the Department?

Deputy P. J. Sheehan: Hear, hear.

The Tánaiste: The legal costs Bill is coming up next year. As for the issue regarding access to the child benefit section, I will speak to the Minister and ask him whether something can be done to resolve the matter.

Deputy John O’Donoghue: I move:

That leave be granted to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Building Control Act 2007 and to provide for related matters.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is the Bill opposed?

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): No.

An Ceann Comhairle: Since this is a Private Members’ Bill, Second Stage must, under Standing Orders, be taken in Private Members’ time.

Deputy John O’Donoghue: I move: “That the Bill be taken in Private Members’ time.”

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): I move:

That Deputy Thomas P. Broughan be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and that Deputy Pat Rabbitte be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Seán Barrett be discharged from the Joint Committee on Climate Change and Energy Security and that Deputy Dinny McGinley be appointed in substitution for him.

[378]

That Deputy Leo Varadkar be discharged from the Joint Committee on Economic and Regulatory Affairs and that Deputy John Perry be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Joe Costello be discharged from the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny and that Deputy Brendan Howlin be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Michael Noonan be discharged from the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children and that Deputy Charles Flanagan be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Simon Coveney be discharged from the Select Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and that Deputy Leo Varadkar be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Frank Feighan be discharged from the Select Committee on Education and Skills and that Deputy Fergus O’Dowd be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Leo Varadkar be discharged from the Select Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Innovation and that Deputy Richard Bruton be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputies Billy Timmins and Joe Costello be discharged from the Select Committee on European Affairs and that Deputies Seán Barrett and Brendan Howlin be appointed in substitution for them.

That Deputy Seán Barrett be discharged from the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service and that Deputy Michael Noonan be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputy Michael Noonan be discharged from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and that Deputy Seán Barrett be appointed in substitution for him.

That Deputies Charles Flanagan and Jimmy Deenihan be discharged from the Select Committee on Justice, Defence and Women’s Rights and that Deputies Alan Shatter and David Stanton be appointed in substitution for them.

That Deputy Olwyn Enright be discharged from the Select Committee on Social Protection and that Deputy Michael Ring be appointed in substitution for her.

That Deputies Mary Alexandra White (Minister of State at the Department of Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs), Olivia Mitchell and Michael Ring be discharged from the Select Committee on Tourism, Culture, Sport, Community, Equality and Gaeltacht Affairs and that Deputies Paul Gogarty, Jimmy Deenihan and Frank Feighan be appointed in substitution for them.

That Deputies Fergus O’Dowd and Thomas P. Broughan be discharged from the Select Committee on Transport and that Deputies Simon Coveney and Joe Costello be appointed in substitution for them.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves in accordance with Article 29.5.2° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, the ratification by Ireland of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, as [379]signed by Ireland in Stockholm on 23 May 2001, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 29 June 2010.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy John Curran): I move:

That the proposal that Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Article 29.5.2° of Bunreacht na hÉireann, approves the terms of the borrowing agreement between Ireland and the International Monetary Fund, signed on 3 February 2010, a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 23 February 2010, be referred to the Select Committee on Finance and the Public Service in accordance with paragraph (1) of the Orders of Reference of that committee, which shall send a message to the Dáil in the manner prescribed in Standing Order 87, and Standing Order 86(2) shall accordingly apply.

An Ceann Comhairle: The following two motions will be discussed together, motion re proposed approval by Dáil Éireann of the draft Commission of Investigation (Banking Sector) Order 2010 and motion re referral to joint committee of macroeconomic policy lessons as set out in the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson entitled, A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

having regard to the significant public concern about the scope and cost of measures that have been necessary to stabilise the Irish banking sector;

noting the recommendations of the reports, ‘The Irish Banking Crisis: Regulatory and Financial Stability Policy 2003-2008’, by the Governor of the Central Bank, and ‘A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis’, by Klaus Regling and Max Watson, which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 9 June 2010;

noting the Government decision of 9 June 2010 referring these reports to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its consideration and input into the preparation of the terms of reference for a commission of investigation;

noting the acceptance by the Government of the seven key policy lessons outlined in Part IV of the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson and the proposal to refer for further consideration by the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service the macro-economic policy lessons arising from the reports;

noting that it is the opinion of the Minister for Finance that a commission of investigation represents the best method of further investigation of specific serious lapses in respect of specified credit institutions;

further noting that a draft Order proposed to be made by the Government under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004 (No. 23 of 2004) has been duly laid before Dáil [380]Éireann in respect of the foregoing matters referred to, together with a statement of reasons for establishing the commission under the Act;

approves the draft Commission of Investigation (Banking Sector) Order 2010, copies of which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 7 July 2010.”

Last January in this Chamber I set out a framework of investigation into the problems that arose in the Irish banking sector. I said then that a comprehensive understanding of the events that took place in the banking sector in recent times was an essential component of any economic recovery. We have a duty as a Government and as Members of the Oireachtas to ensure that not only the origins of the crisis are understood but that lessons are learnt and that international and domestic confidence in the banking system is restored so that the economy can return to growth and employment creation.

12 o’clock

As the first stage of the process of investigation, the two preliminary reports prepared by Klaus Regling and Max Watson and by the Governor of the Central Bank, respectively, provide a comprehensive and authoritative examination of the crisis in the banking sector in Ireland. The authors have provided us with a detailed and insightful analysis of the global, European and domestic macroeconomic factors at play over the relevant period. Governor Honohan’s report details the failures in the regulatory and supervisory arrangements and the weaknesses in the evaluation of the stability of the banks. These reports draw attention to a number of issues which require further analysis and provide a sound basis for the further investigation of these significant issues. I welcome their direction in that respect.

The reports were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 9 June and were debated. The Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service has had two separate and lengthy engagements with the authors and subsequently with me to discuss how we should proceed. Those meetings allowed a comprehensive analysis of the issues raised in the reports and some necessary rebalancing of the initial interpretation and media commentary by highlighting the complex factors at work that culminated in the extreme turbulence that impacted on the banking system in September 2008.

In their report, Klaus Regling and Max Watson distinguish between those issues that are amenable to further investigation through a legally orientated process and other issues, which are less concrete and verifiable, and may be more appropriately the subject of policy review. That distinction formed the basis of the Government’s proposed approach to the next steps in the process.

I draw the attention of the House to a number of points about the findings of the preliminary reports. First, both reports, but especially that of Mr. Regling and Mr. Watson, describe in some detail the nature of the explosion in the availability of credit in the Irish banking sector and characterise the failures in governance and risk management in the banks as disastrous, and ultimately leading to systemic difficulties in the financial system. What went on in the banks leading up to the crisis remains a cause of significant public concern. The public interest demands that we investigate the very serious failures in the standards and controls that should have ensured prudent risk management policy and procedures.

Second, it is clear that there were especially egregious failures in corporate governance and risk management at Anglo Irish Bank and the Irish Nationwide Building Society. Certain matters are already the subject or investigation by the relevant authorities, and I do not propose to comment on them now. However, there is a clear need to examine more deeply and broadly what went wrong in those two organisations while taking account of the other investigations. That is why the draft terms of reference prepared by the Government specifically set out the [381]need for a full examination of the business models and strategies adopted by the boards of those institutions and the implementation by their senior managements of business and lending practices which resulted in those institutions experiencing such uniquely severe financial distress. The investigation will cover the period from 1 January 2003 to 15 January 2009, the date on which Anglo Irish Bank was nationalised.

Third, building upon the need to investigate failures in governance and risk management, it is proposed that the commission should also investigate whether the external auditors commented in their audit reports on the standards and controls and risk management policy and procedures or on the business models and strategies and business and lending practices that led to the severe difficulties experienced by the banking system.

Deputy Burton made an interesting suggestion in the course of the committee deliberations about how that particular element of the terms of reference should be drafted. I raised her concerns with the Attorney General but he insists that the current formulation before the House today is the best one to ensure that the commission can bring its business to an expeditious conclusion and that the adoption of the alternative would unnecessarily prolong the duration of the commission’s deliberations. That said, I assure her that the matter was considered in some detail.

Fourth, on foot of the analysis by Governor Honohan of the failures of financial supervision, there is a need for further examination of the nature of supervision and oversight of the banks by the Financial Regulator. For that reason it is proposed that the commission would examine the failures of the Central Bank and Financial Regulator to regulate and supervise the covered institutions and to maintain financial stability.

These draft terms of reference are appropriate in the light of the findings of the preliminary reports. Under the Commissions of Investigation Act 2004, a commission of investigation may be established by the Government, with the approval of the Oireachtas, to investigate any matter considered to be of “significant public concern”. There can be no doubt that the banking crisis and its origins fall squarely within that category. It has had a profound impact on the State and on its financial position and we will live with its consequences for some time to come. It is essential that we identify what went wrong and why and that we learn the lessons of the past to ensure that we never make the same mistakes again.

I am pleased to inform the House that Mr. Peter Nyberg, former director general for financial services at the Finnish Ministry of Finance, has agreed to lead the commission. Mr. Nyberg has the necessary experience to undertake this important role. He will be supported by the expertise he requires. I have made provision in my Department’s Estimate for this year to cover the costs of the commission.

I also remind the House that there are ongoing investigations by the relevant regulatory and other authorities into specific matters of a serious nature in a number of institutions. The commission of investigation will not supplant or hinder those investigations. In fact, it is open to the relevant authorities to initiate further investigations into additional possible breaches arising out of any findings that the commission may make.

The motion before the House seeks approval of the draft Government order, laid before the Houses yesterday, providing for the establishment of a commission of investigation into the banking sector. I draw the attention of the House to the Government’s decision, following the recommendation of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service at a meeting last Monday, to extend the period to be covered by the commission of investigation from 1 January 2003 to 15 January 2009. This means that the commission will now be in a position to examine all relevant matters relating to corporate governance and risk management [382]in each of the banks covered by the Government’s guarantee up to the date of the Government’s decision to nationalise Anglo Irish Bank.

The second motion before the House seeks to refer certain macroeconomic policy lessons to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service arising from recommendations set out in the Regling and Watson report. As is clear from that report, these policy issues can be divided into two groups; those that relate to macroeconomic management and those that relate to financial stability and prudential matters. The former are primarily my responsibility in the first instance and the latter fall within the remit of the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank.

I propose that the joint Oireachtas committee, taking account of the emerging EU proposals on fiscal and economic governance, examine the following matters highlighted in the Regling and Watson report: the role of macroeconomic management and surveillance in securing the long-term sustainability of Ireland’s economic performance and also in responding on a timely basis to risks and imbalances that may build up in both the private and public sectors of the economy, including external imbalances vis-à-vis other euro area members and the funding of any imbalances that might arise; the role of fiscal policy in securing an appropriate alignment of the national business cycle with monetary conditions in the economy; the requirement for the design and conduct of budgetary and taxation policies to take account of the cyclical nature of particular revenues as well as their temporary nature in certain circumstances in order to maintain an appropriate and effective tax base and; the case for the establishment of new institutional structures to provide an independent validation of economic and fiscal projections as well as for the introduction of domestic medium-term fiscal rules.

Following my discussions with the committee, I understand that the committee is agreeable to the main elements of the overall proposed scope. It is proposed that its deliberations be concluded by the end of October in order to publish and report back to this House and the Upper House by 4 November 2010.

Regarding the issues within the remit of the regulatory system, the House will be aware that the Central Bank published a report on 21 June setting out its proposed approach to future regulation of the banking sector. This report also addresses how the range of measures it is putting in place will address the issues raised in the Governor’s report and that of Messrs Regling and Watson. This is another step on the road to the recovery of the banking system.

It is the Government’s view, underpinned by the two preliminary reports, that certain decisions and processes which are fundamentally political in nature, are not amenable to an investigation whose purpose is to make findings of fact. The Government will not be changing its position on that point. There are no good reasons for it to do so. Let me also be clear however that my Department will feature in significant ways in both of the investigations. First, the terms of reference of the commission require it to examine whether any advices or directions given by the Department to the Financial Regulator were in any way relevant to failure of the Financial Regulator in the performance of its supervisory functions.

Second, in regard to the proposed policy review by the committee, I have already indicated my own availability to meet the committee as the accountable Minister to assist it in its deliberations as necessary. At all times, my predecessors and I have been accountable to this House for the decisions taken as Minister and for the actions of my Department. That will continue to be the case.

Deputy Noonan suggested yesterday evening the terms of reference of the commission should be broadened to include advices given by the Department to the Minister. My Department is now finalising the documents on the bank guarantee and the deliberations thereon that [383]it intends to put into the public domain. The request was initially made by the Committee of Public Accounts but the documentation will be also put at the disposal of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. My Department has had to take the advice of the Attorney General on complex issues associated with legal professional privilege and the confidentiality of Central Bank information and certain banker-customer information in the preparation of these documents.

On Deputy Noonan’s suggestion that the documents be made available, I am open to persuasion that documents pertaining to the period up to 15 January 2009 should be put into the public domain. I am examining this with a view to making a decision on it in a short period. As Minister, I am accountable to the House regarding the documents, but I am also prepared to make myself available to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for questioning in respect of them.

As I have informed the committee and the House, I am establishing an independent review by an international expert or experts with relevant international or domestic experience to evaluate the systems, structures and processes used by the Department of Finance in providing advice to the Minister and the Government. The review will examine the Department’s role and performance in the past ten years in providing advice to the Minister and the Government. This would include advice on the Government’s management of the current crisis, with a view to ensuring that the lessons of this period of extraordinary stress will inform the development of the Department in the future. The review will have due regard to the skills, training and staffing mix required by a modern finance and economic Ministry so it can best fulfil its role and mandate.

I want to ensure for the future that the Department of Finance can give the best possible policy advice, better assess risks and opportunities in the fiscal, economic and financial system, and manage its own operations with high levels of effectiveness and efficiency. The Department has good, skilled and capable staff but I want to be sure they are used to best effect and that the mix of skills is optimised.

The matters we are discussing today are important and will have enduring consequences for future economic and financial policy. It is appropriate, given the scope and cost of measures that have been necessary to stabilise the Irish banking sector, that this matter be completely investigated and that lessons be learnt in order to put in place the best systems and structures so this kind of crisis can never happen again. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I wish to share my time with Deputy Kieran O’Donnell.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Michael Noonan: I welcome the motion. We are not coming cold to it because there has been considerable discussion on this matter at the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. I attended last week’s meeting but Deputy Burton and others have been attending meetings for quite some time. The amendments being made to the proposed terms of reference by the Minister are acceptable. He has moved very close to the position at which the committee wanted to arrive.

I want to comment in particular on the Minister’s extension of the period under investigation. The original terms of reference would have required the commission of investigation to cease its inquiries once events up to 28 September 2008 had been investigated. This is a significant date as the guarantee was discussed on 29 September 2008 in the Department. On that day, the Minister informed the House of the serious problem emerging in our banking system. He obtained the approval of the House for the guarantee he introduced, and he had the support [384]of Fine Gael on the day. We felt the crisis was such that we would take the Minister’s advice on trust.

It has emerged since that time that events after 28 September 2008 need to be the subject of an inquiry. One should consider the period of crisis I want investigated as beginning with the guarantee across the banking systems and ending on 15 January 2009. The latter date was the date of the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank. Between the two dates, an enormous number of events occurred that threw light on the banking system. They need to be inquired into.

When the Minister sought the approval of the House on the guarantee, he presented, on the basis of the information available to him, the crisis as a liquidity crisis. It emerged subsequently that it moved very quickly from a liquidity crisis to the associated insolvency crisis, on foot of which the banks went bust. I am glad the terms of reference allow for the failures in corporate governance and risk management at Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide Building Society to be investigated. In effect, they became insolvent and went bust, and the State had to move in and rescue them.

There are many events to be considered. One of the most curious was the information that Anglo Irish Bank was involved in a process entailing back-to-back loans with Irish Life & Permanent. Its money was channelled through the latter institution and was returned as deposits. This improved its balance sheet. This was an attempt to disguise the fact that the bank was well on the way to insolvency. How this happened needs to be investigated. It is very important that the period in the terms of reference was extended.

It emerged that the Central Bank was aware of this matter, in addition to the Financial Regulator. Officials in the Department of Finance have put it on record that PricewaterhouseCoopers became aware of it and informed the Department at official level. For some reason, this information was not passed on to the Minister.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It was eventually.

Deputy Michael Noonan: It was eventually but not at the time in question. This must be examined. It is very important that this be done.

One point made by the Minister may meet the requirements I sought last night when we referred to these issues during the debate on the Private Members’ motion. He said in his speech that “the terms of reference of the commission require it to examine whether any advices or directions given by the Department to the Financial Regulator were in any way relevant to failure of the Financial Regulator in the performance of its supervisory functions.” That is appropriate but there were surely advices from the Financial Regulator and Central Bank that were given to the Department. Submissions, petitions and advices were submitted by the banking sector to the Department. These should be also the subject of investigation and not be ruled out in the terms of reference.

The Minister has moved a certain amount by stating he will examine in due course the appropriateness of putting the advices on the public record. Considerations associated with legal privilege, etc., must be taken into account. However, the Minister should include in the terms of reference provision for the commission to examine the advices that flowed to the Department in addition to those that emerged from it.

The referral of certain macroeconomic and fiscal policy lessons to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for its approval is appropriate. It is a little unclear what the ultimate product will be. On first reading, the committee will require professional economic advice. Since the procurement process involved could be long, the Minister may need to reconsider the dates on which he expects the committee to report. Were the standard 90-day Euro[385]pean procurement notice to commence now, the committee would not get under way until October, so having it conclude by November would be difficult. The Minister might take note of this point.

I am pleased with the proposals and we will not call a vote on them. The Minister has met the committee’s request fairly. We never get everything, but the many serious concessions he has made will improve the work of the commission. Were he able to find a formula for taking my other requests on board, I would be pleased.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I welcome this debate and wish to take up a number of points with the Minister. He has extended the period covered by the commission of inquiry from 1 January 2003 to 28 September 2008 in respect of all elements bar the supervisory role of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator. The Minister has extended the period in respect of the institutions to 15 January 2009, when Anglo Irish Bank was nationalised. Where the supervisory role is concerned, however, the period has not been extended. I do not know whether this is a typo. Will the Minister clarify the situation? It is important that the date be extended to 15 January to match the period applied in respect of the other elements, namely, the individual banks, specifically Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide, and the external auditors.

My reason for making this request is straightforward. In terms of the issue of Anglo Irish Bank and the back-to-back loans with Irish Life and Permanent, €3.45 billion was provided on 26 September and the balance of the €4 billion was provided on 30 September. The latter action would fall outside the period under review. The preliminary financial report on Anglo Irish Bank was published in December 2008, putting it outside the terms of reference. In those accounts, bank deposits were represented as customer deposits to give the impression that the bank’s balance sheet was stronger than it really was. I hope the Minister will clarify this point and extend the period.

I wish to raise two issues concerning the commission. The Minister, the Taoiseach and former Ministers for Finance should make themselves available and evidence should be given in public. It is critical that the advice given to the Minister at the time be made available to the commission.

I will deal with the macro level shortly. I am digressing slightly, but these are important matters. NAMA’s revised business plan is inadequate in that it has no profit and loss accounts or cash flow projections. When the draft business plan was debated, the Minister did not state from where the information had come. He now informs the House that it came directly from the banks. In late 2008, he commissioned PricewaterhouseCoopers, PWC, to carry out due diligence reviews of the various institutions and their loans. Those PWC reports need to be disclosed in full so that we can know what advice was available to the Minister while NAMA’s draft business plan was being proposed. Anything less and there would not be proper disclosure.

The macro report will be before the finance committee, of which I am a member. According to the Minister, it is the Government’s opinion that certain decisions that were fundamentally political in nature are not amenable to an investigation the purpose of which is to make a finding of fact. When the report is before the committee, it is important that officials from the Department of Finance attend our meetings with the advice in question if we are to implement clear measures.

I hope the Minister will take my request for an extension on board. Where the commission of investigation and the committee’s macro level review are concerned, I also hope he will accept the necessity of making available all of the advice given to him by the regulator and [386]departmental officials. Ministers drive policy and officials only implement it. We need to know the background to decisions.

The PWC due diligence reports started in August or September of 2008. Commissioned by the Minister, they should have fed into the NAMA process. It is not good enough to say that——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: They did.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: They should have, but why did they not?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: They did.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: In which case, why are the figures in the draft business plan that was laid before the House during our discussion on the NAMA legislation so far off those in the revised business plan? We need more detail on the plan.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I will deal with that in my reply.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I thank the Minister. Before our recess, the House should have an in-depth discussion on the extension of the Government guarantee scheme to December.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That will be brought before the House prior to the extension.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: I accept that, but my point is critical in the context of Anglo Irish Bank. Subordinated debt will not be guaranteed under the new loan guarantee fund, LGF, scheme. When I raised the matter of Anglo Irish Bank’s senior debt during Priority Questions more than one week ago and asked whether it would form part of the new guarantee, the Minister assured me he would examine it. Between Anglo Irish Bank’s senior debt and subordinated debt, there is €5.5 billion in taxpayers’ money. The bank referred to a figure of €8 billion, €2.5 billion of which will go towards setting up the new bank. The European Commission has significant concerns in this regard. Will the Minister comment briefly on this matter, update me on his review and correspond with me on whatever reviews have occurred?

Deputy Joan Burton: The Labour Party moved an amendment to extend the terms of reference to include the Government and the Department of Finance. Unfortunately, the Ceann Comhairle ruled our amendment out of order. Down the road, the Minister and Fianna Fáil will come to regret that, for reasons of political expediency, they have sought to exclude from the commission of inquiry’s terms the roles of the Department, successive Ministers for Finance and the Government. This is a mistake of historical proportions.

Ours is a parliamentary system with a Cabinet Government. Under the Constitution, the Minister for Finance is the Cabinet member with responsibility for financial decisions. He should bear in mind that this is no ordinary crisis. This is a crisis of such proportions as the country has not experienced before, unless one considers the period between the Easter Rising and the foundation of the State. Therefore the notion that Fianna Fáil would seek to exclude the institutions of governance, namely, the Minister and Department of Finance and the actions of Government, in effect, from the terms of the inquiry is ludicrous. The Minister and the Government are excluded entirely from the inquiry, and the Department of Finance has a very small role to play.

I do not believe that Fianna Fáil will emerge well from the historical decision in the greatest economic crisis the country has ever faced to exclude its role and actions and those of the [387]Department of Finance. That is a fundamental historical error on the Minister’s part. It is a bad choice and bad authority in terms of his proposal for the terms of reference of the commission.

I tabled a series of amendments on behalf of the Labour Party, one of which included extending the date to 15 January 2009. I thank the Minister for the spirit in which he examined the Labour Party’s proposal and accepted it. I believe the Minister accepted that this would make the commission of inquiry much more sensible in terms of its scope and operation. The events that led up to the crisis and the fatal blanket guarantee the Government adopted are included in the terms of reference as is strange decisions we never understood regarding Anglo Irish Bank, including the collapse in its share price.

The property market capped itself towards the end of 2006 and was on the slide thereafter. The House will recall the various television programmes such as “Future Shock” by RTE in the spring of 2007 involving Richard Curran and the “Prime Time” team and articles by people such as Professor Morgan Kelly in UCD. Large numbers of people in business, politics and I presume the Civil Service, were concerned. Nobody doubts the dedication to the public interest of the people in the Department of Finance, who are very smart. A legitimate question is whether those smart intelligent people who operate in the Department of Finance in the public interest said, at any stage, from 2003 onwards, in effect, to the incumbent Ministers, “This policy is inadvisable. It will create a bubble in the property market. Bubbles in property markets internationally eventually burst, history shows, and cause economic ruin for the people involved”.

As Regling-Watson and Honohan said, our enormous crisis is home-made and is a plain vanilla property burst. It is inconceivable to me that the people in the Department of Finance — as the key Department — were not, at the very least, nervous and concerned, and did not express their opinions to the governing Minister of the day. During this period I had repeated debates with the former Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, now Taoiseach, when I pointed out to him the folly of the property based tax reliefs, and the cost of those. I received information from the Revenue Commissioners to the effect that millionaires paid no tax. The then Taoiseach, Deputy Bertie Ahern and then Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Harney agreed that this was a scandal that had to be brought to an end. Please do not tell me that people in the Department of Finance were not aware of this and did not offer advice.

One must pay all due respect to the Minister as a lawyer. In a lawyer’s way he seeks to avoid that aspect. The terms of reference include the need to get the advices or communications from the Department of Finance to the Regulator and the Central Bank but there is nothing about what was said to the Minister or what the Department of Finance officials might have considered among themselves, as public servants. This is a very clever confinement of the supposed role of the Department of Finance in this investigation to a very specific point.

We are spending €1.8 million on this to the end of the year, which appears adequate for the type of inquiry into the banks the Minister has in mind. Many taxpayers might believe that it is even on the high side. However, it is extraordinary the way the Minister has sought to draw a line of exclusion around Fianna Fáil and the various Ministers of Finance. On the Minister’s part that may be a political desire to protect his boss, the Taoiseach, from any inquiry into the conduct of his role as Minister for Finance and how he steered the ship onto the rocks.

I want to refer to the Labour Party’s proposal to widen the terms of examination of the commission into the role of auditors. I have great respect for the Attorney General and know he is exceptionally hard working. The problem is the terms of reference and whether the auditors actually advised the banks as regards policies which were wrong. That is not the role of an auditor, however. If Michael O’Leary, for example, decides to make Shannon Airport the hub of his operations and chooses to have all his flights out of there, it is not the role of an [388]auditor to tell the businessman that his fundamental idea is wrong. That is a business decision. It is the role of the auditor to decide whether such a decision is within the powers of the company, not to tell the business person that this or that is what he or she may or may not do — or to suggest an idea about lowering prices is crazy, or that basing Ryanair at Shannon Airport is unwise. That is not the point of an audit, yet I fear that the response the Minister’s investigator will come up with is predetermined.

The former Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr. Purcell, is undertaking some inquiries, I believe, for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland. God only knows when we are going to see them. I do not believe the terms of reference will give the quality of answer and insight into the role of auditors that is needed. Despite this I believe there is agreement in this House in regard to what we want to find out.

Turning to the issue of confining the date in regard to the Central bank, the Regulator and the small reference to the Department of Finance to 28 September-----

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That will have to be examined, I agree.

Deputy Joan Burton: That is very sensible, otherwise it is Wallander-like — I assume the Minister is aware of the Swedish detective, Wallander, and we are having someone now from Finland. This Finnish Wallander would have to approach it in an opposite direction from the banks, and work back from the period starting 29 September, into the banks, the Central Bank and the Regulator. I do not know whether Mr. Nyberg is Wallander, but he will need to be when it comes to dealing with the terms of reference. It is good that the Minister accepts this.

Deputy Michael Noonan: If it were Wallander the report would make very depressing reading.

Deputy Joan Burton: Yes, it would. There is also a corpse involved in this, that of the economy and the Celtic tiger with 420,000 people out of work.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: It is beginning to show signs of life again.

Deputy Joan Burton: We hope so.

Deputy Michael Noonan: It is more like a dead-cat bounce.

Deputy Joan Burton: The most extraordinary aspect of the revised NAMA business plan is the board’s admission of a deterioration in its original estimates with losses of €5 billion now predicted. The House has got so used to talking in billions that the value of money has lost its meaning. The outcome, however, of these decisions has left people with an extraordinary debt overhang. While I never contested the banking problem would cost much money, if the Labour Party’s proposals — even variations of them — had been accepted, we would have some functioning banks now with only half of what the Government spent.

NAMA’s revised business plan contained one line stating derivatives worth €14 billion were being taken off the banks’ balance sheets and taken on by the taxpayer. During the crisis, we were repeatedly given the Lehman Brothers defence which Regling, Watson and Honohan blew out of the water by pointing out that the Lehman collapse was irrelevant as the crisis was homemade. We were also told constantly that there was no problem with complex financial instruments affecting our banks.

Yet, now in the revised NAMA business plan up pops €14 billion of derivatives with a note saying a considerable amount of these have no value. The business plan states:

[389]

Derivative transactions with a nominal value of €14bn (principally interest rate swaps) will also be transferred. A substantial number of these derivatives are nonperforming and NAMA will pay nil consideration to acquire them.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: The point is NAMA will not pay for them.

Deputy Joan Burton: The problem is we are taking on the contingent liability that goes with these derivatives. They are interest-rate swaps — the very products that did for Lehman Brothers and many other financial institutions.

Economic governance is so poor in this country that this revised business plan does not even set out the likely level of the liability that may arise. When the State guarantee was introduced, the Government said over and over again the banks did not have fancy financial instruments. In the last days before the empire went down, did someone in Anglo Irish Bank buy and sell interest-rate swaps? How much of these €14 billion derivatives and their contingent liability stem from Anglo Irish Bank?

For ten days before they were published, the Minister for Finance and the Government had the Regling, Watson and Honohan reports in their hands, during which they could analyse them and prepare their rebuttal. Will the Minister for Finance give a commitment that when Mr. Peter Nyberg, the Finnish Wallander, completes his report it will come directly to the House and not be offered to Fianna Fáil to do a scissors-and-paste job to suck anything out of it that defends its position? Holding the first banking reports for ten days was an abuse.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I must call the next speaker.

Deputy Joan Burton: The commission’s report must come directly to the House.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: I welcome the Minister’s recent substantial move at the Oireachtas finance committee on the terms of reference for the banking crisis commission of inquiry and the investigation into what can be best termed regulatory governance, including auditing. I also welcome the hearings into the macroeconomic aspect of this. This has instilled some confidence that this could be a constructive exercise, avoiding some of the squabbling that has gone on.

It is critical the role of auditors is examined in this whole mess because they have a public function, whether it is in the banks or corporate entities, and they are self-governing. I agree with Deputy Burton on their role as not to be giving advice to companies but to report to the regulators and the public as to the viability, or otherwise, of companies. It is beyond me how the auditors missed so much of the goings-on in the banks. Why did they look the other way? Were they taking their nod from the regulators in the Central Bank or the Cabinet? I would love to know why they thought they could do what they wanted.

Will Ministers of the time in question give evidence, if invited to do so, at the committee’s deliberations on the political management of the macroeconomic issues? The committee’s capacity would be diminished without this input.

The review of the Department of Finance will be interesting and necessary. I look forward to that report when it is published. I cannot wait to read Mr. Nyberg’s CV to see how he has preformed in his career to date.

I welcome the extension of the time to be examined to 15 January 2009. This was necessary as it will now include the decision to nationalise Anglo Irish Bank. It would have been easy for the Minister for Finance to seek to avoid such an extension, so I am glad he came clean on it.

One of our jobs is to examine economic policy. Since 2003 to the banking crisis it was misjudged, to put it mildly. Current government economic policy is equally misjudged in that [390]it does not recognise the need for a State bank. The chief executive officer of NAMA, Mr. Brendan McDonagh, told the Oireachtas committee on finance three weeks ago that the banks were not giving him the accurate information he required or co-operating as fully as he would have expected. Although there is provision in legislation for NAMA to pursue institutions or bank executives, it is not happening.

This is creating the perception among many that a golden circle of untouchables exists. Mr. Frank Daly, chairman of the NAMA board, told the committee he was surprised at some of the atrocious findings made when examining toxic accounts in several banks. Why Mr. Daly would be surprised is beyond me because he was chair of the auditing committee and a director of NAMA for some considerable time.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Because it is a circle of incompetence rather than untouchability.

Deputy Arthur Morgan: Well, it has been untouchable up to now. I agree that it has been a circle of incompetence, but perhaps to describe these people as incompetent is to let them off the hook. Some would say they are particularly competent but have their eyes on something else — enriching themselves and their friends. Let us hope some of this will come out in the inquiry.

The bottom line is that if institutions are not co-operating with NAMA in the way they are expected to, why have prosecutions not arisen from this? It is bizarre in the extreme. A substantial in-depth investigation is needed. The major surprise for me was that Mr. Daly was surprised at all. I thought that having held a position in the most toxic bank of all, he would have had an insight into what was going on. Thus, it is quite telling that he says he is surprised at the level of deceit that had continued up to recently with regard to the extent of toxic loans.

The absence of specific and detailed figures, projections and so on leaves the business plan quite weak. The principle of long-term economic value is still being applied by NAMA, and we do not know where it will stop. One can calculate long-term economic value on the back of a cigarette packet and one’s guess will be as good as anyone’s. Why are we not talking about current market value when discussing these toxic loans? In that case we would all know what we were talking about. It certainly will not be the 50% of the total value that NAMA has been paying to date; it is more likely to be of the order of 20% or 25%. We know this from the Carroll High Court proceedings. The business plan mentions a worst-case scenario of a loss of €800 million, but I am concerned that it may go well beyond that.

If the Government’s policy had been to create a State bank, the Minister and his colleagues at Cabinet would have had their hands on the levers of that bank. They could have appointed people with credibility — decent, honest people — to run the State bank and ensure that the Government knew exactly where it stood. Another major positive outcome would have been the safeguarding of credit for SMEs, which would have saved thousands of jobs across the land.

At the meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, we discussed in private the work of the committee. In terms of expertise, we must make a difficult appointment. I accept that we in the committee need expert guidance, advice and briefing on a host of matters that will arise along the way. The selection of a person to do this is likely to be controversial, although I hope it is not. I hope that somebody with an international reputation, whether he or she is Irish or otherwise, can be found, because Sinn Féin is not looking for a squabble on this; we want to get through the business at hand and make a report as quickly and efficiently as we can. That is the objective of all parties in the committee.

The timing will be difficult; the Minister will be even more conscious than us of the budget coming down the line just a few weeks after the report is due to be completed. It is imperative [391]that the report is done and dusted and discussed on the floor of this House well in advance of the budget, because we all know that will be a major challenge for the Government and, even more so, for those who will be at the sharp end of it. It appears that this will again be a slash-and-burn budget, with more cutbacks, even though it does not need to be. There are other options. I am not talking about borrowing but about raising money in a fair and equitable way. The Minister knows better than I the extent of the wealth that has been out there since long before the Celtic tiger. There is still substantial wealth in the State and there are people who could afford to pay a wealth tax. This would yield more than €1.5 billion; the minimum figure I am given by economists with regard to the yield from a 1% wealth tax is €1.6 billion. They are the people who are able to bear that burden.

The Minister said there were signs of life in the economy. I am afraid that if he were listening to the news he would probably describe the economy as still critically ill. We need to find a way to stimulate the economy to create jobs.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Through a wealth tax?

Deputy Arthur Morgan: No. I have dealt with the wealth tax; that is a separate issue. The Minister is taking money from the National Pensions Reserve Fund to support the banks. Why will he not take a small amount from the fund to stimulate the economy, for example, through a schools building programme, which would create jobs and get some of the 452,000 people on the live register back to work? That in itself will create activity in local areas to stimulate further economic activity, whether in the form of garage industries or entrepreneurs doing what entrepreneurs do, which is to create employment and make things happen. However, it needs that stimulus from the Government, and this has been singularly absent to date. I acknowledge that some measures have been introduced by the Government in an effort to retain and create jobs, but it has been minuscule in the context of what we are facing. We need a substantial lift. I am suggesting that €2 billion taken from the NPRF would be money well spent, and the pensioners of the future, who will rely on the fund, would be repaid many times over if such a stimulus package were introduced.

I hope we can get through this investigation expeditiously, thoroughly and with substantial accuracy so that we can deal with these issues once and for all. However the investigation ends, though, the current policy direction of the Government is wrong in the extreme.

Minister for Finance (Deputy Brian Lenihan): I thank Deputies for their interventions in this debate. I will deal with issues raised on all sides.

Deputy Noonan raised the question of the information flow from the regulatory and central banking system to the Department. The difficulty is that we are trenching upon the distinction I drew in the debate — which is the one point of difference between our position on the terms of reference and those of Fine Gael and the Labour Party — between areas of political accountability and those relating to the banking system itself. The Government has decided to draw a distinction with regard to these inquiries.

Deputy O’Donnell raised the question of why a different date was provided for the banking system as opposed to the regulators and supervisors, and Deputy Burton echoed that concern. Deputies will appreciate that there was considerable telescoping of time in the preparation of these terms of reference because the committee kindly met on Monday evening and then I had to brief the Government on Tuesday, and I must admit the differentiation escaped my attention. It is not really sustainable because if one is considering the banking system and regulation at the same time——

Deputy Joan Burton: My amendment to the motion covered everything.

[392]Deputy Brian Lenihan: I did not have sight of any amendments, though I am not——

Deputy Joan Burton: The amendments I gave the Minister on Monday. They covered everything.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Yes, the informal amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Allow the Minister to respond.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Procedurally, I am advised that we cannot change the terms of reference today in the House, so I am undertaking to the House that the terms of reference will be changed. I understand there is the power to subsequently amend the terms of reference——

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: When will that happen?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: ——so I am proposing to do that. That cannot now happen until late September or early October, but I can make the decision now and advise the chair to proceed on that basis. The necessary change can be made by way of a motion without debate in the House in the autumn.

Deputy Joan Burton: On a point of information, would the Minister also write to Mr. Nyberg informing him of that decision, so that as he sets about his job——

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That is what I said I intended to do. I undertake to make the necessary change and I will advise Mr. Nyberg of my intention to do so in order that he can proceed with his work along those lines.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: When will the work get under way?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please allow the Minister to make his contribution.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: That deals with the issue and we do not need to develop it further. Clearly it is essential, since the regulatory system is inextricably linked with one of the transactions identified by Deputy Noonan in his contribution. It is essential that aspect of the matter is part of the terms of reference and I do not have any difficulty with that.

1 o’clock

Deputy Noonan also asked whether the advice the committee will seek to obtain will delay the operations of the committee. That is a matter for the committee itself. I do not know, but if the advice was provided on a party rather than on a committee wide basis, it might enable the members to proceed without the necessity for procurement. However, that is a matter the committee should examine and not a matter for me. I am not trying to intervene in the business of the committee, but I am sure some way can be found to ensure that the necessary expertise is available to the committee to examine what can be difficult and complex matters.

Deputy Joan Burton: That is a good suggestion and should be explored.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Deputy Noonan went on to make more general remarks on the question of the liquidity crisis, which was the main concern of the Government in late September 2008. I recall saying in that debate that we were going in deep. We were well aware that we were going into a system that required detailed examination and, therefore, the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ examination of the bank assets then took place. Deputy O’Donnell touched on that in his contribution. A significant amount of information was assembled in that [393]regard, some of which was put into the public domain. However, much of it could not be put into the public domain because of its sensitive character.

Deputy O’Donnell raised the issue in the context of the recent operations of NAMA and the business plan now approved by the board. That is the business plan of NAMA. The one advantage NAMA had as against its predecessors was that it was building on the work PricewaterhouseCoopers had done, on the work of the due diligence exercises which took place prior to the capitalisation of Bank of Ireland and Allied Irish Bank and the abortive capitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank. In effect the due diligence led to the nationalisation rather than the capitalisation of Anglo Irish Bank. NAMA had the advantage of that work already being done and has been able to bore deeper as a result. It has also, of course, had the advantage of a statutory mandate and of statutory provisions in respect of disclosure by the institutions themselves.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: What about the draft business plan?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Let us be clear. The draft business plan that was submitted to the House last autumn was just a draft, prepared by the interim NAMA executive. At that stage, NAMA was far more dependent on information voluntarily supplied by financial institutions, including the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ report, than it was in its more recent exercise.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell: Why are there such discrepancies?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: This is not Question Time. I am trying to reply on the issues that were raised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: There is only a limited time for the Minister to reply to the many points made.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Deputy Burton raised the question of the terms of reference and asked why these did not extend to the Government and the Department of Finance. I believe there are two distinct issues Deputy Burton is anxious to see examined. One relates to the causes of the crisis and the fact that the response, the analysis, the assessment, the Department may have made and the advice it may have given to successive Ministers with regard to the causes of the crisis. The other relates to the phase of crisis management and how the Department responded when the crisis became manifest and how decisions were informed in that regard.

With regard to the causes of the crisis, Messrs Watson and Regling have said there is a fundamental distinction between issues which are susceptible to legal analysis and examination and determination of fact and wider political issues. In my respectful view, this question of the causes of the crisis is a wider political issue and is not a matter into which a commission of inquiry should inquire. It is a wider political issue and there is much information on it in the public domain. Deputy Burton herself participated in much of it and in this House participated in questioning of successive Ministers. There is a wealth of information in the public domain on these matters already. Clearly, were the commission to be asked to look into that matter, it could continue its investigations for a very long time. The request for a commission of inquiry into the causes of the crisis reminds me somewhat of the commission the late Éamon de Valera always wanted to see into the causes of the Civil War. One cannot have a commission of that type, going on forever into a complex set of historical circumstances, where there is a wealth of information in the public domain already, all of which has been parsed and analysed by the partisans of different historical interpretations.

[394]The second aspect of the Deputy’s concern relates to the crisis management aspect, once the problem came into the public domain. The Deputy has always fastened on a date around St. Patrick’s Day 2008 when the first signs of a disturbance in the share price of Anglo Irish Bank materialised. Others fasten on September, where the lava that was building up in the subterranean caverns of the banks finally imploded and came to the surface. Whatever date we fix upon, it is clear that the Department, and I as Minister, had to undertake the task of crisis management at that stage. Many legitimate criticisms can be made, given the scale of management that had to be undertaken in such a crisis. However, what is lacking in any suggestion that this should be referred to the commission is any foundation of any impropriety that has been laid.

When we have had inquiries into Departments in the past, such as the inquiry we had presided over by the late Chief Justice, then the President of the High Court, Mr. Justice Hamilton, into the beef industry, we had concrete allegations with regard to the administration of the Department and its political head. We do not have that here. We have had plenty of political charges on the floor of the House, but at no stage has it been suggested with regard to the phase of crisis of management that there was any impropriety in the conduct of the Department. Therefore, it is not a matter for a commission of inquiry. Indeed, Messrs Watson and Regling gave the opinion to the committee that the crisis management had been excellent. I might not subscribe to that point of view myself, but there is certainly no foundation for referring that aspect — the Department’s management or myself — to a commission of inquiry. I believe it is important that my Department is enabled to get on with the job of continuing the important job of economic management that must take place in the country here and now. I am quite satisfied there is nothing that would immobilise my Department faster than the establishment of a commission of inquiry into it now.

I have dealt with most of the points raised. Deputy Morgan asked about the Taoiseach and asked who was prepared to go before the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service. The Taoiseach has made it clear he is prepared to go before it and I am also prepared to go before it. I cannot speak for persons who are not Members of the House.

Deputy Joan Burton: Will the report go to the Minister or come to the Dáil?

Deputy Brian Lenihan: Under the legislation, it will come to me first.

Deputy Brian Lenihan: I move:

That Dáil Éireann requests the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, to consider the following Reports:

‘The Irish Banking Crisis: Regulatory and Financial Stability Policy 2003-2008’, by the Governor of the Central Bank, and

‘A Preliminary Report on The Sources of Ireland’s Banking Crisis’, by Klaus Regling and Max Watson, which were laid before Dáil Éireann on 9th June, 2010; and

taking account of the emerging EU proposals relating to fiscal and economic governance, to conclude its deliberations by 30th October, 2010 and to publish and report back to Dáil Éireann its findings and conclusions no later than 4th November, 2010 on the following key [395]policy lessons in relation to macroeconomic management set out in the report by Klaus Regling and Max Watson:

the role of macro-economic management and surveillance in securing the longterm sustainability of Ireland’s economic performance and also in responding on a timely basis to risks and imbalances that may build-up in both the private and the public sectors of the economy, including external imbalances vis-à-vis other Euro area members and the funding of any imbalances that might arise;

the role of fiscal policy in securing an appropriate alignment of the national business cycle with monetary conditions in the economy;

the requirement for the design and conduct of budgetary and taxation policies to take account of the cyclical nature of particular revenues as well as their temporary nature in certain circumstances in order to maintain an appropriate and effective tax base; and

the case for the establishment of new institutional structures to provide an independent validation of economic and fiscal projections as well as for the introduction of domestic medium-term fiscal rules.

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I propose to share time with the Minister of State, Deputy White, and Deputy O’Donoghue.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is agreed.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I welcome the Bill. Various amendments have been proposed and, to be frank, I do not care whether the provisions are inserted in this Bill or in the Greyhound Industry Act 1958, so long as they are put through. In the debate on a Private Members’ motion last December, Fine Gael’s Front Bench spokesman, Deputy Coveney, alluded to the issue of regulation thus:

Light-handed regulation and cosy relationships between senior bankers, the Regulator’s office, the Central Bank, the Department of Finance and, ultimately, Government has resulted in misinformation, market deception and deliberate concealment of vital information from shareholders, the markets and the public relating to the financial health of certain banks.

The Taoiseach has acknowledged the regulatory failures that have occurred within the banking sector and the Office of the Financial Regulator. That is why new measures have been introduced in those areas. However, when it comes to the legislation before us today, it seems we have learned absolutely nothing.

Thus far in the debate in this House and in the media we have had the alarming spectacle of some Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael Deputies speaking about the dangers of over-regulation of the greyhound racing sector. There seems to be an arrogance in the higher echelons of the greyhound sector, no more than in the banking sector, that seeks to tell others to butt out because they know nothing about it. That is that attitude which led to the systematic failure of the banking system. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, in proposing this legislation, which deals primarily with puppy farming, is seeking to ensure that dog breeding is properly regulated and monitored and that shoddy practice is no longer given the nod and the wink.

[396]As far as animal welfare is concerned, both Bord na gCon and the Irish Coursing Club, ICC, seem to be untouchable enclaves. There is no regulation other than self-regulation, and that is a dangerous thing as events in the Catholic Church and in the banking sector have shown. If people are doing good work within the sector, they should have no fear of regulation. The genuine concerns of Members have been recognised by the Minister in his amendments. I am pleased there seems to be a consensus emerging that those amendments are satisfactory. As I said, I do not care whether it is through this Bill or through legislation that is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that regulation is introduced.

My colleague, Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan, tabled the same parliamentary question earlier this year to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister at what was then the Department of Arts, Sport and Tourism, asking, in each case, whether that particular Department was responsible for overseeing the welfare of greyhounds. Her question requested the number of kennel inspections carried out by Bord na gCon in the last five years, the number of licences revoked and so on. This information should be readily on record under the 1958 Act. However, the question was disallowed on the basis that the inspection of kennels is part of the functions of Bord na gCon and is not an issue for which any of the Ministers concerned is responsible to Dáil Éireann. In other words, nobody is responsible.

The 1958 Act, as it currently stands, does not regulate. Whether through an amendment to that Act or the measures in this Bill, provision must be made for the regulation of the industry. All dogs have a right to a basic quality of life. There are no kennel inspections of the greyhound breeding industry, and that must be rectified. I hope that through the amendment of the 1958 Act, as proposed by the Minister, proper regulation will be instated. I particularly welcome the legislation in terms of preventing and monitoring the inhumane treatment of puppies that has given this country a bad reputation throughout Europe.

Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Law Reform (Deputy Mary Alexandra White): I welcome this Bill. For us in the Green Party it is a legacy issue from a former Fianna Fáil Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Dick Roche, who tried to introduce the Bill some years ago. It is an extremely important measure to protect animals and to regulate an industry that contains sinister and shady elements. As a frequent hill walker in the Blackstairs Mountains and along the River Barrow, I have often come across sacks of dumped puppies, many of them greyhounds. It is an appalling practice. I hope this legislation will curtail the incidence of abuse and maltreatment of dogs.

It is important that the greyhound industry be regulated. The proposed amendment is acceptable because it ensures the regulation of the industry will not be simple self-regulation. We all know from the revelations in the banking industry in recent years that where there is no significant external regulation of an industry, malpractice and abuse will set in. Perhaps that is human nature. The proposed amendment regarding the inspection of greyhounds allows for local authority inspectors to inspect and enforce standards, and that is vital.

I propose to highlight to the House the continuing hypocrisy of the Labour Party on current animal welfare issues and its total fear of taking a brave stance on any difficult issue.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Go easy on them.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White: The party has completed a three-point turn on the issue of stag hunting. It first indicated implicit support for the measure and a demand for it to be published, before deciding to vote against it because of a fear of unpopularity in rural Ireland, and then, finally, came the announcement that it would not repeal the ban in government. It [397]went further last weekend when it signalled conditional support for the Bill, with Deputy Ciarán Lynch announcing that the Labour Party would vote for the Bill provided those changes his party had been calling for since it was first introduced are made.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: We were right to do so and now those changes have been made.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White: Let us look at the party’s record in the Seanad on this legislation. On the fundamental issue of the definition of a breeding bitch, the Labour Party voted with Fine Gael on the proposal to amend the definition to include animals over two years of age. Such an amendment would have been anathema to the objectives of the Bill, as the Labour Party knows, yet its Senators voted for such an amendment. On other substantive amendments, the Labour Party voted against the advice of the Dogs Trust and the ISPCA on what is best to ensure welfare for dogs. This all points to one reality: the party is like a dog with its tail spinning in all directions. It does not know which way to turn. However, I am pleased that at the final hour it has followed the conscience of Deputy Broughan in supporting animal welfare legislation.

This Bill provides for strong protection for dogs in dog breeding establishments. It is supportive of rural Ireland. It protects animals and does nothing to threaten rural pursuits or industries. It will ensure animals in these domains are treated well and help to ensure a positive reputation for our greyhound and dog breeding industries abroad. As a complete non sequitur, I refer to Sir Robert Falcon Scott who tried to get to the South Pole but was beaten by the Norwegians, Amundsen and others. It is now said in historical footnotes that if he had remembered to bring worming tablets for his dogs, the entire history of polar exploration would be different.

Deputy John O’Donoghue: I have no intention of delivering a dissertation on pluralism or of pluralists, but it is necessary that I refer to these matters given that there has been an attempt in recent months by self-styled pluralists to hijack this debate. It is instructive in this respect for the House and the people of this country to recall the father of Irish pluralism, a man described by one historian as “an Irishman who strolled across the pages of European history as a colossus”. Daniel O’Connell was in love with hunting and once said, speaking of hares and beagles: “The hares are strong and numerous and I hunt every day with nine couples and a half of the first and best beagles in the world, beyond the reach of politics.”

O’Connell’s pluralism is quite different to the self-styled mutterings of so-called pluralists which emanate from the cappuccino bars of Dublin 4.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Where is Dublin 4?

Deputy John O’Donoghue: O’Connell’s pluralism is far different to the type of pluralism that sometimes emanates from Donnybrook. We should distinguish between pluralists and tut-tuters; between pluralism and tut-tutism. There is no greater illustration of tut-tuters and tut-tutism emanating from the establishment at Donnybrook than the pictures shown on our screens last week of the most unfortunate greyhound in the whole world; they must have searched the earth for it. There it was on screen with ten saplings suffering.

All that was missing from the screen was the indignant voice-over of Seán O’Rourke. One must make the observation that RTE was doing what RTE does best, that is, present the exception and pretend that exception is the rule.

Naturally, this is a feature of tut-tuters and tut-tutism in Irish society. I regret to say it is not confined to the cappuccino bars in Dublin 4, which McCreevy described correctly as a state of mind, not a geographic place, for fear anyone should take offence, or to the hallowed halls of Donnybrook. Unfortunately, tut-tuters and tut-tutism have also emerged in this House of late.

[398]I regret to state that it has emanated from the Leas-Cheann Comhairle’s political party. We have seen Deputy Gilmore, a scion of Sinn Féin, Official Sinn Féin, Sinn Féin The Workers Party, The Workers Party, New Agenda, Democratic Left, which was involved in the reverse takeover of the Labour Party, speak out against blood sports. Then we witnessed the voice of Deputy Penrose strongly defending the rights of rural Ireland. Then we heard the calmer voice of Deputy Ciarán Lynch putting what I can only describe in Corkonian terms as “a bob each way”. Naturally, this should come as no surprise to anyone in the House. The truth is we do not know where the Labour Party stands on banking, education, job creation, transport, rural issues, water charges or even on the Croke Park deal, not to mention health.

Deputy Mary Alexandra White: Hear, hear.

Deputy John O’Donoghue: If I may be excused the analogy, Deputy Gilmore reminds me of a gadfly around the tail of an old cow. He circles, one does not hear him, sometimes he might land but one does not see him land, but all the time one knows he is there and, in the final analysis, one will never quite know what he is up to, where he is going or how he will get there.

Deputy Phil Hogan: God deliver us.

Deputy John O’Donoghue: That appears to be a very popular stance to take in modern day Irish politics. It amounts to tut-tutism by the finest tut-tuter in the House and I am certain that a man who stands for nothing will fall for anything.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Fully two minutes remain before I call the Minister. I call Deputy Seán Sherlock.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: The Labour Party seeks, by way of amendment, to ensure the Act does not apply to any matter regulated by the Greyhound Industry Acts 1958 and 1993. We believe strongly that if we are to support the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill, it must be on the basis that there is a clear and unambiguous attempt by the stakeholders in the greyhound industry in conjunction with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure the code of practice put in place to ensure the welfare of the greyhounds is maintained.

I speak on behalf of the smaller breeders; these are the people I represent. The situation at present is such that when one visits a stud dog with a bitch with the intention of breeding a litter, the fact is publicised in the sporting press immediately. When pups are born one notifies the ICC, Irish Coursing Club, within 14 days. Details of date of birth and size of litter are published in the sporting press. The bitch can be inspected anytime during this period. The control steward inspects the pups and takes a DNA sample. At 12 weeks old, the control steward tattoos the full litter on both ears; the left ear with a personal identification number and the right ear with the litter number. Before they are 12 months old, the pups are officially named and their markings entered into their identity cards. These are the current procedures as they stand.

I am in favour of field sports and coursing and I have been at greyhound meetings. The people I represent are those who rear pups. They do not consider that the establishments or kennels they have are dog breeding establishments. They are genuine people who have a genuine regard for field sports and for the welfare of the animals they keep. For the most part, they are not in it for the primary motivation of profit, in the sense of developing breeding establishments. The gain for such people is a potential win at such a venue as Clonmel or Youghal and for the love of the sport. There is no fiduciary gain for the most part. Most of these people have been involved in the sport at an intergenerational level. If a book were kept of their expenses, one could be guaranteed that they have made a loss during the years they have been involved in the sport. The primary motivation is not profit but a love of the pursuit [399]of the sport. It is genuine and integral for these people. It is an affront to insult these people with some of the language I have heard from various sides of the House and we must speak for them. We wish to speak for them in a modest and reasonable way.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I thank all Deputies for their varied, interesting and, for the most part, positive contributions to the debate in the House. It is clear many Deputies have experience of greyhound ownership. Some, such as Deputy Joe Carey, have had more success than others. I am confident the Bill, as amended, will safeguard the welfare of dogs in all dog breeding establishments. It will ensure a thriving greyhound industry over time and create employment by enhancing the standards and reputation of dog breeding in Ireland.

Every Member will be aware by now that I have proactively engaged with stakeholders and Members with a view to addressing any fears the proposed legislation might raise for various interest groups. More than 650 submissions were received after the publication of the report of the working group. The working group was established by my predecessor, Deputy Dick Roche, in 2005, a point that has been overlooked by many in the course of this debate. Its terms of reference were to examine the current positions regarding the management of kennels and to make recommendations for such improvements. Therefore, greyhounds were always considered to come within the remit of the terms of reference. To underline this fact, the Irish Greyhound Board was represented on the working group and has been consulted extensively since then. Senior officials from my Department have met the Irish Greyhound Board and the Irish Coursing Club on several occasions recently and have met the Dogs Trust and the Irish Kennel Club.

In particular, the Irish Coursing Club has played a constructive role in the development of greyhound welfare and has engaged positively and openly during the course of the debate. As a result of these engagements, I will detail amendments to address concerns relating to inspections, finance, the powers of authorised persons, breeding limitations, micro chipping and the effects of implementation. I believe these amendments will allay successfully the concerns of the stakeholders involved. I welcome the expressions of support for the Bill made in this House last Friday. In particular, I thank Deputy Ned O’Keeffe for his forthright views. His support for the Bill and the coalition are welcome. His observations regarding the conduct of State agencies during the debate are astute and merit further consideration.

The definition of a dog breeding establishment was specified by the working group appointed by the former Minister, Deputy Roche, as being based on the number of female dogs on the premises with breeding potential. The working group included veterinary representation from Veterinary Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Louth County Council and the ISPCA, and the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. There was no shortage of veterinary expertise in the group, which developed the definition of a dog breeding establishment which is, I believe, clear, unambiguous and, as such, will aid enforcement.

The group noted the difficulties experienced in the United Kingdom with definitions based on breed which have become unenforceable. I acknowledge that the estrous cycle ranges from six to 18 months depending on the breed of dog, but a working group definition was required to ensure that all bitches capable of breeding were included. Therefore, they set “four months old and capable of breeding” as a definition of a bitch. I have indicated that I will modify this to “six months old and capable of breeding”. However, I reiterate that this is not a marker for when to start breeding.

I highlight that the Bill allows three litters in any three years, thereby providing a dog breeder with the flexibility to determine a bitch’s potential prior to commencing breeding. Concern has been expressed regarding the impact the Bill might have on the casual breeder with only a few pups. Establishments with less than six bitches of six months old and capable of breeding will [400]not be affected by the Bill. If a bitch produces a litter of female pups, the breeder has six months to consider what to do with them before they become reckonable for the purposes of the Bill. Sterilised or spayed bitches are not capable of breeding and are not reckonable for the purposes of defining a “dog breeding establishment”.

I have extended the fee bands in order that an establishment with up to 18 bitches aged over six months and capable of breeding will only pay €400 registration. That is not a high fee when one thinks of the production that can be achieved from 18 bitches and the market value of a good pup.

Inspection by a local authority veterinary officer will be a prerequisite for the issuing of an improvement notice. A dog warden will not be authorised to issue such a notice. This will reassure those who question the objectives of certain dog wardens. Dog wardens, in turn, will be reassured by the provision that they be accompanied by a member of An Garda Síochána as necessary.

We will shortly commence Committee Stage, on which I will outline the full set of amendments that will strengthen the Bill in terms of its general acceptance and address the concerns of stakeholders, including the Irish Coursing Club, the Hunting Association of Ireland and the Dogs Trust while ensuring local authority veterinary and dog control staff have workable legislation to safeguard the welfare of dogs. The legislation is about the welfare of dogs. I thank the Members who contributed and I very much thank my civil servants for all their work. I look forward to a good debate on Committee and Report Stages.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 94; Níl, 50.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.	Aylward, Bobby.
Behan, Joe.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Browne, John.	Burton, Joan.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Collins, Niall.
Connick, Seán.	Costello, Joe.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Flynn, Beverley.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Healy-Rae, Jackie.	Higgins, Michael D.
Hoctor, Máire.	Howlin, Brendan.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.	Kitt, Michael P.
Kitt, Tom.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
Lynch, Ciarán.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Michael.	McGuinness, John.
McManus, Liz.	Mansergh, Martin.
Martin, Micheál.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Nolan, M.J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Brien, Darragh.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Flynn, Noel.
O’Hanlon, Rory.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Edward.	O’Rourke, Mary.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Christy.
O’Sullivan, Jan.	O’Sullivan, Maureen.
Penrose, Willie.	Power, Seán.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.	Scanlon, Eamon.
Sherlock, Seán.	Shortall, Róisín.
Smith, Brendan.	Stagg, Emmet.
Tuffy, Joanna.	Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.	Wallace, Mary.
White, Mary Alexandra.	Woods, Michael.

Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Bannon, James.
Barrett, Seán.	Breen, Pat.
Bruton, Richard.	Burke, Ulick.
Byrne, Catherine.	Carey, Joe.
Clune, Deirdre.	Connaughton, Paul.
Coveney, Simon.	Crawford, Seymour.
Creed, Michael.	D’Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Doyle, Andrew.	Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Feighan, Frank.	Ferris, Martin.
Flanagan, Charles.	Flanagan, Terence.
Hayes, Brian.	Hayes, Tom.
Hogan, Phil.	Kehoe, Paul.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McEntee, Shane.
McGinley, Dinny.	McHugh, Joe.
Mitchell, Olivia.	Morgan, Arthur.
Neville, Dan.	Noonan, Michael.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.	Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O’Donnell, Kieran.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Mahony, John.
Reilly, James.	Ring, Michael.
Shatter, Alan.	Sheahan, Tom.
Sheehan, P.J..	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Varadkar, Leo.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Pat Carey and Paul Kehoe.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): I draw Members’ attention to a printing error in the list of amendments. In amendment No. 50, the text at the end of the amendment beginning with the words “be accompanied by” should be further indented as it only applies to paragraph (b) of the inserted subsection (2).

SECTION 1

Question proposed: “That section 1 stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Phil Hogan: Section 1(3) states: “This Act shall come into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders either generally or with reference to any [402]particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or provisions.” This is something the Minister did not deal with in his speech on Second Stage. Perhaps he will clarify that he missed a paragraph of his speech on that occasion dealing with a commencement order in respect of this legislation on 1 January 2011. What he is saying effectively is that, notwithstanding what is agreed or disagreed in the House, the Act will come into operation after such time as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will have an opportunity to amend the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 in the autumn. Will the Minister clarify if this means he can implement regulations on 1 January 2011, irrespective of what is agreed with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or new animal welfare regulations or legislation brought forward by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the autumn, or can he supersede those powers by introducing his own regulations? Clarity is required on that issue.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: What is the current state of negotiations between the Minister’s Department and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if there are such negotiations, regarding pending legislation? Is there a timeframe? Are there heads of a Bill for amending legislation? What is the status of the proposed amendment to the 1958 Act? There has not been enough clarity on that.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): Deputy Hogan’s understanding is correct and I will adopt the same consensual approach as I have adopted to date.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: I ask for some order in the Chamber, please.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Order in the Chamber, please.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): I will be adopting the same consensual approach as I have adopted heretofore. I will engage not just with the stakeholders, but also, in this instance, with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He intends to amend the 1958 Act accordingly. This is being done because it is recognised now that the main purpose of the 1958 Act is to regulate the greyhound industry. It has been successful in doing that but its primary focus is not welfare and this Bill, after all, is a welfare piece of legislation. We want to ensure there is agreement among the people on the greyhound board that this is necessary. They are anxious to co-operate fully with us and I acknowledged this in my summing up on Second Stage. The Irish Coursing Club, in particular, has been most constructive in its proposals. I want to see this done. The Deputy asked about a time line. I would hope we can do this as quickly as possible in the autumn and, therefore, I will be in a position then, at the start of 2011, to bring forward a commencement order.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: There is a level of ambiguity which Members thought was resolved last Friday when the Minister said it was proposed that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would amend the 1958 Greyhound Industry Act to legislate for welfare provisions for members of the Irish Greyhound Board. Once amended, the welfare of the IGB registered greyhounds will be addressed through the amended 1958 Act and would then replace for IGB registered greyhounds, breeders and trainers only, the provisions of the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009.

I am not too sure where the Minister is going and whether he is creating a legislative difficulty. He does not cite the 1958 Act in this Bill. By his reference of last week he is stating that this will be dealt with through separate legislation on the greyhound industry. What is the [403]Minister’s position? More important, where is he in a legislative sense? He seems to have a foot in both pieces of legislation but he is not stating where it stands in either.

Deputy John Gormley: I do not understand the Deputy’s point. I think I was quite explicit in my contribution on Friday when I said, in so far as greyhounds are concerned, the welfare provisions will be inserted into the 1958 Act. This is very clear. I am not citing — why would I cite — the 1958 Act in this legislation when it is a separate piece of legislation——

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Correct.

Deputy John Gormley: ——and that is the point. We will ensure the welfare of greyhounds is looked after under the amended 1958 Act. However, the people in Bord na gCon have agreed that in so far as inspections are concerned, we will have people from the local authorities conducting them. As was stated by a previous speaker, we are not going to have self-regulation as such. We have to have objective criteria. Most people recognise that this has to be part of the legislation. I wish to be very clear. As I said earlier, Deputy Hogan’s understanding is correct. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will undertake to make those amendments as quickly as possible. For everybody’s sake, and for the welfare of animals, it is important that we proceed as quickly as possible.

I reiterate a point made in my contributions that there are some differences, one of which is that Bord na gCon has a tattooing system, which was alluded to by Deputy Sherlock and which has been in place for quite some time. I regard microchipping as being far more effective. I have had discussions with experts. I refer Deputies to the Australian example and the fact that the Australian greyhound board and the UK greyhound board all use microchipping at this stage. There is no difference in the dogs’ performance and it presents no difficulties. It is cheaper, more efficient and I hope we can have ongoing discussions on this issue. This seems to be the way to go, in my view, but I am not laying down any markers as I have left that open for the Bord na gCon people to consider. I want to consult widely. This is not a case of imposing anything but rather it is about consulting and seeing what is best for the industry and what is best for the welfare of animals.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am delighted to hear that the Minister is now engaging with the stakeholders. He found it difficult to do so for a while——

Deputy John Gormley: I have always done so.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I know he has had various meetings in recent times but he certainly caused a lot of angst to his Government backbenchers by his lack of interest in all sorts of dialogue until the gun was put to his head, effectively, in the last week or two. All of us are interested in the animal welfare issues. We are asking the House to agree in this section, without any reference to the details of what will come forward in the 1958 amended greyhound Act. We do not know what has happened in the smoke-filled rooms as to the details of what the Minister has in mind to be proposed in the autumn by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We do not know whether the Minister, Deputy Gormley, agrees or disagrees with any proposals being made, if there are any, yet he is asking the House to finish dealing with this Bill without that detail.

I do not know what has been going on in rooms around the House over the past couple of weeks and perhaps the Minister might tell the House what he has agreed but I am certainly not impressed by the fact that he knows exactly what he wants to do. He has had a number of meetings with various stakeholders. I presume he has had a meeting with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We do not have any piece of paper before us today nor any [404]note from the Minister to be read to the House about what agreement he has reached in respect of animal welfare regulations that would be introduced to amend the 1958 Act and yet he expects us to buy a pig in a poke. That is our problem.

In my view, in section 1, the Minister is waving the big stick over the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food with regard to the amending of the 1958 greyhound Act. He is asking him to bring in animal welfare regulations and put them on a statutory basis and at the same time he is saying that he gives himself powers for a commencement order on animal welfare to be brought in on 1 January 2011 in the event that he does not reach agreement with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We want this to be quite explicit. This is legislation and there are further amendments from Deputy Ciarán Lynch and myself on section 2 which will reflect this. We want to see an exemption, which is what the Minister promised the Fianna Fáil backbenchers. He should not have any difficulty about exempting his own role in animal welfare issues, in respect of this Bill, if he trusts the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to bring in an amendment to the 1958 greyhound Act. That is my point and I ask the Minister to take it on board.

2 o’clock

Deputy Seán Sherlock: We are being asked to pass legislation on the basis of a leap of faith. In essence, a greyhound owner looking at the legislation who had not been in touch with the ICC or Bord na gCon in the past number of weeks would not be aware of what negotiations had taken place. Therefore, there is still a lack of clarity as to the exact nature of the proposals. If Members are being asked to pass this legislation, I would like to know more about the substantive nature of those negotiations, the qualitative and quantitative outcomes of those deliberations, and if we are to have regard and to have trust in the Minister or the Government of the day to deliver the right kind of amendments to the 1958 Act.

Deputy Joe Carey: I welcome the Minister’s new-found regard for the Irish Coursing Club in that in a contribution of 40 minutes last Friday he failed to mention the club’s name. I welcome his engagement now as this is a step forward. What does the Minister want the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do with the 1958 Act?

What amendments does he see as acceptable? We must see the colour of the Minister’s money. I would love to believe the Minister but I simply cannot. I have seen what he has said in this House on other issues. He said he would protect the frontline but he is not doing so in respect of other issues. I want to see this in black and white. That is not here today. What does the Minister want the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to do? What is acceptable to the Minister as the Green Party Minister pushing this agenda?

Deputy Martin Ferris: I concur with previous speakers. We are being asked to support or oppose something that is ambiguous to say the least. We do not know what it will contain or what influence the Department will have on the welfare side of the 1958 Act. This matter needs more clarity. Sinn Féin wants to be crystal clear on the detail of this.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: I will simplify the problem. From the outset, the difficulty was the inclusion of the greyhound industry in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill because another Act covers the greyhound industry. That is a recognised difficulty with the Bill. Last week the Minister indicated he would try to tidy up this but no material change has been made to the Bill. If greyhounds were included in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill last week and there has been no material change, the greyhound industry will be included in the Bill next week. However, last week the Minister stated, “As part of this proposal, until such time as the provisions listed above are incorporated into the 1958 Act [the greyhound act] the regulation of [405]dog breeding establishments containing greyhounds will continue under my Department as provided for in the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009”. Will we reintroduce the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill on 2 January after the Minister has made amendments to extrapolate this legislation? This is the sort of nonsense brought before us by the Minister.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: In February 2009 I asked the Minister if the proposed dog breeding establishments regulations would be incorporated or superseded by the soon-to-be published animal welfare Bill. The essence of the response was that the process included discussions with various interest groups and that it was the intention of the Minister to introduce amending legislation on dog breeding establishments. The Minister said his proposals in this regard would be published as soon as possible and would compliment measures being prepared by his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the area of animal welfare and health.

Regarding the comment of Deputy Ciarán Lynch, will the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill continue to have an animal welfare remit or will this be removed or superseded by the animal welfare Bill? What agreements have the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food come to? I asked if the Minister had been in consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but he did not answer.

Deputy John Gormley: There is considerable confusion about this legislation.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: We agree.

Deputy Joe Carey: Rushed legislation is bad legislation.

Deputy John Gormley: Deputies opposite need to concentrate on one item of legislation at a time. Commentators have also used confusing terms. Reference has been made to the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill and the animal welfare Bill, which has yet to come before this House. The animal welfare Bill is a separate item of legislation under the remit of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is substantial legislation, overhauling legislation that is more than 100 years old. I hope the Bill will be before the House in the autumn. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing today. Deputies should be crystal clear on that point.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: On a point of order, when it was initially on the Order Paper the animal welfare Bill referred to all farm animals and non-farm animals. This legislation must have some regard to the animal welfare Bill.

Deputy John Gormley: Let us be very clear, the animal welfare Bill concerns animal welfare provisions outside the scope of this legislation. This Bill deals with the dog breeding establishments. There was confusion last week in the Seanad where Fine Gael voted against all of the provisions of the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill, including the essential provision providing hunting licenses for those affected by the confusion about the firearms certificate.

Deputy Phil Hogan: We are not confused.

Deputy John Gormley: It is on the record. I could not believe it. As for the Labour Party——

Deputy Phil Hogan: We cannot believe what is happening.

Deputy Joe Carey: On what planet is the Minister?

[406]Deputy John Gormley: I remind the Labour Party Deputies that in the Seanad, Labour Senators voted with the Fine Gael Party on a number of amendments. This did not make any sense. They wanted to extend the breeding age.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister should deal with legislation, not make smartarse comments.

Deputy John Gormley: I have managed to do something that defied many people. I have brought together Fine Gael and Sinn Féin, which is quite a feat.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister could not bring Fianna Fáil with him until today.

Deputy Joe Carey: Where are the Fianna Fáil backbench Deputies?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): I call on the Minister without interruption. The Minister should direct his comments to the Chair.

Deputy John Gormley: Fianna Fáil Deputies know the Minister is quite capable of dealing with everyone on the opposite side and does not need any assistance.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister should answer the question.

Deputy John Gormley: I have answered every question. Deputies suggested I said I would make an exemption but I never said that. I was quite explicit that I could not make exemptions for any breed of dog.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister should answer the question he was asked.

Deputy John Gormley: The Deputies are asking whether they will buy a pig in a poke.

Deputy Phil Hogan: We will not.

Deputy John Gormley: This comes down to an element of trust.

Deputy Phil Hogan: We do not trust the Minister.

Deputy John Gormley: It comes down to another issue, which is the raging campaign of vilification into which the Fine Gael Party has bought.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Is the Minister looking for martyrdom?

Deputy John Gormley: Fine Gael is operating hand in glove with RISE!, which is regrettable. Let us deal with the legislation before us, which is good legislation that will allay the concerns of many people. Fine Gael has stoked up this matter and continues to do so.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Deputy Doyle has sought the implementation of appropriate legislation on animal welfare to ban puppy farms and the type of activities associated with them.

Deputy John Gormley: Here it is.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister sought to introduce legislation through the backdoor system to give him powers on all sorts of other issues, including greyhounds, hunt clubs and beagles. This is extraneous material that no one called for except the Minister. They were properly regulated by the self-regulation system.

Deputy John Gormley: Deputy Hogan is completely wrong.

[407]Deputy Joe Carey: The Green Party agenda.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister should answer the question he was asked. What deal has he done with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on animal welfare that allows the Minister to remove from this legislation any reference to a commencement order on 1 January 2011 on animal welfare under this legislation?

Deputy Seán Sherlock: We are trying to clear the way in respect of the body of animal welfare legislation. I am sure the Minister agrees with our line of questioning in that we are merely seeking clarification. We seek clarification on the negotiations with the ICC and Bord na gCon regarding the role of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food vis-à-vis the amended 1958 legislation. The second point concerns how specifically that Act will be amended.

The animal welfare Bill is under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. On no fewer than ten occasions, the Labour Party has asked the Taoiseach when that legislation will be published. We do not have a Bill before us even though we are told it will be published in the autumn. If this is on the C list of the Government’s legislative programme, where is the balance of priorities and how does the Minister envisage its implementation? Will legislation enacted now be superseded by that legislation or is it separate? It is very confusing. I am relatively new to this game but I am trying to speak with common sense. With respect to the Minister, all I seek from him are some clear unambiguous answers to which Members are entitled.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The job of Members on the Labour Party, Fine Gael and Sinn Féin benches this afternoon is to test the robustness of this legislation. It is to keep the Minister focused on the legislation on hand, despite his attempts to go off on a tangent into other areas.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Deputy Mattie McGrath, who has just arrived in the Chamber, is needed.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Ultimately, Dáil Éireann has two hours in which to discuss all Stages of this Bill. Members have very little time for scrutiny as a result of the decision by the Green Party and Fianna Fáil to guillotine the legislation. This Bill spent a great deal of time in the Seanad without being much amended by the Minister. However, he has introduced a whole raft of amendments this evening to which he has given little time.

Consequently, I call on the Minister to focus his comments and contributions to the content and context of his amendments and to what Members on this side of the House are saying. He should move away from the divisive approach he has taken on this legislation since he inherited it from previous Ministers. This comes down to producing simple legislation and the Minister has not answered the query I raised initially. Where stands the greyhound industry on 2 January, if the conditions to which the Minister referred last Friday are implemented? Does the greyhound industry still remain within the remit of the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill 2009 and if not, because it is not specified in the Bill, by what means will it be incorporated into the 1958 Act? These measures will result in an outcome that no one wants, which is that the Irish greyhound industry will be governed by two legislative items, namely, the amended 1958 Act and the Bill before Members today.

Deputy Joe Carey: I again ask the Minister to be clear on what he seeks. He should indicate to Members what he intends to do with the greyhound industry. I refer to his remarks to the effect that he considers microchipping to be better than tattooing. Were the greyhound industry to be taken out of this, as the Minister has stated it will be, he would not have a view on the greyhound industry. Consequently, he should inform Members what would be acceptable to [408]him in respect of the greyhound industry. What material differences will he agree to have incorporated into the 1958 Act?

Deputy John Gormley: Unfortunately, Deputy Hogan in particular continues to peddle a number of falsehoods quite deliberately.

Deputy Tom Hayes: He would not do that, would he?

Deputy John Gormley: He has stated that certain breeds of dogs were always supposed to be separate from this legislation. That is not so. It simply is not the case and anyone——

Deputy Phil Hogan: Answer the question.

Deputy John Gormley: Hold on. I wish to correct what you put on the record of this House. I cannot let that go.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: The Minister should be ministerial.

Deputy John Gormley: I must——

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister should not stonewall.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: The Minister is not answering the question, which is creating a problem.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: The Minister should behave with the appropriate level of decorum and should not behave like a schoolboy.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy John Gormley: This is a fact. Please, do not come into this Chamber——

Deputy Seán Sherlock: The Minister should cut to the chase.

Deputy John Gormley: ——and say that it was always understood that certain breeds of dogs would be exempt. That was not the case.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I did not say that.

Deputy John Gormley: You did. You came in here and you said that.

Deputy Phil Hogan: No.

Deputy John Gormley: You said that I had come in and somehow widened the remit of this legislation.

Deputy Phil Hogan: You did.

Deputy John Gormley: That is what you said and that is incorrect.

Deputy Phil Hogan: That is a fact.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): The Minister and Deputy Hogan should direct their comments through the Chair.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister had to take it out of it afterwards.

[409]Deputy John Gormley: That is absolutely incorrect because I simply followed to the letter the guidance that came from the task force that was set up by my predecessor.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister did not. Not at all.

Deputy John Gormley: The other point Deputy Hogan was trying to make was that somehow, I did not consult. However, all these people were part of the task force. There was total consultation and I have met representatives of the Irish Greyhound Board a number of times.

Deputy Phil Hogan: What were all the meetings about over the past two weeks?

Deputy John Gormley: Deputy Hogan then spoke of smoke-filled rooms and all the rest. This is total nonsense. I have never been in a smoke-filled room——

Deputy Phil Hogan: He has been in a fair few of them in the past two weeks with the Government backbenchers. He may not have had Deputy Mattie McGrath, but he had a couple of others.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): The Minister, without interruption.

Deputy John Gormley: This is simply complete nonsense.

This legislation is an animal welfare measure. As agreed, I am giving the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food an opportunity to amend the 1958 Act——

Deputy Phil Hogan: To do what?

Deputy John Gormley: ——which will allow him to include animal welfare provisions in that legislation. As to whether I am able to state on the floor of this House what exactly will be included in that legislation, I cannot.

Deputy Phil Hogan: That is important.

Deputy John Gormley: This is ridiculous. We are here to discuss this legislation but Members now wish me to begin to discuss legislation that has not even been published yet.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The Minister discussed it.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister is the one who brought it in.

Deputy John Gormley: That is absolutely ridiculous. Let us have calmness and some sanity and let us talk about the legislation before us. When the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food publishes his legislation, we can talk about it in detail. I imagine——

Deputy Phil Hogan: So the Minister has not spoken to him.

Deputy Joe Carey: The Minister is trying to cod Members.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): The Minister, without interruption, please.

Deputy John Gormley: Is that not the best course of action?

Deputy Phil Hogan: There is no agreement between the Ministers.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: The Minister has never spoken to his ministerial colleague.

[410]Deputy Seán Sherlock: Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should be brought in.

Question put and declared carried.

NEW SECTION

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Amendments Nos. 1, 16 and 17 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section:

“2.—This Act does not apply to any matter regulated by the Greyhound Industry Acts 1958 and 1993.”.

The commentary and contributions of the past 15 to 20 minutes constitutes the opening chapter on why I tabled this amendment. The amendment is self-explanatory. It is highly disingenuous for the Minister to state this stuff is being introduced by Members on this side of the House. The reason this debate is taking place is because last Friday, during the Second Stage debate, the Minister was at pains to talk about the greyhound industry, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and amendments to the 1958 Act. The interpretation that arose from that debate was that the Minister had made a wise decision, having got himself into a bundle of knots in recent months on what should have been a simple Bill. In fact, this legislation should simply have coasted under the radar through the House to deal with the scandal of puppy farming in Ireland. However, in his wisdom, the Minister decided to broaden the scope of the Bill. Moreover, he sent signals to the greyhound industry and to the Hunting Association of Ireland. I refer to a letter he sent to Deputy Dermot Ahern in 2008.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Did Deputy Mattie McGrath get that one?

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Perhaps the Minister can correct me, because his signature appears at the end of this letter. He stated:

Given that the primary objective of the proposed regulations is to regulate commercial dog breeding, and in view of the stricter standards which apply to the members of the Hunting Association of Ireland, it is my intention that groups affiliated to the HAI be granted an exemption from the requirements of the regulations.

I note that Deputy Mattie McGrath is sitting behind the Minister. He put it more eloquently than me when he construed the Minister’s words to mean that if one was not part of the problem, one should not be part of the solution.

Consequently, my amendment proposes to get the Minister out of the quagmire he has created for himself by taking legislation that had cross-party unanimous support in this House to deal with the issue of puppy farming. It proposes to leave issues relating to the greyhound industry and greyhound breeding within the remit of the 1958 Act. At this late stage, I hope the Minister will accept this amendment and will support this proposal. This amendment constitutes an effort by the Opposition to assist this Bill by making it more robust. It does not create a scenario whereby the greyhound industry will be regulated under two Acts and this clarifies this debate, in order that Members can move forward and deal with the more substantive issues, which are the intent of this Bill, namely, those pertaining to puppy farming.

[411]Deputy Phil Hogan: The amendment tabled by Deputy Ciarán Lynch is similar to amendments Nos. 16 and 17 that I tabled in a different section. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, about the misinformation being given by the Minister, Deputy Gormley, to try to convey the impression that he did not wish to do anything except the honourable thing in respect of animal welfare. The Minister introduced a form of misinformation to various Deputies, including a Cabinet Minister, which is remarkable, as far back as 2008. Deputy Lynch correctly referred to that. The Minister brought the greyhound industry, the Hunting Association of Ireland and their affiliated clubs into the equation in terms of the Bill. He generated the controversy and he has spent the past couple of weeks trying to extricate himself from it——

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Hear, hear.

Deputy Phil Hogan: ——because he has damaged the stability of the Government. The trust of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers has been damaged to such an extent that nobody trusts the Minister to have the powers——

Deputy John Gormley: Is Deputy Hogan disappointed?

Deputy Phil Hogan: It is clear that the Minister is not disagreeing with me. In these amendments we seek to have the greyhound industry removed completely from the Bill, which is what, in effect, the Minister has postponed until 1 January 2011 by giving himself an enabling provision to go ahead with his own animal welfare regulations for all dogs, including greyhounds, if he does not reach agreement on the amendment of the 1958 Greyhound Industry Act with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the autumn. In effect, that is what the Minister is doing.

We seek to give certainty to the greyhound industry that we will remove all references to animal welfare from the dog breeding establishments legislation and let the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food deal with it as stand-alone legislation in the autumn. Fianna Fáil backbenchers believe they had an agreement with the Minister and the Taoiseach to that effect, namely, that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would deal with animal welfare issues surrounding the greyhound industry, but that is not the case. Under the Bill the Minister would still be able to introduce his own regulations through a commencement order in 2011 if he does not agree with the proposals of the Minister, Deputy Smith, in the autumn.

Politically speaking, the Minister is waving a big stick over the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He is saying that if the Minister, Deputy Smith, does not agree with him he will do his own thing on 1 January 2011. The Minister has given himself the necessary power and provisions in the Bill to do exactly that on 1 January without reference to the Dáil. He does not have to come back to the Dáil. He is giving himself substantial powers at a time when he is not trusted on the matter by his backbencher colleagues in Government. If the Minister wants to be genuine with the people he has been negotiating with, not just stakeholders but Government backbenchers, he should say he will remove all references to matters relating to the Greyhound Industry Act and the greyhound industry and leave it to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Smith, to deal with it in the amendment to the 1958 Act. The Minister will have an input at Cabinet level and the Dáil will have an opportunity on the floor of the House.

Deputy Joe Carey: Hear, hear.

Deputy Phil Hogan: That is the way it works. The Minister cannot have it every way. Trust is very important. We are taking what the Minister has said on trust, that he will reach agree[412]ment with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on those issues in the autumn. In effect, the Minister is saying to him and to all of the people who have an interest in the matter such as the greyhound industry and Government backbenchers as well as Members of the Opposition that he will still have the whip hand over anyone and everyone who wishes to have matters relating to animal welfare and the greyhound industry included in the legislation. We wish to remove all references to the greyhound industry and if the Minister trusts the House and his colleagues he will agree to do that. He has given his word on the matter in various meetings in the past two weeks. If that is his position he will have no difficulty whatsoever in removing references to the greyhound industry from the Bill and leaving it to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the autumn.

Deputy Seán Sherlock: I wish to refer to the Minister’s Second Stage speech where he stated:

I have also stated that I understand the legitimate concerns of certain industry sectors, such as the Irish Greyhound Board, and I am prepared to accommodate them as best I can. For that reason it is proposed that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would amend the Greyhound Industry Act 1958 to legislate for welfare provisions for members of the Irish Greyhound Board.

We note the words “welfare provisions”. Given that the Minister has stated that it is not possible to give an indication today of what will be in the amended legislation, which we accept to a certain extent, in order to ensure that there is no ambiguity and so that the greyhound industry is not placed in a position where it is taking a giant leap of faith in terms of what the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food might offer by way of the amended legislation, we propose an amendment that would make it clear and unambiguous as to where the Minister’s intentions lie. If he were to support the amendment that would give great solace to the Irish Greyhound Board, the Irish Coursing Club and to every single dog owner throughout the country who courses hares or races greyhounds in such places as Curraheen Park and Youghal.

Deputy Tom Hayes: The Minister does not understand the greyhound industry. I have been listening in recent weeks to the Fianna Fáil backbenchers from Tipperary who are sitting behind the Minister. I refer to Deputies Hoctor and Mattie McGrath and others. The Minister does not understand the concerns of the greyhound industry, which is represented in abundance in our county. He does not understand the commitment of those people to animal welfare. They have built their livelihoods and created employment in our county and they are worried about the Bill which is why they are lobbying us on a constant basis. The Minister has failed to recognise the contribution that the industry makes to the economy. I am very concerned about the matter.

If one takes any parish in any part of County Tipperary, from Golden to Lorrha, or down to Newcastle, people there are involved in the greyhound industry. Every one of the people I met at the show in Clonmel last Sunday is very angry with the Minister because he does not understand their commitment to animal welfare. The Minister is insulting their commitment. He should consider the amendment because it is the view of the majority of Members of Parliament and it is what the people want. I urge the Minister to rescind his current position and leave the greyhound industry alone. It is committed to animal welfare. The people involved in it like what they are doing and they want to continue with their business.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: I agree with my colleagues across the Chamber. I appeal at this late stage to the Minister to consider the amendments. We have had many meetings, and they were not in smoke-filled rooms. I assure Deputy Hogan that I attended all the meetings up to [413]last week. The meetings are ongoing. I concur with my south Tipperary colleague. The greyhound industry is a vital one. The Government took severe austerity measures to try to stabilise the economy and get people back to work yet in this case we have an industry but we are putting people out of work. That is why I cannot support the Bill. At this late stage I urge the Minister to listen to the sensible requests from the Opposition.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I concur with previous speakers. The greyhound industry is important in rural areas, especially in my constituency in north Kerry, and contributes substantially to the local economy. Those involved are most concerned about what the Minister has proposed in the Bill. It would alleviate many difficulties if we had clarification on the Minister’s input on the amendment of the 1958 Act.

I support Deputy Lynch’s amendment. It reflects the views of those associated with the industry, good decent people who contribute substantially to the rural economy. It is probably one of the most successful aspects of the rural economy at the moment. The fear is that the Minister is trying to destroy it.

Deputy Joe Carey: I fully support the amendment. It is a fundamental one which would remove the greyhound industry from the provisions of the Bill. The Minister has said he would remove the greyhound industry to give comfort to Fianna Fáil backbenchers who have put pressure on him. That is what he has been telling them. We are giving the Minister an opportunity to take their concerns and those of the Opposition on board. There should not be any fighting or wrangling. The 1958 Act is good legislation. The amendment has been tabled in good faith to protect the greyhound industry. I appeal to the Minister, at this late stage, to take it on board and listen to the views of the people, including those in the Government benches who used to support him. He has lost their support because of his actions on this issue and others.

Deputy John Gormley: I do not propose to accept these amendments. Our advice is that the Greyhound Industry Acts from 1958 to 1993 do not make provisions for animal welfare. As I indicated on Second Stage, I will be happy to delay the commencement order of the Bill until 1 January 2011. This is to allow the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to amend the Greyhound Industry Act to include the welfare provisions of this Bill for the greyhound industry.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: The Minister does not trust him.

Deputy John Gormley: Furthermore, I have provided an exemption from fees for hunt clubs. However, all dogs, including hunt dogs and greyhounds, are to be subject to the general provisions of this Bill.

When referring to exemptions, I stated repeatedly I was referring to exemptions from fees. I do not know how many times I have had to clarify that in the House. Unfortunately, Deputies are deliberately stoking up fears.

Deputy Tom Hayes: The people are telling us this, they do not understand.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): The Minister without interruption.

Deputy John Gormley: Deputy Tom Hayes is not disabusing them of any of their notions either. It suits his political purpose to tell them they are correct and that I cannot be trusted.

Deputy Joe Carey: What the Minister is saying is crazy.

[414]Deputy Tom Hayes: Your own side is saying that, my dear man.

Deputy John Gormley: The process of vilification continues.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Can we have order for the Minister?

Deputy John Gormley: That is regrettable.

I keep returning to the point that this is animal welfare legislation. We have succeeded, through dialogue and the forming of consensus, in persuading Bord na gCon to come on board. It now accepts the legislation. Therefore, it is beyond me to understand how it can accept it while the Deputies opposite do not.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: When I entered the House as a newly elected Deputy in 2007, I was quite surprised by the amount of adversarial politics in the Chamber, even when a common sense approach is taken to a matter. I once tabled an amendment to a housing (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to correct a technical error. An incorrect year was referred to in the Bill. My amendment was to insert the correct year but the Minister voted against it. I called the vote just to test the matter. This shows how ridiculous circumstances can be in the Chamber on foot of the adversarial politics that obtain.

The Minister will not accept any amendment from this side of the House this evening. It does not matter what we propose, such is his intransigence on this issue. This is regrettable because he has not been able to explain how the greyhound industry will be exempted from the Dog Breeding Establishments Bill when the commencement order is made. On that basis, I will press my amendment.

Deputy John Gormley: I thank the Deputy for the lecture on the nature of adversarial politics. I listened to his colleague, Deputy Rabbitte, speak last weekend. He informed us on the radio that the only reason the Labour Party voted against the Wildlife (Amendment) Bill was because it wanted to see whether doing so would topple the Government, and that it did not believe in what it was doing. I found that amazing. This is a typical example of adversarial politics. It is regrettable and no principle was involved.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: Where are the Minister’s principles?

Deputy John Gormley: The only principle was to try to get into power as quickly as possible. I have consulted a wide body of people as best I can. The legislation is consensual and tries to move away from adversarial politics in so far as possible. I was heartened that, at least on Second Stage, the Labour Party voted with the Government. However, I hope it will do so during Committee and Remaining Stages. I hope it is not trying to appease certain people in rural areas while also trying to appeal to urban voters. This is what has happened. The divisiveness to date has pitted rural people against urban people. It is a totally false divide.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Thanks to the Minister.

Deputy Tom Hayes: The Minister created it.

Deputy John Gormley: Many people in rural Ireland share our concerns about animal welfare.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: We care about it and do not just talk about it.

[415]Deputy Andrew Doyle: We live it every day.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: We live it every day.

Deputy John Gormley: These bogus concerns raised by the Deputies opposite are shameful.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: We will take no lectures from the Minister on animal welfare.

Deputy John Gormley: It is absolutely shameful that they continue to peddle these untruths.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: The Minister wonders about the adversarial politics in the Chamber and why the public is afraid of him and the Green Party. The public is afraid of him and his party based on precedent.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: It is all bull, just as the Deputy lied about me being 50% homosexual. It is total bull.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Deputy Sheahan without interruption.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: Evidence exists to demonstrate the public’s fears. Consider the Minister’s approach to Poolbeg, for example, in light of his talk about principles.

I read an article recently in which it was stated a Green Party member in a country I cannot recall wants to black out one side of goldfish tanks. This rubbish and áiféis is why the public is afraid of the Green Party.

Deputy John Gormley: What in the name of God is the Deputy talking about?

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Deputy Sheahan without interruption. He should note we need to keep our remarks relevant to the Bill.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: Absolutely. This is the cuckoo stuff the Green Party is saying. I am just trying to make the point——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Deputy Sheahan is fishing in the wrong pond.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: I will revert to the House on the relevant member of the Green Party who wants goldfish tanks blacked out on one side. He only wants three sides through which goldfish can look out. This is why the rural public is afraid of the Minister and the Green Party. It regards this legislation as a stepping stone to other legislation that the Minister will more than likely introduce to——

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Corporate donations.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: ——abolish rural pursuits and rural people’s way of life.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Rezoning rural land.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: I must correct myself. I was incorrect last week when I quoted Deputy Gogarty as saying he was 50% homosexual. He actually said he was 25% homosexual.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): That comment——

Deputy Tom Sheahan: I just want to correct the record.

[416]Deputy Paul Gogarty: I did not even say 25%. The Deputy should get his facts right. It is not that it matters. If I were gay, I would——

Acting Chairman (Deputy Brian O’Shea): Is the amendment being pressed?

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Yes.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 72.

Tá
Allen, Bernard.	Bannon, James.
Barrett, Seán.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.	Burke, Ulick.
Burton, Joan.	Carey, Joe.
Connaughton, Paul.	Coonan, Noel J.
Costello, Joe.	Coveney, Simon.
Crawford, Seymour.	Creed, Michael.
Creighton, Lucinda.	D’Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, John.	Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Enright, Olwyn.	Feighan, Frank.
Ferris, Martin.	Flanagan, Terence.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Hayes, Brian.
Hayes, Tom.	Higgins, Michael D.
Hogan, Phil.	Howlin, Brendan.
Kehoe, Paul.	Lynch, Ciarán.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McCormack, Pádraic.
McEntee, Shane.	McGinley, Dinny.
McGrath, Mattie.	McHugh, Joe.
McManus, Liz.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Neville, Dan.	Noonan, Michael.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.	Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O’Donnell, Kieran.	O’Dowd, Fergus.
O’Keeffe, Jim.	O’Mahony, John.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Shatter, Alan.
Sheahan, Tom.	Sheehan, P.J.
Sherlock, Seán.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Tuffy, Joanna.	Upton, Mary.
Varadkar, Leo.	Wall, Jack.

Níl
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.	Aylward, Bobby.
Blaney, Niall.	Brady, Áine.
Brady, Cyprian.	Brady, Johnny.
Browne, John.	Byrne, Thomas.
Calleary, Dara.	Carey, Pat.
Collins, Niall.	Connick, Seán.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Flynn, Beverley.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.	Kitt, Michael P.
Lenihan, Brian.	Lenihan, Conor.
Lowry, Michael.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.	Mansergh, Martin.
Martin, Micheál.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M.J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Brien, Darragh.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Hanlon, Rory.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Edward.	O’Rourke, Mary.
O’Sullivan, Christy.	O’Sullivan, Maureen.
Power, Seán.	Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.	Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.	Wallace, Mary.
White, Mary Alexandra.	Woods, Michael.

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

Amendment declared lost.

SECTION 2

Deputy Phil Hogan: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 4, lines 1 and 2, to delete paragraph (b).

Deputy John Gormley: I do not propose to accept this amendment as it would exclude the provision for appointing as authorised officer a person connected with animal welfare, with whom an arrangement has been entered into under section 15(3) of the Control of Dogs Act 1986. Many local authorities have sub-contracted dog control services and such arrangements have worked very successfully. There are numerous safeguards in the Bill as regards authorised persons, the first being that the local authority has to appoint the person. Local authorities have proven very responsible in this regard and I have no reason to believe they will not act responsibly in the future.

The second safeguard is that an improvement order can only be issued by a veterinary officer employed by the local authority. Therefore I do not propose to accept this amendment.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I acknowledge that the Minister has made efforts in amendments to safeguard the concerns of people in relation to authorised persons. The concern related to the type of people entering premises in an unstructured disorganised manner, without proper notice, perhaps with a hidden agenda. Such people had sufficient powers of access to property without necessarily evincing the type of concern they should have in relation to welfare issues.

I acknowledge the Minister has gone a considerable distance in allaying fears. Nevertheless, he should understand the fears that people have, with perhaps animal rights people under the auspices of official positions being allowed under this legislation on the basis of working for a charity, as defined, to enter a property and engage in activities that go beyond the scope of the legislation. Those are the concerns people have. I shall withdraw the amendment on the basis that the Minister has made certain provisions later on in the legislation.

[418]Deputy John Gormley: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 4, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:

““dog” includes bitch;”.

This amendment is simply there to provide for the avoidance of doubt. Where there is a reference to a dog, it will include a female dog, as appropriate.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 4 is in the name of Deputy Ferris. Amendment No. 5 is related and alternative to it. Amendment No. 5a is related and alternative to amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 6 is also related. Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 4, to delete from “at which” in line 16 down to and including “purposes,” in line 19 and substitute the following:

“or any number of premises owned by the same proprietor where 5 or more litters of pups are produced in a calendar year.”.

A division along those lines would be fair to all. It would be very difficult to hide clutches of pups. Kennel clubs would also be used by the authorities to establish how many clutches were registered.

3 o’clock

As matters stand, without this amendment, if less than six breeding bitches, say five, are kept in a number of different premises the proposed legislation will not apply to them. It means that a person either hunting or shooting with seven bitches in use for the particular sport can have one clutch every three or four years and will be classified as running a puppy farm when the legislation is enacted. I suggest that the Minister take this on board and accept the amendment as written. The situation is wide open to abuse as matters stand. Anyone could ride a coach and four through it as it stands and exploit it for selfish benefits, so I hope the Minister will accept the amendment.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I speak to this amendment because it is similar to one that was proposed by our local club in Monaghan which questioned the fact that one person could have a number of farms, with five bitches on each of the units. Very clearly, if it is a question of the number of clutches or batches of pups being reared, such an amendment is vital. I have a neighbour who has 20 bitches. He might only have two litters of pups per year, maximum, and yet he will be included under the Act. However, if he were to spey those annual bitches they would be no use for hunting. It is as simple as that.

He is only interested in hunting and whatever pups he has he shares with his friends in the business. All he wants is to be allowed to carry on and care for his animals in a proper manner.

An Ceann Comhairle: Amendment No. 5 is a ministerial amendment.

Deputy John Gormley: I remind Deputies that the working group agreed on the definition as being based on the number of female dogs on a premises with breeding potential. The working group included a representative from Veterinary Ireland, the senior superintendent veterinary inspector of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Louth County [419]veterinary inspector and the ISPCA inspectorate supervisor. There was, therefore, no shortage of veterinary expertise in the group.

The definition which the working group has come up with is clear and unambiguous and as such will aid enforcement. The group noted the difficulties experienced in the UK with definitions based on breed, which became unenforceable. The working group’s report noted that it was agreed that the number of litters produced on a premises would not provide a suitable basis for defining a dog breeding establishment as constant supervision would be required to ensure compliance. I cannot accept the Opposition amendments.

Amendment No. 5 refers to the definition of a dog breeding establishment. The Bill currently defines it as a premises at which bitches are kept, not less than six of which are four months old and capable of being used for breeding purposes. The stipulation of “four months” was to ensure that any bitch which fell pregnant, regardless of how young, would be reckonable when defining a breeding establishment. I am willing to substitute the “four months” with “six months” in response to calls for same in the Seanad although this does not invalidate the rationale for specifying an age threshold, which was to ensure that any dog with breeding potential was included. As I have stated already, this should not be considered as setting down a marker for when to start breeding.

It would not be wise, as some have proposed, to have a threshold at 12 months or even two years, an issue debated in the Seanad. Everyone will acknowledge that most breeds of bitch could breed in the first 12 months of life and as such a 12 month threshold would discount litters born before a bitch reached 12 months of age, possibly leading to an increase in the overall number of litters per bitch to the detriment of her welfare.

An amendment stipulating a term of two years was tabled in the Seanad and supported by the Labour Party Senators. I could not make out why they did this. It is hoped that on this occasion Members will understand this does not make sense from a welfare point of view.

Deputy Joe Carey: I cannot fathom the Minister’s approach in this regard, in particular in respect of the greyhound industry. It is not realistic to determine that a greyhound bitch could be potentially useful for breeding at six months. While in general terms, a bitch, once finished racing and if part of a good litter could be used for breeding purposes she would never be so considered at six months of age. While this measure has relevance in regard to thigh breeds and puppy farming regulation, it has no relevance in respect of the greyhound industry.

I will give an example. A great bitch won the Irish Oaks in Shelbourne Park a few weeks ago. She is owned by a Clare man, Father Jack Meade. Her dam, Dalcash Diva, has had three litters. In her first litter to Droopys Scholes she gave birth to ten pups, six bitches and four dogs. Under this provision the establishment at which these bitch pups are kept will be, on their reaching the age of six months, regarded as a breeding establishment. This will be the case in respect of only one litter.

Deputy John Gormley: That is not true.

Deputy Joe Carey: One has to rear greyhounds and generally does so up to 12 to 14 months. The six months provided for has no relevance to the greyhound industry and will create huge damage therein. Under this provision an establishment, following the birth of one litter of pups, will become a breeding establishment. The Minister stated that all breeds will be subject to the provisions of this Bill. He is trying to legislate for thigh breeds of dogs and intensive puppy farming and will as a result badly damage the greyhound industry. The fundamental problem I have with this legislation is that we will have duplication because of the determination in this provision of a bitch as being useful for breeding purposes at six months old, which is crazy. That does not happen.

[420]Deputy Tom Sheahan: Hear, hear.

Deputy Joe Carey: The legislation provides that six bitches over the age of six months constitutes a breeding establishment, which is rubbish. This will hurt the greyhound industry and put in jeopardy 11,000 jobs and €550 million. There are 17 greyhound stadiums in this country at which people enjoy greyhound racing every night of the week. Ireland is a world leader in this area. The Minister in trying to legislate for puppy farming is drawing in the greyhound industry, which is wrong. I appeal to him to take another look at this to ensure it does not impinge on the greyhound industry.

Deputy Tom Sheahan: I will be brief and to the point. A cow is a heifer until she has a calf; a ewe is a hogget until she has a lamb and a bitch is a pup until she has a litter.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Minister referred to a dog breeding establishment as defined. An establishment which keeps five breeding bitches, fewer than six, on any number of premises will not come under the Act. The point I am making is that where five or more clutches of pups are produced in a calendar year in all premises, they will come under the Act. I think the Minister is missing the point.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Perhaps the Ceann Comhairle will list the amendments being discussed together.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are dealing now with amendments Nos. 4, 5, 5a and 6.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Amendment No. 6 in my name deals with the same issue in terms of the definition whereby a particular number of bitches constitute a litter and a breeding establishment. The points made by Deputies Ferris and Carey are worthy of consideration. In practical terms, there is an onerous responsibility, including a financial responsibility, on individual greyhound breeders in whose interest it is to ensure a high level of animal welfare as their pups will be for sale. These people are not involved in breeding bitches on their premises for the purpose of cruelty to animals. They are involved in so doing for the purpose of economic value and of assisting an industry which has been going through a difficult time recently, as is the case in respect of most rural pursuit industries. They are involved not alone for disposable income reasons but in respect of the economic value of the animals they have for sale. There must be practical implementation in respect of this measure.

The Minister was not fully up to speed in the Seanad debate on the implications of the Greyhound Act 1958 in regard to the registration and marking of animals. I am aware that the Minister has since then had several meetings with members of the Irish Coursing Club and the Irish greyhound industry. I am sure he is now more familiar with the activities of people involved in breeding and offering pups for sale. Animal welfare issues are important to these people. They have a vested interest in ensuring the highest standards of animal welfare. I noted that at the time. I know the Minister has had several meetings with people involved in the Irish Coursing Club and the Irish greyhound industry since then and I am sure he is more familiar with the activities of people who are involved in breeding and also offering pups for sale. He knows that animal welfare issues are very important to those people. They have a vested interest in ensuring they have the highest standards of animal welfare. I ask the Minister to look again at the amendments to see how we can implement them in a practical way with a view to achieving the objective. I do not think anybody is going out on a limb or displaying the level of zealousness that the Minister has shown in animal welfare issue. The Minister is trying to create a perception that nobody else is interested in animal welfare. That is not the position. We have argued the case. We want to ban puppy farms where animals are being exploited but we want to ensure the implementation of rules and standards in dog breeding establishments, that are not only in compliance with the law but can be implemented in practice [421]so that dog owners and breeders are able to get on with their business as they have done for many years, without a poor record being cited.

The transportation of animals, particularly greyhounds, to places outside the jurisdiction caused me to worry about animal welfare issues. People who are involved in the breeding of these animals in this jurisdiction do an excellent job.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The issues now being debated result from the Minister not accepting the previous amendment. As a consequence, we are now looking at all canine matters in the broadest context. Instead of examining the issue of puppy farming this afternoon, we must look at every single item in the Bill not only in the context of puppy farms but hunting clubs, greyhounds, as Deputies Hogan, Ferris and others have mentioned. We will spend the remainder of the afternoon debating issue in the wider context, which is regretful and a missed opportunity. The context in which we are debating these issues was never intended and distorts the rest of the debate.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: Puppy farms can send animals in the back of vans to England, without a requirement for tagging, identification, or passport. The guesstimate for dogs leaving our ports ranges from 25,000 to 45,000 and the reason it is so wide is that nobody has a clue. There is evidence, although I have not seen it, of establishments with hundreds of bitches kept in unfit conditions and that is what we were trying to regulate. Since 2007 I have been asking the Minister to bring forward legislation to deal with this segment of the sector. There are simple ways of dealing with the issue. We need a common sense definition of a breeding dog, a bitch. I accept it is much too complicated to define the onset of the ability of the bitch to go in pup by age groups or by breed. Defining in legislation the age of four or six months as the age of breeding is not relevant to certain animals but it is relevant to others. I suggest it should be worded in a manner similar to that of amendment No. 6 which states “have already had one litter in their lifetime.”. That means the bitch is definitely a breeding animal. Deputy Carey instances a case of a bitch that has had a litter of pups, five of which are female, when the pups are six months old, the owner has a dog breeding establishment, under this Bill, even if he or she has only one breeding animal. I appeal to the Minister to adopt common sense and support the sensible amendment tabled by Deputy Hogan. We are not trying to paint him into a corner.

Deputy Mattie McGrath: We are all in favour of legislation to deal with the dastardly practices of abusive puppy farms. The then Minister, Deputy Dick Roche, initiated the Bill. Abusive practices must be stopped and people must be prosecuted for shameful practices. There is no sense or meaning in trying to define a breeding bitch by her age in months. I have had many cordial debates with the Minister on this, but we have not reached a position that makes sense. As Deputy Sheehan states when they breed, they are then a breeding animal.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I get confused at times. Deputy Sheahan asked when is a heifer a cow, when is a puppy a bitch. There is no absolute comparison. A girl does not have to be pregnant to become a woman. One must have common sense.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: Spend a week on the farm.

Deputy Shane McEntee: What is the Deputy talking about?

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I am drawing a comparison and I am sorry if the Deputies do not like it.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy without interruption.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: The Minister has made a genuine effort to take on board the concerns members have raised but for the purposes of this legislation, the definition of a breeding bitch [422]is to cover and ensure there are no loopholes. It does not matter that the greyhound does not give birth until one year later. That is not the reason it is being done.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The Deputy may fool the Dublin people but he will not fool the country people.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Gogarty on his own, without interruption.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: I would like to see more amendments debated rather than go into a debate on the rural wedge.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: A very simple phrase is used, it is called “a maiden animal”, that is an animal of any species that has not been pregnant.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: What about comely maidens?

Deputy Andrew Doyle: Does the Deputy want to be flippant about this? We are trying to be serious. This is serious. The Deputy does not understand.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: This is nothing to do——

Deputy Joe Carey: This is outrageous.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: The Minister may have more sense than Deputy Gogarty.

An Ceann Comhairle: We had a well behaved debate, which has deteriorated.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: I was trying to explain a simple concept. A well known description of an animal that has not yet reproduced is a maiden. If the Minister allowed maiden animals to be excluded from the system, that would make sense.

Deputy Shane McEntee: That is like Deputy Mary Coughlan down at the farm, she would not know a winter calver from a spring calver.

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

The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl, 68.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.	Aylward, Bobby.
Blaney, Niall.	Brady, Áine.
Brady, Cyprian.	Brady, Johnny.
Browne, John.	Byrne, Thomas.
Calleary, Dara.	Carey, Pat.
Collins, Niall.	Connick, Seán.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Gogarty, Paul.
Gormley, John.	Grealish, Noel.
Hanafin, Mary.	Harney, Mary.
Haughey, Seán.	Hoctor, Máire.
Kelleher, Billy.	Kelly, Peter.
Kenneally, Brendan.	Kennedy, Michael.
Killeen, Tony.	Kitt, Michael P.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Michael.	Mansergh, Martin.
Moloney, John.	Moynihan, Michael.
Mulcahy, Michael.	Nolan, M. J.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Brien, Darragh.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Hanlon, Rory.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Edward.
O’Rourke, Mary.	O’Sullivan, Christy.
O’Sullivan, Maureen.	Power, Seán.
Ryan, Eamon.	Sargent, Trevor.
Scanlon, Eamon.	Smith, Brendan.
Wallace, Mary.	White, Mary Alexandra.
Woods, Michael.

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

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Paul Kehoe.

Deputy John Gormley: I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 18, to delete “4 months” and substitute “6 months”.

[424]An Ceann Comhairle: As the prior amendment was agreed to, amendment No. 5a cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 5a not moved.

Amendment No. 6 not moved.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 4, line 20, after “pound” to insert “or hunt club”.

This amendment has to deal with the exemptions for hunt clubs. I know the Minister has an amendment later that reflects the same sentiment.

Deputy John Gormley: I do not propose to accept this amendment as it would have the effect of excluding hunt clubs from registration and inspection. The Hunting Association of Ireland publicly welcomed the regulation of dog-breeding establishments. I am willing to give hunt clubs the fee exemption in response to their financial concerns on the basis they are not commercial operations. However, it is important for the effectiveness of the legislation that all dogs in breeding establishments are included. I, therefore, do not propose to accept this amendment.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am disappointed by the Minister’s response. I was led to believe he was going to treat hunt clubs in which pups are bred for replenishing packs but not for sale differently from breeding establishments. Accordingly, hunt clubs would be treated in the same way as the greyhound industry in this legislation. I accept the Minister’s amendment No. 41 goes some distance in allaying the fears of hunt clubs in this regard. However, I believe the exemption should be based on them not selling pups. I accept there is a need for regulation and inspection of establishments.

The Hunting Association of Ireland subscribes to ensuring proper animal welfare standards in the same way as laid down in the 1958 Greyhound Act. At the Oireachtas committee on the environment, the association outlined very cogently and to the satisfaction of all committee members that it was operating to strict animal welfare standards. This Bill is about ensuring good animal welfare standards. The hunt clubs already have high standards with their own registration system. Will the Minister re-examine this amendment, particularly in the context of how he treats the greyhound industry?

Deputy Martin Ferris: Given that only half an hour is left for dealing with the Bill, is the Minister prepared to accept any of the Opposition’s amendments? If he is, will he indicate which ones?

An Ceann Comhairle: We will take the amendments sequentially.

Deputy John Gormley: Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 provide for the tattooing of hunt dogs and maintaining a separate register. I accept tattooing is the traditional method for traceability in this sector and I believe there should be no undermining of such measures. I hope all Members will agree that having in place a method for tracing pups is essential in ensuring high standards of animal welfare are maintained. However, in the long term, microchipping is far more effective. I am happy to listen to what the Opposition has to say on these issues. We do have a certain amount of time — up to 4.10 p.m.

To return to the point made by Deputy Ferris, in the conversations we have had with stakeholders we have taken many of their concerns into consideration. From the Deputies’ point of [425]view, it is important to remember that Bord na gCon is now, for the most part, in agreement with what is in the legislation and with the amendments I am tabling. Similarly, the hunt clubs had a meeting yesterday with representatives from the Government side, and they appear to be happy with the way things are going. I ask Deputies to bear that in mind.

Deputy Seán Barrett: Is there any evidence that packs of hounds are being mistreated in any way? There is no need for regulation if people are going about their normal business in a sensible and reasonable manner. There is no need to be passing laws unless legislators are forced into implementing them to ensure that dogs, hounds or whatever are treated properly. I have never heard of any packs of hounds being mistreated, and therefore I fail to see why the Legislature needs to impose regulations that are unnecessary. If puppy farms are abusing dogs, I can fully understand why regulations are introduced, but where people are going about their daily business, doing their jobs properly and not interfering with anybody, why do we need to pass laws telling them they must do X, Y and Z? If the Minister came in here and said he had evidence that packs of hounds were being mistreated and that we needed to impose regulations to ensure this mistreatment ceased, I would fully understand it, but I have no evidence that this is occurring, and I ask the Minister whether he has any.

The Minister mentioned agreements with bodies outside this House. This is the Legislature; it is where laws are passed. It is right and proper that the Minister listen to sound amendments from Opposition parties rather than talking to people on the outside. Have we any role or function in the introduction of legislation, or are we just a rubber stamp, walking through the Níl lobby while the Minister’s troops walk through the Tá lobby? I feel strongly about imposing legislation on people who are carrying out their day-to-day duties in a reasonable fashion, and I do not see why we should be asked to pass a law which imposes obligations on them that are totally unnecessary.

Deputy John Gormley: Of course if people are carrying out their duties in a reasonable fashion, they have nothing whatsoever to fear. The people concerned have made it very clear that they are complying with the highest animal welfare standards. These inspections will not be on a regular basis, as some have said. According to the Bill, if an establishment is well run, inspections may be on an annual basis. The Dogs Trust has said it is aware of welfare issues; one need only watch the RTE report that was shown the other night, to which Deputy O’Donoghue alluded, in which a greyhound was brought in with a tattoo that was not traceable.

Deputy Seán Barrett: I am not talking about greyhounds. I am talking about pack hounds.

Deputy John Gormley: I must mention another point the Deputy made. His colleagues earlier on, when the Deputy was not here——

Deputy Seán Barrett: I am asking the Minister to accept reasonable amendments.

Deputy John Gormley: Hold on, please. If the Deputy does not mind——

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister is misinterpreting Deputy O’Donoghue.

Deputy John Gormley: No.

Deputy Joe Carey: The Minister should not confuse himself.

Deputy Seán Barrett: I am asking the Minister to accept an amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle: Please allow the Minister to speak.

[426]Deputy John Gormley: Earlier on I was accused of not consulting with people.

Deputy Seán Barrett: I did not accuse the Minister of that.

Deputy John Gormley: The Deputy was not even here for the debate, frankly, and he had to listen to his colleagues.

Deputy Phil Hogan: He is here now.

Deputy Seán Barrett: I am here now. The Minister is seldom here anyway.

Deputy John Gormley: I have consulted widely, I have listened, and I will continue to listen. What we have here is a Bill that has resulted from the consensus that was developed.

Deputy Seán Barrett: Not with this side of the House.

Deputy John Gormley: It is a reasonable Bill——

Deputy Joe Carey: We have not seen that.

Deputy Seán Barrett: We are debating an Opposition amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy Barrett, please.

Deputy John Gormley: ——and I hope that as a result of that consultation the Deputies will vote for this progressive Bill.

Deputy Seán Barrett: We are debating an Opposition amendment. That is the issue before the House.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Before the debate on this amendment is concluded, perhaps the Minster could provide some clarification. I agree an inspection regime is required, but we must consider enforcement. To move for a second to a different arena, there are about 220,000 private households in this country in which human beings are living and the Government has an inspection rate of 5.5% or 6% in this area, so I would not be too hopeful about the inspection regime for dogs.

The inspection regime needs to be clarified, not in terms of methodology and standards but in terms of who is carrying out the inspections. The regime has an entry point and an exit point. We are pressed for time here as a result of the Government’s decision to guillotine this Bill, which is a missed opportunity, because substantive amendments have been tabled by the Opposition parties which would have added to the quality and robustness of the Bill and improved animal welfare. It is regrettable that we do not have time to go through these. Could the Minister clarify whether the inspection regime is a function that remains within local authorities or one that can be subcontracted out? That is a concern.

Deputy James Bannon: The Minister said there would be annual inspections. I ask the Minister to be more clear on this. We know that farmers are being intimidated by officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by being made to undergo three or four inspections per year for the rural environment protection scheme. I am one of those farmers who had four inspections last year — one every three months. An act of God blew a tree down over an electric fence and I was denied part of my REPS payment because an inspector saw it in an image taken by satellite or aeroplane. I feel I was intimidated because I was denied my grant. Can we have guarantees in the legislation that the inspections will be annual? There is [427]nothing in the Bill to say that inspections will not take place every two, three, four or five months. That could be the case. The Minister has not clarified this sufficiently.

Deputy John Gormley: The legislation is absolutely clear, and I suggest that the Deputy read it. Inspections are a function of the local authority or an authorised person nominated by the local authority. That is the best way forward. There are individuals from the ISPCA who are interested in animal welfare. That is a point I wanted to make earlier but neglected to do so. Deputy Hogan mentioned animal rights. We must distinguish between animal welfare and animal rights. This is an animal welfare Bill and the people nominated to carry out inspections are those who are interested in animal welfare.

Deputy Phil Hogan: Good man.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 67; Níl, 74.

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

Níl
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.	Aylward, Bobby.
Behan, Joe.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Browne, John.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Collins, Niall.
Connick, Seán.	Coughlan, Mary.
Cregan, John.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Curran, John.	Dempsey, Noel.
Devins, Jimmy.	Dooley, Timmy.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Michael.	Fleming, Seán.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Kenneally, Brendan.
Kennedy, Michael.	Killeen, Tony.
Kitt, Michael P.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Mattie.	McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.	Mansergh, Martin.
Martin, Micheál.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M.J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Brien, Darragh.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Hanlon, Rory.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Edward.	O’Rourke, Mary.
O’Sullivan, Christy.	O’Sullivan, Maureen.
Power, Seán.	Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.	Scanlon, Eamon.
Smith, Brendan.	Wallace, Mary.
White, Mary Alexandra.	Woods, Michael.

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

Amendment declared lost.

An Ceann Comhairle: Does Deputy Hogan wish to move amendment No. 8?

Deputy Phil Hogan: We have already made the arguments in regard to this amendment, so I will not press it.

Amendment No. 8 not moved.

Deputy John Gormley: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 4, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

““public trainer’s licence” means a public trainer’s licence granted by Bord na gCon under the Regulations of 1961;”.

The reference to “public trainer’s licence” is used to facilitate the exemption from registration fees to which the public greyhound trainer will be entitled. This will eliminate the costs associated with registration for trainers. The regulations of 1961 state that a public trainer means a person holding a licence from the Irish Greyhound Board, authorising him or her to train or manage greyhounds for reward. The public trainer differs from a private trainer in that the latter is authorised to have no more than four greyhounds and therefore does not fall within the scope of this Bill.

[429]Deputy John Gormley: I move amendment No. 10:

In page 5, between lines 2 and 3, to insert the following:

““Regulations of 1961” means the Greyhound Trainers’ Regulations 1961 (S.I. No. 58 of 1961);”.

4 o’clock

This amendment refers to the regulations of 1961 which define a “stipendiary steward” as a steward appointed by the board to fulfil the duties of an authorised officer under the 1958 Act. I propose that a stipendiary steward or veterinary practitioner may accompany a local authority veterinary inspector for the inspection of premises containing registered greyhounds under the amendment to section 17. The purpose of this amendment is to give the Irish Coursing Club and the Irish Greyhound Board oversight of the inspection and improvement order process. It will become apparent that well run dog breeding establishments, with or without greyhounds, will have nothing to fear from these inspections.

Question proposed: “That section 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”

Deputy Martin Ferris: My party colleagues and I came into the House today with the intention of supporting this Bill in principle. However, the Minister’s responses to amendments Nos. 1 and 2 have eroded any confidence we had in the Bill such that we cannot support it at this point in time. I am very concerned about the powers given to certain people to carry out inspections without any training or qualification whatever and the provision that the only means of redress is through the courts, with no grounds of appeal to the local authority regarding inspections carried out. As I said, my party colleagues and I had agreed to support this Bill in principle, depending on the answers we received from the Minister. I have asked the Minister whether he has accepted any of the amendments put forward by the Opposition but have received no reply. It is almost time to vote on the Bill in its entirety. We are being treated with contempt by the Minister and by the Government. Sinn Féin’s position is that we cannot support the Bill as it stands.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I support Deputy Ferris’s comments. Members may not be aware of the severity of the fines that will be imposed on people arising from offences under this legislation. For example, subsection (12) of section 8 states: “The operator of a dog breeding establishment registered under this section shall display the registration certificate issued to him or her in respect thereof in a prominent position at that establishment.” The Minister is proposing to increase the fine for a failure to meet this requirement to €5,000. That is completely out of proportion to what we are trying to achieve.

The Minister is using a sledgehammer to deal with the problems that exist. Instead of dealing with those problems effectively, he has included extraneous material to deal with aspects of industry that have regulated themselves quite well heretofore. He is introducing provision for draconian criminal prosecution that is entirely out of kilter with the types of measures required. A fine of €5,000 for failure to display a registration certificate correctly says it all in terms of the Minister’s missionary zeal to implement a regime that is completely out of sync with reasonableness. He has utterly ignored the practical suggestions we on this side of the House have offered in the course of this debate.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: If this legislation were ice cream the Minister would not be able to give it to children. We have a situation where a legislative proposal that attracted a broad consensus across the House has regrettably become a very divisive issue because the Minister [430]has managed it so poorly. Its core intent remains to deal with the abhorrent and scandalous circumstances of puppy farming in this country, an industry generating approximately €29 million per year and affecting some 90,000 pups.

There is a need for legislation in this area and it is important that it is tackled and dealt with. However, the Minister's handling of the legislation this afternoon has created a situation whereby a more robust, measured and detailed approach could have been taken.

There will be shortcomings, although one could argue there are shortcomings in all legislation. I refer to some ideas not included such as examining the area of granting cheaper licences to elderly people. Another simple suggestion was that the Bill could have been future-proofed. The Minister could have regulated rather than proscribed the identification measures to be used for different breeds of dog. DNA sampling may well become the methodology of the future and, if that takes place, the Minister will have to write a whole new Bill.

There is a great deal of insufficiency in this legislation. The approach to puppy farming must be challenged.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: The Minister has made a dog’s dinner of it.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Regrettably, the Minister has made a dog’s dinner of it, if the House will excuse the pun.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should conclude.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: Every July in this House stretching back several years since I came here first we have seen legislation rushed through the House as a result of the Green Party. Last year, we had the second home tax, which became a debacle because of caravans, mobile homes and granny flats. The year before we had the introduction of the VRT regime, which brought the car industry to a halt.

An Ceann Comhairle: These matters are extraneous to the debate. Let us concentrate on the legislation in front of us.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: The year before that in turn there was the nuclear test ban treaty. The Minister proposed to introduce a fine of €1,000 for someone setting off a bomb in Ireland.

An Ceann Comhairle: Let us wind this up, please. We have had enough of it.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: This is the type of legislation we have been subjected to from the Green Party over the years. The Labour Party will be supporting the legislation this evening. I trust the Minister will leave the Chamber this evening having learned that there is a world of difference between sitting in the office of the Minister and being the Minister. He had an opportunity to legislate in this area and to give the Bill ample time. I trust he will learn the art of legislating before this Government comes to its end.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy is really stretching it. I call the Minster for 30 seconds.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Self regulation is no regulation.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: We know that.

Deputy Kathleen Lynch: We know that. Is Deputy Gogarty not the master of it?

[431]Deputy Paul Gogarty: It has been shown many times.

An Ceann Comhairle: It is time to wind up. We have only 20 seconds. I call Deputy Gormley, please.

Deputy John Gormley: This legislation is long awaited. Animal welfare groups have been calling for this legislation for more than five years.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The greyhound industry was not calling for it.

Deputy John Gormley: As Minister, I am delivering on that.

Deputy Tom Hayes: For the members of his party, perhaps.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The Minister’s party has only 2% of the vote.

Deputy John Gormley: I remind the Deputies opposite that the working group was set up more than five years ago. More than 650 submissions were received after the publication of its report. The working group, set up under my predecessor, included the best experts from Veterinary Ireland and others.

Deputy Shane McEntee: Deputy Mattie McGrath might change his vote again this time. There will be no party left.

Deputy John Gormley: I remind Deputies of its terms of reference. They were to examine the current position regarding the management of kennels and to make recommendations for such improvements. Essentially, this is what we have done.

Deputy Paul Gogarty: Hear, hear.

Deputy John Gormley: It is fine legislation and I thank the Deputies for their contributions. I regret that Sinn Féin cannot vote for the legislation.

Deputy Shane McEntee: The Minister has fooled Fianna Fáil again for two weeks in a row.

Deputy John Gormley: Many Sinn Féin members should find the legislation perfectly acceptable. I believe that party is making a mistake by not voting for it because there is nothing to fear in this legislation for those who are genuinely concerned about animal welfare.

Deputy Bernard Allen: The Minister will know the next time.

Deputy John Gormley: I thank my officials for their assistance and I hope that most Deputies who take an interest in animal welfare will vote for this legislation now.

An Ceann Comhairle: As it is now 4.10 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government for Committee Stage not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; in respect of each of the sections undisposed of, that the section or, as appropriate, the section, as amended, is hereby agreed to; that the Title is hereby agreed to; that the Bill, as amended, is accordingly reported to the House; that Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed.”

[432]Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 92; Níl, 50.

Tá
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.	Aylward, Bobby.
Behan, Joe.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Browne, John.	Burton, Joan.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Collins, Niall.
Connick, Seán.	Costello, Joe.
Coughlan, Mary.	Cregan, John.
Cuffe, Ciarán.	Curran, John.
Dempsey, Noel.	Devins, Jimmy.
Dooley, Timmy.	Fahey, Frank.
Finneran, Michael.	Fitzpatrick, Michael.
Fleming, Seán.	Gilmore, Eamon.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hoctor, Máire.
Howlin, Brendan.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Kenneally, Brendan.
Kennedy, Michael.	Killeen, Tony.
Kitt, Michael P.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	Lowry, Michael.
Lynch, Ciarán.	Lynch, Kathleen.
McEllistrim, Thomas.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Michael.	McGuinness, John.
McManus, Liz.	Mansergh, Martin.
Martin, Micheál.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M.J.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Brien, Darragh.	O’Connor, Charlie.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Hanlon, Rory.
O’Keeffe, Batt.	O’Keeffe, Edward.
O’Rourke, Mary.	O’Shea, Brian.
O’Sullivan, Christy.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
O’Sullivan, Maureen.	Penrose, Willie.
Power, Seán.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Ryan, Eamon.
Sargent, Trevor.	Scanlon, Eamon.
Sherlock, Seán.	Shortall, Róisín.
Smith, Brendan.	Stagg, Emmet.
Tuffy, Joanna.	Upton, Mary.
Wall, Jack.	Wallace, Mary.
White, Mary Alexandra.	Woods, Michael.

Níl
Allen, Bernard.	Bannon, James.
Barrett, Seán.	Bruton, Richard.
Burke, Ulick.	Byrne, Catherine.
Carey, Joe.	Connaughton, Paul.
Coonan, Noel J.	Coveney, Simon.
Crawford, Seymour.	Creed, Michael.
Creighton, Lucinda.	D’Arcy, Michael.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Doyle, Andrew.	Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Feighan, Frank.	Ferris, Martin.
Flanagan, Charles.	Flanagan, Terence.
Hayes, Brian.	Hayes, Tom.
Hogan, Phil.	Kehoe, Paul.
McCormack, Pádraic.	McEntee, Shane.
McGinley, Dinny.	McGrath, Mattie.
McHugh, Joe.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Morgan, Arthur.	Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.	O’Donnell, Kieran.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Mahony, John.
Reilly, James.	Ring, Michael.
Shatter, Alan.	Sheahan, Tom.
Sheehan, P.J.	Stanton, David.
Timmins, Billy.	Varadkar, Leo.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Joe Carey and Paul Kehoe.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): Amendments Nos. 2 to 6, inclusive, are related to amendment No. 1. Therefore, amendments Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, may be discussed together.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I move amendment No. 1:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“PART 2

TREATMENT OF VICTIMS

4.—(1) Any person who deals with a victim (for example, a member of the judiciary, lawyer, member of court staff, member of an Garda Síochána or other official) shall—

(a) treat the victim with courtesy and compassion, and

(b) respect the victim’s dignity and privacy, save that nothing contained herein shall in any way infringe the constitutional rights of an alleged offender or of an offender.

(2) A victim has the right to be informed as fully as possible—

(a) of his or her rights and of the remedies available to the victim,

(b) of his or her role in the criminal justice process and with regard to criminal proceedings and of the progress made in investigating his or her complaint and in the processing of any criminal prosecution arising from such complaint,

(c) of the availability of health services and social services or other appropriate assistance or prevention services through which he or she may obtain such medical, psychological, social care or help as he or she may require.

(3) A victim has the right, insofar as resources are available—

(a) to such medical, psychological and social care or help as he or she may require and to such other assistance or services capable of meeting his or her needs for shelter and [434]support or for referral to other services better suited to provide him or her with assistance,

(b) to protection against intimidation and retaliation.

(4) A victim has a duty to cooperate, to such extent as is possible, with an Garda Síochána and any other relevant law enforcement authority.”.

I will discuss amendments Nos. 1 to 6. First, however, in the context of the horrendous gun crime and loss of life we have seen in this city and the ongoing problem we have with drug gangs, I wish to acknowledge at least one good news story today dealing with criminal matters. I congratulate the Garda Síochána on recovering the penguin stolen from Dublin Zoo earlier today. Store Street gardaí apparently recovered the penguin and returned it to Dublin Zoo. I hope it has recovered from its ordeal. It is important that we note occasions of good news as well as some of the more serious issues in the criminal area.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): Does it have a name?

Deputy Alan Shatter: We have not yet been introduced. I suspect the reason the Minister——

Deputy Finian McGrath: Was it born in Tallaght?

Deputy Alan Shatter: ——for Justice and Law Reform is not in the Chamber at present is that he is probably having a photo opportunity with the penguin in Dublin Zoo. We will discover that tomorrow, I presume.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): Tá sé sa Seanad.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It will be difficult for the media to notice the difference between the two of them.

I will turn to more serious matters relating to the Bill. The amendments that have been tabled are all to do with the treatment of victims of crime. The provisions in the Bill seek to extend the use of victim impact statements to some victims of crime but not to all of those to whom it should be extended. The provisions contained in the Bill relating to victims of crime have taken three years to reach the point of being enacted by the House. Their origin was stimulated by the Victims’ Rights Bill, which I published on behalf of Fine Gael in 2007 and which was voted down in the House at about this time of the year in 2007. That is almost three years ago. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform promised at the time that he would, within six months, bring reforming legislation before the House to give greater protection to victims. It has taken three years to get to the point we are at now. That is indicative of a gross failure on the Minister’s behalf to give to the victims of crime the priority to which they are entitled. Indeed, this Bill does not address many of the issues that needed to be addressed. The amendments we have tabled seek to address some of those.

I will read the amendments into the record of the House. We are seeking to insert a new Part 2 of the Bill, entitled “Treatment of Victims”. The amendment states:

“4.—(1) Any person who deals with a victim (for example, a member of the judiciary, lawyer, member of court staff, member of an Garda Síochána or other official) shall—

(a) treat the victim with courtesy and compassion, and

[435]

(b) respect the victim’s dignity and privacy, save that nothing contained herein shall in any way infringe the constitutional rights of an alleged offender or of an offender.

(2) A victim has the right to be informed as fully as possible—

(a) of his or her rights and of the remedies available to the victim,

(3) A victim has the right, insofar as resources are available—

(a) to such medical, psychological and social care or help as he or she may require and to such other assistance or services capable of meeting his or her needs for shelter and support or for referral to other services better suited to provide him or her with assistance,

(b) to protection against intimidation and retaliation.

(4) A victim has a duty to cooperate, to such extent as is possible, with an Garda Síochána and any other relevant law enforcement authority.”

The second amendment would insert a new section 5 which would provide: “A victim or member of a victim’s immediate family who has welfare, counselling, medical or legal needs arising from the commission of an offence or as a result of anti-social behaviour shall have access to services that are responsive to those needs insofar as resources are available.” One of the difficulties that victims of crime constantly experience is that they feel they are not kept informed. After they have reported a crime to the Garda Síochána, they do not always know if their complaint is being taken seriously. There is a deficit or a failure on occasions in providing information. If an investigation is proving fruitful, they are not so informed, even in a manner that could not in any way impede or prejudice the investigation.

Ultimately, when court prosecutions take place, all too frequently victims of crime turn up at the court not knowing what to expect. There can be continuous adjournment of criminal proceedings without the possibility of such adjournments being first explained to them. For a victim of crime, going to court is always a traumatic experience. What occurs in the courts is not always fully explained to them and, on occasions, there are technical exchanges between lawyers and all a victim understands is that for some reason a case is being adjourned or a judgment is being reserved. The consequences and how matters will proceed in the future are not adequately explained to them.

There are also instances of there being a total failure to refer victims to essential social services or, indeed, of the HSE providing the assistance required. I am aware of a case that has received substantial publicity in recent days and which has been referred to the Ombudsman for Children. It is the case of a young girl who, between the age of nine and ten years, allegedly was the victim of sexual assaults. Her mother has complained that the HSE failed to provide her with the type of medical assessment required urgently or with the psychiatric assessment and counselling required. This young girl is now 14 years of age, allegedly suicidal and the Director of Public Prosecutions, DPP, has on two occasions declined to prosecute because the book of evidence has not been adequate. There was a failure on the part of the Garda in that [436]case and of the HSE to adequately co-ordinate between themselves. The failure to prosecute has, of itself, had a detrimental impact on the psychological well-being of this young person.

There are far more reports to the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, for example, by victims of alleged rape than ever find their way into the Garda station or through the courts by way of prosecutions, because victims are reluctant to come forward and they do not always get the supports they require. This amendment is designed to ensure that victims are kept informed, are properly respected, that the State addresses their needs in a reasonable way within the capacity of the State and that those working in State services, be it members of the Garda or people in the health or social services, are sensitive to the needs and requirements of victims and also immediate family members, who might be just as traumatised by an event that results in a criminal prosecution.

This is a provision that Fine Gael originally proposed in the Victims’ Rights Bill. I had hoped to see a similar provision in this legislation but it is not there. I am hoping this is an amendment the Minister will be willing to take on board. The other amendments that are linked to this are in a similar vein, to protect victims and ensure they are kept properly informed. The new section 6 we wish to insert states:

“(1) A victim shall, as soon as practicable after the victim comes in contact with a State agency, be given information by the personnel of the agency about services or remedies available to the victim by such agency and by any other State agency and by any local accessible voluntary agency.

(2) In this section, “State agency” means—

(a) an Garda Síochána,

(b) the Courts Service Board,

(d) Department of Health and Children,

(e) Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform,

(f) the Health Service Executive.

(3) Nothing in this section prevents information required to be given under this section from being given otherwise than is required under this section.”

Then there is a proposed section 7 which addresses the issue of ensuring victims can be kept informed and have access to a member of the Garda Síochána who is the person directly responsible for investigating their case.

The new subsection (7)(1) states:

A victim shall as soon as practicable, be given information by an Garda Síochána or, as the case requires, by the Courts Service Board or the Director of Public Prosecutions about the following matters:

(a) the name of the member of an Garda Síochána who has the primary responsibility to investigate the reported offence and/or anti-social behaviour and relevant Garda station;

(b) the telephone number where the Garda referred to in paragraph (a) may be contacted for information relating to the investigation or resulting prosecution;

[437]

(d) the progress of the investigation of the offence;

(e) the charges (if any) laid together with an explanation of the nature of the charges or any final decision made not to charge an alleged offender;

(f) the progress of the prosecution, if any, taken against any alleged offender or alleged offenders and, in particular, the date, time and location of each event listed in subsection (2);

(g) whether or not the accused or offender is granted bail and the terms and conditions of any bail granted;

[This is a particularly important provision in the context of those who have been the victims of physical or sexual violence.]

(h) the victim’s role as a witness in the prosecution of the offence;

(i) the victim’s entitlement to make a Victim Impact Statement and the role of such Statement;

(j) every final disposition of all proceedings at first instance or on appeal (if any) relating to the offence, to include—

(i) any convictions or pleas of guilty entered and sentences imposed, in relation to the offence,

It then details the various possible outcomes of proceedings as between convictions or pleas of guilty, acquittals or deemed acquittals and any decision of the prosecution to modify or not to proceed with charges laid, including any decisions to accept pleas of guilty.

All too frequently, in the criminal justice system, a plea to a lesser charge than that originally levied, is accepted by the Garda Síochána and the courts, resulting in the person who has pleaded guilty being subject to a lesser penalty, be that a financial penalty or sentence. All too frequently, the reason for those sort of agreements is not explained to the victims of crime. On occasion, there may be a conviction and judicial review applications are made to the High Court which may in the end result in the High Court setting aside a conviction. I am aware of instances where the victims of crime have learned of the outcome of such judicial reviews from news broadcasts on radio or television or when they pick up a morning newspaper. That is not appropriate and it is not showing the respect to the victim that the victim should receive when he or she has given information to the Garda, co-operated with the Garda, given evidence as a witness in a case, when they learn from a newspaper report of the outcome of a High Court action which may result in a conviction, having been obtained, being set aside.

The other information that is important to be given to victims is that where applicable, the possibility of obtaining protection by use of the domestic violence legislation and the court’s jurisdiction to order that information identifying the address of the place where the victim lives or works not be given to an accused or an offender.

In the original Bill as published, we included detailed provisions to try to protect the anonymity of a victim where that was necessary and where the individual was under threat. In my view, it is desirable that in certain circumstances, the court should be able to make such orders.

I will not read through the entirety of the provisions contained in this section of the Bill because it will occupy the rest of what is a limited and guillotined session. However, I wish to [438]draw attention to the fact that victims need to be informed of the circumstances in which they can preserve their anonymity where proceedings are brought in respect of rape or sexual offences and the general jurisdiction granted to the courts to make protection of persons orders. These are all important issues.

Amendment No. 5 relates to limitations on duties to give information. Essentially, those limitations are to ensure that the information given cannot impede an investigation or prejudice a prosecution.

Amendment No. 6 allows that where a victim has a support person, someone who has been appointed to provide him or her with assistance and support to come to terms with the ordeal he or she has suffered and to assist the victim through the court process, that person can be given information which he or she can then explain it to the victim who may be upset and distraught.

It has long been my belief that our criminal justice system and criminal law does not give adequate respect to the rights of victims. Victims are seen in some ways as ancillary to the criminal justice process and not central to it. On occasions they are seen as individuals who will give evidence but who are not really entitled to information. We do not always treat them in human and considerate terms and in the manner that they should be treated. In saying that, I wish to make very particular the point that we have within our social services and within the Garda Síochána a large number of people who go out of their way to be of assistance to victims. It would be wrong not to say that. I am well aware of members of the Garda Síochána who have gone way beyond the bounds of duty to provide help and assistance to individuals who have suffered trauma as a consequence of crime. I would not want to give the wrong impression in that context.

All too frequently, because of the pressures of work, the fire brigade nature of services provided within our health services on occasion, the pressures of events, the needs of victims get lost. We should reflect these needs in our legislation by means of statutory provisions and not just in victims' charters. There should be statutory recognition of the position of the needs of the victim. We need to have in place provisions in legislation such as the Criminal Procedure Bill, specific identifiable procedures and standards that should be adhered to in the interests of victims of crime.

In that context, making such provision and the statutory agencies complying with it, will encourage people who are the victims of crime to come forward. There is a lot of crime committed which is never reported to the Garda. On occasions it is not reported because people feel too stressed; on occasions it is not reported because they fear intimidation; on occasions it is not reported because they have had the experience in the past of being a victim of crime who has made a report to a Garda station and who has received no feedback of any nature thereafter, as to what was done to investigate the complaint made by him or her. Some individuals have, on occasion, sought that information and not received it. An added difficulty has been where files go to the Director of Public Prosecutions and it is believed a prosecution will take place and for reasons that until relatively recently were never the subject of explanation, the DPP concludes that no prosecution can take place.

There are a variety of reasons this can occur. The evidence may not be strong enough, some mistake may have been made in the investigative process, there may be some difficulty in the context of the manner in which an alleged offender was interviewed. There can be myriad reasons a prosecution does not occur. For people who have been the victims of crime, for far too long no explanations were ever given by the DPP where that did not occur. We now know that in a discrete number of areas, the DPP has made provision to give information to alleged victims and I hope he will extend this in the future.

I hope the Government will be willing to accept these amendments.

[439]Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): I will call on the Minister at this stage and then Deputy Rabbitte in that order. That is the normal procedure.

Deputy Alan Shatter: This is Report Stage.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): The normal procedure is for the Minister to respond to a particular Deputy but if Deputy Shatter is amenable I have no problem either. I invite Deputy Rabbitte to proceed.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I support the thrust of this group of amendments tabled by Deputy Shatter. We live in a society where violent crime, unfortunately, is the order of the day. This group of amendments seeks to address the issue where the victim interacts with the criminal justice system. All Deputies have been engaged with persons who have been victims of crime and are bewildered by their experience. They are often traumatised by their experience and intimidated by the court environment. The Minister will say that some of what Deputy Shatter is advocating is already the practice. The point is that the opportunity to give expression to these provisions in statute should not be overlooked. That is the thinking behind these amendments.

The current DPP departed from the age-old tradition since the office was established to communicate, in limited circumstances, with the victim in respect of the tragedy that has befallen them. The Garda Síochána has measures that were unheard of 20 years ago in terms of staying in touch with the victim of crime and advising him or her on the progress or lack of progress in an investigation. Some members of the Garda Síochána are very good at it, others are not especially gifted in that area. It is important for someone who has had the experience of being a victim of violent crime. Frequently, such people do not understand how the criminal procedure operates and are bewildered by the twists and turns that can happen in a case that seems open and shut to them. There are many reasons, and Deputy Shatter alluded to some, a decision is made not to prosecute. It is exceptionally difficult for someone who was the victim of a serious crime to accept why that is the case. The calculation may be no more than that the file will not stand up in court or due to other defects. A judgment is made and it is very important in such circumstances that every effort is made to relay the information to the person who was the victim of the crime. I do not want to intrude on this debate again but I acknowledge that changes have been made in recent times that go some of the way to what is envisaged, albeit not in statute.

The DPP attended a recent meeting of the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women’s Rights and talked about his office. He touched on this area and his comments were welcomed by members of the committee across the board. Certain tentative steps, albeit in a restricted area, have been taken by his office. From my minimal involvement with persons who find themselves the victims of serious crime, I know they appreciate this. I have dealt with serious unsolved crimes, as have other Members of the House. The dogs in the street allegedly know who pulled the trigger or who caused the trigger to be pulled in some dreadfully sad instances. It is very difficult to explain to the parents or relatives in such circumstances what is happening in the investigation and where it is likely to lead. It is greatly appreciated by those people when members of the Garda Síochána go out of their way to try to keep the family in touch and provide feedback. In the restrictive rubric of cases I have mentioned, a person in the office of the DPP is allocated to maintain contact when the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions is involved.

Seeing as we are taking this opportunity to revise the law on criminal procedure and address double jeopardy, it is appropriate to take the opportunity to express these civilised requirements, that the victim be treated with respect and dignity and that information and communi[440]cation should be given priority, in statute rather than having these measures in codes of practice or victims’ charters.

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): I am responding to this debate because my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, is tied up in the Seanad.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is not because of the penguins.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is not the penguins, nor the zoo. This group of amendments deals with two broad areas, namely, the treatment of victims in amendments Nos. 1 and 2 and information to be given to victims in Nos. 3 to 6, inclusive. I acknowledge the Deputies’ concern for victims of crime and the need to improve the manner in which their needs and concerns are addressed by the criminal justice system. I listened carefully to the argument put forward. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform has made it one of his major objectives to improve the standing of victims of crime and sought to do this in ways that meet their needs and by using flexible and easily accessible means. This Bill is one of the ways the Minister has addressed the status of victims, through the greatly expanded provisions of victim impact statements and also in permitting the re-trial of acquitted persons where the DPP and the courts are satisfied there is sufficient reason to do so. The Bill protects victims against the abuse of the rules on character evidence by an accused who wishes to take advantage of situations where the victim is unable to respond. The Minister has provided a new structure for better communication between victims, their representatives and his Department. I refer to the victims of crime office in his Department and the Commission for the Support of Victims of Crime.

5 o’clock

Later this month the Minister will launch a substantially revised version of the victims’ charter. Despite the well-known pressure on public finances, the Minister has succeeded in maintaining the allocation from his Department to a wide range of groups working with victims. His approach has been to meet the needs of victims in a variety of ways, including legislation and administrative action. The Minister has made it clear it is not necessary to address all issues through legislation. Apart from other considerations, legislation can be inflexible, can give rise to lengthy and costly disputes and interpretation and it lacks the capacity to deal quickly with a range of circumstances that arise in particular cases or as a result of evolving social attitudes and patterns of crime.

This difference of approach informs the Government’s attitude to the proposed amendments. However, I will state clearly the position of the Minister and the Government. Victims must be given greater recognition and their status must be improved. However, it is not necessary to legislate to ensure better services and support for victims and this is borne out by experience.

I, like the Minister, accept that legislation has a role to play but in many instances, people’s needs can be met more quickly and just as effectively by adopting administrative arrangements and by making firm commitments on what one is in a position to offer them. The new victim’s charter is an example of such publicly-declared commitments. I therefore oppose these amendments for reasons of policy and because, as will be seen, they are not necessary in view of the arrangements already in place.

However, I wish to comment on the individual amendments. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which pertain to the proposed Part on the treatment of victims, are strong in aspiration but appear to offer little concrete assistance. It would be disappointing to think that it might be necessary to provide in legislation that individual gardaí should be courteous to victims. As for giving victims’ rights to access medical and other services, the proposed sections 4(3) and 5 make it clear that such rights can be availed of, but only in so far as resources permit. The Deputy should be careful not to mislead victims into thinking he is doing something when it is [441]all so highly qualified and contingent. Moreover, many of the services mentioned, such as medical, psychological and social care, already are available to every citizen under the public health system.

When considering the Part entitled, Information To Be Given To Victims, my first thought was that almost everything suggested therein already is being addressed. All the agencies in the criminal justice sector, eight in total, are contributing to the victim’s charter by setting out clearly what they can offer the victim. The provision in the proposed section 7(1)(m) caught my attention. It refers to the giving of evidence via television links or intermediaries. I ask Members to note sections 5 and 6 of the Bill before them, where they will see the Minister already has gone further than has Deputy Shatter. He is providing for this facility to apply not only in the giving of evidence but in the delivery of a victim impact statement. On this question of the information given to victims, I strongly recommend to Members that they should read the address given by no less an authority than the Director of Public Prosecutions at the annual conference of the Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights in UCC on 11 June 2010. He speaks with authority and full independence. His address confirms the central role of the Garda Síochána in keeping victims informed and he gives a detailed account of how the victim is kept informed and, when appropriate, is asked for his or her views on developments in a case when it reaches the court.

This brief analysis of this set of amendments supports the position that while one should legislate when necessary, one should not forget that one also can meet one’s objectives in other ways. My preference, which I share with the Minister, is for a mixed approach and therefore I will not accept this group of amendments.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I must take with a grain of salt the Minister’s comment about how one can deal with matters pertaining to protecting victims more quickly through administrative arrangements. Fine Gael introduced a Bill in this House three years ago that would have addressed all the issues in respect of victims and would have addressed those matters that fall outside the victim’s charter at present and which I now expect to be included therein. In the context of speed, it is the speed of a tortoise competing with the snail. I am unsure in which category I would put the Minister in addressing these issues.

I agree the victim’s charter is a highly positive development and I am pleased to hear that it is to be updated. However, to ensure that the State provides services to victims to which they are entitled, these matters should be incorporated into statute. There is a real benefit in so incorporating them. It was interesting to hear the Minister talking about the need for flexibility and not doing it by way of statute. He then criticised the extent to which the amendment is flexible. Clearly, one must draft something like this with a degree of flexibility built into it but in a manner that recognises the needs and rights of victims and which addresses the issue well put by Deputy Rabbitte in the context of the Garda Síochána. As I stated, some members of the force do extraordinarily good work in keeping victims informed and in being of assistance to victims. However, there are others who are not so good at that and victims fall through the cracks. This provision is designed to ensure this does not occur.

The critique the Minister made of the proposed section 7(1)(m) is not worth taking seriously because it is about advising people of their entitlement, in specified discrete circumstances, to give evidence by video link, particularly in the area of sexual offences. This is not always understood in the context of young children and this is something about which victims and their parents need to be informed at a very early stage in the process to relieve them of some of the added worry and trauma they fear in the context of a court hearing.

I will conclude by noting that I am disappointed by the Minister’s response and intend to put the amendment.

[442]Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: While I heard what the Deputy had to say, I must simply agree to disagree with him. The balance the Minister has struck is correct and it is important to know the limitations of legislation in some circumstances and that tools like charters can work more flexibly and effectively. Ultimately, it is very important that people are protected. As Deputy Shatter stated, the best way to provide a good service is for those who provide such services to put their hearts and souls into so doing. I was slightly amused by the Deputy’s zoological references today, which have included penguins, snails and tortoises. However, I remind Deputy Shatter about the race between the hare and the tortoise.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I knew the Minister was going to say that.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The tortoise won the race.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): I am unsure how to follow that. Deputy Shatter is entitled to a final contribution.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I will put the amendment to enable Members to move on.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 59; Níl, 71.

Tá
Allen, Bernard.	Bannon, James.
Barrett, Seán.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Burke, Ulick.	Burton, Joan.
Byrne, Catherine.	Carey, Joe.
Connaughton, Paul.	Coonan, Noel J.
Costello, Joe.	Coveney, Simon.
Crawford, Seymour.	Creighton, Lucinda.
D’Arcy, Michael.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Doyle, Andrew.	Durkan, Bernard J.
English, Damien.	Enright, Olwyn.
Feighan, Frank.	Ferris, Martin.
Flanagan, Charles.	Flanagan, Terence.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Hayes, Brian.
Higgins, Michael D.	Hogan, Phil.
Howlin, Brendan.	Lynch, Ciarán.
Lynch, Kathleen.	McCormack, Pádraic.
McGrath, Finian.	McHugh, Joe.
McManus, Liz.	Neville, Dan.
Noonan, Michael.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.	O’Donnell, Kieran.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Mahony, John.
O’Shea, Brian.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
O’Sullivan, Maureen.	Quinn, Ruairí.
Rabbitte, Pat.	Reilly, James.
Ring, Michael.	Shatter, Alan.
Sheahan, Tom.	Sherlock, Seán.
Shortall, Róisín.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Tuffy, Joanna.
Upton, Mary.	Varadkar, Leo.
Wall, Jack.

Níl
Ahern, Bertie.	Ahern, Michael.
Ahern, Noel.	Andrews, Barry.
Andrews, Chris.	Aylward, Bobby.
Behan, Joe.	Blaney, Niall.
Brady, Áine.	Brady, Cyprian.
Brady, Johnny.	Browne, John.
Byrne, Thomas.	Calleary, Dara.
Carey, Pat.	Collins, Niall.
Connick, Seán.	Coughlan, Mary.
Cregan, John.	Cuffe, Ciarán.
Curran, John.	Dempsey, Noel.
Devins, Jimmy.	Dooley, Timmy.
Fahey, Frank.	Finneran, Michael.
Fitzpatrick, Michael.	Fleming, Seán.
Gogarty, Paul.	Gormley, John.
Grealish, Noel.	Hanafin, Mary.
Harney, Mary.	Haughey, Seán.
Hoctor, Máire.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kelly, Peter.	Kenneally, Brendan.
Kennedy, Michael.	Killeen, Tony.
Kitt, Michael P.	Lenihan, Brian.
Lenihan, Conor.	McEllistrim, Thomas.
McGrath, Mattie.	McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.	Mansergh, Martin.
Martin, Micheál.	Moloney, John.
Moynihan, Michael.	Mulcahy, Michael.
Nolan, M.J.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	O’Brien, Darragh.
O’Connor, Charlie.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Hanlon, Rory.	O’Keeffe, Batt.
O’Keeffe, Edward.	O’Rourke, Mary.
O’Sullivan, Christy.	Power, Seán.
Ryan, Eamon.	Sargent, Trevor.
Scanlon, Eamon.	Smith, Brendan.
Wallace, Mary.	White, Mary Alexandra.
Woods, Michael.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Joe Carey; Níl, Deputies John Cregan and John Curran.

Amendment declared lost.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“5.—A victim or member of a victim’s immediate family who has welfare, counseling, medical or legal needs arising from the commission of an offence or as a result of anti-social behaviour shall have access to services that are responsive to those needs insofar as resources are available.”.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I move amendment No. 3:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“PART 3

INFORMATION TO BE GIVEN TO VICTIMS

6.—(1) A victim shall, as soon as practicable after the victim comes in contact with a State agency, be given information by the personnel of the agency about services or remedies available to the victim by such agency and by any other State agency and by any local accessible voluntary agency.

(2) In this section, “State agency” means—

[444]

(a) an Garda Síochána,

(b) the Courts Service Board,

(d) Department of Health and Children,

(e) Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform,

(f) the Health Service Executive.

(3) Nothing in this section prevents information required to be given under this section from being given otherwise than is required under this section.”.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I move amendment No. 4:

In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:

“7.—(1) A victim shall as soon as practicable, be given information by an Garda Síochána or, as the case requires, by the Courts Service Board or the Director of Public Prosecutions about the following matters:

(a) the name of the member of an Garda Síochána who has the primary responsibility to investigate the reported offence and/or anti-social behaviour and relevant Garda station;

(b) the telephone number where the Garda referred to in paragraph (a) may be contacted for information relating to the investigation or resulting prosecution;

(d) the progress of the investigation of the offence;

(e) the charges (if any) laid together with an explanation of the nature of the charges or any final decision made not to charge an alleged offender;

(f) the progress of the prosecution, if any, taken against any alleged offender or alleged offenders and, in particular, the date, time and location of each event listed in subsection (2);

(g) whether or not the accused or offender is granted bail and the terms and conditions of any bail granted;

(h) the victim’s role as a witness in the prosecution of the offence;

(i) the victim’s entitlement to make a Victim Impact Statement and the role of such Statement;

(j) every final disposition of all proceedings at first instance or on appeal (if any) relating to the offence, to include—

[445]

(i) any convictions or pleas of guilty entered and sentences imposed, in relation to the offence,

(ii) any acquittal or deemed acquittal or finding that the charge was not proved,

(iii) any decision of the prosecution to modify or not to proceed with charges laid, including any decision to accept a plea of guilty to a lesser offence than the original offence or offences charged,

(iv) any application made to the High Court by way of judicial review in connection with charges laid in relation to the offence, the prosecution brought or the trial resulting from the offence or any resulting conviction or sentence and any resulting court order made;

(k) where applicable, the courts’ jurisdiction to make orders pursuant to the Domestic Violence Acts 1996 to 2002 and the type of orders that can be made under the said Acts;

(l) the courts’ jurisdiction to order that information identifying the address of the place where the victim lives or works be not given to an accused or an offender, or in evidence or in information provided to a court;

(m) where applicable, the circumstances in which a victim may give evidence through a television link or through an intermediary under the Criminal Evidence Act 1992 as amended by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Acts 2006 and 2007 or the Criminal Justice Act 1999;

(n) where applicable, the courts’ jurisdiction pursuant to section 181 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006 to order that a victim’s medical condition be a matter of anonymity should the victim give evidence as a witness;

(o) the circumstances in which a compensation order may be made or reparations obtained by a victim pursuant to the Criminal Damage Act 1991, the Criminal Justice Act 1993, the Children Act 2001 or pursuant to any non-statutory scheme established by the State;

(p) the circumstances in which a victim’s anonymity may be protected pursuant to the Criminal Law Rape Acts 1981 and 1990 as amended by the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007;

(q) the jurisdiction of the courts pursuant to section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 2007 to make a Protection of Person’s Order to protect the victim of specified indictable offences or of an alleged such offence or any other person from harassment by an offender or a person charged with such offence by prohibiting the offender or the person so charged from engaging in behaviour that would be likely to cause the victim or other named person fear, distress or harm or would be likely to amount to intimidation;

(r) where applicable, the availability of a restorative justice scheme in operation of relevance should an alleged offender be convicted, the objectives of such scheme, the procedure applicable and the opportunity, if any, available to the victim to participate in such scheme;

(s) where applicable, in relation to anti-social behaviour, the remedies available pursuant to Parts 11 and 13 of the Criminal Justice Act 2006, the steps intended to be taken, [446]the resolution, if any, achieved and, where required, details of any court application made and of any court orders granted and the role where relevant of the victim.

(2) The events referred to in subsection (1)(f) are:

(a) the first and any subsequent appearance in court, in connection with the offence, of the person accused of the offence;

(b) any preliminary hearing relating to the offence;

(d) any hearing set down for sentencing for the offence;

(e) any hearings of appeal (if any) against conviction of the offence or against the sentence to be imposed or to be imposed for the offence or both;

(f) any hearings to review any sentence imposed on the application of the Director of Public Prosecutions where it appears to the Director of Public Prosecutions that a sentence imposed by a court on indictment was unduly lenient.

(3) Nothing in this section prevents information required to be given under this section from being given otherwise than as required under this section.”.

Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 6, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:

“10.—(1) This section applies to a victim of a sexual offence after a person accused of such offence has been convicted of the offence.

(2) No court shall order that the anonymity of the person convicted of a sexual offence shall be protected where a victim to whom this section applies informs the court that it is the victim’s wish that the identity of the offender be publicly disclosed, even where disclosing the identity of the offender may result in the identity of the victim also being publicly disclosed and where the victim confirms to the court an awareness of such risk.”.

There have been occasions where there have been convictions for serious sexual offences and where the courts have preserved the anonymity of the offender in circumstances where it is the view of the victim that the offender’s name should be disclosed. This can arise for family reasons. There is a broad range of circumstances where that could arise. As a matter of public policy, where the victim wishes the offender to be named, there should be no inhibition or difficulty in the offender being named. This is particularly important in circumstances of violent offences or sexual offences such as those to which this amendment applies. It means that, where someone has been convicted, their name becomes known. If they serve a sentence and they are on the register of convicted sexual offenders, I believe the general public is entitled to know. People are entitled to know if there is a sexual offender living near to them.

The recent court case got a great deal of publicity in which a convicted sex offender released from prison sought to prevent the media from publishing their address. The courts stated quite clearly there is a need to balance the rights of the offender with those of the public and the [447]right to know the offender’s identity. We need to do more to provide protection in this area. Where a victim has no difficulty with the name of somebody being published, that name should be published.

The importance of this point has been demonstrated by the very great public concern expressed about the pending release, on 13 August next, of Mr. Larry Murphy, who on 11 February 2000 subjected a Carlow businesswoman to a shocking and prolonged sexual assault. He was sentenced ultimately to ten years imprisonment. When the man is released, he will be on the register of sexual offenders but there is a great concern as to where he is going to live. There is a concern within the local community that he be monitored. He is an individual reported during his period in prison to have undertaken no treatments or counselling of any description to come to terms with the vile assault in which he violated an innocent young person. The assault had a dreadful impact on that person’s life. There is a public need to know in this area.

I am familiar that in some parts of the United States the local state authorities have an obligation twice a year to circulate within communities the addresses of convicted sexual offenders who are living within those communities. That has not resulted in former offenders being subjected to assault or even being driven out of where they are living, but it has resulted in there being a general awareness on the part of individuals in the neighbourhood that there is a need to be careful and cautious. It is also to ensure that the police force keeps an eye on individuals who have committed heinous sexual crimes. The police keep an eye on them in the interest of the community to prevent reoffending.

Unfortunately, in this area, particularly in the context of individuals who have no sense of self-awareness or grief and who have gone through no treatment processes or therapy when in prison, there is a very strong likelihood that they will reoffend. In dealing with such offenders, we all know there is no guarantee, no matter what services are provided within a prison, that they will not reoffend. However, all the studies in this area have established that where there are appropriate therapeutic counselling and psychiatric-psychological services within a prison service, those who have committed sexual crimes and who avail of those services are substantially less likely to offend than those who have avoided engaging in such services. This amendment deals with one particular issue but it is an important issue. I hope the Minister will take the amendment on board.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): Does Deputy Rabbitte wish to contribute?

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I wish to hear what the Minister has to say.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: This amendment repeats an amendment moved by Deputy Shatter’s colleague, Senator Regan, last November on Committee Stage in the Seanad. At the time the Minister urged caution as the issue required careful consideration. He stated his view that issues of anonymity for persons convicted of sexual offences should be considered in the context of legislation governing those offences. This remains his view.

The Minister also stated that anonymity and related issues were being examined in his Department as part of a review of sexual offences legislation. I can now tell the House of progress in this regard. The Minister of State with responsibility for children will be laying the draft general scheme of a sexual offences Bill before the Government for its approval in the near future. The Bill will include provisions that will reform aspects of the law on anonymity.

The Deputy’s amendment refers to a conviction for a “sexual offence”, but does not define this term and is too widely drawn. It seems to suppose that all those charged with a sexual offence have anonymity at present, but this is not the case. Under the law, anonymity applies [448]to an accused in two circumstances, those being, where the accused is charged with a rape offence under section 8 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 or with an incest offence under the Criminal Law (Incest Proceedings) Act 1995. Anonymity is not available to a person charged with a sexual offence other than rape or incest. Moreover, in the case of a rape offence, the protection is lifted if the accused is found guilty. The accused in incest cases retain anonymity even where the charges are withdrawn or the persons are convicted.

I began by referring to the complexity of legislating in this regard, but I will highlight one scenario that will clearly demonstrate how complex the issue is and how change must be well thought out. As we know, many sexual abuse cases involve multiple victims. This is especially true where the abuse occurs in a family setting. If only one of the victims in such a case was to avail of the possibility presented by this amendment to have the perpetrator named, that person could cause a distress to other victims who might be his or her siblings second only to the distress caused by the offender and deepen the rifts in the family. If the court refused an application from such a person in order to respect the others’ wishes, great distress might be caused to the applicant. No one would win. I doubt that the Deputy wishes to bring this situation about. In light of the information provided to me by the Minister of State on the general scheme of the sexual offences Bill, I am compelled to reject the amendment. Accepting it without greater consideration would be unwise.

Deputy Alan Shatter: The Minister was right to point out that my colleague, Senator Regan, raised this matter in the Seanad. The amendment was first contained in Fine Gael’s Victims’ Rights Bill 2008. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform has had more than three years in which to consider this issue, but the thought process does not appear to have advanced far in that time.

The Minister stated that the draft general scheme of a sexual offences Bill is to be laid before the Government by the Minister of State with responsibility for children next autumn. This is interesting. As we know, a draft general scheme is not a Bill. When such a scheme is produced, a minimum of two years pass before any detailed legislation emerges from the Attorney General’s office.

The promised legislation on this matter originated from a report published in November 2006 by a joint Oireachtas committee examining the question of sexual offences, but it is only now, some four years later, that a draft general scheme, not even a draft Bill, might be tabled before the Cabinet in the autumn. The report on child sexual offences and the issue of strict liability was published by the joint committee on the rights of the child in February 2009. It was supposed to produce a Bill, but we were told the Government was opposed to amending the Constitution to re-instate an offence of strict liability to protect children from sexual predators, particularly older people who prey on them for sexual pleasure. Instead, the Government favoured statutory changes, which were allegedly being worked on because this issue had been the subject of a 2006 report. We are now being told that legislation will be introduced in 2012 at the earliest, after the Government has left office. This is not treating the matter of sexual offences or the necessary reforms with seriousness.

The Minister cited a particular problem with the amendment. In some incest cases, only one or two family members are victims while other family members deny the allegations. The latter group wants the name of the alleged perpetrator, more usually the father than the mother, kept confidential. When someone has committed a sexual offence within a family, he or she is equally likely to commit one outside the family after being released from prison, having been convicted. The general public has a right to know, so this amendment should be accepted.

[449]Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Government has outlined its position clearly. This is a systematic way to deal with the issues, in that a general scheme will be laid before the Government. One must go through the procedures to ensure what one does legislatively——

Deputy Alan Shatter: How soon will the Bill be published?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: When it is ready. I do not know the date. As the Deputy is aware, a great deal of legislation is being prepared by the Parliamentary Counsel and this must be done properly and comprehensively. These issues are always dealt with as speedily as possible, but I cannot give a date for publication. The Deputy seems to know, given the number of dates he was listing off a few minutes ago, but legislation has not been taking the kinds of timescale he mentioned.

Complex issues must be addressed. Making proposals is one matter, but we must ensure they have the desired effect once enacted. We must also consider every possible repercussion. The Deputy always refers to the importance of teasing out legislation, which is what the drafting process is about. It is examining all of the issues that might arise. We want the legislation we introduce in the House to be comprehensive and good. I have outlined the process in this instance clearly. I have also outlined the issues with the amendment. For this reason, I will be opposing it.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It is extraordinary that, given the revelations about child sexual abuse, institutional abuse, abuse within the church and the number of alleged rapes that do not produce prosecutions, the difficulties that have arisen with regard to children, particularly young teenagers, who are preyed upon by older people — usually men — and the publication of a report by an all-party committee ably chaired by the now Minister of State, Deputy Peter Power, that produced a plethora of detailed recommendations, there is still no chance of legislation four years later. At best, we are being promised a scheme and the Minister, who represents the Government, is unable to tell the House the date on which a Bill will be published. This is unsatisfactory. Despite the verbal sympathy expressed for the victims of sexual abuse, the truth is that the Government has failed to provide the new modern scheme of legislation that is required. It will fail to do so all the way up to the next general election.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 8:

In page 7, line 32, after “by” to insert “the prosecution or”.

This is a straightforward amendment which seeks to clarify the practice where an application is made for a victim impact report. The practice is that it is usually made by counsel for the DPP, and therefore it is necessary to make plain in the legislation that given that it is not customarily the victim directly who makes the application, but rather counsel for the DPP, it should be plain in the legislation that the words “the prosecution or” ought to be inserted. I should like to hear the Minister’s views on this.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I do not propose to accept this amendment for two reasons. First, a legislative provision which gives a person a right to make an application to a court is normally understood as permitting another person to make that application on his or her behalf. Subsection (3)(a) follows this approach by simply providing that upon application by the person in respect of whom the offence was committed, the court shall hear the evidence of the victim. This formulation facilitates the continuation of the current practice whereby it is the prosecut[450]ing counsel who generally makes the application on behalf of the victim. The Deputy’s objective in tabling this amendment is already achieved and so it is unnecessary.

Second, there is a concern that Deputy Rabbitte’s amendment, if accepted, could give, or might appear to give, the prosecution the right to make an application to the court on its own behalf, without establishing the wishes of the victim. I say this because the amendment presents the prosecution as an alternative to the victim. As the Minister stated at the select committee, the right to make a victim impact statement belongs to the victim, and the decision whether to exercise that right must be left to him or her. We must remember that not all victims wish to go through the ordeal of giving evidence at the sentencing hearing. Indeed, this is recognised in subsection (4), which provides that the absence of a victim impact statement shall not give rise to an inference on the part of the sentencing court that the offence had little or no effect on the victim. While I accept it is unlikely that the prosecution would proceed without consulting the victim, Deputy Rabbitte’s amendment would leave open that possibility. On that basis, since I do not believe this would be in the interest of victims, I will be opposing the amendment.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Clearly the Minister is not going to change that opinion. I accept that and withdraw the amendment.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 8, after line 53, to insert the following:

“(5) Where a person in respect of whom an offence has been committed, or a family member of that person, proposes to give evidence under subsection (3) orally rather than in writing, it shall not be necessary for the court to give any particular direction or warning to that person in respect of his or her evidence.”.

This amendment seeks to enshrine a new section in the Bill. That new section would stipulate: “Where a person in respect of whom an offence has been committed, or a family member of that person, proposes to give evidence under subsection (3) orally rather than in writing, it shall not be necessary for the court to give any particular direction or warning to that person in respect of his or her evidence.”

It is fair to say that everybody in the House knows the origin of this particular amendment, and that it refers to remarks made in the course of a ruling in the Court of Criminal Appeal on the Wayne O’Donoghue case. I believe those remarks by Ms Justice Macken may have been obiter dictum and I do not particularly want to go into the case. The point is, however, that there generally is not a problem in terms of the written statement and parties are usually on notice. However, where a person goes beyond what was in the written statement, and adds material orally, there can be a difficulty. Members of the House who are familiar with what happened in the Wayne O’Donoghue case will be aware of that.

Having said that, the question arises whether it is necessary for a mandatory warning to be given in such circumstances in terms of the delivery of the statement. On balance, I argue it is not desirable that it should become the mandatory practice. That is not to say I would want what happened in that particular case to occur again. The Minister, in subsection (5) of the same section has inserted a clause that would disbar publication of part or all of a statement added on in the circumstances I have described. I accept that this goes some of the way towards meeting the situation I am seeking to highlight. It is important, however, that we clarify this.

[451]Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I draw Deputy Rabbitte’s attention to subsection (5), which he has referred to. It gives a sentencing court the power to prohibit the broadcasting or publication of all or part of a victim impact statement in the interests of justice. This mechanism provides the court with an alternative solution to that advocated by the Court of Criminal Appeal, albeit in obiter dictum remarks in the Wayne O’Donoghue case. In that case, as the Deputy has indicated, the mother of the victim referred to matters when making her impact statement, which had not been given in evidence in court, that made serious allegations against a convicted person. The additional material attracted extensive media coverage, which was, undoubtedly, very damaging to the reputation of the convicted person.

As the Director of Public Prosecutions noted in his address to the annual conference at the UCC Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights on 11 June, had subsection (5) been enforced at the time of the O’Donoghue sentencing hearing, the trial judge would have been entitled to make an order prohibiting publication of the matters which were alleged, but which had not, in fact, been presented, never mind proved in the course of the trial.

I believe the House will agree that the solution provided by subsection (5) is more in tune with the need to treat victims with a degree of sensitivity, and is preferable by far to a trial judge, warning a victim that he or she risks being held in contempt of court, with the potential consequences that might flow from that. It is in that spirt that I suggest subsection (5) provides a good solution, and I suggest the Deputy considers withdrawing the amendment. As I believe subsection (5) is a better solution, I cannot accept the amendment as proposed. Since I believe the existing provision is the best solution, I cannot accept the amendment as proposed.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I do not see how they are mutually incompatible. One can have subsection 5 and the proper disbarment of the publication of matter that wanders outside of what is contained in the written statement. One can also have the new section I have proposed. It is a belt-and-braces provision which makes clear the practice and the rights of the victim in such circumstances.

The Minister is arguing that subsection 5 allows the judge to require the media not to proceed with publication. He did not give, however, the downside argument in respect of accepting my proposal. Why should it not be clear that it is not necessary for the court to give any particular direction or warning in the circumstances described? My amendment may be considered a belt-and-braces approach but it does make clear the practices and procedures that ought to be followed when a family member or relative decides to exercise this right.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is necessary to avoid a situation arising in which a victim was found to be in contempt of court. A better solution is to leave it to the judge if he or she feels it necessary to ensure the non-publication of matters that strayed from the written submission and resulted in damaging allegations against a person. The existing provision in subsection 5 is comprehensive enough and gives discretion to the judge.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I surrender.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 10:

In page 10, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following:

“(7) This section is without prejudice to the power of a court to receive evidence regarding the effect of an offence, other than an offence to which this section applies, on the person in respect of whom the offence was committed.”.

[452]This amendment proposes to insert a new and necessary section to make it clear the court has a general power to receive victim impact evidence, even outside the specific offences to which this section applies.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I do not propose to accept this amendment. It seeks to bring about a provision that already exists in the legislation. It is, therefore, not necessary. Section 5 of the Criminal Justice Act 1993, which will be substituted by section 4, sets out the circumstances in which a sentencing judge is required to take into account victim impact evidence and the circumstances in which a victim has the right to make a victim impact statement.

These circumstances relate to whether the offence for which a person has been convicted comes within the categories specified in section 5. Those categories are a sexual offence within the meaning of the Criminal Evidence Act 1992, an offence involving violence or the threat of violence, an offence under the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act and an offence consisting of attempting or conspiring to commit such offences. These are the categories of offences in which such a mandatory regime is most acceptable. This statutory obligation does not prevent a judge from taking account of victim impact evidence in other types of cases if he or she considered such evidence would be helpful to determining the appropriate sentence. Judges have always had this discretion. The creation of a mandatory obligation in certain categories of cases does not alter that. The Deputy’s amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.

Amendment No. 11 not moved.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): Amendments Nos. 12 to 25, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I move amendment No. 12:

In page 11, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following:

“PART 3*

NOTICE OF CERTAIN MATTERS TO BE GIVEN TO VICTIMS OF CERTAIN OFFENCES

7.—(1) An Garda Síochána shall give a victim to whom this section applies notice, as soon as practicable of—

(a) every release on bail (if any) of the person accused of the offence or, as the case requires, the offender, and

(b) any terms or conditions of a release of that kind—

(i) that relate to the safety and security of the victim or of one or more members of his or her immediate family or of both, or

(ii) that require the accused or offender not to associate or not to contact the victim or one or more members of his or her immediate family, or both.

(2) In this section, release on bail includes a release on bail—

(a) until the hearing of proceedings,

[453]

(b) during an adjournment of proceedings,

(d) until determination of an appeal against conviction or sentence.”.

This amendment intends to ensure a victim knows whether an offender has or has not been released on bail and whether they are likely, in the case of the offence being committed in their local community, to meet the alleged offender on the street. Too frequently, victims who believe their offenders are being held in jail pending prosecution or sentencing discover that is not the case. It is important matters of this nature are communicated to victims.

The other amendments deal with similar and important issues. One in particular concerns the manner in which the Parole Board currently operates and the circumstances in which it can grant early release to prisoners. As matters stand, the victim plays no meaningful role in that process, is not necessarily informed of an early release of the offender and is not given the opportunity to make an oral presentation to the board on the reasons a prisoner should not be released.

The parole system, I believe, is fundamentally flawed and requires radical change. We need to move away from a system in which prisoners apply for parole, make a special pleading but the position of the victim is not properly represented. On occasions, persons are released far too early and re-offend. Victims often discover an offender’s early release when they meet them on the street.

We also operate a system in which early release is given regardless of the extent to which a prisoner has co-operated in taking essential treatment to address an issue which would ensure the prevention of him or her re-offending in so far as is possible. I am sorry for reverting to the case of Larry Murphy but it is a stark illustration of the problems in this area.

Earlier this afternoon I referred to the pending release of the convicted rapist Larry Murphy on 13 August 2010. My understanding is, that as a consequence of a decision made, this man will be the beneficiary of early release, having been convicted of a brutal sexual crime.

This early release is despite the fact that, as I understand it — although I am open to correction — he has undergone no treatment in prison. He will be released from prison with all the same tendencies and difficulties that gave rise to the commission of the offence of which he has been convicted. This needs to be radically changed. I do not believe any sexual offender should be released from prison early unless he or she has gone through a treatment process provided by the State.

Deputy Alan Shatter: Part of the problem in this regard has been that the State, in the guise of the current Minister for Justice and Law Reform and his predecessors over recent years, has utterly failed to provide the type of service necessary to ensure that those who have been convicted of sexual offences and wish to undergo treatment are provided with treatment. Services have been made available for too few convicted sexual offenders. That is a real problem.

We need to ensure that when a sexual offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, action is taken by the State, as far as possible — because there are no guarantees in this area — to substantially reduce the possibility of his or her reoffending. In no circumstances should a sexual offender who refuses treatment be granted early release. That is a form of contempt for the judicial process in circumstances in which judges, as an independent arm of the State, have passed a sentence. It is a failure to ensure that the full weight of the law and the impact [454]of a sentence imposed for a horrendous act is experienced by the offender. Frankly, it shows contempt for the circumstances of the victim and the trauma experienced by him or her due to both the crime itself and the necessity of going through a trial.

6 o’clock

The amendments tabled here seek, in the context of dealing with the Parole Board, to address this issue. There is a need for substantial reform in this area. This is an issue I raised in a draft Bill as long ago as 2002 and again in an updated version of that Bill dealing with victims’ rights, which was voted down in June 2007, at which time the Minister told the House that the Government would address all of these issues. There has been no legislation on the manner in which the Parole Board deals with applications for early release of prisoners. There is no transparency to the system — which is necessary in the public interest, so the general public can understand how the system works — and no proper role for victims of crime. We should not maintain a system under which those who have been convicted of predatory offences, who have a real risk of reoffending, and where the public may be at serious risk upon their release, may be considered for early release if they have not accepted treatment.

In the context of convicted sexual offenders, there is a strong case to be made that upon their release they should be electronically tagged for a period of time and not simply be names on a register to which the Garda has access but the general public do not. The general public are then left in a position of not knowing who these offenders are because of the issue of anonymity, which we have discussed previously; and where the offenders’ names are known, there is no reasonable way of monitoring the way in which they are conducting themselves in the early period following their release. At the very minimum there should be electronic tagging for a period after release, particularly for those offenders who have not undergone a treatment programme.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I remind Deputies of the general position, which I set out earlier, and the respective contributions that can be made by legislation and otherwise towards meeting the genuine needs and concerns of victims. This applies also to the current set of amendments. I will not labour the point but will make a few observations on the proposals included in this group.

At first sight these amendments seem worthwhile, with much to recommend them. If implemented, they would provide for a complete and comprehensive flow of information to the victim about developments at all stages of the case, including the outcome of bail applications; parole, temporary release or escape of the offender; hospital stays by the offender; or deportation, if applicable. In addition to the proposals on information to be supplied about progress in the case and other matters, there are a number of sections dealing with the appointment of a victim’s representative and, in amendment No. 20, a representative of the representative.

While elaborate and seemingly comprehensive, the whole edifice is deeply flawed and built on weak foundations. There are two major difficulties. First, the same arrangements are to apply regardless of the nature or seriousness of the offence. Second, the services are to be made available irrespective of whether the victim in question has requested or feels any need for them. Surely we should differentiate between types of offences with greater emphasis on particular types. We should also establish whether the victim actually wants to receive the information and show sensitivity and respect for his or her views.

[455]This group of amendments lacks focus and the Deputy has not established that they serve an actual need. It, therefore, would be wasteful of time and resources if the proposed arrangements were to be put in place. I must point out that the Garda Síochána has developed systems for keeping those who need information informed, including family liaison officers. In addition, the prison service regularly supplies information to victims about the movements and release of prisoners. The critical point about that service is that it is driven by the victim. It is the victim who initiates the process and asks for the information. That is how it should be.

By way of confirmation, I will quote Article 4.2 of the European Council framework decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings, which states in clear and simple terms that member states shall ensure that “victims who have expressed a wish to this effect are kept informed” of developments. I have already mentioned a useful address delivered recently in Cork by the Director of Public Prosecutions. His independent and clear statement of the actual position set the record straight on the level and nature of information services available to victims.

I note that these amendments are taken from the Victims’ Rights Bill 2008, a Private Members’ Bill introduced by Deputy Shatter and rejected by the House. The amendments may have had context in that Bill but now they are at large without, for instance, the necessary definitions for terms used. I will give an example. In amendments Nos. 13 and 14 there are references to “a victim to whom this section applies”, but we are given no help in discovering who that might be. Terms such as “parole” and “temporary release” are used interchangeably, although they have precise meanings and are defined in statute. They should be used with care and in their proper context. I also point out with regret, and to underline the unsuitability of these amendments, that the recent change in the Department’s name is not reflected in them.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: Come on.

Deputy Alan Shatter: He is not serious.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am not accepting these amendments because the policy behind them is confused and because, as presented, they would cause drafting difficulties. More significantly, they would require elaborate systems for their operation, which would not be targeted but would use up resources better employed in providing services where there is a demand.

An Ceann Comhairle: As it is now 6.10 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with an Order of the Dáil of this day: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for Justice and Law Reform and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill; Fourth Stage is hereby completed; and the Bill is hereby passed.”

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív): On behalf of my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform, I would like to thank the Deputies who participated in the debate on the Criminal Procedure Bill. It is an important Bill, and although some of its effects may take some time to be seen, they will, nevertheless, be significant. By opening the possibility of retrials in the event of undeserved acquittal, the Bill ensures a means of dealing with cases whose outcome represents an unacceptable affront to the legal process and to the concept of justice as understood by the population at large. Deputies will be aware that the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, attaches great importance to the passage of the Bill and sees it as an integral part of his justice for victims initiative. His commitment has been demonstrated by the time he has devoted in this House and in the Seanad to debating and explaining the Bill’s provision. He regrets he is unable to be here now.

[456]As this is the last day of the session, I take this opportunity to wish all of my colleagues a peaceful and enjoyable summer break. I know it will be a very busy summer break, because I fully recognise that the Deputies who leave this House will be extremely busy over the summer period, except probably for a very short break, working for the people who elected them.

Deputy Alan Shatter: It has been an interesting experience for the past ten days or so to be back again as Fine Gael spokesperson on justice. I am pleased we have completed the Criminal Procedure Bill today as it contains some desirable measures. However, I regret that specific reforms necessary in statute to protect the victims of crime have been rejected. I regret that we still have a parole system which results in people who have committed barbaric and heinous crimes being the beneficiaries of early release, without the victims having a say of any description of which the parole board takes any notice.

The Minister’s praise for his ministerial colleague was a piece of political back-slapping, but I take it less than seriously because a great deal more could have been done and a great deal more reform would have been implemented a lot quicker if the victims rights Bill — a 2007 rather than 2008 Bill — had been adopted by Government. If it had, we would be three years into providing reforms, some of which the Minister has rejected today. I would not describe my experience as Fine Gael justice spokesperson over the past ten days as indicating any constructive engagement by Government with the Opposition. Deputy Rabbitte has laboured hard as justice spokesperson in his brief on behalf of the Labour Party and my colleague, Deputy Charles Flanagan, did the same for Fine Gael. We have gone through two pieces of important legislation in this House without a single amendment from any Opposition Deputy being completed in the past week. That casts serious doubts on the validity of the manner in which we do our business in the House and on the capacity of the Government, which has been in office for far too long. It is far too arrogant to take seriously any proposals that come from this side of the House.

I acknowledge, as the Minister has done, that Deputies who will finish their work in the House this evening will be very busy over the recess and that there will be committees of the House sitting during the month of July in which many of us will be engaged. Nevertheless, in the midst of the economic crisis we are suffering, there is no excuse of any description for closing down the House until the end of September. We should have sat two weeks longer into July and should be back by the first week in September.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in seeing the Criminal Procedure Bill through to finality. It is by no means the most significant piece of legislation we have put through in this area. The Minister for Justice and Law Reform claims that his Department has enacted some 60% of the legislation put through the House in the past couple of years. I do not know if the percentage is as high as that, but the legislative burden in the justice area is very high. While this Bill would not rank at the top, it is, nonetheless, important, given the progress that has been made in the area of forensic science, DNA evidence and so on in recent times. It is right that the law comes into kilter with those developments.

It is regrettable that at the midnight hour of this session we are completing important Bills — we move from here onto the important Multi-Unit Developments Bill — and that inadequate time is given to these. At other times of year the Government did not manage its legislative schedule very well. There were times in the year just finished when the Government could not field legislation. Now, we are guillotining legislation, almost by rote.

I agree with my colleagues, Minister Ó Cuív and Deputy Shatter, with regard to the workload of Deputies. It is fair enough for there to be comment and criticism about whether we should [457]be doing all of the things we do, but the proposition that people will disappear for three months holds no validity. Ministers will function and will look forward to the break from the Dáil to tackle work that needs to be done. Similarly, there is an enormous amount of work to be done by Deputies on this side of the House, particularly by those with front bench responsibilities. The Dáil is not a factory for making widgets or producing concrete blocks. Time is required for reflection on some of the material that must be processed through the House.

It is dispiriting for most Deputies to read articles such as those in the Evening Herald this evening, which has devoted a page to the alleged three months summer break of Deputies. The article is accompanied with a photograph which was, apparently and lamentably, supplied to it by a Member of this House. The photograph was taken in the Visitors’ Bar and is described as TDs making jolly at the break. There is no Deputy in the photograph and there was no Deputy in the Visitors’ bar on the night in question, except the one who took the photograph and one junior Minister who was perfectly entitled to be there. This kind of trivialisation and misrepresentation of what goes on in here is all too often accepted by Members on the basis that we are expected to bend the knee to this type of denigratory reference to Parliament. It does not serve to help tackle any of the problems that confront this Parliament that we should acquiesce in that kind of denigration of the work that goes on here. I am sorry it was aided and abetted by a Member of the House who ought to have more sense.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Bill, which is considered by virtue of Article 20.2.2° of the Constitution as a Bill initiated in Dáil Éireann, will now be sent to the Seanad.

Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”

Deputy Terence Flanagan: I welcome the opportunity to continue my contribution on this important legislation. I would like to mention other difficulties faced by apartment owners with regard to the Bill. For example, on the issue of satisfactory completion of a development, there is no legal means of ensuring that a development is satisfactorily completed. The meaning attached to “satisfactory completion” is open to interpretation and is quite vague. The Minister needs to look at this. The key issue is to ensure the developer completes the individual phases of the development properly and within the terms and conditions set down under the planning permission he was granted. I am interested in the Minister of State’s view on that issue.

Both the Law Reform Commission and the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland have recommended in regard to the completion of common areas that 5% of the purchase price should be retained and ring-fenced for the completion of unfinished developments. Fine Gael will table an amendment on Committee Stage to include this provision in the Bill.

The Bill points to the courts as arbiters in disputes between owners and management companies. This is the wrong approach to take. The National Property Services Regulatory Authority was set up in 2005, more than five years ago, and has thus far been nothing more than a toothless quango. More than €3 million has been spent by that office to date, but it has not had any statutory work to complete. That authority should be the first port of call in terms of providing mediation services in cases of dispute or where owners have concerns in regard to the calculation of management fees. Recourse to the courts is inconsistent with Government policy in this area and contrary to best practice, and we propose to bring forward an amendment to address this issue. Moreover, consideration should be given to merging the National Property Services Regulatory Authority and the Private Residential Tenancies Board to ensure greater economies of scale.

[458]In regard to management companies’ records, there should be random audits by the regulator to ensure proper records are being kept and that companies are complying with the legislation. Such inspections should be variously announced and unannounced. There is evidence that a number of management companies currently in operation are not keeping proper records.

In regard to voting rights, the Bill indicates that there will be one vote per unit owner, but this will apply only to new developments. What about residents of existing apartment complexes where there are major difficulties, with owners suffering because the developer has dominated the running of the management company? Those people are trapped and the legislation will be of little help to them. Will the Minister of State comment on that?

We must address the issue of management companies that are too large and become insolvent. In Clongriffin, in my own constituency, there are mixed management companies dealing with both apartment complexes and houses. These companies have grown too large and massive arrears have built up. Law abiding citizens who pay their fees are suffering because more than 60% of management fees is outstanding. It should have been the case that one management company was set up for each block of apartments rather than one large entity that is not in a position to deal effectively with the affairs of so many owners.

We welcome the introduction of monetary sinking funds. However, the €200 charge seems very low when one considers the situation in existing complexes where there are problems with elevators and deterioration of exteriors. Significant sums will have to be collected to fix buildings that are in disrepair.

Property management agents are currently unregulated and unlicensed, leaving many owners exposed and vulnerable. The Minister must bring the Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009, which was recently passed by the Seanad, before the Dáil as soon as possible. The regulation of property agents must go hand in hand with the regulation of property management companies.

Fine Gael supports much of what is proposed in the Bill, including the name change from management companies to owners’ management companies. This change emphasises that the unit owners are the real owners and that it is they, rather than developers and others, who should be in full control of management companies. As I said, the establishment of sinking funds is welcome, as is the setting and collection of service charges and the provision that there will be one vote per householder. We also support the obligation on developers to hand over the ownership of common areas of completed developments to the owners’ management company within six months. In regard to the calling of the annual general meeting, the provision that 21 days’ notice must be given to all owners and that owners’ management companies will be in a position to make house rules is welcome.

The Bill fails, however, to address an issue that has been highlighted in correspondence from Fine Gael and other organisations, namely, the position in regard to single-owner management companies where there are both houses and apartments which require differing levels of maintenance and services. Owners of houses in such developments currently feel they are getting a raw deal in having to contribute to costs that are not relevant to them since they do not share common areas to the same extent as do apartment complex dwellers. They are aggrieved at having to pay the same management fees as apartment owners when all they generally require in the way of communal maintenance is grass cutting and landscaping. This issue must be reviewed. They should be made fully responsible for ensuring there are fire extinguishers on all floors and that they are working. Local authorities should grant fire certificates only if equipment is present and fully operational. The practice of issuing fire certificates without inspecting buildings must no longer continue. This is another example of light touch or absence [459]of regulation in this country. Developers could produce the most perfect of drawings and be granted fire certificates without a fire officer from a local authority stepping foot in a given apartment complex to ensure everything is up to the proper standards and that owners could have full confidence that there is no threat to their safety while living in apartment complexes.

I refer to service fees. Certain apartment dwellers pay a service fee on a yearly basis. The legislation should state that the companies must use the fees collected for fire safety equipment and to ensure it is present on all floors and in apartments. This should be tied into the legislation as well.

I welcome the introduction of the legislation, although there are many holes in it. It has been watered down a good deal since its initial introduction in the Seanad. In this regard, a new explanatory memorandum should be produced because the Government has effectively produced a new Bill. Apartment owners are not pleased that the legislation is a good deal looser than when it was initially introduced. The Minister should provide the House with a proper explanation of why it has taken so long, almost a decade, since the regulation of management companies was first mooted. Why has the Minister taken so long to get it to this stage? Meanwhile, apartment owners are being fleeced as a result of continuous rises in annual service fees. Many are aggrieved that they have not been receiving a proper service and that there has been no one to turn to for dispute resolution or for any grievances they hold with regard to the maintenance of their complex.

Some 500,000 people, including many young people, who live in apartment complexes suffer on a continuous or daily basis. This legislation is unlikely to make much difference to these people in the short term, but hopefully it will do so in the longer term. Many home owners have paid exorbitant money to purchase apartments in complexes and, at a minimum, tight legislation should be in place to protect them, to secure their rights and such that there is someone who can help them with any relevant difficulties.

We know there are many insolvent management companies at present and that fees have not been collected consistently by management agents because certain companies are not functioning correctly. Will the Minister advise on what will happen in cases of extreme difficulty or dire financial situations which arise in an apartment complexes? Who will put things right? Will the State intervene or what will happen ultimately? Hundreds of unfinished housing estates throughout the country are made up of mixed developments and contain unfinished apartment blocks. What will happen to these and what is the future of these unfinished apartment blocks. We envisage this legislation as a first step. However, Fine Gael will table many amendments on Committee Stage.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: With the agreement of the House I wish to share time with my colleagues Deputies Jack Wall and Emmet Stagg. I thank the Government for agreeing to complete Second Stage of the Bill tonight because of the unconscionably long time we have waited for it. Tens of thousands of people are waiting for this Bill to become law and in this regard I am grateful to the Minister and the Government for rostering it this evening, even if it has proved inconvenient for several colleagues on all sides of the House who wished to contribute to the debate.

Multi-unit developments are a new model of accommodation in Ireland. These developments comprise apartment complexes but also commercial units, usually retail outlets on the ground floor, and duplexes or town houses. These have proliferated in urban Ireland in particular during the past decade, sometimes driven by tax incentives. For example, it is claimed that in the Dublin area these developments accounted for 56% of all housing units built in 2006 rising to 62% in 2007. Nationally, these complexes amounted to 25% of all dwellings completed nationally in 2007. If these figures are correct they are hugely significant.

[460]For more than five years the Labour Party has been persistently campaigning for regulation and for statutory powers to address some of the very serious problems that have been encountered by often unsuspecting buyers. It is true that the issues are complex but it is indefensible that it has taken until 2010 to bring this Bill into Dáil Éireann. Acute difficulties are being experienced by many owner-occupiers at present. Some complexes are badly in need of refurbishment where no sinking fund has been provided and all of this has been exacerbated by the number of developers who have gone bust or who are simply unamenable.

The difficulties facing many owner-occupiers are very serious. Some of these complexes are of poor quality construction and were never approved by building control inspectors but were self-certified at the height of the boom by developers or their architects. In many cases, the management agent is connected to the builder and the builder controls the management company. In some cases, annual service charges are excessive and lack transparency and, in a number of cases, are exploitative. Services for which fees are levied are not being delivered in some cases. Often, there are no sinking funds. For example, I am aware of a survey of 27 management companies which found that after ten years half of these have no sinking fund. Often, there is no disputes resolution machinery. What happens where the developer has walked away leaving the complex unfinished? What happens in cases where complexes are only partially occupied? Many young purchasers were unaware, and appear not to have been apprised by their solicitors, that their contract of purchase effectively wedded them to the management company. As the law stands, a dissatisfied lessee has no practical redress.

In summary, an extraordinary list of problems is being encountered by the predominantly young population who are the owners in these multi-unit developments. Many struggle to repay the mortgage but find themselves obliged to shoulder hefty annual charges as well. During the past decade, the Government has been very relaxed about the accumulating difficulties. While the Celtic tiger roared, the Government focused on the developer and the taxes coming in rather than the difficulties confronting the consumers, that is to say, the young owners. In the worst cases of abuse, it may be too late now to rescue those worst affected. In 2005, the Labour Party published its own guidelines for young dwellers in these complexes. However, the existing law is not up to the challenge and the residents of every development are dependent on the willingness and co-operation of their management company, and often the developer, to ameliorate the difficulties being encountered. In some cases, this was forthcoming up to a point; in others, it was not. Since the crash, this position has worsened.

Having said that, I am bound to acknowledge that there are some positive measures in the Bill. I compliment the Minister and his officials for taking on board many of the changes advocated by the Labour Party, home owners in multi-unit developments, the National Consumer Agency and, most especially, the Law Reform Commission. Further changes require to be made and I hope the Minister will be open to taking these on board as the Bill progresses. It would be a pity, as is said, “to spoil the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar”.

The LRC noted that completion of developments was an issue and highlighted that the current enforcement provisions under the Planning Acts are not sufficient. Subject to scrutiny on Committee Stage, it appears section 5 addresses this defect. However, a further defect under the planning laws relating to the taking in charge provision is not addressed in the Bill. The LRC advocates a development bond that would indemnify the planning authority and hold the developer accountable. The Apartment Owners Network endorses this approach, which incentivises the developer to complete the development to standard. The commission notes that development bonds are usually an enforcement mechanism of last resort. The 2008 circular from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government stipulates:

[461]

It is a matter for the planning authority to determine both the level of security and the type of security that will be required for each residential development. The amount of the security, and the terms on which it is required to be given, must enable the planning authority, without cost to itself, to complete the necessary services to a satisfactory standard in the event of default by the developer.

Unfinished estates have been a running sore in this country for years. The straightforward requirement that developers finish estates to specification before getting planning permission to move onto a new estate has consistently and repeatedly been resisted by Fianna Fáil because of that party’s unique link to the builders. The Minister should agree to a bond, at least in the case of these complexes.

I refer the Minister to exchanges between the Royal Institute of the Architects of Ireland, RIAI, and his Department. I received a letter from a prominent officer of the RIAI, in which he states:

On 17 June, architects’ and engineers’ representatives met for the first time with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (DEHLG) about the Bill. The DEHLG has now adopted a proactive stance on foot of the referral to the DEHLG by the Department of Justice of the issues of compliance and completion of developments: see the DoJ letter to the RIAI which is the last attachment herewith.

The tone of our meeting (and of several ‘phone contacts) with the DEHLG has been very positive. But so far as the Bill itself is concerned, there appears to be no Government move towards putting into the Bill [either of the propositions his body advanced]. [For example, he gives priority to the following:]

1. The 5% retention recommended by the Law Reform Commission:- this draft LRC provision is supported by architects and engineers with experience of apartment developments; both those working in local authorities (who know at first hand the problems with social and affordable housing units) and those working for housing developers. This 5% retention would provide for privately managed areas of MUDs a parallel to the bonds already provided for in the Planning Acts to guarantee completion of publicly managed ... areas of MUDs;

The officer makes a number of other points but I cannot understand the Minister’s resistance to the notion of the bond. Never has a bond been more badly needed than in this crisis created by the difficulties in multi-unit developments?

In one development in my constituency, Hunterswood, the residents' association made no progress dealing directly with the developer appointed management company board of directors regarding serious structural concerns they had. I made representations to staff of the building control section of the local authority and their attitude was to encourage “residents to engage with the service agent and their management company” and that “as time goes on, increasingly maintenance matters arising will be dealt with whatever Management Company is in place”. This reply indicates an attitude pervading local government that owner management companies should act in lieu of the local authority in ensuring builders complete managed developments to a satisfactory standard.

Against this background, the proposal by the Law Reform Commission for a development bond to hold the developer accountable is vital and I ask the Minister to have a rethink. Existing enforcement provisions are inadequate. In addition to the difficulties faced by home owners in unfinished developments, small contractors are also suffering where they have carried [462]out work for developers but, in some cases, have not been paid. The bond could arguably serve the dual purpose of protecting both apartment owners and subcontractors.

The LRC also recommended that there should be a statutory prohibition on developers seeking payment of more than one year’s service charges in advance. I cannot see where this is addressed in the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister on this point since, in my experience, most owner-occupiers find it difficult to pay one year’s charges up front.

Section 14 provides in respect of voting rights that “one vote shall attach to each unit in a multi-unit development”. I accept this is in line with the recommendation of the LRC. However, I am not persuaded of the one vote, per unit system and, like the Apartment Owners Network, I advocate the one member, one vote system favoured in an earlier edition of the Bill. Where, for example, an investor owns multiple units, he will enjoy disproportionate influence and he could combine with other investors to take control of the management company. At the outset of the life of a complex, the developer will own the majority of the units and, therefore, will have effective control or, at a minimum, greater influence than the average owner-occupier. This could defeat a main objective of the Bill. They are not trading companies or for-profit entities but a vehicle to manage and maintain the living space of its members.

Developments with substantial unsold units pose a particular challenge to those dwellers who reside there. In such circumstances, if the Minister persists with his “one vote, one member”’ system, the developer will have the majority of votes and thus will control the management company. Residents are naturally apprehensive about whether the receiver or perhaps NAMA may decide to sell unsold units to institutional investors in bulk rather than to individual home owners. What will happen in developments where the housing Minister has authorised long-term leasing, a most expensive and inappropriate solution for everyone except the developer and-or the bank?

The bigger long-term deficiency in the Minister’s proposal is that it will impede the establishment of an adequate sinking fund for the type of maintenance and upkeep not envisaged in the annual service charge. Some of these complexes, unless maintained and repaired regularly, will deteriorate into unpleasant living environments. Again, the individual owner-occupier will be most concerned to maintain a congenial environment. The Law Reform Commission, LRC, recommended that no long-term contracts with management agents be made by management companies at the start of the development. This recommendation is not addressed in the Bill, nor is the recommendation for the creation of a regulatory body to keep records of the developments and units held over. Will the Minister set out why he chose not to provide for the LRC recommendation that breach of obligations should constitute a criminal offence? It was envisaged that the regulatory authority would be the prosecuting body. Any unit owner would be in a position to seek an order for enforcement of the developer’s statutory duties from the Circuit Court and an award of damages to cover any loss suffered as a consequence of breach of statutory obligations.

The regulation of annual service charges is badly needed and section 16 appears to fairly provide for this. However, the requirement that the annual budget be approved by a general meeting each year could, in practice, be too onerous and too restrictive. There already will be a need for an annual general meeting and therefore an additional general meeting could be difficult in practice and not the most suitable for the detail involved in the preparation of the [463]annual service charge. If the members do not approve of the performance of the directors in this or other regards, they can dismiss them.

In conclusion, I return briefly to the anti-social behaviour that is torturing so many communities and from the scourge of which multi-unit developments are not immune. Section 20 attempts to address this modern scourge and makes provision for house rules with the objective of “enhancing the quiet and peaceable occupation” of units generally. However, it is not evident how such house rules can be enforced. Section 20 (10), for example, enables a management company to “recover the reasonable costs” of a breach, but how does the management company deal with nuisance, all-night parties, obstructive parking, unsightly littering or dumping? The Apartment Owners Network argues for a monetary sanction and I can anticipate the difficulty associated with that proposal under our Constitution. However, I ask the Minister to seek the assistance of the Attorney General’s office before Committee Stage in devising some meaningful sanction. Otherwise, application and enforcement of the powers in section 20 will be meaningless.

The Bill shows no awareness of the environment in which we now live following the economic crash and the collapse of the construction industry. As developers go bust or AWOL and developments are left half finished or half occupied, will we have to fall back on the local authorities in some instances? Is it not likely that in some cases NAMA will have to do business with the housing authorities? In such circumstances, why should the common areas and public facilities not be provided by the local authority? Should the Bill not anticipate such eventualities?

In the Belfry Hall development in my own constituency the local authority required in the planning permission the construction of a playground in the development for the wider community, not merely the residents of Belfry Hall, and that it be the responsibility of the Belfry Hall management company to maintain and insure this public facility. The developer at Belfry Hall went into receivership and the first the home-owners who were elected to the board of the management company knew about this was when the local authority advised them to purchase public liability insurance for the playground. This is another example of what is happening at present.

I had hoped to make a number of other points on this but I wish to let my colleagues contribute.

Deputy Jack Wall: I thank Deputy Rabbitte for sharing time with me to discuss this very important legislation. Obviously, multi-unit developments are not as common in a rural constituency such as Kildare South as in cities and larger towns. In our case the management structures are in place for smaller developments. The retrospective aspect of this Bill regarding existing developments is more pertinent to my position than with regard to any future developments.

Bad habits and procedures have taken hold and one can see the effect of that on a small development. In one case of which I am aware there are four apartments. Investors own three of them while the fourth is owner-occupied. That person is a director of the company but she cannot get any sense or logic from the other people. One of the apartments is now without electricity and is being used for all sorts of anti-social behaviour and, as such, is a deterrent to having any type of organisation. What could be a very nice apartment block is now marked as a centre for anti-social behaviour.

I believe the county manager in such instances. There were only four apartments. Where was the logic or sense in putting a management committee in place? One of the investors is from Cork, one is from Dublin and the other is unknown. The fourth apartment is owned by [464]a local woman whose husband had a stroke. She is now the only director in place and she is trying to organise everything. All the refuse bins, including hers, are full as a result of the anti-social behaviour of others. What can she do?

7 o’clock

I hope the Minister and all the spokespeople will not just focus on the big developments, which might be common in their constituencies and where there is such demand for action. There is also a need to focus on small developments. The Bill identifies areas in that regard. How can this single person try to get some aspect of normality to her apartment block? One has the investor versus the home owner and it just does not work in such small numbers. Consider the cost factor and the sinking fund for getting repairs and so forth carried out. This woman arranges to have the grass cut and gets everything else done. She has asked everyone else to deal with it but they will not. Why should they? They are getting their money into the bank, probably from social welfare, on foot of leasing the property. They feel there is no need for them to be involved in anything else. It is a disaster zone.

I blame solicitors for many aspects of the property bubble. They allowed people to buy properties from plans and drawings, without knowing what would happen with them. Of course, the developments were not carried out according to plan. The next move was to approach the public representative to find out why the roads, lights and so forth were not completed. It is the same with these management structures. It is a disaster. I hope that in considering this issue we will not just look at the big developments and resolve to do something about them. It is vital to consider the two to four unit developments. That is where, in many instances, families, and especially senior citizens, have tried to set up home for their final days and tried to create a family atmosphere.

I hope the Minister will ensure that the retrospective problems created by bad management and bad habits, the investor versus the home owner, will be rectified and that action will be taken to overcome the problems suffered by the people to whom I have referred.

Deputy Emmet Stagg: I thank Deputy Rabbitte for sharing time with me.

I welcome this Bill and the fact that the Minister agreed to bring it back to the House to complete Second Stage which will allow the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Women’s Rights to deal with Committee Stage during the recess.

I accept the drafting of this legislation was complex and while the gestation period of some six years was extraordinarily lengthy, the Bill is an honest attempt to deal with the problems for families arising from unregulated management companies. The Bill has shortcomings that have been pointed out by our spokesperson, Deputy Pat Rabbitte, and the Labour Party’s own legislative proposals took the co-operative route rather than the legislation now before us. There will be an opportunity on Committee Stage to examine these matters in detail and to amend and improve the Bill where required.

While this Bill deals with multi-unit house complexes, the main problem I have encountered is where management companies have been imposed on single-house housing estates. That is not to say that the management companies in multi-unit developments are satisfactory; none that I came across in this category was satisfactory and the worst of them all was in the Abbeylands in Clane. In this development, the company and the agent were directly under the control of the developer and the residents were effectively excluded from the decisions that affected them. In the case of single-house housing estates, the first to start the rot in Kildare was way back in the early 1990s when Seán Dunne’s company, Mountbrook, imposed a condition on purchase that all householders were required to be under the aegis of a management company. St. Raphael’s Manor in Celbridge is still under the yoke of that decision, with a charge against [465]the property for non-payment of fees that are far less than reasonable. The only service provided is cutting of grass in the common areas, the maintenance of which is the responsibility of the developer in any case. Mr. Dunne’s example was subsequently followed by the Kildare county manager. Managers got the authority from section 34 in the Planning and Development Act 2000, subsection 1(a) and subsection 4(i), which state:

conditions for the maintenance or management of the proposed development (including the establishment of a company or the appointment of a person or body of persons to carry out such maintenance or management);

Shortly after this Act was enacted, a rush of decisions were made in Kildare that included single-house estate and mixed developments or single and multi-units that had a requirement for a management company. In the case of a single-house estate development in Straffan, the condition states:

Each individual property owner shall be a party to the management company agreement and this agreement shall be registered as a burden on the individual property folios in the Land Registry upon the sale of each unit.

In an unregulated market, this gave developers the power and force of law to impose whatever charges they wished for whatever service they wished. In nearly all cases I have come across, the power was abused and young families with heavy mortgage requirements were given no option but to pay up. I do not think this was the intention of this section 34 of the 2000 Act but it was used by county managers to hive off their responsibilities for maintaining housing estates and to privatise that part of their duties. The effect of their decisions was to create a new form of ground rent with young, debt-burdened families left to the tender mercies of the developers, with, in some cases, fees of up to €2,000 per annum being charged to get the grass cut and a burden on the house title in default.

The Minister should now amend that section of the Planning and Development Act to prevent a continuation by county managers of this practice. It never ceases to amaze me that senior public service personnel never miss an opportunity to privatise part of the service for which they are responsible. Is it that they have no confidence in their ability to do the job?

There is absolutely no need for management companies in single unit housing estates. It is much more preferable that the residents organise a residents’ association, charge a modest fee and get the job done. This also has the benefit of developing a community in new estates by neighbours working together and getting to know one another. This loose form of co-operative can also tackle other common issues which individuals are unable to tackle alone.

One might ask what is the urgency in getting this Bill into law. A number of factors create the urgency. Mostly young families are being ripped off for excessive fees for poor services without any choice or say in the matter. Second, because of the close relationship between developers, management companies and their agents — they are regularly one and the same — a situation has arisen in a number of cases where the developer has gone belly-up and where the management company and agent have disappeared along with the developer. In that situation there is no way to pay the fee and the burden of the unpaid fee is registered as a burden on the title of the house. As a result, the householder cannot get clear title and cannot sell the property. This needs to be addressed for those affected.

I thank the Minister for agreeing to bring the Bill forward at this time, thereby allowing it to progress during the summer. I hope this Bill, when completed, will give authority to residents over their own affairs and remove the current power of the developer and his agents, even where the developer has retained ownership of a number of units.

[466]Deputy Michael Kennedy: I wish to share time with Deputy Cyprian Brady.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Second Stage of the Bill. This legislation will be welcome in many parts of the country, particularly in the urban areas represented by Deputy Brady and myself. Much confusion has arisen about the role of managing agents and management companies. This Bill is particularly important and I look forward to its progression to Committee Stage during the summer recess and to being voted upon in the autumn session.

It is also imperative that the Property Services (Regulation) Bill is enacted at the earliest opportunity. The regulation of managing agents is particularly important. No more than management companies and developers who have not been either honest or forthright in their dealings with apartment owners, the same could apply with regard to some inefficient managing agents.

Confusion arises from people not understanding the terms of purchase of an apartment in a complex. This confusion is also fuelled by politicians, most of whom are outside this House and who are doing it for politically motivated reasons. They are exhorting apartment owners not to pay management fees and people do not understand when services are not provided.

This Bill has been debated in the Seanad and many useful suggestions have been made in the other House. In all parts of my constituency there are thousands of apartment complexes. The issue has to be addressed. With regard to public roads, footpaths, lighting and the landscaping of open areas in housing estates, the local county council should take control of those roads, lighting and open spaces. I ask the Minister to bring forward proposals on Committee Stage. Nothing causes more confusion than when a common charge is applied to both house owner and apartment owner. Many householders see no justification for paying the same charges as apartment owners.

I have noted in my constituency there can be a problem in mixed developments of houses and apartments with regard to the landscaped areas which are owned by the management company. In many cases, the landscape maintenance is not carried out by the people engaged by the managing agents to do this work. People are paying for a service from which they do not benefit. We must address this through some legal mechanism so that the ownership of that small strip of land passes back to the houseowner rather than being retained by the management company.

I also have experience of strike-offs. The Bill refers to reinstating management companies that have been struck off within a six-year period. In essence, this will be allowed once all annual returns are completed. This is a reasonable but the issue of money arises. Where the management company has gone into liquidation or has been struck off because of non-payment of fees, the residents must pay fees they do not have in order to reconstruct the company. Can the Minister examine the situation so the residents are not forced to pay fees to reinstate a struck-off company? We should come up with a flexible manner of dealing with this.

I am glad the measures included in the Bill provide for each owner having a vote. We all have experience of a developer owning a substantial portion of the apartments and retaining control. We need equity so that each owner feels part of the arrangement. It is important the membership transfers to the new owner in a totally transparent way when selling apartments. Developers should not be able to get away from completing their obligations and completing developments. This Bill must put the onus on developers in bringing forward the management company speedily, as provided for in the Bill. Equally, they must deal with unsold apartments or incomplete apartments. The Bill goes a long way to deal with this issue, which causes confusion to those who have made representations to me.

Service charges are important and it is vital we make sure management companies provide a budget upfront for all apartment owners. People should clearly understand, in a transparent [467]way, what they are paying for. People are confused when they are sent out a bill for €1,000 or €1,500 and they have no idea what they are paying for. In many cases, they are not provided with a breakdown of the bill when they request it. That must change and this Bill will ensure all service charges are transparent. An annual meeting is paramount, with the budget being agreed in advance by members. The Bill endeavours to deal with this aspect of the problem.

Sinking funds have caused problems for all of us who have dealings with apartment blocks. In many cases, there are no sinking funds for older developments, a matter to which Deputy Cyprian Brady will refer. Maintenance has been ignored and buildings are deteriorating. It is vital we ensure a proper sinking fund. The Bill suggests a minimum of €200. This may be enough in some cases but may not be for larger developments. This is particularly true when one considers roof repairs, painting, decorating and replacement of carpets.

I am glad to see the question of disputes and house rules addressed in the Bill. This particularly applies to apartments rented out to undesirable people who carry on in an antisocial manner with loud music and parties. I am glad this Bill addresses aspects of the problem. In my experience, it irritates people when their neighbours ignore them and the owner of the apartments makes no effort to control the tenants.

In many cases, annual general meetings are held without proper notice to the members. New committees may be elected in this situation. It is vital to ensure new regulations make it mandatory that everyone participating in a block of apartments receives a registered letter to ensure they are given notice of the annual general meetings so they have the opportunity of discussing the accounts, agreeing the budget and being clear about the services provided. I welcome this Bill and I hope we bring forward the Property Services (Regulation) Bill in the autumn so that these Bills can be enacted very soon.

Deputy Cyprian Brady: I thank Deputy Kennedy for sharing his time with me. I have called for this legislation for some time. I welcome the introduction of this Bill because since the late 1980s, when some of the first apartment complexes were constructed in my constituency of Dublin Central, there have been numerous issues concerning some of the aspects of living in an apartment complex addressed in this legislation. I recall a discussion with a senior local authority official a number of years ago. He expressed concern that many of these apartment complexes would be a return to the old slums in Dublin in the 1930s and 1940s. In the vast majority of cases, that has not happened. In many cases the complexes are well-managed and many of the residents are organised and have an input into the day-to-day running of the complex. However, a number of complexes are suffering badly. The local authority provides accommodation on a social basis to the population in Dublin and a mixture of social and private housing exists in many of these complexes. That brings its own problems. Some of the measures in this Bill will deal with those issues. I support Deputy Kennedy in his call for the introduction of the Property Services (Regulation) Bill, which is crucial to supplementing the changes proposed in this Bill.

This Bill legally defines the difference between ownership and management. It solidifies the rights of owners and tenants and specifies their obligations. My experience of voting rights is such that owner occupiers are not aware they are part of the management structure of the apartment complex in which they own apartments. The vast majority in Dublin Central, and particularly in the centre of the city, are tenants and the properties are owned by landlords. That is changing very slowly and we now have a number of owner occupiers who are not aware of their rights as regards voting at annual general meetings. In this context, I welcome the introduction in this Bill of a requirement to produce an annual report that is agreed by all the members of the management company and which is discussed in detail at the annual general meeting.

[468]The issue of service charges has always been an ongoing problem and recently, when times were good, service charges increased phenomenally. However, people, particularly those who find themselves in negative equity, who have experienced a reduction in their working hours or who have lost their employment, are now under severe pressure to maintain the service charges and to keep up their payment. Moreover, there now is quite a number of vacant units that are causing serious problems, particularly in some of the more recent developments.

Deputy Kennedy referred to sinking funds, which are crucial to the proper management and running of an apartment complex. In some apartment complexes, albeit in a small number of cases, no sinking fund exists. However, this legislation will ensure that a sinking fund is put in place. I presume the requirement of €200 per unit specified in the Bill is a minimum contribution, as I imagine that it will be adequate in some complexes but not in others. Many such complexes have been in place since the mid to late-1980s and I know of one particular complex in Gardiner Street in my constituency, which is extremely well-managed and which has the co-operation and involvement of the vast majority of residents, both owner occupiers and tenants, in its management. They work closely with the management company in maintaining an upmarket and high-quality development in the centre of the city. However, they pay very dearly for this and the service charges and contributions towards their sinking fund are highly onerous on some tenants and owners. Nevertheless, a sinking fund is crucial to the proper management and maintenance of many complexes.

A number of speakers have mentioned the issue of antisocial behaviour. It ranges from a barking dog right through to noise and disturbance from parties at all hours of the morning. Moreover, until recently, some developments did not have noise abatement measures built into them during their construction. Consequently, developers are now being obliged to go back at the behest of the tenants and owners to try to resolve such issues. I refer to noises such as those from people walking across the floor and make the point that people must be able to walk across their apartment or to have a radio or television turned on. One can have house rules, which will be fine if everyone obeys them. However, it only takes a very small minority to cause major disruption for quite a lot of people. There must be some kind of regulation and an imposition on people to appreciate this, particularly in apartment complexes in which one lives in close proximity to one’s neighbour, notwithstanding the fact that people have told me they may not see their neighbour from one end of the year to the other. However, this is the modern way of life and the introduction of some form of rules and regulations, particularly in respect of noise, is very much be welcomed.

The division between the rights and obligations of tenants and landlords also is to be welcomed. As for the mediation of disputes, there have been a number of disputes around the city which have never been resolved. Tenants and owner-occupiers find themselves in a very difficult position because the developer had complete control of the management company and chose the management agent. Consequently, such people have absolutely no input or have not even been informed by the developer of the identity of those to whom they should speak in the event of a dispute. In some places, there has been a complete lack of co-operation or exchange of information.

I also welcome the fact that the Bill also covers existing complexes. As I noted, while there have been elements of antisocial behaviour in some complexes, this happens in every housing estate, be it private or public, around the country and is a law and order issue. I have also often noticed recently that many residents of apartment complexes have become involved in their local communities. For example, in one case the tenants and owner-occupiers in a particular complex joined the local community policing forum. They were dealing with issues pertaining to antisocial behaviour and this is greatly to be welcomed. Finally, I note that many [469]such complexes were never designed or built to house families. In future, a major effort must be made to ensure that any future developments take account of a family units which may grow over time. There are no facilities for children in many complexes and this leads to tension within the complexes themselves. However, I greatly welcome the introduction of this legislation and I wish it a speedy passage through the Dáil.

Deputy Alan Shatter: I wish to share time with Deputy Varadkar and if I stray beyond ten minutes, the Ceann Comhairle should throw something at me and stop me.

An Ceann Comhairle: I will so advise the Deputy.

Deputy Alan Shatter: At the outset, I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on this Bill. This is legislation that probably should have been passed a decade ago and it is quite extraordinary that, having been published last year, it is only being debated in the dying hours of this session of the Dáil. Indeed, it would not have been taken if not for the pleas from both Fine Gael and the Labour Party that we complete Second Stage tonight in the hope that we can take Committee Stage during the vacation.

I have heard the very eloquent speeches delivered by my colleague, Deputy Terence Flanagan, and by Deputies from the Labour Party, including Deputy Rabbitte, and I have heard nothing said from this side of the House with which I disagree. I wish to touch on one or two issues that have not yet been raised. If I repeat something to which the other Deputies have referred, I apologise but there are one or two issues that are worth addressing.

In the context of the subject under discussion, which essentially is the apartments built across this country, we should have had legislation put in place a long time ago delineating the rights of those who purchased the apartments, how management companies operating the apartments should function, how the apartment owners should control them and rules to ensure these companies were not controlled by developers in their interests and to the exclusion often of people who acquired apartments. Far too frequently, management fees have been used to complete work that the developer was required to complete but failed to complete under the planning permissions and conditions granted. That occurred in circumstances in which those who owned apartments could not control what was occurring and the developer essentially appointed his own agent to control the way in which the apartment management company was being run.

Like other speakers, I recognise there are a number of very good things in this Bill, but I think though that it requires some further development and I think there are areas that have not been addressed. In the context of dealing with the payment of the annual management charges, one of the huge difficulties for existing apartment owners is that within every major apartment block of which I am aware in my constituency, there always is a number of individuals who fail to pay their annual charges. Furthermore, depending on the efficiency of the management company or agent who has been appointed, these often run into substantial arrears that are to the detriment of other dwellers in that block and they can create a huge difficulty in the context both of the meeting of the real annual charges and expenditure surrounding the apartment but in the establishment of a sinking fund to ensure that future funds are available if difficulties arise simply in the general maintenance area. I regret that this Bill does not implement a particular recommendation that I think was made by the Law Reform Commission, which is that it should be possible to recoup management charges arrears through the small claims court. There should be no necessity to do this through the ordinary courts structure which will make it more long-drawn out and expensive.

There should be easy access to the small claims court, an application that can be made without the necessity for lawyers to be recruited by management companies or agents [470]appointed. In circumstances in which someone has not paid their annual charge it should be possible within three months of arrears accumulating to make that application. The legislation should be amended to deal with that.

In the context of apartments generally, we are regularly critical of developers. There have been some very well constructed apartments in the city and county of Dublin and there have been appallingly poorly constructed apartments which are little short of boxes that have been sold at exorbitant prices to people. Part of the blame for that lies at the feet of the Government for failing to ensure that our planning laws prevented the construction of the poor type of structures we have, but part of it rests with the local authorities. The local authorities have been far too ready to grant inappropriate planning permissions for the construction of apartments that provide no reasonable living space for young couples or families. They seem to believe that all apartments when rented, even when they are two-bedroom or three-bedroom apartments, will be inhabited by two adults who will never conceive children. I am familiar with myriad apartment blocks around the city and county of Dublin which are not children-friendly or family-friendly. Now because we have thousands of young people with young children trapped in negative equity in these apartments they have no way out. They have no alternative to move anywhere. That will create a huge problem if we do not address it. I appreciate it cannot be addressed in the Bill but it is a major problem.

The other problem is the ideological issue which we have had, particularly in the area administered by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in part of my constituency where planners seem to be of the belief ideologically that when one constructs apartments one does not provide adequate space for car parking. The ideological view was that everyone should travel by public transport even where public transport was grossly inadequate. I am aware of apartment blocks in my constituency in Sandyford where if one has a two-bedroom apartment one might have been sold one parking space or one parking space came with it. In circumstances where a couple or two individuals are living in an apartment who both have to work and have to go in completely different directions to work, who have to work just to pay the damn mortgage on the overpriced apartment that they have purchased, and they need cars to get to their work as there is no possibility of using public transport to get to work because it is so poor, there is not even basic car parking spaces. There are not car parking spaces for visitors or family to visit young couples who feel isolated.

I am talking about the Sandyford-Stepaside area in my constituency. It is a complete disgrace that we had a local authority so ideologically committed to public transport that it did not allow for the very basic facility of visitor car parking. If someone has a birthday party for a child and relations are coming from outside Dublin or other parts of Dublin there is nowhere to leave cars. There are double yellow lines everywhere. It is quite outrageous.

In the context of this particular Bill there are areas of difficulty that need to be addressed. One of the problems is where one has large numbers of vacant apartments and developers have got into difficulties and apartments are being sold now by way of fire sales, either by estate agents or by liquidators or receivers. There is a real difficulty with regard to the completion of outstanding works within the apartment complex. That is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It will become an even greater problem in the context of NAMA. When NAMA starts getting vesting orders for multi-unit blocks to be transferred to it and it gets involved in the sale of apartments and fire sales — NAMA is the body that may initially be involved in the organisation of the companies as provided for in this Bill to run the apartments — we need specific provisions relating to how NAMA will interact with certain functions in regard to the Bill when it takes over from developers. The Bill makes provision in particular with regard to developers [471]but it does not deal with receivers, liquidators or NAMA where those individuals have taken possession of apartment blocks or they are involved in the sale.

The final point I wish to make is one other Members have raised but it really needs to be said. I just cannot understand why the Bill is confined to multi-unit developments with the definition given. Again, in my constituency and in other parts of Dublin there are developments which incorporate apartment blocks and individual houses, all being looked after by a management company. The units remain private. They are not taken in charge by the local authority and services have to be paid for in the context of cutting the grass and other matters. Under this Bill, those who own single unit houses within a complex are excluded and their situation is not addressed because the house is not a multi-unit. People own individual houses next door to apartments within the same development and subject to charges levied by a management company but they are not properly addressed in the Bill. This is something which should be considered and dealt with.

Deputy Leo Varadkar: I welcome the fact that we are having a debate on the Bill. At a rough count there are approximately 600,000 people in management company developments, there are 4,600 management companies altogether and 400 different management agents. In my constituency of Dublin West at least 7,000 of the 32,000 housing units are covered by management companies. I include areas such as Tyrrelstown, Ongar, Hollystown, the former Phoenix Park racecourse, Diswellstown, Farmleigh, the Waterville area around Blanchardstown hospital and some of the apartments around the Blanchardstown centre.

I know a little bit about the subject myself as I live in a management company development and pay management fees. Management companies can apply to many different types of development. There are apartments, gated housing, un-gated housing and mixed developments, not just in terms of a mix of houses and apartments but in terms of developments that are partially commercial and partially residential.

The legislation is overdue. There was a commitment to it in the programme for Government of the first Fianna Fáil Government in 1997 but it was not done. Much work has been done by the Fine Gael party, the Labour Party and the Law Reform Commission, the National Consumer Agency, the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and also the Apartment Owners Network. The legislation is very much needed for a number of reasons. There has not been a clear law up until now. In many cases developers controlled developments through golden shares or through provisions which allowed them not to have a proper AGM until all the units were sold. There is also the fact that many charges are unfair. AGMs are often held improperly. In many cases there are not sinking funds or, as in the case of my development, the issue of unpaid fees for the past ten years arises. There is also the fact that there are still concerns over the completion and transfer of developments.

I am not convinced that the Bill as drafted is adequate. It has been watered down and amended in the Seanad. Reading through the Seanad debate I found it difficult to understand exactly what the amendments were about and their significance. I very much endorse Deputy Terence Flanagan’s call for a new explanatory memorandum to the Bill.

I organised a public meeting which was an interesting thing to do where I presented to people who live in management company developments in my area what was in the Bill and asked them what they thought of it and what should be in it. My contribution is based on that. There are many good things in the Bill. As I am time constrained I will not mention them but there are some areas about which I have concerns and would like clarification in the Minister’s response, or if not then at least at some stage. The first issue relates to the one unit, one vote provision. That seems to have been slightly changed in the Seanad but I do not fully understand what happened in that regard. Perhaps someone might explain how that has been changed. I [472]would like to know in particular whether the provision will apply retrospectively and if it will apply to existing management companies. Will it apply to them or if it will only apply to new developments that have yet to be built? That is crucial for everyone who currently lives in an apartment development. I would also be interested to know how it affects the master lease rules in existing developments.

Deputy Rabbitte proposed that it should be one member, one vote. I can see problems with that as well. If someone owns, for example, three apartments in a development he or she is paying three times as much in fees and therefore to a certain extent that would give him or her greater voting rights but there might be a mechanism to prevent any one owner or developer having a controlling interest of greater than 50%. That can be done in a different way. What should be in the Bill, but which is not, is a proper system for the dissolution of management companies. Management companies have been dissolved in Castlecurragh in my constituency but this involves a very difficult process. There should be a proper system for achieving this.

There should be a proper system for the separation of management companies. In mixed developments, management companies for the apartments should be separate from those for the houses, if there should be one for the Houses at all. There is no proper system of separation. Separation can be achieved but it is extremely complicated. It involves splitting the folio and title, closing one company and establishing two or three new ones in its place. There needs to be a better system to achieve this. From reading the transcript of proceedings in the Seanad, I believe the legislation now applies to mixed developments. Perhaps this can be clarified.

What is the position on agents? There are a number of cases in Dublin 15 in which management companies have not filed annual accounts or, in some cases, have been struck off or are close to being struck off, yet their agents are still sending bills on their behalf. Will this be addressed in the Bill?

I agree with Deputy Shatter’s proposal that we should allow owners of management companies to use the small claims court procedure to pursue debts. It is very hard and expensive to pursue debts. There should be a specific provision on solicitors’ obligations, including the obligation to inform buyers of houses or apartments in management company developments as to what they are doing. Many people tell me they did not understand what they were buying into and that their solicitor did not explain it. When I heard this on the first few occasions, I did not really believe it, but now I have heard it too many times not to believe it. This needs to be addressed in the legislation.

Solicitors should be obliged to inform the management company of a change of ownership. There have been a number of cases where management companies have not been informed when apartments have been sold, resulting in the sending of bills to people who are no longer the owners.

The completion of developments comprises a difficult area. In the case of a traditional housing estate, the council determines at the time of taking charge whether the development has been built in accordance with the plans. If it has been, a bond is paid. This system does not work because the bonds are so small. They are trivial in Ireland by comparison with those in the United Kingdom. There are many developers who are happy enough to forego their bond knowing full well that completing the development properly would cost a lot more. I hope the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will consider this in his reforms and increase significantly the bonds developers must pay so they will not be worth losing, thus incentivising them to finish their jobs.

[473]The system is complicated in multi-unit developments because they are not taken in charge. Who determines whether the development has been completed according to the plans? In theory, the local authority should do so but this does not really happen because the developers do not request the refund of the bonds because they are so small. What happens is that the developer transfers ownership of the common areas to the management company, which it then controls. Nobody ever checks before the transfer that the development has been completed in accordance with the plan. Consequently, management companies comprising residents often find out they are the owners of common areas transferred to them by developers without having had a say in ensuring those areas were checked for snags and completed. This is not covered in the legislation in so far as I interpret it.

If a management company is struck off, a six-year period must elapse before it can return to the register. This is good. It is not clear where the sinking fund goes when a company is struck off, nor is the fate of the common areas clear. Does a sinking fund that has accumulated transfer to the Minister for Finance if a company is struck off and cannot be recovered?

Provisions are required on charging interest. Management companies or their agents should have to give notice before charging interest.

According to the first draft of the Bill, a €200 sinking fund was to be imposed on everyone. This would be difficult in some cases. It would be very appropriate in some cases but not necessarily in all cases. I know of some developments — in the Waterville area of Dublin 15, for example — in respect of which the developers left behind very large sinking funds worth from €40,000 to €100,000. There is no reason to charge people €200 on top of their existing management fee in such circumstances.

The owners of houses in mixed developments often pay a small management fee of only €150 or €200. To add an extra €200 to this would be unreasonable. A sinking fund is for long-term repairs that may be required to apartment buildings, not houses. I am not clear whether this was addressed in the amendments in the Seanad.

Will there be provisions for the bonding of sinking funds? I am very concerned about management companies and agents collecting huge sums in sinking funds that are not regulated at all. I am concerned that such funds, where they exist, could be dipped into or invested inappropriately. There should be a system in which sinking funds would be bonds. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State’s response to my queries and requests for improvements.

Deputy Trevor Sargent: Tá mé ag roinnt mo chuid ama leis an Teachta Chris Andews. Cuirim fáilte roimh an deis labhairt ar an mBille um Fhorbairtí Ilaonad 2009. I ndáiríre, tá sé thar am go mbeadh an dlí seo againn. Tá sé thar a bheith deacair ar a lán daoine atá ag déanamh iarrachta íoc as na hárasáin, srl., atá acu go dtagann billí uafásacha móra anuas orthu gan aon fhreagracht, i ndáiríre, uathu siúd a ghearrann na costais sin orthu.

As the newly appointed spokesperson on justice for the Green Party, I welcome the opportunity to engage on this legislation from the Department of Justice and Law Reform. I have had hundreds of representations from people in my constituency, Dublin North, who have had problems, often intractable and frustrating, with management companies. While one may say a buyer-beware caveat should have been adhered to when making a purchase and receiving legal advice, that is not very comforting for anybody. Legislation in this area has been lacking and it is high time we had it. I hope that when this legislation is passed, many people will have a say in and an ability to influence their own destinies, more so than heretofore.

As a consequence of the exploitation of apartment dwellers and the unjustifiable fees demanded, many of us in the Green Party, when negotiating the programme for Government, were determined to ensure this legislation would be rigorous and that it would be forthcoming [474]as quickly as possible. It is important that we consider Second Stage before the recess so we can deal with Committee Stage.

Let me give a flavour of correspondence I received from a certain individual. He states he purchased a duplex unit under the shared ownership scheme with Fingal County Council. He was told by the council the management fee would be €550 per year and that this would include insurance and bin charges. He says that others were told different things. He was told the charge was for the year. He lives in a courtyard where there is no street lighting. There were lights but they were not switched on until late October or the start of November, thus creating a danger for pedestrians in the area. The manager of the management company resigned and the director was a developer. A new management company was introduced and again the developer appeared as a director. This is bizarre but unfortunately not unique or unusual. My constituent has not been able to make contact with the individuals concerned, never mind have a say in his destiny. He was landed with a bill of €940 in service charges for his duplex apartment, including an additional €250 fee for refuse services. This differed considerably from what he was told to expect. When he was given a breakdown of the charges, they included such services as external window cleaning, but there is no record and certainly no evidence of window cleaning ever having been carried out.

Unfortunately, this type of carry-on has been rife and many people have rightly complained. It is no wonder that so many of us have been approached by people who have become fed up and frustrated by this level of exploitation. As other Deputies stated, some of this exploitation has also been visited upon householders in estates that include apartments and are caught up in management company structures. We need to clarify the matter, as amendments may be necessary to ensure we do not create a blind spot in respect of those who, while not living in multi-unit developments, are affected by the same issues.

Some Deputies referred to refusals to pay management fees. I have encountered such incidents, but I hope they constitute the end of this type of stand-off. As Deputy Terence Flanagan stated while discussing fire safety, a genuine risk is created when a stand-off leads to fees not being paid, in that stair-wells might not be cleaned and rubbish might accumulate. Before people know it, they will have created the conditions that can become the subject of an inquiry as to why rubbish was left to accumulate and a fire was caused, although hopefully one without tragic consequences. I share the Deputy’s concerns about fire safety and inspections, but I hope we will see an end to the type of militant stand-off that could end in a fire disaster.

I hope the Minister for Justice and Law Reform will provide clarification on a number of issues before we consider amendments. Local authorities must be involved in the drafting of this legislation. In some instances, a management company has been established as an easy way for a local authority not to take charge of a development. During the time of the so-called building boom, the perception might have been that taking charge of further developments would have stretched local authorities’ staffing resources to an unmanageable degree. Therefore, management companies were an attractive interim or longer term arrangement. The system has become fixed and we are left with a legacy of places with management companies that should not have them. For all intents and purposes, they are straightforward housing estates, not multi-unit developments.

This matter must be revisited and clarified, given the level of confusion affecting the residents of estates in my constituency. With residents from one estate, I met the Minister of State, Deputy Cuffe, to try to iron out where building regulation law was inadequate. While it might be inadequate in some respects, it might also be the case that local authorities have not provided sufficient levels of inspection or followed up on complaints and have instead off-loaded those complaints to a management company that is not qualified or in a position to take on [475]what the local authority should have been doing. I hope the legislation can iron out this grey area. If additional legislation is required to upgrade our building control regulations, let us have it quickly because people are suffering for want of robust legislation.

This Bill is essential, but building regulation law must be tightened. The responsibilities of management companies need to be defined and responsibility for building control needs to be clarified. There should be no confusion. Local authorities need to be involved, as it is their responsibility to ensure proper building regulation is in place. Residents should expect no less.

Deputy Chris Andrews: I welcome the opportunity to contribute on the Bill. The term “multi-unit development” is used to describe a building comprising multiple residential properties that share certain physical areas, such as car parks, halls and gardens, and certain services, including security and waste disposal. Notwithstanding Deputy Sargent’s comments, the Bill will give home owners who live in multi-unit developments like apartment blocks or small housing estates much greater and long awaited legal protection when enacted. I am pleased to note that the legislation will cover not only new developments, but those that have already been completed.

As a public representative for Dublin South-East, I am all too familiar with the considerable problems people have experienced with developers who have been reluctant to hand over developments’ common areas after their completion. I regularly receive correspondence from constituents who have experienced difficulties with the property management companies assigned to manage a particular set of apartment blocks. The most common problem seems to be a lack of transparency as to who is responsible for what and little is seen in return for the money being paid.

8 o’clock

The Minister for Justice and Law Reform has touched on how current legislation does not meet the needs of people living in these new types of development, which only became popular in the early 1990s. There has been a significant growth in apartment living in recent years, with areas such as the docklands being developed into prime residential locations. However, many people were anxious to purchase and did not inspect to any great level of detail the ownership arrangements into which they were entering, namely, their responsibilities and those of the developers, the fees and other rules. Adjusting to apartment living takes people a while.

The first and most welcome aspect of the legislation is that ownership of the common areas will be transferred to the property management company before any apartment is sold. This will ensure that the practice of developers holding onto a few apartments or units in order to retain control of the management company will be stopped. It will also ensure that developers cannot return and make changes at will. In cases where the common areas have not already been transferred to the property management company, the Bill provides that they must be transferred within six months of its enactment. This is an important provision.

Another important feature in the legislation is the new court-based dispute resolution mechanism, which will apply to new and existing multi-unit developments with a strong emphasis on mediation, which is the desired route. If mediation fails, the court may make an order where it is satisfied that a right has been infringed upon or an obligation has not been discharged.

This is critical in ensuring that people have somewhere to turn if a developer or management company is not discharging their duties correctly. Another new requirement will be a minimum contribution of €200 per unit for a sinking fund to meet any large and non-regular costs. The sinking fund makes the financial aspects of maintaining an estate smoother and easier. We are all familiar with stories of half finished hallways, gardens and recreational areas that are not maintained despite people paying in some cases exorbitant maintenance fees.

[476]This leads me on to how management fees are arrived at and justified. Apportionment refers to the method in which the percentage of the overall service charge for the development is attributed to individual owners. The calculation may be based on a number of factors, for example the size or type of unit, the services availed of or the total number of units in the development. In the future an owners’ management company must establish and maintain a scheme of annual service charges and this must be approved by a general meeting of the company’s members.

The annual charge must be calculated on a transparent basis and be fairly apportioned between apartment owners. The service charge may not be used to defray expenses on matters which are the responsibility of the developer or builder. Service charges in respect of any unsold units must be paid by the developer, and will not be fobbed off to those people already in situ in a particular development. That is an important aspect to the Bill and very welcome.

The Director of Corporate Enforcement has, in the past, made reference to the growth of management companies being struck off the Companies Register for failure to file annual returns. The consequences of this for property owners is often more serious than they realise. For example, it may be difficult to get an insurer to cover the structure of the building, mortgage lenders may invalidate the mortgage on an uninsured property and no one can issue share certificates, so it will be difficult to sell the property, in the event. Under this new legislation struck off property management may be restored to the Companies Register within a six-year period provided all outstanding annual returns are submitted. The Department and the Minister have engaged very actively with the public on this piece of legislation, which is most welcome and has been positively received.

One aspect of it that has been brought to my attention recently concerns an individual being allocated an apartment from the social housing list, where the landlord is a member of a voluntary housing group, perhaps. There is a sense among people allocated such social housing apartments that they are not being consulted as regards the management of the particular apartment block, and voluntary housing management should be engaging with social housing tenants within the various apartment blocks. If this were to be done, it would make a positive difference. Obviously the service charge is at a reduced rate for people allocated social housing units, but there is still a strong case for their being involved in management decisions that affect the whole apartment block. Some 20% of the apartments in the Dublin docklands have been let as social housing, and this has been very positive. However, that in itself brings difficulties because the individuals living in these units believe they are being excluded in a way that affordable or private tenants are not, and this is something the legislation could examine in more detail.

During the property boom people were often so anxious to purchase, critical details may have been overlooked in their desire to secure a home. Eventually, people realised they were liable for unexpected fees and had few or no rights, only after they had made a purchase. This legislation, when enacted, will ensure that the entire process is clarified and that people will have a much greater say in how their development is run. That is why I welcome the Bill and look forward to its speedy enactment.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I am delighted to at last have an opportunity to speak on this long-promised Bill. It must be about seven years since it was first mooted. Several promises were made as regards when it would come into the House. I do not know what the reluctance was. It looked as if it could give rise to an embarrassing situation and nobody wanted to bring [477]the Bill before the House when we could debate it. It is here now, and I am not so sure that it will work, but I hope it does. It is like much of the legislation we have passed over the years to address particular issues that Members will readily recall. Four or five years later we find they have not addressed the issues at all.

No pun intended, there is a multiplicity of issues in this particular situation. For instance, there was then and now. As we hear so regularly, “that was then, and this is now”. The situation that arose with most of the developments which are the subject matter of this legislation was prevalent in the boom time. Developers could not get out of their estates quickly enough. It was a question, in many cases, of a management company being set up to complete the development and take on responsibility for the planning permission conditions imposed in the first place. That, of course, resulted in very serious problems.

In the greater Dublin area, certainly, there are numerous cases of residents who are deeply dissatisfied and object strongly to the operation of some management companies. Some management companies have worked well and shown consideration, where responsible people were in charge who tried to do their work in accordance with company law and everything else. I have to pay tribute to them. Others were apparently set up by developers to allow them to abdicate their responsibilities and move away to more lucrative pastures. People say that there is a reluctance on the part of some residents to pay the charges. Such assertions must be measured against the current climate.

For example, in most new housing situations, the charges and costs imposed on residents are massive when one considers that the unfortunate people concerned bought their dwellings when the Celtic tiger was roaming the land and they were in fear of never getting a foot on the housing ladder or having a home of their own. They went in fear of having to rent for the rest of their lives, and they were scared. They queued up all night in many situations to have the privilege and honour of putting a deposit down on an apartment or house. Having waited all night, they could be told the following morning that the particular apartment type they wanted had gone up overnight by a further €25,000 or €30,000. In one particular block in the Lucan area, the price of the houses increased by €80,000 over a weekend, which was absolutely crazy. I can well understand that we now have a situation whereby unfortunate home owners are in difficulty. Usually they will have to meet substantial mortgage repayments, in the region of €2,000 a month, or certainly €1,800 or €1,900 a month for a very modest type of house. On top of that if both partners are working they might have to pay for child care facilities, which comes to another €2,000 a month, which now means €4,000 a month overall. On top of that they have ordinary day-to-day household expenses. If they do not live near a rail station or other public transport mode, they could face at least €1,000 a month for motoring costs. To fund such activity a person must be on at least €80,000 a year. How can one expect people to afford such charges?

When first introduced, the building control legislation was perceived to be a panacea for all building difficulties. However, even a superficial inspection of some developments around the country would shock one. Many of them would not pass any building regulation tests because nothing was complied with. They were thrown up in a hurry without, for example, proper insulation. The developer could not care less as they were handed over to the unfortunate purchaser and management company.

Some have referred to the architectural flair of many of these new developments. Architectural flair, how are ya. While I accept there are some exceptional developments, others would remind one of a Mediterranean resort in which the developer had gone bust, leaving behind buildings of appalling quality.

[478]An earlier speaker referred to duplex apartments. I do not know how anyone gave planning permission for this type of apartment. They have an open stairwell on the outside on which mothers with children must drag their prams. Did we learn anything from experience? At a public meeting recently I heard someone describe this type of apartment as a much sought after development. These are where one house is planted on another with a stairs outside like on a grain loft in the old days.

The Government claimed the country was awash with money in the boom times. I recall the then Tánaiste and Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform claimed the Government did not need the revenue from stamp duty on house sales. During that time, house builds were woeful. It is sad to see what has happened now in the downturn.

I can well understand why we have Mexican stand-offs with residents in particular areas feeling aggrieved at having to pay for what they regard as an inferior product. For example, there is the wood effect put on the exterior of many apartment blocks. While it looked great for the first year, it began to fade in the second year and then turned a really nasty colour in the third. These effects do not weather well in this country’s climate which is very different from those where such effects are used successfully on exteriors.

All Members have been inundated over the past eight years with requests from residents concerned with the operation of their management companies, particularly where the companies are not well disposed towards their residents and attempts made to extort exceptionally high charges with little or nothing in return.

The need for a management company in estates of single houses is not obvious to me. In fact, services provided by the local authority in the past are now provided by the management company in return for a fee. There are so many charges to be paid by the unfortunate resident that he or she will not know where to start or finish. This is at a time when incomes have come down due to the various income levies imposed and some households have lost one if not both incomes.

It is fine to say they should not have entered into those contracts during the Celtic tiger and should have known what they were doing. It must be remembered, however, back then people were told if they did not get on the property ladder they would be renting for the rest of their lives. This was also the time when people were paying up to €2,500 a month in rent for fairly modest properties. If regulations had been applied more rigidly during the course of the building boom, we would not have so many of the problems we have now.

There used to be a house-builders guarantee scheme which was replaced by the Home Bond scheme, the answer to everyone’s prayers. The scheme is scarcely able to exist now. In most cases where a householder or apartment owner seeks the bond to cover some external repairs, they are informed they are not the scheme’s responsibility. In the case of pyrites present in cement in some housing developments in north Dublin, the maximum payment from the scheme will be €30,000 when the entire house will need to be levelled and rebuilt.

In future developments in which management companies will be involved after completion, I suggest consideration is given to low-maintenance grounds and facilities — in other words, trees and grass, for example, that would not have to be cut regularly. These would be more suited to multi-unit developments than ordinary housing estates. The more cost burdens are put on the heads of the unfortunate residents, the less the chance they will actually be able to meet their commitments leading to the management company collapsing. I accept companies have to collect fees and charges from those residents who refuse to pay. However, when those [479]residents explain their circumstances, the whole matter suddenly is brought into perspective. This is on top of developments not completed in accordance with planning permission conditions and not functioning properly with ongoing maintenance problems which should be the responsibility of the developer in the first place.

I hope we can learn from the experience of the past ten years to good effect. I recall speaking on this very subject in the House nine years ago. The media was very helpful to me, giving me a full picture on the back of the following day’s newspapers. They were not really applauding me for what I said, but I had predicted all the issues that are now facing the general public — the possibility of a collapse in the housing market, the quality of developments and maintenance costs, which will increase as time goes by. For a poor development that is poorly finished and requires ongoing maintenance, these costs will increase with every passing year. We can have all the management companies we like; it will not change anything. There are builders who will now tell one openly that some of the developments built over the last ten years will fall down. They cannot see how they will last for 30 or 50 years. There are major issues facing us in this regard.

I must point out that there are distinctions: as well as those responsible for problems, there are some builders and developers who have been very conscientious, and it shows. When one drives into the estate, one can tell straight away that they have done a good job. There are others — God help them — who just rushed in and then rushed out as quickly as possible. Development levies were not paid to local authorities and still have not been paid. For some developments, the conveyancing was not done properly. Where there was the option of estates being taken in charge by local authorities, some of them were never completed in accordance with requirements and, as a result, the taking in charge will drag on for years.

I hope that some of what is contained in the Bill will address the issues that have arisen. Every Member of this House has personal information about what the requirements are and have been over the last number of years. We should try not to allow a repetition of the problems we have seen. We should try to ensure that certain standards apply — that, like the guarantee scheme, it does work. It is an insurance scheme; it is supposed to work. Thirty years ago, under the house building guarantee scheme, local authorities were able to strip the roofs off houses, take them down to the foundations if necessary and rebuild them — and they did so, leaving them fit houses. We cannot do anything like that any more.

I could go on but you will be glad to know, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, that I will not. We hope this Bill does something to address the issues faced by people living in such units. For the sake of the unfortunate householder who has the responsibility of paying a mortgage on a monthly basis, along with a whole lot of other charges, we must ensure the management company charges do not become larger than the mortgage itself.

Deputy Joan Burton: I am grateful to Deputy Durkan for being so timely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy might be interested to know that he took his full time.

Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: You need not have said that, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Joan Burton: I thought that.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: He makes it sound as though he did not.

[480]Deputy Joan Burton: Like other Deputies, I have been raising this issue for the last seven years. Given that my constituency of Dublin West has one of the highest concentrations of management companies in the country, it is an enormous issue. Despite this, we do not even have an audit of all of the housing units — apartments and ordinary houses — that are under the control of management companies. However, I estimate that there are between 7,000 and 10,000 such units.

The principal of a management company is very often the developer of the estate or one of his children or relatives, or the foreman — or one of his relatives — from when the estate was a building site. Some of these people have now deserted the developments, although they are not necessarily bankrupt. In one particularly outrageous case, the developer is cooling his heels in sunny Spain, and has been for some time, while the residents of the estate are facing serious difficulties. That is replicated elsewhere. We have another charming developer, also well known in Deputy Upton’s constituency through being involved in the case of a building that was knocked down despite various court orders, who has put the people in the management company of an estate in Castleknock through enormous difficulties.

There are developers whose behaviour with regard to management companies is appalling. They are holding people, particularly young people, to ransom. Many of those caught up in the management company trap are young people in their late twenties and early thirties who bought, because they were advised to do so, at the top of the market. Apartment management charges range from around €1,400 per year, which is quite cheap, to well over €2,500 per year. In the case of apartment blocks with lifts, when something goes wrong it is a case of “think of a number”.

I welcome the fact that this Bill is at last before the House. I will not suggest it is perfect, but the process of discussion in both the Seanad and the Dáil has resulted in an improved Bill. At this point, I am desperate to see legislation of some kind for management companies, even if it is not perfect, although that is not something I would normally acknowledge.

Management companies are another element of the general housing crisis. What is happening increasingly is that people in estates can no longer meet their mortgage payments and are not paying the management company service charges, which means that the management companies themselves are becoming insolvent, if they are not already. The knock-on effect is that residents face being locked into the developments, unable to sell their properties if and when the property market ever revives.

In addition — this may be something in which NAMA will become involved — there are unsold apartments or houses in many developments which the developer has held on to with the aim of selling himself. However, this means that the developer has kept control of the management company because the development is not complete. It may well be that the units are now no longer saleable. People have bought into developments where, in some cases, fewer than 25% of the units have been sold, and they are now trapped. The rest of the units are not being sold and those living in the sold units are in a kind of no-man’s land. I hope this legislation will provide a way out for people who have been left marooned as one of a small number of purchasers in an unfinished development.

This is not happening only in my constituency but all around the country. It is particularly notable in areas such as the upper River Shannon, where there was much overdevelopment. Some of the newly built houses in Leitrim village are, from a Dublin perspective, beautiful houses but they are in what are basically unfinished estates. Unless some solution is devised, after two or three years of unoccupancy and hard Irish winters, many of those estates —[481]particularly those subject to the NAMA process — will end up having to be knocked down. To people living in Dublin city, these appear to be high-quality three and four-bedroom houses, but they have no future.

All of these developments are under management companies. County managers and planners, along with developers, must take responsibility for slipping the requirement for a management company into almost all planning permissions over the past eight years as a way of forestalling costs relating to taking in charge and passing the costs of the estate or the apartment unit on to the new owners. They seemed to believe that as property prices were constantly rising, owners, particularly young people, would accept management companies as a kind of afterthought because they were so glad to get any property that would let them into the property market.

I recall being in a queue one day in the old TSB, now Irish Life and Permanent, in Blanchardstown. A man in the queue turned to me and told me he was queuing for his son. When I asked why, he told me his son was buying an apartment just over the boundary of Dublin 15 in County Meath and that he had sent him down to get the money as the son was about to sign for the apartment. He mentioned that the only concern was that there was a clause in the contract about a management company. I said that just meant that his son would have to pay charges. He asked if I thought the charges would be significant. The apartment was close to Dunboyne, in Clonee in County Meath. The man had not a clue that the likely cost would be €1,000 plus. His son was borrowing up to the hilt to get into the market. I told him I thought he should discuss those issues with his son, but I have no idea what happened. I often pass the block of apartments and notice that they do not seem fully occupied.

I congratulate the lawyers and all other people who manage residents’ associations, like the Apartment Owners’ Network and people in my constituency in residents’ groups in Ongar, Tyrellstown, Clonee and parts of Castleknock, including places like College Wood which has a difficult developer — whom I share with Deputy Upton — on all the work they have done in the area of management companies. Many young people in these apartments, despite the fact they are in financial difficulties, are highly resourceful and have a community spirit. If the Government puts in place a fair management company structure and establishes owner managed companies, OMCs, that will give a framework of hope to these young people that will allow them take control of the situation.

I have relatives in the United States and am familiar with condominium control there. The system there works. It costs money, but as a result the places in which people live are kept clean and tidy and are well looked after. A sinking fund is established and general jobs in the apartment complex, like painting of exteriors, are done. These are positive measures and I welcome them in this Bill.

Deputy Mary Upton: Like my colleagues, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions, both on the Order of Business and through parliamentary questions. I have a practical reason for raising the issue, the fact that I represent a constituency where there has been an explosion of apartment developments of one kind or another, the quality of many of which leaves much to be desired. At the time planning applications were submitted for many of these apartment blocks, I felt I was turning into a serial objector because of the number of objections I felt obliged to put before the planners. I have been vindicated in many cases. I do not take particular pleasure in that because of the unfortunate effect of that bad planning on victims, due to bad planning, design and quality and the number of unfinished apartments. Young couples are particular victims. At the time they [482]bought into the concept of the apartment, what they were being offered by way of services and facilities was of a very poor standard. We cannot turn back the clock with regard to many of these developments, but we have seen the effect of the bad decisions on young couples, many of whom are in negative equity and have no chance of being in a position to sell those apartments.

I represent the constituency of Dublin South-Central and have received numerous complaints from constituents who live in apartments. Often they are desperate to discover their rights with regard to the complexities of the management agencies and the ever present spectre of a developer who seems to hold extraordinary control but seldom seems to take any responsibility for the many shoddy and incomplete apartment blocks that exist. This situation was created as a result of Government policy which provided tax breaks to developers. A number of developers in my constituency availed of these tax breaks. Government policy allowed the increase in density and brought on planning legislation that encouraged a systematic shift from the traditional Irish home towards apartment ownership. Not to be totally negative, some apartment blocks are good, high quality, well finished and well managed. However, the quality of many leaves a lot to be desired.

The legislation to enshrine the rights of the owners was never enacted and this is at the heart of the problem. This leaves apartment owners and some householders in a very weak position vis-à-vis the developers. Deputy Burton mentioned what we might call our shared developer. I have had many tussles with the same developer. Unfortunately, he won, a situation I found quite extraordinary. These issues need to be examined and addressed. Hopefully, they will not occur in the future.

While I welcome the legislation, there is an element of it being too little, too late, particularly for the people I have mentioned such as young couples who bought into these apartments and now cannot afford the mortgages. In many cases the management of the apartments is appallingly bad and there is little chance of being able to sell them. A number of issues will need to be addressed on Committee Stage and I hope that will happen. I understand that much of this legislation will not apply retroactively. In other words, it cannot apply to existing apartment blocks. What are the people in these apartments expected to do? This issue needs to be teased out carefully on Committee Stage to ensure that as many rights as possible can be applied to current apartment dwellers.

For the most part, the legislation looks to the future. That is good and positive. However, what about people who are in a situation where the improvements in conditions will not apply? These people will remain victims. We have still got tens of thousands of vacant or unfinished apartments and houses throughout the country. Some of them are in ludicrous locations and there is little chance of them becoming anything other than derelict buildings shortly. Some of the sections of the Bill refer only to developments that are completed after the Bill is enacted. Given the state of the Irish property market, it is unlikely there will be a significant amount of development over the next decade. In contrast, we had a glut of unparalleled and exponential growth in apartment complexes and other housing developments over the past decade. Very often, these were instituted under the guise of the management company.

Most of those who have spoken in this debate have mentioned the problems surrounding the handing over of, or failure to hand over, the common areas to the management company. Mention has been also made of situations where developers hold weighted voting rights in a way that allows them retain control of the management company. I am aware of a number of cases in my constituency where an unfair management company structure has been established, which effectively discriminates against the rights of the owners to the benefit of the developers. [483] There are hundreds of similar cases wherever we see a glut of these apartment blocks. Even with regard to developments that will come under the legislation, the voting system has been set as one unit, one vote. I understand there may be valid reasons for that and that people will have some rights, in that people who have a unit pay a management fee and, therefore, have some rights. However, this leaves this area open to abuse such as abuse of power by developers or landlords who have several properties. As such, they will have several votes which will allow them to control the voting rights and thus effectively control the management company. It would be a much fairer system to have one member, one vote rather than one unit, one vote. In an owners’ management company where the company is limited by guarantee, not for profit and established for the benefit of members equally, it is normal to have one member, one vote, according to the report published by the Apartment Owners Network. The Minister must examine this carefully with a view to safeguarding the rights of each individual who purchases an apartment rather than the developer who will more than likely control a number of apartments and will therefore be entitled to the same number of votes.

Section 22 provides for unit owners to pursue developers in the courts in order to force them to complete the development under the terms of section 21 which deals with planning permissions. Section 23 provides that the Circuit Court shall have “exclusive jurisdiction”. That in itself sounds fine, but the maximum fine a Circuit Court can levy is just over €38,000. Given that some developments are left unfinished and may require hundreds of thousands of euro in investment to be completed to the planning permission requirements, this does not offer adequate sanction. This is relevant to the case referred to by Deputy Burton, where a paltry fine was imposed for what seemed a very serious breach of planning.

The provision for a mandatory sinking fund is important but is not required to come into effect until three years after the first transfer of ownership of a unit in a multi-unit development. This seems to be something of a sop to developers who are likely to remain owners of apartment complexes for several years but will not be required to contribute to the sinking fund even though depreciation begins almost immediately from the time of completion of the apartments.

There are many aspects of the Bill to be welcomed. However, at a practical level, it is vital that apartment owners are fully aware of both their rights and their responsibilities. This information must be available in a user friendly fashion and there must be provision for that in the Bill. I acknowledge that when people sign a contract it is the responsibility presumably of their solicitor to inform them of what exactly is involved. However, ordinary people signing up to these types of arrangements are often overwhelmed by legalese and need some clarity. Anybody who has had any interaction with apartment owners knows there is widespread confusion about the structure of management companies and that people often do not realise that they themselves are part of the company. This is the type of detail that must be explained carefully to prospective apartment owners so that they know exactly what they are taking on. It seems all the cards are held by the developers who, even when they default on their responsibilities, are able to escape any serious penalties.

Recent developments in regard to an apartment complex in my own constituency highlighted the vulnerability of apartment owners relative to the sleight of hand of developers. This particular developer controlled the management company because of the number of units he held, either occupied by him or a member of his family or leased out to tenants. He has now run off with the management fees and the apartment owners are left high and dry. They have been advised to cut their losses because it will cost far more to pursue the developer through the courts. These are the types of practical issues that must be addressed. Overall, however, I welcome the Bill as a positive initiative.

[484]Deputy Charlie O’Connor: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. The Multi-Unit Developments Bill 2009 seeks to introduce regulation of multi-unit developments by addressing issues relating to the obligations of developers and the governance of owners’ management companies. It aims to protect the owners of units in both new and existing multi-unit developments. It also provides for the transfer of common areas to the owners’ management company prior to the sale of any units, which I strongly support. It makes provision for voting rights and makes the establishment and maintenance of schemes of service charges and sinking funds mandatory. Both mediation and court-based resolution systems are set out for resolving disputes. This Bill, along with the Property Services (Regulation) Bill 2009, will, if enacted, provide new regulation in the area of property management.

I noted that Deputy Burton mentioned almost every district in Blanchardstown, so I assume I can mention every estate in my area which, as some Members may know, is Tallaght.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Chair would be loath to try to prevent the Deputy from doing so.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: I represent Tallaght, Brittas, Bohernabreena, Greenhills, Templeogue and Firhouse. As a political activist, something I have always found difficult about these types of residential developments is that it is often difficult to access them in order to visit constituents. Luckily enough, many of my constituents look up my telephone number, contact my full-time office or come to one of my nine weekly advice clinics, one of which I missed tonight because I had to be here. They find me, talk to me and I deal with the issues.

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister of State, Deputy Finneran, who was kind enough to come to Tallaght recently for a happy event in Old Bawn community school where he met the school’s participants in the BT Young Scientist exhibition who had done an excellent project on depression. I am always pleased to welcome Ministers to my constituency. I would also be happy to meet any Opposition spokespersons who would like to visit me.

Like other colleagues, I have always had difficulty with the concept of management companies. I can only talk about my own constituency but there was a time when there were few or none of these types of developments. Tallaght was developed following the publication of the Myles Wright report in 1967 which recommended that new towns be built in Lucan, Blanchardstown, Clondalkin and Tallaght. Most of the early development in Tallaght was housing rather than apartments and it is only in recent years that the phenomenon of apartment blocks has been prevalent. One of the down sides of the recession in recent years can be seen when one visits The Square in Tallaght, which is on the Luas line and is a good place to visit. There are many vacant apartments there which is a problem for the local community. Likewise, in Tallaght village — an historic site marked by St. Maelruain’s church and graveyard and the priory — an issue that upsets locals and visitors alike is the huge number of apartments that were perhaps constructed with good intentions in the good times but are now unoccupied. These vacant dwellings create environmental and social issues and put great pressure on local services. It is very upsetting for the people who have made their lives in the community. Somebody has to grasp that particular problem.

If one suggests that vacant apartments should be brought under social housing schemes, one is likely to meet some resistance. However, the reality is that the volume of apartment accommodation in my constituency that remains unoccupied is a significant problem that will have to be tackled. Meanwhile, the number of planning applications lodged with South Dublin County Council for the construction of even more apartments in the area is striking. For example, there is a huge site in the middle of the village which used to have an Esso garage. [485] It is now in a terribly derelict state. There are signs around it and the hoarding is poor. It appears an absolute mess and it looks terrible to people who come to the village.

Suggestions have been made about other developments. Along the Tallaght road there is a fine little development. Discussions have been held with the local community. I am pleased those responsible for it are reaching out to the community but they are discussing the possibility of even more apartments. This is an issue in my community and people have raised it as a difficulty. They have no wish for more vacant apartments. This is a challenge for the public representatives and communities.

I refer to the difficulties for people in apartments who are subject to charges from management companies. I have no wish to demonise management companies, save to say problems have arisen for people who have bought apartments and made a commitment. Other colleagues have made this point which I am pleased to repeat. There is a very significant financial burden on many couples, including the young and not so young. They realise additional charges apply. As other colleagues have stated, in some cases the common areas are not kept, the grass is not cut and the green space cannot be sorted out. I spend a good deal of time dealing with constituents in such places as the Belfry in Citywest, and Marlfield and Deerpark in the general Tallaght area, not too far from the Square. The difficulty is the council maintains it is not its business because the area has not been handed over and difficulties remain as far as the management company is concerned.

I attended a meeting with other colleagues some weeks ago in Kiltipper Gate. This is a lovely development where many people have gone to the trouble of making their home and are perfectly pleased except for these issues which are not being dealt with.

In the context of the Multi-Unit Developments Bill it is fair to say to the Minister of State that these are the issues we have been discussing for some time. Like other colleagues, I have corresponded with the Minister of State, tabled questions and raised matters through other business. These are real issues. Many of those involved were from my community to begin with but there are others who have come into my community as well. They are fully entitled to have everything properly organised. It is time for legislation to deal with these issues, to give people confidence and to help them to get these issues sorted out. Only tonight I received correspondence in respect of Carrigmore near Citywest, where people want their children to play in the open space, especially during the good weather, but this is a problem. There is a conflict between the management company and the council.

I have no wish to upset the Leas-Cheann Comhairle by straying too much but I have mentioned Citywest several times. It would be remiss of me to let the occasion go without mentioning that in recent days myself and other colleagues have been upset about what is taking place in the Citywest Hotel. It is not in my constituency but that of the Minister of State, Deputy John Curran, Deputy Paul Gogarty, the Minister, Deputy Mary Harney, and Deputy Joanna Tuffy. Many of the 400 workers who live under the threat of losing their jobs this week because of the difficulties with the company are from my constituency. As other colleagues have done, I express solidarity with them and I hope the issues will be dealt with.

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: I appeal to the receiver, as I did publicly yesterday, to do what can be done to preserve those jobs. It is critical this is done. I trust the issues that all of us are bringing to the attention of the Minister of State in respect of this Bill will be dealt with. I trust [486]the provisions will be implemented as quickly as possible and that the various issues that people have asked us to deal with which are upsetting people in their new homes can be addressed.

I do not suggest that we should be less than secure in these places. I have always enjoyed the ability to knock on doors, talk to constituents and offer assistance regardless of whether they like me. I have heard from other colleagues that they have exactly the same problem in apartment blocks in their constituencies and I am aware the postman often has the same difficulty.

I could discuss this Bill for a long time and there are many other issues of concern to me but because of the time of night and because I have other duties I will conclude presently. I listened carefully to the debate this morning about the Dáil recess. I was impressed by the comments of the Tánaiste, Deputy Mary Coughlan. She pointed out that whatever about what unfolded this morning, much of which was for television, everyone in the House needs that little break. Like everyone else, I will continue to work. I will work tomorrow and at the weekend, although I will go to see Dublin play on Saturday and Shamrock Rovers on Sunday. However, I will be dealing with the issues and continuing my work and all my colleagues will do the same. I realise those in the media may not be listening now but I hope they pick up on this and understand that simply because we are not in the Dáil Chamber does not mean we are not dealing with the issues. I guarantee the Leas-Cheann Comhairle that people will contact me over the weekend about the issues related to this Bill and I will continue to represent them on these issues. I will all colleagues a happy summer and I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for his courtesy.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: Happy Christmas.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Deputy John Moloney): I thank Deputies for their contribution to the debate. It is clear the Government’s objective of ensuring fair, efficient and effective management of bodies responsible for the management of common areas in multi-unit developments which the proposals in the Bill are designed to achieve are broadly shared on all sides of the House. While Deputies were broadly supportive of the Bill’s objectives, several detailed issues were also raised. These can be considered in the required detail on Committee Stage in due course.

Some references were made to the delay in bringing forward the Bill. However, this is a complex Bill including aspects of property, company and planning law and, as such, it required extensive consultation between various Departments and stakeholders. The Government’s objective has always been to bring forward the most comprehensive legislation possible which would benefit owners of apartments in new and existing developments. I believe this objective is being met through the Bill.

Deputies Terence Flanagan, Pat Rabbitte, Michael Kennedy and Leo Varadkar raised issues of completion. One of the issues discussed at some length in the Seanad was completion of common areas of multi-unit developments. This arises under three headings: compliance with planning permission under the Planning and Development Acts; compliance with building control standards under the Building Control Acts; and the snagging of internal and external common areas.

It is fair to say snagging is a complex issue.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: It is not that complex.

[487]Deputy John Moloney: There is no provision under the Planning and Development Acts or the Building Control Acts to allow planning authorities to require performance bonds to ensure snagging of multi-unit developments. The question of whether planning authorities should be given such added responsibilities could only be considered following an assessment by the Minister and Department as to whether the adopting of such additional roles would be appropriate for planning authorities and, if so, whether they would have the necessary resources to undertake this important work. Proper advance consultation with local authorities and adequate preparation for any such role would be essential. The Department of Justice and Law Reform has been in ongoing contact with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in view of its responsibility for the Planning and Development Acts and the Building Control Acts.

I understand that a review of the enforcement procedures under both codes will be undertaken with the idea of ensuring improved enforcement of statutory requirements. I understand the building review advisory board, which advises the Minister in this area, has established a working group to examine the building control enforcement system. I further understand it will report shortly to the Minister on this issue.

The Bill seeks to deal with completions in the following way. Under section 3(1)(c) the developer will in future be required to enter into a written contract with the owners of the management company setting out the rights and obligations of each party in respect of the other.

It is envisaged that this contract will set out commitments by the developer regarding completion of the common areas and the overall development. If the terms of the contract are not honoured, the apartment owner will have recourse to the dispute resolution mechanisms under section 21. Section 21(4) contains specific provision for the Circuit Court to make an order directing a developer to complete a development in compliance with planning permission, building control standards and the terms of any contract.

9 o’clock

The annual service charge issue was raised by Deputies Terence Flanagan, Johnny Brady, Chris Andrews, Rabbitte, Stagg and Kennedy, which is not surprising given the current lack of transparency surrounding the calculation and the apportionment of the annual charge. In many cases, the owners are unsure about what services are provided or are dissatisfied with the services provided. The Government’s approach is to provide that each owners’ management company must establish a scheme for the annual service charge, which must be approved by a general meeting of the unit owners. Complaints from unit owners that they do not know what the service charge is used for are common. The Bill addresses this issue by providing that all owners in multi-unit developments must be made aware of the proposed charge and the basis of calculation of the charge must be clear and transparent. The Bill goes as far as indicating the categories of expenditure, for instance, insurance, repairs, waste management and so on, which should be covered by the charge. I would also like to stress that the legislation places an obligation on unit owners to pay the agreed charge. The Bill also provides that for the purposes of the charge a developer or building contractor is deemed to be the owner of any unsold unit in a development from the date of the sale of the first unit in that development. This means he or she will be liable for the payment of service charges of all unsold units from that date.

Deputies Flanagan, Brady and Kennedy also raised the issue of sinking funds. The establishment of a sinking fund is also an issue of concern. Many existing developments have no such fund or the fund that has been established is inadequate for its purpose. The Government is concerned about the potentially serious consequences of this and this is why we have provided [488]in the Bill that an owners’ management company must establish such a fund for spending on refurbishment, improvement or maintenance of a non-recurring nature of a multi-unit development. Unit owners will be obliged to pay the sinking fund contribution and developers or building contractors will be liable to pay a sinking fund contribution from the date of the sale of the first unit in the development. The Bill also ensures that the requirements to have such a fund will apply not only to new developments but also to existing developments and it is important that the fund would be adequate to cover potential costs of refurbishment or improvement of a development. At the same time, the Government does not consider it should be too prescriptive. The Bill, therefore, provides for an indicative contribution of €200. There is also no longer a minimum of €200 per year and the company can set its own charge.

Deputies Kennedy, Sargent, Durkan and Flanagan referred to the taking in charge of estates. I understand that in February 2008 the Department issued revised guidelines on taking in charge of estates by local authorities. They require that planning permission must address the taking in charge issue at pre-application stage. This is a matter for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The Bill forms the centrepiece of the Government’s strategy to deal with multi-unit developments and owners’ management companies. I thank everyone who contributed so constructively to the debate. The issues raised will be considered in detail in advance of Committee Stage in the context of possible amendment.

Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): My Department assumed responsibility for a range of foreshore functions in the middle of January 2010. The foreshore application for the Poolbeg waste to energy project is one of 700 applications which now fall to be dealt with by my Department. The relevant file for the Poolbeg project was forwarded to my Department on 25 January 2010. The foreshore licence element of the Poolbeg project relates to the cooling water intake and discharge pipe. An application for the licence was originally made by Dublin City Council in December 2008. A preliminary assessment of the application for a foreshore licence has been carried out and a valuation of the site to be occupied by the applicant has been also completed.

1. Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the reasons for the delay in processing a foreshore licence application for the Poolbeg waste to energy facility, Dublin; the date on which his Department received the application; if he is currently judging the application and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30802/10]

As this is the first ever case under which the terms of both sections 226 and 227 of the Planning Acts were being used, which disapply certain provisions of the Foreshore Acts, the then consent authority, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, sought legal advice as to the relationship between planning legislation and the consent process under the Foreshore [489]Acts. The initial advice has since been forwarded to my Department, and further advices have been more recently provided on this complex issue.

Deputy Phil Hogan: What is the average time for dealing with a foreshore licence application in the Department, given this application was lodged originally with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in 2008?

The Minister mentioned recently in an RTE interview that he had a quasi-judicial role in the foreshore licence application and stated, “The Poolbeg plant is entirely incompatible with my national waste policy”. Is it compatible with Government policy? Does he think it is fair or appropriate that a Minister would exercise a quasi-judicial function in a fair manner when he has stated publicly that if he approved the project, it would undermine Government policy?

Deputy John Gormley: It is not compatible with Government policy. I cannot give the Deputy the average time, as only two applications have come in and been completed in my Department. This is unprecedented in that it is the first ever case we dealt with under which the terms of both sections 226 and 227 of the Planning Acts were used to disapply certain provisions of the Foreshore Acts and that is why the then consent authority, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, sought legal advice.

The Deputy referred to an interview I gave to RTE. This slick public relations campaign is regrettable. It has been conducted in public and references have been made to the American ambassador to Ireland, which he would find quite embarrassing. I do not believe this is about the foreshore licence, which is a red herring. This is about the change in Government policy and this is why it is not compatible with it.

The issues include my proposal to ensure we have new waste levies in place and the harshness of the McKechnie judgment, which is being appealed to the Supreme Court. That has severe implications for this project. Likewise, the fact that Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council pulled out of the waste market in Dublin has profound implications for this project.

I refer to the information that has been put in the public domain that somehow we will face fines. I will ensure that we comply with the landfill directive. That is a priority for me. It is interesting that people do not appear to have the same issue with fines when we are dealing with, for example, habitat and the protection of our raised bogs. That does not appear to be a problem. In this case, however, when there are vested interests involved, there appears to be a problem. As Deputy Hogan knows, my priority is to ensure we have a shift of policy towards mechanical biological treatment, MBT, and I will shortly open another MBT plant. I am also anxious to have a market develop in this country for solid recovered fuel, SRF.

Finally, it is astounding how the Deputy is playing it both ways. Deputies from his party are going around my constituency saying they are opposing this plant tooth and nail and making all sorts of allegations that I have not done enough and so forth on this matter. Yet, it is clear from the Deputy’s stance tonight that he is absolutely in favour of the construction of a 600,000 tonne incinerator.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): We are almost out of time for this question. I ask Deputy Hogan to be very brief.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I will be very brief. It will not take long to respond. First, Fine Gael is opposed to incineration and always has been. The question is about the Minister’s centralised role as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and how he has accepted a quasi-judicial function with regard to his responsibilities. He sees nothing wrong in [490]his role as Minister in adjudicating in a quasi-judicial way on an application before him. Will he reflect on that and on whether it is appropriate in his role as Minister to adjudicate on this matter in view of his blatant conflict of interest?

Will the Minister again clarify Government waste policy? The Minister has his personal view, which I respect. However, what is Government policy? He said in his response that in his view what he stated is Government policy. There is no change in Government policy, and this project is based on Government policy. It has gone through all the processes. Will the Minister step aside from his position as Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to have this matter adjudicated by another Minister, in view of his clear and unambiguous statement in an RTE interview that he has a quasi-judicial function with regard to this foreshore licence application?

Deputy John Gormley: I assure the Deputy that this will be dealt with in a fair and transparent manner. I simply do not believe the Deputy’s statement that Fine Gael is opposed to——

Deputy Phil Hogan: Nobody believes the Minister.

Deputy John Gormley: ——incineration. Its councillors in Dublin City Council are making the opposite statements, as are its councillors in Dublin North.

Deputy Phil Hogan: When? Show them to me.

Deputy John Gormley: Yes.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: The Minister is in the dock.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): Allow the Minister to complete his reply. I protected the Deputy so I call on the Minister to continue.

Deputy John Gormley: It is on the public record. The Deputy has tried this repeatedly, where he says it is my policy. I have had to explain it is the programme for Government.

Deputy Phil Hogan: That is not policy.

Deputy John Gormley: I went to Cabinet with the programme for Government and a Cabinet decision was announced. It stated clearly that what is in the renewed programme for Government is Government policy. It is crystal clear. What is at stake here is that change in Government policy and moving towards MBT. This is the problem for the applicants because they are concerned by those changes and the problems they have caused themselves. The contract they have signed——

Deputy Phil Hogan: Can the Minister not turn it down?

Deputy John Gormley: There were two further issues which I did not mention. One is the complaint to the Competition Authority. I have put forward an authorised officer to look at the contract.

Deputy Phil Hogan: That has nothing to do with the foreshore licences.

[491]Deputy John Gormley: Yes, they are very pertinent to the questions that have been raised. These are the most important issues and I ask Fine Gael——

Deputy Phil Hogan: The Minister is not stepping aside.

Deputy John Gormley: ——to outline what its policy is on this. I am tired of listening to its hypocrisy on this issue.

Deputy Phil Hogan: He will breach the ministerial handbook on the code of conduct.

2. Deputy Ciarán Lynch asked the Minister for the Environment; Heritage and Local Government the number of houses leased from private landlords under the social housing leasing initiative to date in 2010; the average monthly cost and the full year cost of these leases; the number of properties which are to be refurbished and returned to the landlord at the end of the lease period with no option to buy the property from the landlord or to sell it to the sitting tenant; the reason the option to buy was not made mandatory in establishing the SHLI in view of the fact that this is considered to be the norm in lease agreements; the number of these properties that achieved the expected 20% rent reduction as compared to market costs; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30895/10]

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy Michael Finneran): To the end of June 2010, my Department had approved over 2,330 units for use under the social housing leasing initiative. Of these, some 1,830 have been issued with funding approval, of which 175 are private lease units to be provided by either a local authority or an approved housing body, AHB. Of the private lease units approved under the initiative, 47 have lease agreements signed and commenced in 2010. The average monthly cost of these units is €612 per unit and the full year cost is €7,342 per unit.

The discount levels achieved in these agreements has varied; 40 units have achieved 20% below market value, two have achieved 18% below market and a further five have achieved 16% below market value. The variation in the levels of discount achieved arises because in some circumstances the property owner has retained responsibility for maintenance and management. In addition, a wider discount range may also apply in cases where the owner has retained responsibility for service charges.

With regard to the inclusion of an option to buy clause within the lease agreements, of the 47 units leased from private landlords this year 30 have an option to purchase clause included in the lease agreement. The provision of an option to purchase clause is a matter most appropriately dealt with by the authority or approved body on the basis of individual negotiations. It is considered that restricting the negotiating flexibility of authorities or approved bodies could lead to increased leasing costs and may in certain circumstances reduce otherwise available supply. To assist authorities in circumstances where it is appropriate to include an option to purchase my Department has provided template option to purchase clauses, as part of a suite of framework legal documents, which can be inserted into agreements as required.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: I thought we would be doing this after “Oireachtas Report”, not before it.

Deputy John Gormley: We can still make it.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: It is interesting that when the Minister announced this programme in the Chamber two years ago, he said he would spend €20 million per annum and with that would acquire 2,000 properties in the private sector. The figures the Minister has given this [492]evening are well off those targets. At that time he was also adamant that there would be no option to buy as part of the package. Why has he been unable to fulfil the target of 2,000? Leaving aside the fact that I consider this to be bad social housing policy, these were his targets and he does not appear to have reached them. Could he also explain the change in his position with regard to the option of a purchase being facilitated? Can he explain how that purchase is put aside? Is it the situation that pertains with most long-term leases, where there is what is called a peppercorn purchase, which is a very small sum of money at the end of the lease, or is it a more proportional sum?

Deputy Michael Finneran: The Deputy raised two questions, the first regarding the number of units leased from private landlords. The target I set for this year and last year was 2,000 units each year. We achieved our target. There were 1,993 units for 2009 and I am confident that we will reach our target this year. The reason for the private units being at that level is that local authorities obviously decided, and rightly so, that they would offload many of their unsold affordable units into the leasing area for the very good reason that they were costing them a great deal of money and were not being sold. It made sense to me and to them that they would deal with that area of their responsibility first. Indeed, in 2010 the swing is going the other way towards the private side.

With regard to the right to purchase, the Deputy asked that we insert a mandatory right to purchase. I do not agree with that. The property owner as part of the negotiation process may decide to put a value on account of the house not having such a clause. I am of the opinion that the charge for having this option being made available should be left as a negotiating opportunity by either the approved bodies or the local authority with the developer. An alternative to the inclusion of an option purchase clause could perhaps be the right to have a first refusal. I am not prepared to have a mandatory purchase but if a developer wants to have such a clause, we have set out a template for him or her to enter such an agreement with the local authority or the approved body.

Deputy Ciarán Lynch: As I have stated in the House previously, there is no long term security of tenure for a social housing applicant in this programme and neither is there an exit policy. The Minister of State is on record in this regard in reply to a parliamentary question. Even though he is shepherding local authorities into this approach by saying it is the only show in town, he is not giving them any direction as to how they will get out of the difficulty he is creating for them in ten to 20 years’ time when these leases expire.

My final supplementary remark is that the Minister of State is being somewhat disingenuous when he states he has met the target of 2,000 last year as approximately three quarters of those were affordable homes and social housing. What he has done is to convert social housing and affordable programmes into a leasing programme and he did not meet his target in the private sector, which was 2,000.

Is the option to purchase only available on those social and affordable homes or is there an option to purchase on the private properties being leased? The sum of money which is an income for the local authority is based on the rent differential where a tenant pays a rent equivalent to a standard social housing house which would run to several hundred euro a month. Will the Minister of State confirm that this money is ring-fenced specifically for the maintenance of these properties leased from developers and cannot be spent by the local authority other than to reinstate these properties at the end of the lease?

[493]Deputy Michael Finneran: Deputy Lynch asked about the options at the end of a lease period of ten or 20 years. There are a number of options for the local authorities to meet their social housing needs and these include renewing the lease, the purchase of the unit if the option to purchase clause has been included in the lease agreement, or if the owner is willing, or there is the other option of taking the house into the social housing stock, providing the householder has alternatives suitable to the needs of supporting households to purchase another dwelling under the incremental purchase scheme. The Deputy will be aware I introduced the incremental purchase scheme and I signed the ministerial order only last week and it is available now for people to buy houses from the social housing stock.

I have included the option of purchase with regard to private houses. Under the affordable scheme there is an option to buy and after five years they will revert back and it may be a different market. I am leaving the door open for people who wish to purchase a home for themselves, both in the private leasing and in the affordable sector.

3. Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made in having the Comptroller and Auditor General investigate past decisions and actions of the executive and the board of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30803/10]

Deputy John Gormley: Arising from the comprehensive analysis and conclusions of the corporate governance reviews undertaken by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority and acknowledging, in particular, the view of the authority’s board that it considers a further investigation would be required to deal with certain matters, the Government has decided to bring the authority within the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This will mean that the DDDA will become subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General and may also be subject to the preparation of specific reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General on the efficient use of resources and value for money.

The Attorney General has advised that the authority can be brought within the Comptroller and Auditor General’s remit by means of an order to be made by the Minister for Finance. This will move the authority from the Second Schedule of the Comptroller and Auditor General Act 1993 to the First Schedule, alongside the other State bodies that are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I understand that this matter will shortly be addressed by the Minister for Finance.

Thereafter, the nature and timing of action or investigation by the Comptroller and Auditor General will clearly be a matter for the Comptroller and Auditor General himself to determine, having regard to his constitutionally independent role.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am surprised the Minister for Finance has taken so long, in view of the fact it was a Government decision about six weeks ago to make the order to allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate these matters. What additional powers does the Comptroller and Auditor General require to fully investigate all of the decisions that were made having the potential to lead to all of those decisions being responsible for a significant sum of money being borne by the taxpayer? When will the annual report for 2009 be available from the Dublin Docklands Development Authority for publication?

[494]Deputy John Gormley: To answer the Deputy’s last question, I hope the annual accounts will be available fairly shortly. I hope to have it signed off at Cabinet next week so that it will be available for inspection. This is the type of corporate governance we have come to expect now from the new chairperson, Professor Niamh Brennan and I believe she has done a very good job. It is important to remember that the authority’s own analysis, the two independent reports by Brassil and King, were commissioned to assess all of those issues, the planning and financial procedures. I acknowledge that it was six weeks ago but it is a matter for the Minister for Finance. I understand he wants to act promptly and that it will then go to the committee. The committee can then decide on what it wants to do with that issue. I have always said that we want to ensure we have the very highest standards in the Dublin docklands. I know the people who are interested in developing the area and those who have benefited, want to see the Dublin docklands continue. It would be a mistake were we to go down the road of simply abolishing the Dublin docklands authority as has been proposed in some quarters. I want to ensure we get all the answers to the relevant questions.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I welcome the fact that the Minister changed his mind about bringing in the Comptroller and Auditor General to investigate these matters.

Deputy John Gormley: I never changed my mind.

Deputy Phil Hogan: The record of the House will show he voted down a Fine Gael motion to that effect last December. What were the reasons for his change of heart? What issues came to his notice that warranted a Government decision to have the Comptroller and Auditor General investigate these matters, in light of his decision to vote down a Fine Gael Bill on the same matter last December? What is the status and validity of all the planning decisions made, arising from the recent report he commissioned on planning in the Dublin Docklands Development Authority?

Deputy John Gormley: There have been no challenges to the legal standing of any of those planning decisions. In answer to the first charge that I changed my mind, I did not do so. The Deputy may recall during that debate on the Fine Gael Private Members’ motion I said very clearly that I was keeping open the option——

Deputy Phil Hogan: What changed the Minister’s mind?

Deputy John Gormley: I did. The Deputy should check the record of the House. I said I was keeping open the option of widening the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. However, I felt it would have been premature to do it before I had received the reports which I had commissioned. I received those reports, the two independent consultants’ reports, Brassil and King, and I acted on foot of those reports.

Deputy Hogan decided to leak the reports. He had copies of them.

Deputy Phil Hogan: In the public interest.

Deputy John Gormley: I waited until all of the outstanding legal issues were dealt with comprehensively. I then published the reports in full. As I predicted, they were not the sort of explosive reports that others had warned about. As a consequence I said I would widen the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General. It is as simple as that. I have always said I was open to widening the remit of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

4. Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the progress made in the roll-out of domestic water meters; when he expects a nationwide meter installation campaign to be completed; and if will make a statement on the matter. [30804/10]

Deputy John Gormley: Following a decision by the Government, my Department is finalising proposals for the installation of water meters in households served by public water supplies. These proposals will give effect to the commitment in the renewed programme for Government to introduce charging for domestic water in a way that is fair, significantly reduces waste and is easily applied. I expect to bring these proposals to the Government in the coming weeks. The installation of water meters in households connected to public supplies will encourage householders to conserve water and will result in savings in the significant operational costs faced by local authorities in providing water and waste water services. This will complement the significant increases in investment on water conservation measures in the Water Services Investment Programme 2010-12 that I announced earlier this year.

The primary objectives of the proposed investment are to promote more sustainable water consumption by households, to reduce water loss in the distribution networks to an economic level and to address unacceptably high levels of unaccounted for water in some locations. I expect the metering programme to be under way next year. I will provide further detail on these matters following their consideration and approval by Government.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Charlie O’Connor): My losing my breath had nothing to do with Deputy Hogan’s question. It was the environment.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I knew it was upsetting the Acting Chairman. How long does the Minister expect the roll-out of the domestic water metering programme to take? What will be the cost of providing water meters on behalf of the taxpayer through the local authority system? Is the Minister categorically stating there will be no flat charge for water introduced by this Government?

Deputy John Gormley: I am on record as stating there will be no flat charge and it will be based on metering. I can confirm that to the House, and I have said so on a number of occasions. Quite simply, a flat charge would defeat the purpose. Installing meters means people see it as fair. We can get greater political buy-in and if it is done on a free allocation basis, people will see it as a means of conserving water. It works and this is the whole point of it. We can quickly determine if there are leaks, many of which occur from the footpath to the household. We have discussed this matter at length.

The issue is that I have not yet gone to Government. It would be premature to provide timelines and costs. This can be done and will be labour-intensive. It can be done within two years. Having not gone to Government, I am not in a position to give further details.

5. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the status of all committed housing regeneration projects; the amount of funding promised in 2010; the way this compares to 2007, 2008 2009; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30805/10]

[496]Deputy Michael Finneran: Early in 2010, in response to Question No. 43 of 21 January, I set out details of the ambitious multi-annual housing regeneration programme I am pursuing and the status of housing regeneration projects under way in Ballymun, Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Dundalk, Sligo and Tralee. I have since announced a 2010 regeneration programme allocation of €126.795 million, compared to expenditure of €107.134 million in 2009, €126.479 million in 2008 and €94.129 million in 2007. The 2010 regeneration allocation represents an increase of almost €20 million on 2009.

Significant progress has since been made on a range of regeneration projects. In particular, the Government has launched the phase 1 implementation plan of the Limerick regeneration programme, involving the delivery of 26 new projects worth €337 million over the next four and a half years. I have committed to providing an additional €160 million for the housing projects alone, including an extra €10 million on top of the initial allocation of €25 million for works in 2010.

Approvals were issued for the acceptance of tenders for Shangan 5A, 5B and Coultry 6 projects in Ballymun, valued at €21 million, and for construction of the Glen, phase 2, in Cork city, valued at €15 million. In addition, pre-tender approvals have issued for the Mitchel’s regeneration project in Tralee, valued at €10.6 million. Against a backdrop of pressure on public expenditure generally, these significant commitments demonstrate the Government’s determination to proceed as rapidly as possible with the overall regeneration programme.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: I thank the Minister of State for his response. On 25 May, the Irish Human Rights Commission and the media heard evidence from the residents of Dolphin House flats on the deplorable living conditions the residents must endure. Dr. Maurice Manning stated the rights of the residents under the UN Declaration of Human Rights, to which Ireland is a signatory, are infringed. What will the Minister of State do about Dolphin House to sort out the problems of the complex?

Deputy Michael Finneran: The Deputy did not submit a question on Dolphin House so I do not have further information. It is initially a matter for Dublin City Council but I will contact the council for an update on the situation at Dolphin House and I will provide it to Deputy Flanagan. If I had notice of this matter, I would have more information for him.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: Has the Minister of State visited Dolphin House? The Minister of State did not mention the Limerick regeneration project. Can the Minister of State provide information on this?

Deputy Michael Finneran: I referred to the Limerick regeneration project. Two weeks ago, the Taoiseach and I attended the launch of the €337 million project. The event received widespread coverage. I also referred to the Glen in Cork. I have not visited Dolphin House. I have visited many of the regeneration project locations, including Ballymun, and I will visit Tralee next week.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: Will the Minister of State given an undertaking to visit Dolphin House in light of the comments made by the Irish Human Rights Commission?

Deputy Michael Finneran: I will ask Dublin City Council for an update. This is the responsibility of Dublin City Council.

Deputy Terence Flanagan: Is the Minister of State not funding Dublin City Council?

[497]Deputy Michael Finneran: Yes, but at this point there may not be an application from Dublin City Council in respect of Dolphin House. I do not want to put something incorrect on the record. I will provide a report to Deputy Terence Flanagan without the need for a further question.

6. Deputy Pat Breen asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if an election for a directly elected Mayor of Dublin will take place in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30519/10]

Deputy John Gormley: The introduction of a directly elected mayor for Dublin will deliver significantly strengthened leadership for the city and region, with enhanced accountability and a direct connection with the citizen. The mayor will have a powerful role in setting out strategic policy across Dublin and oversight of operational implementation. He or she will also have a strong mandate to integrate the activities of local government and the wider public service in and across Dublin.

The mayor’s powers will include the capacity to ensure activities across the Dublin region’s local authorities are consistent with the regional strategic framework. I have agreed with the Minister for Transport that the mayor will have a strong role on transport planning in Dublin. The mayor will chair a greater Dublin area transport council within the National Transport Authority, responsible for approving and monitoring the implementation of the key transport plans for Dublin, the greater Dublin area transport strategy and the strategic traffic management plan. In doing so the mayor will be well placed to ensure coherence between Dublin’s spatial and transport planning.

My aim is that the election of the mayor will take place this year. My Department is engaging with the Dublin local authorities to make the necessary practical and operational preparations for the mayor’s election and introduction. The general scheme of the legislation to provide for the mayor was published on my Department’s website in February, as an opportunity for further consultation before its finalisation and to facilitate early implementation of the Bill’s provisions once enacted. The Bill, which must provide for the mayoral electoral process as well as the powers of the mayor and regional authority, is a large and complex item of legislation. I hope to publish it shortly following Government consideration.

Deputy Phil Hogan: I am glad the Minister mentioned that this is a complex item of legislation in light of his efforts to reduce complexity in legislation by introducing 90 amendments to the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill without debate. If the best he can do is to acknowledge the complexity of the legislation, while at the same time stating that an election will be held this year, which is likely to be in either October or November as he probably will not hold it on Christmas Eve, the Minister should be more specific. He should state there is no intention of holding the election this year——