D&aacute;il &Eacute;ireann

Deputy Gerry Adams: I respectfully——

An Ceann Comhairle: I will allow the Deputy to correct——

Deputy Brian Walsh: I have nothing to correct. I referred to the complexities involving the Travelling community quite apart from the issues arising in the settled community. Significant challenges exist for front line workers working with Traveller children. This is the reason I want a specific reference in the legislation. The Deputy misunderstood my comment.

An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry Deputy, we are not having a debate.

Deputy Micheál Martin: There was a debate between the Taoiseach and Deputy Walsh about aspects of it. My point is there is no basis for that assertion. I know from evidence there is no basis for that assertion.

An Ceann Comhairle: I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh and then I will call Deputy Boyd Barrett. The half an hour has concluded.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I refer to two pieces of promised legislation. The freedom of information (amendment) Bill is definitely promised to be published later this year. Will this be published in the next number of weeks? Will a Supplementary Estimate for An Garda Síochána be published? I spoke to a very senior Garda superintendent in the city who said that it will not be possible to carry out normal policing in this city because of the huge cost of the recent visits by two dignitaries to our shores. It would be a challenge for any organisation if €36 million was taken from its budget.

An Ceann Comhairle: We are out of time so I ask for the Deputy’s co-operation.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Will a Supplementary Estimate be published to cover the expected shortfall in the Garda budget?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I have asked this question about six times. When will the House have an opportunity to discuss the McCarthy report on the sale of State assets?

[491]An Ceann Comhairle: Sorry, Deputy, that is not in order.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: It is.

An Ceann Comhairle: No, it is not.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: There is legislation.

An Ceann Comhairle: Where is the legislation?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Legislation will be brought forward to secure the sale of those State assets.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Taoiseach will answer the question.

The Taoiseach: In respect of the freedom of information (amendment) Bill, this will not be published in the next few weeks. The work on the Bill is ongoing but it will not be published in a few weeks.

On the question of the cost of the visits of Queen Elizabeth and President Obama, no more than any other sector, the Garda Síochána which does such an important job, is not immune from savings and efficiencies we introduced. There will be no further Supplementary Estimates this year.

The McCarthy report could be considered for discussion during Friday sittings of the Dáil which will take place from September. At least one day per month will be allocated for such sittings and for the introduction of Private Members’ Bills. In so far as the legislation is concerned, the programme for Government is very clear in stating that the State will realise up to €2 billion from the sale of non-strategic State assets over the period of the lifetime of the Government. The Government will decide on the basis of options - not just in regard to McCarthy - it considers to be the best.

The Deputy could raise this issue at the Whips’ meeting.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I have done so several times.

The Taoiseach: Friday sittings will be the ideal opportunity to devote sufficient time to the discussion of reports such as this.

1. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will publish a specific list of public affairs which are connected with his Department and matters of administration for which he is officially responsible, including bodies under the aegis of his Department. [21079/11]

2. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach the administrative procedures by which his Department handles parliamentary questions. [21080/11]

3. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he plans implementing any alterations to the administration of parliamentary questions in his Department [21081/11]

[492]

4. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach his plans to make his Department accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas [21194/11]

5. Deputy Gerry Adams asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the revised estimates for his Department. [21198/11]

6. Deputy Micheál Martin asked the Taoiseach if he will detail those areas of policy relating to Northern Ireland which he plans in the future to be connected with his Department. [21082/11]

The Taoiseach: I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 6, inclusive, together.

I am responsible to the Dáil for the general activities of my Department and parliamentary questions addressed to me must relate to public affairs connected with my Department or to matters of administration for which I am officially responsible.

The presentation of my Department’s Estimate to the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach also provides an opportunity for members of the sub-committee to question me on a wide range of activities relating to my Department.

There are, however, specific activities undertaken by officials of my Department for which I do not have official responsibility, for example, decisions made in relation to freedom of information applications or matters concerning release of files under the National Archives Act.

My responsibilities in relation to European affairs include my participation in meetings of the European Council and other key European summits, as well as bilateral meetings and foreign visits. Questions relating to international agreements and pacts, including those with EU partners and institutions, generally fall for answer by the relevant Minister.

I am also accountable to the Dáil in a limited way in respect of a number of State offices, for example, the law offices of the State and the Central Statistics Office. By and large, I answer questions in the House in relation to matters of administration connected with those offices. Similarly, the nature of my responsibility to the House in respect of any tribunal or commission established under the aegis of my Department is confined primarily to the arrangements relating to their establishment and ongoing administration.

The specific nature of my accountability in respect of my Department and those bodies operating within its policy area has long been established by precedent in each.

The procedures for dealing with parliamentary questions in my Department are long established and have not changed recently, nor do I propose to change them. The Ceann Comhairle examines questions to ensure they comply with Standing Orders. When a question complies with Standing Orders, I answer it. However, in accordance with long-standing practice, questions are transferred to another Minister where responsibility for the substantive subject of the question rests with that Minister. Ministers of State at my Department also reply to parliamentary questions in respect of their areas of responsibility.

On Wednesday, 13 July, I presented my Department’s Estimate to the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach and also outlined the restructuring that has taken place in my Department recently and the way in which the Department supports me in carrying out the duties of my office.

The 2011 Revised Estimate for my Department is €21.039 million. This is an overall decrease of 27% on the 2010 Revised Estimate allocation. On the administrative budget, the overall reduction in the Revised Estimate for 2011 is 14%.

[493]Of the programme subheads, there has been a reduction of 30% in the funding allocated to the National Economic and Social Development Office, 15% in the allocation for commemoration initiatives and 53% in the allocation for the Moriarty tribunal.

12 o’clock

If the full Revised Estimate allocation is spent it would represent an increase of 12% over the outturn for 2010, although I would be hopeful the Department will be able to come in well within budget as has consistently been the case in recent years. The increase of approximately €2 million over the 2010 outturn relates primarily to one-off expenditure on salaries, wages and allowances related to the transition from the previous Government, plus costs related to events such as the visits by Queen Elizabeth II and President Obama, the State funeral for the former Taoiseach, Dr. Garret FitzGerald, and the forthcoming presidential inauguration ceremonies.

I have not made any changes to the Northern Ireland division in my Department. The division continues to support me on all matters relevant to Northern Ireland, including my participation in the North-South Ministerial Council and the British Irish Council, and contacts with the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as well as with the British Prime Minister. The division also plays an important role in co-ordinating matters relating to North-South co-operation across Departments.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I tabled four out of the six questions that we are taking and I will take them in some degree of sequence. I am endeavouring to get clarity from the Taoiseach as to the issues on which he is willing to answer questions. I have written to the Ceann Comhairle on the matter and it will be raised at the CPP. I specifically want to address the matter of questions being transferred from the Department of the Taoiseach. Under the doctrine of collective responsibility it has long been the rule of the House that the Taoiseach can answer any question he wants. Therefore when a question is transferred it is not because he cannot answer it, but because he chooses not to answer it.

In Question No. 1, I asked for exact and not general details of the matters on which the Taoiseach is willing to answer questions. The failure to give the requested list in the reply is striking and instead I got an answer about long-established precedent. Will the Taoiseach instruct his officials that they should no longer, for example, transfer questions on contacts he has had with European Union leaders or leaders in Northern Ireland? There comes a point when all the talk about reform is undermined by the reality of significant backward steps. For example, can the Taoiseach explain how he can transfer the entire EU affairs section of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to the Department of the Taoiseach last week while at the same time refuse to answer a simple question about the European Union Presidency in 2013?

The Taoiseach: The Deputy needs to get his research people to phrase their questions differently. The difficulty is that he has not become used to Opposition yet. It is a very different prospect from being over here as a Minister in various different Departments when he did not need to bother about this. As I have known myself over the years, when a Deputy tables a question it goes to the Ceann Comhairle who decides whether it is in compliance with Standing Orders. It then goes to a line Department. In the case of the Department of the Taoiseach, if the substantive responsibility rests with another Minister, that is when a transfer for answer to that Minister takes place. I do not see these questions until they appear on the Order Paper. I have answered 260 oral questions tabled by the Deputy and others since the Government was formed, which is probably more than previous Taoisigh did in a term, but that is beside the point.

[494]If the question is in compliance with Standing Orders and is relevant to the issues I have raised here, I answer it. I have no intention of changing the nature of the way which this is arrived at. It is a question of the Deputy’s researchers rephrasing the questions. For instance he has asked a question about the Department of the Taoiseach being downsized by 50%. His party might have had a view, but that is not what is in the programme for Government. It is probably not the Deputy’s fault, but perhaps he should instruct his researchers to phrase their questions slightly differently in order to be in compliance with Standing Orders and to deal with the issue for which the Taoiseach has responsibility.

As the Deputy is aware, over recent years the issue of European affairs has become central to all with which we have to contend. As Taoiseach I have responsibility there. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade obviously has a great deal of interaction with his counterparts at European level, which is why the second Secretary General, who I am glad to say will be taking up office shortly, will deal with the question of a far more streamlined European co-ordination element of what we have to do. The Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade will continue to answer questions on European issues. Where I have responsibility, I will answer them and the second Secretary General in the Department of the Taoiseach will have a much stronger and more effective co-ordinating responsibility between the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, because we both deal with elements of European issues on a regular basis.

I have no intention of not wanting to answering questions from Deputy Martin or any other Deputy, but they should be, first, in compliance with Standing Orders and, second, relevant to matters for which I have direct responsibility. If I am asked questions about European agriculture in so far as I might have dealings with Heads of Government about agricultural issues, it may well be that the substantive element of the question is more appropriate to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and in those circumstances that is where the transfer takes place. I had the same problem over the years in opposition and I learned to phrase questions differently in a way that they are in compliance with Standing Orders but still get an answer from the Taoiseach of the day.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is not about researchers or people phrasing questions right; that is not the issue at all. I have spent time in opposition and I have spent time in government. It is about strategy and an approach to questions. I am not talking about compliance with Standing Orders, which is a separate issue; I am talking about transfers. Let us focus exclusively on the questions that are being routinely transferred to other Ministers with the express purpose of the Taoiseach avoiding having to answer them.

The Taoiseach: That is nonsense.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach just spoke about the European Union. I tabled a question last week asking the Taoiseach the role he will personally play in preparing for Ireland’s Presidency of the European Union in 2013 and if this role will increase following the transfer of responsibility for European Union co-ordination to his Department.

The Taoiseach: To whom?

Deputy Micheál Martin: The point is the Taoiseach’s role in terms of the European Union Presidency.

The Taoiseach: To whom was it transferred?

[495]Deputy Micheál Martin: I know to whom it was transferred, but it is the Taoiseach’s role.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy should answer the question. To whom was it transferred?

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach is the leader of the country, who always has a significant role in the EU Presidency.

The Taoiseach: Yes, and I will tell the Deputy about that.

Deputy Micheál Martin: However, the Taoiseach’s reply to me referred to established precedence.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy should read his question again.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Let us not get semantic about this and act the smart alec here.

The Taoiseach: Semantics are what the Deputy is on about.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Former taoisigh always answered questions on upcoming European Union Presidencies. I will give a further example if I may. I also tabled a question asking if the Taoiseach was aware of the reservations conveyed to the Minister for Justice and Equality by Mr. Justice Smithwick about the implications of the Government’s intentions to amend the terms of reference of the Smithwick tribunal when he answered questions on the Dáil on this matter on 1 June. That question was transferred to the Minister for Justice and Equality. The Minister had been asked a series of questions by his Opposition counterpart and others. I was asking the Taoiseach if he was aware, because this was a decision of the Government as a whole and he had accountability and responsibility to this House on the question.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy’s question was wrong.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I also asked whether the Taoiseach had any further contacts with Heads of Government concerning the interest rate and Ireland’s financial support package. Incredibly the Taoiseach transferred it to the Minister for Finance. Given that the Minister for Finance is not entitled to contact Heads of Government and normally does not do so, transferring that question to him was simply incredible. There are many more examples of this.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy is wandering.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach acknowledged here this morning that he has increased his Department’s control of and involvement in European Union affairs, but he is now refusing to answer questions accepted by his predecessors of all parties when they occupied the Office of the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach’s staff are engaged in a direct attempt to get all controversial questions transferred to other Departments. How can he explain transferring, for example, questions about his personal contacts with Northern leaders, European leaders and so on?

The Taoiseach: This is where the Deputy loses the run of himself. Last week he was complaining about the Dáil being subverted. He has made a point about a question in respect of my responsibilities in determining the Presidency, which will be held by Ireland in the first half of 2013. I could give him ten examples of how he might have phrased that question differently so that the Taoiseach of the day might be able to outline the responsibilities that rest with his or her office. His researchers — it is not just himself, as he must give an instruction to his people — could have asked me whether I would indicate what involvement I have in respect of the preparations for the 2013 Presidency.

[496]Deputy Micheál Martin: That is the question I asked.

The Taoiseach: No. Read it out.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I asked what role the Taoiseach will personally play in preparing for Ireland’s Presidency of the EU in 2013. Take me through it, please, sentence by sentence. What is wrong with that question?

The Taoiseach: What I told the Deputy in response to the question is that, where the main responsibility lies with a Minister or Minister of State, the Department will transfer a question to him or her. The Minister of State, Deputy Creighton, the Tánaiste and I, as Head of Government, will have a direct involvement in the preparations for the Presidency, as will all other Ministers. In fact, I discussed this at some length with President Buzek the other morning when he visited Ireland as President of the European Parliament. We discussed the intense involvement of every Minister during the six-month period of the Presidency, which will be crucial for Ireland and Europe in a range of areas. This is why I have issued an instruction to all of our Ministers and Minsters of State to attend at their informal Council meetings and begin to make real contact with their counterparts so that, when this comes along, they will be well acquainted with the issues and the facts. It appears that a number of very big decisions may not be made before the end of 2012 and will have to be made during Ireland’s Presidency.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach is filibustering.

The Taoiseach: If the Deputy rephrases his question, I will be happy to tell him of my involvement as Head of Government in preparing for the Presidency.

Deputy Micheál Martin: May I comment?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will revert to the Deputy.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is important. Let us not filibuster.

The Taoiseach: I am not changing the regulations or rules about the transfer of questions.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach is trying to filibuster his way out of it.

The Taoiseach: No.

Deputy Micheál Martin: He stated that I phrased my question incorrectly and that I should have asked about his involvement. I have repeated the question, which the Taoiseach has transferred. He has discussed the issue with President Buzek of the European Parliament and everyone else——

The Taoiseach: Yes.

Deputy Micheál Martin: ——but he refuses to discuss it in the House. He transferred it——

The Taoiseach: That is not true.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I will ask the question again.

The Taoiseach: Why did the Deputy not ask the question about President Buzek?

Deputy Micheál Martin: What role will the Taoiseach play in preparing for Ireland’s Presidency of the EU in 2013? Will he please explain to me how this wording is wrong?

[497]The Taoiseach: Why did the Deputy not ask whether I had a meeting with President Buzek and what issues we discussed?

Deputy Micheál Martin: I did not refer to the President. I asked about the Taoiseach’s role in the planning for our Presidency.

The Taoiseach: I am telling the Deputy what I discussed with the President.

Deputy Micheál Martin: No. Just two minutes ago, the Taoiseach stated that I should have asked him about his involvement in preparing for the EU Presidency. I have now read what I asked him. He is all over the place on the issue.

The Taoiseach: It is not beyond the Deputy’s ingenuity——

Deputy Micheál Martin: He is bluffing. He does not know what he is going on about.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: This coming from the greatest bluffer ever to enter the House.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Will the Taoiseach please explain to me what is wrong about asking him what role he will play in preparing for Ireland’s Presidency of the EU in 2013?

The Taoiseach: I will.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Why did he refuse to answer this question and transfer it to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade? He has a role to play in the European Presidency. Does he accept that?

The Taoiseach: As the former Minister of greatest indecisiveness in the history of the House——

Deputy Micheál Martin: Stick to the issues.

The Taoiseach: ——the Deputy should be embarrassed coming in here. Why did he not table a question to ask whether I had met President Buzek of the European Parliament——

Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: Is the Taoiseach writing our questions for us?

The Taoiseach: ——and whether I would indicate to the House the nature of those discussions?

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is not the issue. The issue is the Taoiseach’s role in the EU Presidency.

The Taoiseach: Yes, that is part of my role.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputy Adams.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach introduced the other issue as he filibustered. He is avoiding the question.

The Taoiseach: If Deputy Martin instructs his——

Deputy Micheál Martin: He is transferring every single question to other Ministers. He came to the House today bluffing.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: We will revert to this matter.

[498]The Taoiseach: If the Deputy instructs his researchers to table a range of questions, he will surely get an answer.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Adams. Order, please.

The Taoiseach: I am not changing the rules or regulations at the Department of the Taoiseach.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Can the Taoiseach tell me——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Please, Deputy Adams is next. I will revert to Deputy Martin.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I only have one point to make. Why was the question on contacts with Heads of Government transferred to the Minister for Finance? What was wrong with its wording?

The Taoiseach: What is wrong with tabling a question to confirm my discussions with President Buzek?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Adams, please.

Deputy Micheál Martin: An absolute bluff. The Taoiseach is smiling up to the press gallery.

The Taoiseach: I am not smiling up to any gallery.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Order on both sides, please.

The Taoiseach: That is not subversion of democracy.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is pathetic. I apologise to Deputy Adams.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Seans ar bith?

The Taoiseach: Last week it was “subverted” and Deputy Martin walked off the pitch. There have been 260 questions this week so far.

Deputy Micheál Martin: When will we get guidance from the Taoiseach?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Members, please. I call Deputy Adams.

The Taoiseach: I apologise, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Ba mhaith liom labhairt faoi Cheist Uimh. 4 ar dtús agus ansin, nuair a thabharfaidh an Taoiseach freagra, ba mhaith liom leanúint ar aghaidh le Ceist Uimh. 5. An bhfuil cead agam sin a dhéanamh?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Ceart go leor.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I am trying to be constructive. My two questions that have been lumped into this grouping relate to different subjects.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Correct.

Deputy Gerry Adams: One asks about the Taoiseach’s plans to make the Department accountable to the Houses and I welcome the information he has provided in this respect. The second, which I will address in a moment or two, is on a different issue. It is impossible for me [499]to cram it all in and for the Taoiseach to give me and, therefore, the Oireachtas the information we request.

Regarding the first question, there is frustration with the manner in which some questions are being lumped together. Some of my questions have been disallowed or transferred to other Departments. For example, they related to the Taoiseach’s contacts with the social partners, 14-17 Moore Street, his efforts to secure a reduction in the bailout interest rate and the work of Cabinet sub-committees. The latter issue is frustrating, given how Cabinet confidentiality is wrapped around it. We cannot get information about the economic management council. I have also asked about the Taoiseach’s work in preparing for trade missions and his contacts with the British Prime Minister on issues such as Sellafield. On some issues he has committed to reverting with answers, but I was not allowed to ask him about those when I tabled this question.

We must find a mechanism to allow more discourse and more light to be shone on matters. Tá a fhios ag an Taoiseach i rith fheachtas an toghcháin, bhí an Taoiseach a rá go raibh sé an-mhacánta faoi rudaí mar sin agus go ndéanfadh sé rudaí i slí difriúil. Could we just discuss this matter for a moment or two? The Taoiseach was a long time in opposition. With respect, it is not good enough to tell us that we are asking the wrong questions or tabling them in the wrong way. Nor is it correct to claim that he is answering all of the questions. He may have given answers, but there is a difference between that and answering questions.

I will not make an issue out of another matter, namely, how the Taoiseach was not present during the last Questions to the Taoiseach. He is fully entitled to delegate to another member of the Government, but there was not even an explanation for his absence. I did not receive satisfactory answers to my questions.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin asked two questions. The first time I took Questions to the Taoiseach, I told Deputy Martin that we should consider ordinary Taoiseach’s questions to see how we might get a better system going. I have not changed the rules or regulations on the manner in which questions arrive in my Department. They go through the Ceann Comhairle’s office to see if they are in accordance with Standing Orders, then they come to my Department. If the main responsibility rests with another Minister, the question is transferred to there. I recall asking questions of previous taoisigh on many occasions, but there was an endless list of transfers. I have not actually changed that.

Deputy Adams asked two particular questions. First of all, he is aware that the Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach over the years has always dealt with issues like the CSO, a number of other administrative areas and so on. That has been the case for many years. Questions put down for oral answer may not seek information that has been provided orally within the Dáil in the previous four months. He could change the wording of a question and table it as a different question on the same subject. Obviously, if an oral question is not reached, it goes down as a written answer.

Deputy Adams has submitted two questions, one of which is on my plans to make my “Department accountable to the Houses of the Oireachtas”. I answer questions here where they are my responsibility. For instance, Deputy Adams as an elected Member was perfectly entitled to go to and ask any question at the meeting of the Select Sub-Committee on the Department of the Taoiseach at which we had a discussion for more than an hour on the Revised Estimates. I cannot recall whether any member of his party was present, but he is entitled to go to any committee he wishes. As I said in my reply, we had a detailed discussion at the sub-committee on my Department’s Revised Estimates, just as any other Minister who goes before such a committee would.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach is filibustering now.

[500]The Taoiseach: I am not filibustering at all. The Deputy’s predecessors in Government gave 15 minute answers that contained nothing but waffle in most cases. We have six questions here now. If I answered each of them individually, Deputy Martin would say I was repeating myself.

Deputy Gerry Adams: Could I deal with my first question first? We could then return to my second question. The Taoiseach is dealing with my second question, which I have not even dealt with yet.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Six questions are being taken together and that is the procedure. I am sure the Taoiseach will answer both questions.

The Taoiseach: There four questions from Deputy Martin and two from Deputy Adams and they will all be answered.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Has the Taoiseach finished with his previous reply?

The Taoiseach: If either of the Deputies wishes to make a suggestion, we have six questions today. Would the Deputies prefer they would be answered individually, in which case there would be a discourse about who is first or second as the case might be? There has not been any change; if these questions refer broadly to a sector, that is how they are answered. I am happy to look at the way we deal with replies if Deputies want them dealt with individually or where the subjects are the same, grouped together. There can be up to 20 questions grouped together; Deputy Martin did that when he was in government. When he was Minister for Foreign Affairs he would take questions about everything outside the European Union together.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Not on the Taoiseach’s role in it.

The Taoiseach: The then Taoiseach rarely answered questions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Adams has another question.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin rarely answered questions on foreign affairs or health when he did not want. He was afraid to answer questions. He never read the brief either.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I feel I am the third person in this relationship. I am trying to learn how this place works in order, in my humble way, to make it work better.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: It does not work.

Deputy Gerry Adams: So far I have failed miserably, although not through lack of effort. The Taoiseach will be pleased to know, however, that I do not intend to give up.

Why is there a 14% increase in salaries, wages and allowances in the Department of the Taoiseach between 2010 and the projected figure for 2011? How many people in the Department are employed on salaries of €100,000 or more? Does the Taoiseach think that is fair in these straitened times?

There is also an increase in the cost of the Moriarty tribunal in 2011. Will that be the last public money spent on that particular tribunal set up to investigate corruption in the State?

The Taoiseach: The allocation for the Moriarty tribunal is €3.5 million and total expenditure to the end of June 2011 is €1.059 million. Having published its second and final report, the tribunal is currently dealing with the matter of third party costs. It has indicated to the Department that it is not possible at this stage to give any accurate indication of the timescale that might be involved in completing this task but has indicated that it will probably take quite [501]some time. As a result I do not know what the timescale is or what the adjudication will be in respect of those third party costs. I cannot give the House an answer to that question because I do not know the answer until those decisions are made.

I will communicate with the Deputy today, to demonstrate efficiency to him, about the numbers of personnel who might earn over €100,000 per year but I do not have the information here.

Deputy Gerry Adams: My other question was about the increase of 14% in the cost of salaries, wages and allowances in the Department. Why is that?

The Taoiseach: There are extra costs in the GIS. I do not have the details of the Estimate with me but I will send the Deputy that information. I answered questions on this at the committee meeting I attended last week. I will send the Deputy the details.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The first three of my four questions out of the six relate to parliamentary questions and it is logical that they come together. I am not interested in the groupings; I am more concerned about the nature of the replies we receive here.

I asked in Question No. 1 if the Taoiseach would give a specific list of public affairs connected to his Department and matters of administration for which he is officially responsible. I asked him that question because it is an exact take from Standing Orders on questions to the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach refused to give any specific list on what he is prepared to answer for in the House. Despite all the talk of reform from the Taoiseach, we are in reality witnessing significant steps backwards, even in the reforms coming before us. The Taoiseach has never asked me about Taoiseach’s questions; he said that repeatedly for four months in the House but he has never made a single proposal on the conduct of Taoiseach’s questions. All that happened in terms of Dáil reform is that the Government Chief Whip met our Whip and said he proposed to give a half hour less time for Taoiseach’s questions and that the Taoiseach did not want to answer questions on a Wednesday.

The Taoiseach: We are here until 1.30 p.m. today.

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is what is in the reform programme. It is less than the position was previously.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the Taoiseach came in here this morning and tried to bluff his way through by saying I should ask the question differently. When I gave the Taoiseach concrete examples of the questions I had tabled and the Taoiseach had transferred, he had no answer. It is completely unacceptable that the Taoiseach would not answer a question on his role in preparing for the EU Presidency in 2013. It is absolutely unacceptable he would transfer questions to him about his contacts with other Heads of State to the Minister for Finance. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Taoiseach to transfer questions about his contacts with Northern Ireland leaders to other Ministers.

On the tribunals, where the Oireachtas is involved in an issue of collective responsibility, it is also unacceptable for the Taoiseach to dodge questions put to him. That is the Taoiseach’s track record. It is noticeable that the Taoiseach is breaking with precedent in the questions he is transferring and that he is trying to avoid answering hard questions. The Taoiseach’s political advisers have a definitive strategy of transferring all controversial question to other Government Departments. That is unacceptable and undermines the Taoiseach’s accountability to this House for matters for which he is accountable under Standing Orders.

The Taoiseach: I will not take such absolute patent rubbish from Deputy Martin. He did not listen to the answer I gave. I am responsible to this Dáil for the general activities of my Depart[502]ment, and parliamentary questions to me must relate to public affairs connected with my Department or to matters of administration for which I am responsible. That is English and the Deputy should understand it.

There are, however, specific responsibilities undertaken by officials of my Department for which I have no official responsibility, such as decisions made on freedom of information requests — I am telling the Deputy because he does not seem to want to understand — or matters coming under the National Archives Act in respect of the release of files. My responsibilities in European affairs include my participation in meetings of the European Council and other key European summits, as well as bilateral meetings and other foreign visits. That is clear.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Why was that question transferred when the Taoiseach was specifically asked about it?

The Taoiseach: Questions relating to international agreements and pacts, including those with EU partners and institutions, generally fall for answer by the relevant Minister.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Why did the Taoiseach transfer the question?

The Taoiseach: I am also accountable to the Dáil in respect of a number of State offices, including the law offices of the State and the Central Statistics Office, although the Minister of State in my Department generally answers questions on statistics. The procedure for dealing with parliamentary questions goes to the Ceann Comhairle.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I know that but they were transferred.

The Taoiseach: That is not what the Deputy is saying then. I have made it clear the regulations governing this have not been changed by me and I have no intention of changing them. Questions may well be transferred to other Ministers where substantial responsibility rests with them.

Deputy Micheál Martin: No. It is because the Taoiseach chooses not to answer them.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin asks a question about issues regarding Europe and finds they are transferred to another Minister, but I do not see those questions — the ones that have actually come through — until they appear on the Order Paper. I have dealt with 260 of them. Deputy Martin has been asking me questions such as “How long did you meet such a person for?”, “What time did the meeting take place at?”, or “What were the issues that you discussed?”. Why did he not frame his question to say “Will the Taoiseach confirm that he had a meeting with President Jerzy Buzek?” or “Would the Taoiseach confirm that they discussed Ireland’s EU Presidency for 2013?”?

Deputy Micheál Martin: Would the Taoiseach stop acting the idiot? No one asked him about that. Come off it.

The Taoiseach: If the Deputy wants to ask a direct question, please do so. If I were him, however, I would get used to Opposition and I would begin to instruct my officials and researchers to ask a range of questions because he will surely get a hit then.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I asked him about his role in the European Presidency.

The Taoiseach: It is not a question of subverting democracy.

[503]Deputy Micheál Martin: With all due respect, the Taoiseach is acting the idiot.

The Taoiseach: While the answers I have given may not contain all the information the Deputy wants, they are a hell of a lot shorter than my predecessor’s. I have answered 260 parliamentary questions since the Government was formed.

Deputy Micheál Martin: He is transferring them.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Adams has not been neglectful of his duties here. He has learned a great deal since he came here and he understands the mechanics of it. On tomorrow’s Order of Business a whole raft of changes to the way we do business in the Dáil will be voted through and will become effective from the next session. I hope the Deputy will participate in those debates. If he has any further constructive suggestions, I will be happy to hear from him.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is a joke and the Taoiseach is smiling because he knows it.

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: He would make an excellent president.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Is the Deputy making a suggestion?

Deputy Jimmy Deenihan: I am talking about the Irish EU Presidency in 2013.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I have experienced exactly the same frustration as has been expressed by others——

The Taoiseach: The Deputy has no question in here at all.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: ——because they all get transferred.

The Taoiseach: Which ones were transferred?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I put in about six or seven questions last week. The majority of my questions are being transferred.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy should talk to the Ceann Comhairle about that.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I will give the Taoiseach a few examples.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: This is question time.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Yes. Why, for example, when I asked a question as to whether the Taoiseach had met personally with the EU-IMF delegation during their visit, was that transferred? When I asked a question about the Taoiseach’s role in the Economic Management Council, that question was ruled as being subject to Cabinet confidentiality. In addition, a document that we got as new Deputies referred to the fact that the Taoiseach was supposed to answer questions on economic and social affairs. However, time and time again, when I table questions on economic affairs, which is the area of most public concern, they are all transferred or disallowed. It is unacceptable for the Taoiseach to say that a question should go to the Minister for Finance, particularly in the current economic climate. The Minister for Finance is up for questioning every four weeks approximately. Given the scale, depth and severity of the economic crisis we are facing, which is a fluid situation that is moving on a daily basis, as public representatives we must have an opportunity to ask the Taoiseach about those developments in our country’s economic situation.

While it is absolutely justified and legitimate for the Taoiseach to bat off detailed questions about economics or the country’s finances to the relevant Minister, if we are asking questions [504]about how to deal with the broad strategic orientation of our economic and financial policies in relation to the current economic crisis, the Taoiseach should answer those questions instead of batting them off, transferring them or telling us that they are subject to Cabinet confidentiality. Given all the right talk about a new type of Government and politics, transparency and open government, it is not acceptable to have questions on these key issues batted off to some Minister or disallowed on some spurious basis.

The Taoiseach: I am happy to participate in Leaders’ Questions here, morning after morning. I answer questions from Deputy Martin and Deputy Adams about European economic issues and other matters. I love the Deputy’s phrase about “broad, strategic orientation”. He is a great man for these kind of phrases, but they are meaningless.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: They are not meaningless at all.

The Taoiseach: In respect of the two questions he asked, the first was whether I met the IMF delegation. The Deputy will appreciate from his attendance here that responsibility for these matters was devolved to the Minister for Finance. Obviously, the latter and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform met the IMF-EU-ECB Troika.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I asked if the Taoiseach met them.

The Taoiseach: That responsibility was devolved to the Ministers to hold that meeting.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: So the Taoiseach did not meet them.

The Taoiseach: As regards the Deputy’s second question concerning the Economic Management Council, this is a Cabinet sub-committee. The confidentiality clauses apply to those, as they always have done.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Not true.

The Taoiseach: As the Economic Management Council deals with issues that will come before Cabinet, the Deputy himself surely understands, with his broad strategic orientation, that one cannot discuss everything in public before it goes to Cabinet for decision. That is the way democratic governments do their business.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach deliberately excluded it.

The Taoiseach: One might have an idea that a matter will shortly go to Government, like the question of household charges or water metering, but I am not entitled to divulge that information to the House until the Cabinet decides upon it. Does that answer the Deputy’s question?

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Phil Hogan, has told the world.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy can have all the questions about the broad, strategic orientation that he wants, and I will answer them for him.

Deputy Gerry Adams: I am just wondering if the solution — perhaps my friends could consider this — would be for the Taoiseach to draft our questions as well as the answers. That might get us over this problem.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Do Deputies wish to go on to the next question?

[505]The Taoiseach: I could draft a few for the Deputy, as well.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I think this is a deliberate attempt to undermine this session of Taoiseach’s Questions.

The Taoiseach: That is absolute rubbish from the Deputy. He has been on about that for the past three weeks — the subversion of democracy and all the rest of it.

Deputy Micheál Martin: As regards the bottom line, let us be clear about the reason I tabled this question.

The Taoiseach: For a man who did not read his brief and will not accept responsibility, he has a cheek to come in here and say that.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I read it. If the Taoiseach read the Travers report, he would know that what he is saying about that is nonsense. It is typical of the Taoiseach. He does not bother looking at any facts about anything, he just goes on with mantras.

The Taoiseach: He would not accept responsibility and he never even read the brief.

Deputy Willie Penrose: Deputy Martin is the best hide-and-seek man that ever came into the Dáil.

The Taoiseach: There were 130 reports, but they were not acted upon. The Deputy is the best manager for indecision ever in the history of the country. The reports were not acted upon.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We need to be clear about one thing: under the doctrine of collective responsibility it has long been the rule of this House that the Taoiseach can answer any questions he wishes.

The Taoiseach: Of course.

Deputy Micheál Martin: When a question is transferred, it is not because he cannot answer it, it is because he chooses not to do so.

Deputy Gerry Adams: He may answer.

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is what the Taoiseach has been doing to many people on this side of the House. He has refused to answer. He has chosen not to answer and is transferring questions left right and centre. How can he justify not answering questions about his role in the EU Presidency, meeting EU heads of state and Northern Ireland leaders? How can they be transferred? The Taoiseach treats the House with contempt in the sense that he will not even attempt to give any response to the specific positions we put to him. He should talk to his advisers and get it right this time.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy has gone from the subversion of democracy to contempt for democracy.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach’s performance is ridiculous.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: One voice, please.

The Taoiseach: He should be embarrassed to come in here, as someone who commissioned 130 reports at the taxpayers’ expense but which were not acted upon.

[506]Deputy Micheál Martin: I was elected to come here.

The Taoiseach: He is somebody who did not read his brief on an issue costing €1 billion and he would not accept responsibility.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I accepted responsibility.

The Taoiseach: As somebody who is quite prepared to answer questions, maybe I will take Deputy Adams’ suggestion to write a few questions for him and then he might get an answer. I would be happy to comply with his request.

Deputy Micheál Martin: We just want the answers.

The Taoiseach: If Deputy Martin and all his researchers are unable to put down questions that will get through the Standing Orders’ requirement and the non-transfer rule, I will be happy to answer them for him, fully, completely and comprehensively — hard or easy.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Like hell he would. This is filibustering. The Taoiseach is laughable and pathetic.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Time is almost up.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I had a question about the Economic Management Council refused on the basis of Cabinet confidentiality.

The Taoiseach: Yes.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I then asked what areas were subject to Cabinet confidentiality and I was told that was subject to Cabinet confidentiality. This is just bizarre.

Can I specifically ask, in the area——

The Taoiseach: The issues that are subject to Cabinet confidentiality are the issues that are being discussed at Cabinet. Climate change is certainly not an issue of Cabinet confidentiality in so far as we all talk about it as a general theory, but a matter dealing with climate change to be decided by the Cabinet will be subject to confidentiality until it is decided.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Okay. I have made my point, but the Taoiseach did not answer the other question I asked.

The Taoiseach: Will the Deputy accept the answer to the first question?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: I am getting nowhere on that. A document given to us stated the Taoiseach would answer questions on economic and social affairs. Given the severity of the economic crisis and the concern we all have with economic and social affairs, it is not good enough to have questions in these areas batted off to Ministers who can only be questioned once every four weeks and only then by a kind of lottery. Will the Taoiseach be a bit more generous in answering questions on economic and social affairs as they are so important?

The Taoiseach: That means the Deputy sits over there every morning and does not listen. There is notice given on the Order Paper when questions are submitted. I come in here every Tuesday and Wednesday and answer questions from the leaders about banks and water metering, and I answer questions from Deputy Higgins about economic and social affairs. In so far as my responsibility as Taoiseach goes in chairing a number of Cabinet sub-committees, the issues under discussion for recommendation to the Cabinet for decision are subject to Cabinet [507]confidentiality. When the decisions are made, Members are quite free to discuss them openly and with responsibility in here, including matters such as household charges and water metering. When they are decided by the Cabinet, as they will be, we can then discuss them quite openly without any fear of restriction. Do I make myself clear? The Deputy will get a lot of information and a lot of answers to many questions, and he will be a very happy little boy.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Willie Penrose): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

The Planning and Development (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2011,

copies of which have been laid in draft form before Dáil Éireann on 23rd June, 2011.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 97; Níl, 47.

Tá
Barry, Tom.	Breen, Pat.
Broughan, Thomas P.	Burton, Joan.
Butler, Ray.	Buttimer, Jerry.
Byrne, Catherine.	Byrne, Eric.
Cannon, Ciarán.	Carey, Joe.
Coffey, Paudie.	Collins, Áine.
Conaghan, Michael.	Conlan, Seán.
Connaughton, Paul J.	Coonan, Noel.
Costello, Joe.	Creed, Michael.
Creighton, Lucinda.	Daly, Jim.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Deering, Pat.	Doherty, Regina.
Dowds, Robert.	Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Farrell, Alan.	Feighan, Frank.
Ferris, Anne.	Fitzpatrick, Peter.
Flanagan, Charles.	Flanagan, Terence.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Griffin, Brendan.
Hannigan, Dominic.	Harrington, Noel.
Harris, Simon.	Hayes, Brian.
Hayes, Tom.	Heydon, Martin.
Hogan, Phil.	Howlin, Brendan.
Humphreys, Heather.	Keating, Derek.
Keaveney, Colm.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kelly, Alan.	Kenny, Enda.
Kenny, Seán.	Kyne, Seán.
Lawlor, Anthony.	Lynch, Kathleen.
Lyons, John.	McCarthy, Michael.
McEntee, Shane.	McFadden, Nicky.
McHugh, Joe.	McLoughlin, Tony.
McNamara, Michael.	Maloney, Eamonn.
Mathews, Peter.	Mitchell, Olivia.
Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.	Mulherin, Michelle.
Murphy, Dara.	Murphy, Eoghan.
Nash, Gerald.	Neville, Dan.
Nolan, Derek.	Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
O’Donnell, Kieran.	O’Donovan, Patrick.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Mahony, John.
O’Reilly, Joe.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.	Perry, John.
Phelan, Ann.	Phelan, John Paul.
Quinn, Ruairí.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Ring, Michael.	Ryan, Brendan.
Shatter, Alan.	Shortall, Róisín.
Spring, Arthur.	Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Tuffy, Joanna.	Twomey, Liam.
Wall, Jack.	Walsh, Brian.
White, Alex.

Níl
Adams, Gerry.	Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Calleary, Dara.	Collins, Joan.
Collins, Niall.	Colreavy, Michael.
Cowen, Barry.	Crowe, Seán.
Daly, Clare.	Doherty, Pearse.
Donnelly, Stephen.	Dooley, Timmy.
Ellis, Dessie.	Ferris, Martin.
Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.	Fleming, Tom.
Grealish, Noel.	Halligan, John.
Healy, Seamus.	Healy-Rae, Michael.
Higgins, Joe.	Kelleher, Billy.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Michael P.
Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.	McConalogue, Charlie.
McGrath, Finian.	McGrath, Michael.
McGuinness, John.	McLellan, Sandra.
Martin, Micheál.	Moynihan, Michael.
Murphy, Catherine.	Naughten, Denis.
Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.	Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.	Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
O’Brien, Jonathan.	O’Dea, Willie.
O’Sullivan, Maureen.	Pringle, Thomas.
Ross, Shane.	Smith, Brendan.
Tóibín, Peadar.	Troy, Robert.
Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Emmet Stagg and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Question declared carried.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

That notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders or the order of the Dáil of this day that Question Time shall be taken for 75 minutes on the conclusion of the opening speeches of No. 11a or at 2.30 p.m., whichever is the later.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Deputy Paul Kehoe): I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the exercise by the State of the option or discretion under Protocol No. 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty [509]on the Functioning of the European Union, to take part in the adoption and application of the following proposed measure:

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime,

a copy of which was laid before Dáil Éireann on 13 June, 2011.”

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Minister of State got a nice number.

Deputy Timmy Dooley: He benefited from the last man who moved him.

Deputy Niall Collins: He is dancing on Deputy Naughten’s grave.

An Ceann Comhairle: Can I have order in the House? The Parliament is in session.

An Ceann Comhairle: Statements are confined to the Taoiseach and to the main spokespersons for Fianna Fáil, Sinn Féin and the Technical Group. I call the Taoiseach to make his statement.

The Taoiseach: As the House is aware, I will travel to Brussels tomorrow for a meeting of the Heads of State or Government of the euro area. The meeting has been convened by the President of the European Council, Mr. Herman Van Rompuy, to discuss the future financing of the Greek programme and the stability of the euro area as a whole. These are vitally important topics and the meeting will be an important one. It is important to note at the start that it will not be the be all and end all. The crisis in the euro area will not be resolved overnight. There is no one magic solution or silver bullet. At our meeting tomorrow, we will consider important proposals but there will be further meetings and further steps to be taken before this matter is finally resolved.

Since the crisis began, a vicious cycle has emerged. Pressure builds, a meeting is convened and expectations are raised unreasonably. Decisions are taken but they are never sufficient to the address build-up. Rather than gaining confidence, the markets are disappointed and pressure begins to build again. The cycle continues. This is corrosive and damaging, and the consequences are real for countries that find themselves at the centre of attention. I hope we can have a measured debate which does not raise expectations beyond what can reasonably be achieved.

1 o’clock

That is not to say we should abandon all ambition for a strong and clear outcome which is credible, workable and durable. The markets are watching and the pressure on member states has spread and intensified in recent weeks. In our work tomorrow, we will focus on progressing the agreement reached at last week’s meeting of Finance Ministers, which has been the subject of serious work by officials since then. At their meeting, Ministers reaffirmed their absolute commitment to safeguarding financial stability in the euro area. They stated that they stood ready to adopt further measures to improve the euro area’s systemic capacity to resist contagion, including through increasing and enhancing the flexibility and scope of the EFSF, lengthening the maturities of the loans and lowering the interest rates and collateral arrangements, where appropriate.

[510]Ministers also discussed the main parameters of a new multi-annual adjustment programme for Greece. As the House is aware, the Greek Government has demonstrated political determination and courage in securing parliamentary support for the serious reform programme which will be necessary if the country is to recover. It deserves great credit for this and delivery on its programme will be tough but essential. At their meeting, Ministers called on the Greek Government to sustain its efforts and to meet commitments in full and on time. They noted that responsibility for resolving the crisis in Greece lies primarily with Greece but recognised also the need for a broader and more forward-looking policy response to assist the Greek Government in its efforts to achieve debt sustainability. It was also accepted that there is a need to safeguard financial stability in the euro area as a whole. In that context, Ministers asked officials to propose measures to reinforce the current policy response to the crisis in Greece, including exploring how a new multi-annual programme for Greece would be financed, steps to reduce the cost of debt servicing and means to improve the sustainability of Greek public debt.

The results of this ongoing work, which will be progressed later today at a meeting of key senior officials in Brussels, will form the basis of tomorrow’s discussions. It is, therefore, not yet possible to say what precisely will emerge from our meeting and, as we know from hard-won experience, it is unwise to speculate on these matters. As I stated in the House yesterday, we need an outcome that offers certainty and security for the future. My main priority will be to ensure an agreement that has positive implications for Ireland. While the focus will be on Greece and the parameters for a new programme for that country, what is proposed for one member state cannot be taken in isolation. The countries, like Ireland, which are already in a programme, as well as those which are coming under pressure in the markets, are alive to the real danger of contagion and negative read-across. I will be watching carefully and working to ensure that what is agreed for Greece does not make our progress and eventual return to the markets more difficult.

I will also work to ensure that any element of the new arrangements for Greece which might be of benefit to us is given wider application. The Government has long argued for greater flexibility for the EFSF. I am pleased to see this is now back on the agenda. The point we have made all along is that the purpose of a programme is to contribute to recovery and growth. This is a shared goal of the recipients of loans and those who guarantee them. It is necessary that conditions be imposed but they should not be such as to undermine this fundamental and central objective or else we are all wasting our time. The type of elements now being considered, including lower interest rates, longer term loans and greater flexibility of instruments, have the potential to make a positive contribution. On interest rates, we know the specific issues that have arisen for Ireland and we will continue to press for the reduction in interest rates agreed in March to be applied to us. However, a wider question also arises. It is worth recalling that the complex method of calculating interest rates under the EFSF was agreed when no country had sought assistance from the facility and the question was, to an extent, academic. There were some who argued that there was a need for the margin imposed to be such as to deter any member state from entering into a programme lightly. This was presented as an argument against moral hazard. In light of experience more realism has entered the debate and there is a wider appreciation that the strictures of a programme, namely, the pain of adjustment and the accelerated pace of reform, are more than sufficient deterrent. No country would seek assistance other than in a situation of last resort.

A number of other possible adjustments to the operation of the EFSF are also under consideration. Until these are thrashed out more fully and tabled as proposals, there is little to be gained from speculating on what they might mean for Ireland and others. However, as I have [511]already pointed out, the Government has supported the principle of increased flexibility and I hope a positive outcome on this can be secured when we meet tomorrow.

I will seek an outcome that is good for Europe and for the eurozone, settles nerves in the markets and sends a clear and positive signal that we are going about our work in a committed and productive way. We have all lost count of the number of times we have discussed in this House crunch meetings for Europe. The crisis has been long and sustained and criticism of the decisiveness and leadership of key figures has become widespread and commonplace. However, in the interest of balance it is important to remember that we are engaged in a process of learning in which new territory is being charted day by day. This week’s meeting will be important. The danger facing the euro area and the very currency itself is real and present. This week’s meeting will not resolve all these matters but I hope it will demonstrate our capacity to act in a way that begins to restore confidence and momentum and arms us well for what lies ahead.

Deputy Micheál Martin: While the specific agenda for tomorrow’s summit is still uncertain there is no doubt about how serious the issues are. The leaders have what may well be their final chance to show they are capable of addressing the crisis engulfing the eurozone. There is no longer any doubt that only dramatic, fast and comprehensive action can stop the situation becoming much worse. The key principles for action were agreed in February but the repeated delays and unforgivable inaction since then has spread the uncertainty which was supposed to be tackled.

This summit is happening because the chairman of the euro group, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, Jean-Claude Juncker, looked with clearly escalating panic at what is happening to Greece, Spain and Italy and understood there is no more time. If Europe’s leaders departed for their August breaks without taking action they might return to find a greater emergency and the end of the common currency. The Prime Minister, Mr. Juncker, is an experienced and knowledgeable leader. He does not exaggerate and he was right to request that the summit be convened. It may well be that full and final agreement is not possible but the constant uncertainty which comes with acknowledging problems and failing to deal with them has to end and be seen to end.

When Greece was given funding last year every country acknowledged that a more formal and comprehensive system for providing financial aid was now required. This was done only in part. Markets did not believe that the measures agreed were strong enough to deal with all possible eventualities. Instead of properly appreciating how widespread the contagion could be, there was a belief held by many that the only issue was that of a few errant countries on the periphery. This formed part of what lay behind the regular and deeply damaging briefings in October and November as a prelude to Ireland’s financial programme. At that stage it was again agreed that the programme was too inflexible and needed to be made less onerous. No negotiation was possible on the interest rate because the policies agreed earlier in the year did not allow for it. The parties in the new Government have consistently refused to acknowledge this until today in the Taoiseach’s speech and they know that their posturing on the issue before the general election was part of just another short-term political game on their part.

In the first two months of the year there was a strong sense that the European Union needed new policies to provide enough funding to be able to support even a large country; change the duration and cost of debt repayments to make them more sustainable; and introduce fiscal rules which would provide confidence in the medium and long term. Each of these was agreed to in principle in February and included in the 11 March communiqué. Unfortunately, only the fiscal rules element was implemented quickly. The delay, uncertainty and anonymous briefings turned a confidence-building initiative into one which has had the opposite effect.

[512]The threat to the euro is not some abstract theory or the fantasy of doomsayers. The common currency can only survive if member states continue to see that the alternative would be much worse and if investors have faith in it. Ireland, with others, has always accepted very serious constraints on its ability to act because of its commitment to collective action by states, but the status quo is no longer credible and something must give. For the sake of the European Union, I hope there is unbending resistance to debt restructuring rather than the currency.

The Greek Government has taken many brave steps in addressing a fiscal crisis which has been developing for 20 years. It has shown that it is different from its predecessors and deserves extra time and greater flexibility. Greece does not have Ireland’s export base or a number of our other long-term strengths and it started this crisis with a dramatically higher debt than ours. There is no evidence that it can sustain its debt and repayment burdens and a failure to acknowledge this with each new plan continues to be a root cause of the escalating crisis. Whether it is through buy-backs in the steeply discounted market or any other range of moves, Greece’s sovereign debt needs to be restructured now rather than waiting for a more uncontrollable default in the future. The availability of the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, for a second round of financing needs to be fully nailed down by leaders. A combination of a restructured debt, secure medium-term funding and the economic plans of the Greek Government can see the country through. We should support it in this.

The role of the European Central Bank in this matter has been, at best, controversial and, at worst, extremely negative. At a time of such crisis the bank should not be falling back on technical rules to stand in the way of an essential policy. Its threat to withdraw all funding for Greece if there is even a technical credit event confirms once again that its rigid orthodoxies serve the European Union badly.

It has been this country’s policy since last year to seek to impose significant losses on bank bondholders. Our proposals were vetoed by the ECB because of its fear of a contagion, which has happened. Unilateral action was not and is not an option because of other funding realities for the banking system and public spending. However, the reality of the deep discounts which the markets have imposed on bond values shows that the risks arising from imposing significant losses on bondholders are lower than ever. The late Brian Lenihan provided for this in legislation and imposed the first haircuts. The Fine Gael and Labour Party Government likes to ignore this when using the legislation. Where once the valid argument was that imposing bondholder losses would provide a fatal blow to Ireland’s ability to return to the market, the evidence today is that the failure to impose losses is undermining our ability to return to the market. Both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, have repeatedly said they do not intend to raise the issue of bank bondholders until the autumn. They have done this, even though they have worked to hype minor announcements as being deeply significant. If the Greek debt issue is being addressed, so too should the Irish bank bondholder issue. We took on large parts of the debt because of a Europe-wide policy of avoiding imposing investor losses. If this policy is to be relaxed on the much more serious issue of sovereign debt, we must inform our colleagues that there will be significant losses imposed on bank bondholders.

One of the most ridiculous developments in recent months has been the lengths to which the Government has gone to claim credit for developments in which it played no serious role. The ESM announcement of a few weeks ago was a classic example of the genre. On the Monday morning the Minister for Finance said it did not relate to Ireland but was welcome nonetheless. By the Tuesday the Taoiseach was hailing a great strategic victory. He appears to be the only person left in Europe who believes it was a wise decision to leave the debt and [513]interest issue in the hands of the finance Ministers. The hands-off approach failed miserably and the momentum towards action evident in January and February disappeared.

Having spent months spinning the idea that Ireland had undertaken a diplomatic offensive, the facts show that there has been no initiative whatsoever. During the general election the Taoiseach went to Berlin to show how he would lead from the front, directly engaging with European leaders. In the four months since he has failed incredibly to hold a single bilateral meeting with a eurozone leader and yesterday he stated he had had no personal contact with a eurozone leader in the run-up to the emergency summit. Just like his personal commitment to Roscommon County Hospital has now been denied, so too has his pledge in Berlin of personal diplomatic leadership been dismissed. Given the amount of time the Taoiseach and his Ministers have invested in attacking predecessors for supposedly failing to meet people, the complete absence of personal action is incredible. Perhaps if they had been less concerned with partisan attacks, they would have been able to arrange a diplomatic initiative. There will be a reduction in Ireland’s interest rate and there should be a move on the issue of bank debt. The Taoiseach will no doubt be unstinting in his praise of himself, but any progress will happen because of an overall decision which he and his Ministers have played no serious role in influencing. His approach has been to sit on the substitutes bench and claim credit for the goals scored.

Only three hours have been provided for the summit, including lunch. Some are already trying to talk down the likely outcome, but the issues involved go beyond anything which can be spun for the sake of media headlines. This is one of the most important summits in the history of the European Union. It falls on the leaders to show that they can rise above the crisis and that they will take measures to help member states and restore confidence. The can must not be kicked down the road again.

Deputy Gerry Adams: It is welcome that there will be a special summit on the European debt crisis, but its handling by the Government since taking office has been appalling. We heard much guff during the election campaign about not putting another penny into the banks and about Fine Gael acting differently. Within the next ten days the Government will inject over €19 billion of taxpayers’ money into the banks. During the election campaign the Tánaiste was presented by the Labour Party as a Taoiseach in waiting and he declared that it would be “Labour’s way, not Frankfurt’s way”. The Government has set aside all of these commitments, shredded the manifesto and proceeded to implement Fianna Fáil policy. It has also blamed Fianna Fáil for every decision it has had to take and Fianna Fáil stands condemned for the mess it created. Fianna Fáil is no longer in government and its members are not going to the summit. The Taoiseach will attend instead and will have choices to make.

Sinn Féin wishes the Taoiseach well and wants him to stand up for the citizens of the State and Irish interests. Our parties represent different interests and the reality is that our so-called partners in the European Union are set to benefit to the tune of nearly €10 billion owing to the penal rate of lending, which is scandalous. The Taoiseach must renegotiate on this issue this week. The leaders of France, Germany and other EU states have made decisions not in the interests of the European Union as a whole but in their own national interests and the Taoiseach should follow their example. He should not see himself as a observer at the summit, rather he should make it clear that the EU plan for Greece, Ireland and Portugal has failed and that the medicine is killing the patient.

Ireland is unlikely to be in a position to return to the international bond markets in 2013 and Irish debt has been rated as junk by one of the leading ratings agencies. The EU-IMF plan is junk and must be dumped. The Taoiseach should say this clearly and directly. From our perspective, the Government’s priority at this summit needs to be to ensure Irish debt is [514]brought to a sustainable level. We cannot tackle this debt crisis by taking on more debt. Payments to unguaranteed senior bondholders should be stopped. If they are not, all bondholders will receive €4.3 billion before the end of September. The closure of accident and emergency units is one of the social consequences of this policy. Almost 500,000 people are unemployed. Our elderly citizens are being forced to decide between paying bills and buying food.

We could argue about the efficacy of the Government’s negotiating strategy and tactics. It has spent five months negotiating an interest rate reduction, but it has failed to achieve such a reduction so far. When the reduction is agreed, it will save the Exchequer €150 million per annum. It will not apply retrospectively to money that has already been drawn down. In 2001, the Government has pumped €3.1 billion of taxpayers’ money into zombie banks like Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Nationwide. As I have said, our EU partners will benefit to the tune of almost €10 billion from the exorbitant interest they are charging on these loans. While the interest rate reduction will be welcome — Sinn Féin predicted some time ago that it will come — it will amount to very little when considered in the context of the profits our partners are making, the tens of billions being pumped into the banks to pay for their mistakes and the hardship being endured by our citizens.

The ECB policy of protecting bank bondholders, whatever the monetary or social cost, makes no economic sense. It is economic madness. It is reckless. The Government needs to call time on it. The policy being implemented is leading to dangerous social consequences for our citizens. We are seeing it everywhere. I am sure the Taoiseach has first-hand experience of it. The Government has chosen to retain the universal social charge and to introduce new taxes on property and water. We are familiar with the forthcoming household charge. Schools are losing special needs assistants. I have referred to the plight of patients in our hospitals. Young people are having to emigrate and almost 500,000 citizens are on the dole.

The Taoiseach needs to impress on the other eurozone leaders that the Irish people are no longer prepared to carry the can for the gamblers and speculators in the finance and banking sectors. To date, he has refused to listen to Sinn Féin’s advice on these matters. That is his entitlement. Sin é. That is his choice. All of us have had to learn to listen to opposing voices. The Taoiseach represents us all at this summit. As he has testified on many occasions, Ireland is a good place. Our people are good people. They do not deserve to be walked over. The Taoiseach needs to make a stand.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: When I spoke a number of weeks ago, before the previous European summit, I gave the Taoiseach two messages. First, I told him that we are in the middle of a hostile negotiation. From day one, the people we are negotiating with have acted explicitly against the interests of this country and its people. Second, I said the Taoiseach should remind those he meets in Europe that they are not bailing us out. We are bailing them out. There is a net transfer from the Irish people to European financial institutions. If that message can get through, it changes the conversation. The Minister of State with responsibility for Europe responded to me by saying I did not understand the situation. She started to defend Angela Merkel by saying her actions needed to be seen in the context of her political needs. In response to a parliamentary question I tabled recently, the Minister for Finance as good as denied any knowledge of any threats by the ECB to Ireland, despite the fact that Professor Honohan went on the record and spoke about those threats on television. It is worrying that the response of the Taoiseach’s team to my last message was based on a combination of deference and denial. Therefore, I will transmit a different message today.

The Taoiseach said in his opening address that “we need an outcome that offers certainty and security”. I do not think that can be achieved by treating debt with more debt. Europe’s [515]failed approach has put the survival of the euro at risk. That was inconceivable a small number of months ago. I suggest that the Taoiseach might raise the possibility of Europe printing money, which is what the UK and the US have done. UK exporters to Ireland have a 30% price advantage over our domestic business community as a result of this approach. The ECB is not allowed to take such action, however, because it is required to keep inflation in Europe below 2%. If the rules can be relaxed and we can agree to higher inflation of 5%, 6% or 7% for a few years, we will have a huge advantage. If we print money — it is known as “quantitative easing”— we will erase debt in real terms at the sovereign level, the banking level and the personal level. It would make Europe far more competitive as an exporting zone. I ask the Taoiseach to bring that to the table at the summit.

Deputy Shane Ross: I would like to echo what my colleagues have said in wishing the Taoiseach well at tomorrow’s vital summit. I am a little concerned about the message he sent in his speech. There seemed to be a complacency about this meeting that did not exist two days ago, before Mrs. Merkel said yesterday that Germany does not expect a sudden solution to be found on Thursday. We need a sudden solution and we need it now. The Taoiseach said “the crisis in the euro area will not be resolved overnight”. The Taoiseach and I know that Ireland is very close to midnight. That is not what Mrs. Merkel is saying. We should not doff the cap to her so often. The markets are saying clearly that Greece is bankrupt and is going to default, that Portugal is going to default and that Ireland is going to default. There should be no shame in defaulting if that is necessary. No shame on our part is attached to the fact that our rogue bankers borrowed money from European banks.

The Irish taxpayer must not be held to ransom in Europe tomorrow by the Taoiseach. No concessions should be made. We do not need what the Taoiseach carefully called “a measured debate” in here today. We need a passionate debate which says we are going to Europe with the message that Ireland comes first. I am distressed by the pattern that was evident again when we listened to what Mrs. Merkel had to say yesterday. The emphasis in the Irish voice moved from a sudden and immediate emergency to a direct reflection of what Mrs. Merkel had to say. We do not need to do that. We are almost whistling past the graveyard at this stage. It will not be good enough to hear the mantra or message of “we will do a little better on the interest rates” once more.

We should bear in mind that the Minister for Finance said a few weeks ago that the interest rate does not matter very much at this stage. He said that as an excuse at a time when he was not being very successful, but he was right. The importance of the interest rate issue is diminishing by the day. We should not hear about how the fund will get bigger, or how the maturities will be extended. The problem is far greater than that. This summit should produce results for Ireland and for Europe. We cannot postpone it any further because the markets will not tolerate it. The message from the markets after each of the recent big summits and each announcement has been to give the thumbs-down to Ireland, Greece and Portugal. The bond yields have headed up after each solution because it was a fudge. I ask the Taoiseach to take to Brussels the message that Ireland is not ashamed to advocate default in the context of a structured and agreed default within the European context. He should emphasise that we need surgery, rather than a band aid.

I repeat my earlier call for the Dáil to sit on Friday or Monday so Members have an opportunity to hear from the Taoiseach and question him about what happened at this summit, which might be the most important conference ever held in the EU.

I do not believe in the normal cry from members of the Opposition for us to come in during the holidays, but this is the most important event that has happened in the Taoiseach’s term in [516]office and it would not be too much to ask that he comes back here and that we have an opportunity to find out what happened at that conference.

Deputy Joan Collins: Will the Taoiseach go to the EU tomorrow with a clear statement that this madness must end? Since 2008 there have been €20 billion in cuts. These have come in charges, levies, taxes and increased interest rates on mortgage debt all across the line, and taxes on low and moderate incomes. This policy has enormously deepened the recession. Demand has been cut by 25%, and yet still we have an €18 billion budget deficit. We are not one step further on. Austerity has not worked and it will not work, and that message must go to the leaders of the European Union.

As the Taoiseach will be aware, this country needs growth and jobs. It needs to reduce welfare costs and increase the tax base. Another €4 billion of austerity next year would be a disaster. It would be a slow economic strangulation of the economy, and we cannot tolerate it. The words, “Can’t pay, won’t pay,” are on everybody’s lips. The Irish people cannot take anymore. On top of this, the burden of the bank bailout is not sustainable. Apart from being immoral and unjust, the idea that a solution will come — on which I agree with the Taoiseach — with the problems surrounding the EU on Thursday is wishful thinking.

The EU project has run up against a simple fact. It is still a Europe based on nation states with national interests. French banks are most exposed to the Greek write down and state that they are in opposition to debt sharing between the banks and bondholders. On the other hand, the German taxpayers will not swallow bailing out peripheral countries. At the same time, we are told that we must be good boys and girls and take the cuts.

We need a new approach. We need to reject the rotten IMF-ECB deal that has wrecked the economy and the health, education and social services and that is destroying lives and livelihood, and we must default. We must call for a cancellation of the debt, along with Portugal and Greece and the other countries now being affected by the euro crisis. It is not a crisis; we are nearly facing into an abyss at this stage.

I put it to the Taoiseach that we must also raise with the European Union that Ireland should leave the euro if it does not accept cancellation of the debt to re-finance the State and re-inflate the economy. On the banks, we must abandon the bailout. These are failed entities and we must start anew, take control and ownership of our banking system and use that then to release money into the economy which is not being released now. We must set up a new bank to deal with mortgage debt, write down the debt of mortgages and release the debt burden on people.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: As the Taoiseach heads off to this meeting, has it dawned on him even a little that the EU, IMF and ECB simply do not have a clue what they are doing, and that the policy of bailing out the bankers and the bondholders and imposing brutal austerity on ordinary people is not only unjust but is making the crisis worse and is spreading the contagion? Has it occurred to him — flashed on his radar screen at all — that the EU-IMF medicine is a poison that, rather than curing, threatens to kill the patient? Has it crossed his mind that the EU, IMF and ECB do not care what happens to ordinary citizens here, working people and those with special needs, but are simply acting as the agents of the financial markets and big corporate interests which want to asset strip this country, Greece and Portugal just as they have done elsewhere?

Does the Taoiseach know, for example, anything at all about the history of the IMF and the trail of destruction, poverty and war that it has left in its wake as it has gone in to assist countries? Does he know, for example, that two champions of IMF austerity and privatisation [517]programmes are General Pinochet in Chile and the not lamented former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and that the IMF policies they imposed on their countries in so-called structural adjustment devastated those countries and their people? Does the Taoiseach want to go down in history in the company of tyrants such as Pinochet and Mubarak who imposed such brutal policies on the people of their countries? Does it jar with the Taoiseach that as he and others in this House, and the bankers, developers and politicians who helped create and preside over this crisis, head off on their holidays, hundreds of thousands of working people here will not have any holidays and will not even know whether they can meet the bills over the summer months? Is it not time to say the bankers and financiers who caused the crisis should pay for it and that our natural resources and the wealth in our society should be used to create jobs and protect public services and the vulnerable in our society instead of bailing out the insatiable monster that has wrecked the European economy?

The Taoiseach: I agreed to this debate yesterday because of the request made by Members that we should have a pre-Council discussion here, and on the basis that this is a meeting of the euro zone and it is important. I thank all of the Members who contributed to it.

Deputy Martin made two comments relevant to what is on the agenda for tomorrow: that something should be done about bank debt and that there will be an interest rate reduction. Those were the two essential points of relevance for tomorrow’s meeting that came from the leader of Fianna Fáil, and he talked about all the other extraneous issues that are irrelevant to what is on the agenda for tomorrow.

Deputy Adams, in fairness, has not deviated from what he articulated previously. I disagree with it, but he put it on the record. Deputy Donnelly made a, from his point of view, valid suggestion, that we should have security and certainty, for which I thank him.

Deputy Ross left after delivering his message about complacency. We recognise the challenges that the country faces. We are financed up until the end of 2013. There are options being discussed now, for instance, in regard to Spain, as to what other facilities might be made available. I want to see, if anything is being given of benefit in respect of the difficulty arising from Greece, that the same applies to this country. In the absence of Deputy Ross, I can tell him that the Dáil will not sit here on Monday but he will have an opportunity to go to the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform and give his views.

Deputy Joan Collins spoke about austerity not working and increasing the tax base. She stated that what we need is more work and I agree with that. We need a new approach. She rejects the IMF deal and stated that the county must default and that we should leave the euro. Does she have any idea——

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: If necessary.

The Taoiseach: ——of the consequences of what she is talking about?

Deputy Joan Collins: If necessary.

The Taoiseach: Does Deputy Joan Collins have any idea of the consequences of what she just put on the record of the House?

Deputy Joan Collins: I have an idea of what is happening in the country.

The Taoiseach: Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke about Pinochet and Mubarak. I have no intention of being equated with those individuals——

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: Policies, policies.

[518]The Taoiseach: ——nor have I any intention of leaving aside my duties when the House is in recess.

The discussions currently going on in terms of the agenda to be determined for tomorrow are important. Obviously, the issues that have been put out here need decision by the eurozone leaders and as I have stated to the Dáil, I hope the process of making decisions, separate from any private sector involvement here, will demonstrate that the eurozone countries are prepared to back themselves up, particularly in regard to a country like Ireland which has met all the conditions of the austere and challenging circumstance in which we find ourselves. From that point of view, I am keen to see a situation where decisions are made that bring to an end the concern and anxiety about a contagion spreading from Greece to other countries. That is why the meeting is taking place now. There is a range of issues on which, I hope, the meeting will focus in order to make decisions.

We have gone through the process of imposing significant burdens on subordinated bondholders. As I said, we do not regard that book as being closed in regard to Anglo Irish Bank. However, people should be clear on what they are arguing about. A failure on the part of a private enterprise, even one that must be taken into public ownership as a result of chronic mismanagement, is one thing — that is part of the commercial reality in which people operate — but the situation of a country is very different. The failure of a country to pay back what it has borrowed causes real and lasting damage to its reputation and future ability to borrow. It causes great pain and suffering for its people who must bear the brunt of any such action. This is something countries only do only as an absolute last resort.

I realise several countries have been pushing hard to have the private sector share the load of the public purse in any new arrangement for Greece. This reflects the fact that in several countries it has become increasingly difficult for the government to secure the agreement of the Parliament on what is needed by way of support from others. I cannot inform the House what will be agreed tomorrow — nor can anyone else who intends to attend the meeting of the eurozone Heads of State — whether the private sector will play a part and, if so, to what extent. However, I will continue to do everything possible to impress upon the leaders and partners the need to ensure what takes place does not damage this country’s interests. We are implementing our programme, working hard and delivering. This is not the assessment of the Government but that of the IMF. It would be a great injustice if our prospects for recovery were to suffer a setback through no fault of our own.

Deputy Martin called for this debate yesterday. Although I do not agree with them, there were other suggestions from Deputies not elected for any party. Deputy Martin has stated his position clearly, as he has always done. All I got from the leader of the Fianna Fáil Party were comments on issues related to Roscommon County Hospital, to this, that and the other.

Deputy Micheál Martin: That is not true. The Taoiseach should not be outrageous.

The Taoiseach: The Deputy made two comments which were fundamental to the agenda.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Obviously, what I said hurt.

The Taoiseach: First, he said something should be done on the issue of bank debt——

Deputy Micheál Martin: I said a good deal more than that.

The Taoiseach: ——and, second, that there would be an interest rate reduction.

Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach did not deal with the issue.

[519]The Taoiseach: This was without evidence or an idea or offering a proposal about what we should do in the context of the agenda to be discussed tomorrow.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I gave the Taoiseach proposals. Obviously, what I said hurt. My speech did not sit well with the Taoiseach who told us nothing.

The Taoiseach: It will be my duty and responsibility tomorrow to defend Ireland’s interests, to participate in the European discussion on decisions that must be made to prevent the spread of a contagion, to prevent that risk from materialising, to provide for some certainty and decisiveness for the future. That is what I intend to do.

Deputy Micheál Martin: To defend what? What is the Taoiseach putting on the table?

An Ceann Comhairle: Deputy, please.

The Taoiseach: I will think about granting requests for these debates in the future when we will allow Deputies to bring forward serious propositions.

Deputy Micheál Martin: Is the Taoiseach a dictator or something? He is going to think about it.

The Taoiseach: I have heard some suggestions, but, regrettably, all I have heard from the Deputy is that there will be an interest rate reduction. He did not even have the temerity to state how that would happen. I look forward to participating in the meeting tomorrow and will be pleased to report progress in a variety of fora when it is over.

The Taoiseach: I move:

That Dáil Éireann:

notes the publication of the report by the Commission of Investigation into the handling by Church and State authorities of allegations and suspicions of child sexual abuse against clerics of the Catholic Diocese of Cloyne;

expresses its sympathy with the victims whose suffering is set out in the report;

expresses its thanks to the Commission of Investigation for their work carried out with sensitivity;

expresses its dismay at the disturbing findings of the report and at the inadequate and inappropriate response, particularly of the Church authorities in Cloyne, to complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse;

deplores the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the Irish State and the Irish bishops;

welcomes the publication of the Children First National Guidance 2011, the full and consistent implementation of which will be given priority, and welcomes the approval by Government for the preparation of legislation to require statutory compliance with the Children First National Guidance;

acknowledges that child protection requires a cross-societal awareness and a purposeful co-operative response from all organisations working with children;

welcomes the publication of the provisions concerning the Criminal Justice (Withholding Information on Crimes against Children and Vulnerable Adults) Bill 2011 [520]and welcomes the announcement made that the heads of the National Vetting Bureau Bill 2011 will be published by the end of July 2011 and furnished to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for a consultative process; and

affirms its determination that the State will take all necessary measures to protect its children.

The revelations in the Cloyne report have brought the Government, Irish Catholics and the Vatican to an unprecedented juncture. It is fair to say that after the Ryan and Murphy reports, Ireland is, perhaps, unshockable when it comes to the abuse of children. However, the Cloyne report has proved to be of a different order because for the first time in this country a report on child sexual abuse exposes an attempt by the Holy See to frustrate an inquiry in a sovereign, democratic republic as little as three years ago, not three decades ago. In doing so the report excavates the dysfunction, disconnection and elitism that dominate the culture of the Vatican to this day. The rape and torture of children were down-played or managed to uphold the primacy of the institution, its power, standing and reputation. Far from listening to evidence of humiliation and betrayal with St. Benedict’s “ear of the heart”, the Vatican’s reaction was to parse and analyse it with the gimlet eye of a Canon lawyer. This calculated, withering position is the polar opposite of the radicalism, humility and compassion on which the Roman Church was founded. Such radicalism, humility and compassion comprise the essence of its foundation and purpose. This behaviour is a case of Roma locuta est: causa finita est, except in this instance nothing could be further from the truth.

The Cloyne report’s revelations are heart-breaking. It describes how many victims continued to live in the small towns and parishes in which they were reared and abused. Their abuser was often still in the area and still held in high regard by their families and community. The abusers continued to officiate at family weddings and funerals. In one case, the abuser even officiated at a victim’s wedding. There is little that I or anyone else in the House can say to comfort that victim or others, however much we wish to. However, we can and do recognise the bravery and courage of all the victims who told their stories to the commission. While it will take a long time for Cloyne to recover from the horrors uncovered, it could take the victims and their families a lifetime to pick up the pieces of their shattered existence, if ever they do.

One day after the publication of the report the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade met the Papal Nuncio to Ireland, Archbishop Giuseppe Leanza. The Tánaiste left the archbishop clear on two things: the gravity of the actions and attitude of the Holy See and Ireland’s complete rejection and abhorrence of same. The papal nuncio undertook to present the Cloyne report to the Vatican. The Government now awaits the considered response of the Holy See.

The people, including the many faithful Catholics who, like me, have been shocked and dismayed by the repeated failings of church authorities to face up to what is required. They deserve and require confirmation from the Vatican that it does accept, endorse and require compliance by all church authorities here with the obligations to report all cases of suspected abuse, whether current or historical, to the State’s authorities in line with the Children First national guidance which will have the force of law.

Clericalism has rendered some of Ireland’s brightest and most privileged and powerful men either unwilling or unable to address the horrors cited in the Ryan and Murphy reports. This Roman clericalism must be devastating for good priests, some of them old, others struggling to keep their humanity, even their sanity, as they work hard to be the keepers of the church’s light and goodness within their parishes, communities and the condition of the human heart. Thankfully for them and us, this is not Rome. Nor is it industrial school or Magdalene Ireland, [521]where the swish of a soutane, smothered conscience and humanity and the swing of a thurible ruled the Irish Catholic world. This is the Republic of Ireland in 2011. It is a republic of laws, rights and responsibilities and proper civic order where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular version of a particular kind of morality will no longer be tolerated or ignored.

As a practising Catholic, I do not say any of this easily. Growing up, many of us in here learned that we were part of a pilgrim church. Today, that church needs to be a penitent church, a church truly and deeply penitent for the horrors it perpetrated, hid and denied — in the name of God, but for the good of the institution.

Through our legislation, through our Government’s action to put children first, those who have been abused can take some small comfort in knowing that they belong to a nation — to a democracy — where humanity, power, rights and responsibilities are enshrined and enacted always for their good; where the law — their law, as citizens of this country — will always supersede canon law that has neither legitimacy nor place in the affairs of this country.

This report tells us a tale of a frankly brazen disregard for protecting children. If we do not respond swiftly and appropriately as a State, we will have to prepare ourselves for more reports like this. I agree with Archbishop Martin that the church needs to publish any other and all other reports like this as soon as possible. I note the commission is very positive about the work of the National Board for Safeguarding Children, established by the church to oversee the operation by dioceses and religious orders. The commission notes that all church authorities were required to sign a contract with the national board agreeing to implement the relevant standards and that those refusing to sign would be named in the board’s annual report. Progress has been in no small measure due to the commitment of Mr. Ian Elliott and others.

There is some small comfort to be drawn by the people of Cloyne from the fact that the commission compliments the efforts made by the diocese since 2008 in training, in vetting personnel and in the risk management of priests against whom allegations have been made. Nevertheless, the behaviour of Bishop Magee and Monsignor O’Callaghan show how fragile even good standards and policies are to the weakness and willful disregard of those who fail to give the right priority to safeguarding our children.

If the Vatican needs to get its house in order, so too does this State. The report of the commission is rightly critical of the entirely unsatisfactory position which the last Government allowed to persist over many years. The unseemly bickering between the Minister of State with responsibility for children and the HSE over the statutory powers to deal with extra-familial abuse, the failure to produce legislation to enable the exchange of soft information, as promised after the Ferns inquiry, and the long period of confusion and disjointed responsibility for child protection within the HSE, as reported by the commission, are simply not acceptable to me nor in a society which values children and their safety.

For too long Ireland has neglected some of its children. Just last week, we saw a case of the torture of children within the family come before the courts. Just two days ago, we were repulsed by the case of a Donegal registered sex offender and school caretaker, which involved children and young adults reduced to human wreckage. This raises questions and issues of serious import for State agencies.

We are set to embark on a course of action to ensure the State is doing all it can to safeguard our children. The Minister, Deputy Shatter, is bringing forward two Bills, first, to make it an offence to withhold information relating to crimes against children and vulnerable adults, and, second, at long last, to allow for the exchange of soft information on abusers.

[522]As Taoiseach, I want to do all I can to protect the sacred space of childhood and to restore its innocence, especially for our young teenagers, because, regardless of our current economic crisis, our children are, and always will be, our most precious possession of all. Safeguarding their integrity and innocence must be a national priority. This is why I undertook to create a Cabinet ministry for Children and Youth Affairs. The legislation, Children First, proposes to give our children maximum protection and security without intruding on the hectic, magical business of being a child.

The then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger said: “Standards of conduct appropriate to civil society or the workings of a democracy cannot be purely and simply applied to the Church”. As the Holy See prepares its considered response to the Cloyne Report, I want to make it clear, as Taoiseach, that when it comes to the protection of the children of this State, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself cannot and will not be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this republic — not purely, or simply or otherwise, because children have to be and will be put first.

Deputy Micheál Martin: I wish to share time with Deputy Calleary.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Micheál Martin: It is appropriate that the motion before the House is signed by party and group leaders because the only acceptable reaction to this report is unity between us all to condemn the actions it exposes, support the victims and affirm our joint commitment to action. The report is very moving for me because I intimately know many of the communities which have been affected by this abuse. They are strong communities with a great spirit. They have vibrant sports clubs and family facilities. The Church has always played a significant role. It has been respected and valued by both people of faith and the wider community.

The undeniable facts in this report show a different picture of the Catholic Church in Cloyne. Abusers were allowed to use their status as clergy to carry out the most appalling crimes and the church’s leadership in the diocese and in Rome showed a callous disregard for safety and the rights of the most vulnerable members of its flock. This was done not simply to avoid scandal. It went much further and involved a wilful refusal to respect basic moral and legal responsibilities.

The abuse of children should never take place, but where it does, simple humanity requires swift and resolute intervention. We do not need regulations to understand this fundamental morality. However, a significant framework of regulation and legal sanctions has been in place for a long time. No person within any organisation, be it public or private, has any excuse for not knowing exactly what to do when there is even a general suspicion of child abuse. The intervention of church authorities in undermining child protection rules in recent years is nothing short of an outrage and a betrayal of those who look to them for moral leadership.

When the evidence of their failures were exposed, the reaction of key Church authorities has given little assurance that they understand the scale and depth of the outrage felt by ordinary people. This is not something that can be dismissed as a plot by a secular elite against a church. In fact, most of the strongest views I have heard come from people who have great faith in the spiritual teachings of the church.

In my meeting last year with the papal nuncio, I made it clear that the Irish State expected the Vatican’s full co-operation in the investigation into abuse in the Cloyne diocese and in all other investigations. Its defensiveness and focus on the institutional interests of the church rather than those of the children abused by its clergy and shielded by its leaders will continue to cause great damage.

[523]We should acknowledge the stand of some church leaders, most especially Archbishop Martin. The church will only retain a place of importance in our society if his colleagues follow him in his impressive commitment to acknowledging and addressing the failure of the church over too many years.

The Ryan report exposed in great detail the systematic brutalisation and exploitation of children through many decades.

It showed what is probably the darkest chapter in our history as an independent State. Thousands of children who had the right to expect their State to protect and nurture them were abused in the most appalling ways within mostly church controlled institutions. The report has highlighted how the problem of abuse and institutional cover-up is not only a concern of the past but is also not something anyone can be complacent about.

The Ryan report emerged because of a brave group of survivors who many years into their adult lives were determined to get justice and support healing. I met many of them before and after I proposed the establishment of that commission of inquiry. I did not want to add a partisan note to the debate but I was struck by what the Taoiseach said about the previous Minister and Government. The survivors of the Goldenbridge institutions had been refused access to the then rainbow Government and officials for several years and it was only the television documentary that gave them a profile in the public arena. They had been denied a response from the State for many years before we proposed the establishment of that commission. I admire very much their courage, integrity and continued commitment to many survivors.

2 o’clock

I also initiated the first inquiry into abuse in a church diocese in Ferns. Mr. George Birmingham did an outstanding job on that. We did not expect there would be further shocking revelations from the dioceses of Dublin and Cloyne. The significance of the Cloyne report is that many of the victims of abuse are much younger than those covered by the Ryan report and, in many cases, they are clearly only beginning to come to terms with the abuse they suffered. It is right that we thank the commission of investigation for carrying out a difficult assignment with sensitivity and thoroughness. I welcome the general measures proposed for dealing with what has been outlined in the report. Our consideration of the legislation should be thorough and fast. Equally, where there is a need for further forensic investigations, particularly in regard to other dioceses, they should be carried out.

Deputy Dara Calleary: I endorse the motion and the contributions of the Taoiseach and Deputy Martin. The motion and the report send a strong message of support to those who suffered abuse. However, on this occasion there is an even stronger message of condemnation of those who perpetrated the abuse and the strongest message should be directed at those who covered it up in Cloyne, the Vatican and elsewhere. They, in full knowledge of the horrendous impact of abuse arising from previous commissions of inquiries, cases and disclosures and in full knowledge of the fact that it was either happening within their own organisation or in their area, proceeded with contempt for survivors and victims, contempt for their own church and the members and colleagues who serve it and contempt, in the case of the Vatican, for the laws of an independent nation state with, ultimately, a shared contempt for the truth. That contempt had its foundations in one aim — the protection of friends and colleagues, a protection given and offered to the cost of victims and survivors, the church and, ultimately, the truth.

We have been here previously. All-party motions were tabled on the Ryan, Ferns and Murphy reports and we expressed similar sentiments then, yet we are back in the House again. The most shocking aspect of the Cloyne report is that we are here at all. This abuse did not happen 50 or 60 years ago in a different era. The report covers how abuse allegations were handled between 1996 and 2009. It explicitly states:

[524]

The greatest failure by the Diocese of Cloyne was its failure to report all complaints to the Gardaí. Between 1996 and 2005, there were 15 complaints which very clearly should have been reported by the diocese to the Gardaí...Of these 15, nine were not reported.

This was only 15 years ago and the report covers the period after that covered by the Ferns report. The Ferns report, published in 2005, found that bishops at that time placed the interests of individual priests ahead of those of the community in which they served, yet this practice continued unabated in Cloyne. The Murphy report has also shown this was also the practice in the Dublin archdiocese for a 30-year period. This gives us three dioceses with three similar practices of cover up.

As the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs stated last week, we cannot say with certainty that the same is not true in every other diocese. That certainty is needed. Victims and survivors need that certainty to get the peace they deserve. The country needs certainty to move on and the vast majority of priests and members of the Catholic Church who were not part of this need that certainty. It must be ensured that the HSE audit of the 24 dioceses is published in September. The church must get its act together and finalise its audit. Surely at this stage, given the time expended on this, it is not too much to ask that the audit be published by the end of this year. Publication of the audits will allow us for the first time to establish the scale of abuse throughout the county and we will only then be able to say with certainty that we can begin the process of moving on.

However, there is one caveat. The manner in which the Vatican interfered in the Cloyne diocese is appalling and the report is direct about this. According to the authors, the response of the Vatican to the framework document “can only be described as unsupportive especially in relation to reporting to the civil authorities. The effect was to strengthen the position of those who dissented from the official stated Irish Church policy”. Those who dissented were not interested in the protection of the children. The response from the Vatican was in the interest of the protection of friends and colleagues at the expense of children.

It is exactly one week since the publication of the report by the Government and the Vatican has yet to issue a formal response. Its only response was through a spokesman this morning who, in a personal capacity, said there was nothing in the advice given by the nuncio in 1997 to encourage bishops to break Irish laws. He said the Vatican’s advice on child protection policies could not be interpreted as an invitation to cover up abuse. Does the Vatican take us, the people of Ireland, for fools? The Congregation for the Clergy of the Vatican told Irish bishops that the framework document was “not an official document of the Episcopal Conference but merely a study document. It further stated it contained “procedures and dispositions which appear contrary to canonical discipline and which, if applied, could invalidate the acts of some Bishops who were attempting to put a stop to this problem. If such procedures were to be followed by the Bishops and there were cases of eventual hierarchical recourse lodged at the Holy See, the results could be highly embarrassing and detrimental to those same Diocesan authorities”.

This is the most damning line. There is no indication of any concern on the part of Vatican for the children who were abused. While the Vatican authorities might not have encouraged bishops to break the laws, they encouraged them to put the reputation of the church before the protection of children. They were more worried about embarrassment than the damage of abuse. In how many other dioceses did the Vatican interfere in the manner it did in Cloyne? We need to ascertain this to truly believe the forthcoming audits. Will the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs consider compelling the HSE to include this in its audit because we will be unable to believe other audits unless this is included?

[525]The legislative response will come before the health and justice committees. I propose that consideration be given to establishing a joint sub-committee of both committees so that spokespersons in both portfolios can be involved. I welcome the indication that the criminal justice (withholding information on crimes against children and vulnerable adults) Bill will be introduced in September. Given the discussion that has developed around this issue in recent days, August might be used for consultation on it so people with genuine concerns will have an opportunity to put forward their views to the justice committee in a dispassionate manner. Heads of the legislation may be ready by the end of the month. If so, consultation would be possible in August.

Developments in the vetting bureau are also welcome. I acknowledge the efforts made by the Minister for Justice and Equality in addressing the backlog in the Garda vetting system. However, unless the resources issues at the bureau are addressed, our shared ambition to introduce vetting legislation will amount to nothing.

We cannot again gather on another report to express our disgust and anger at what has happened. Archbishop Martin has challenged the Catholic Church by stating it can never rest until the last abuse victim has found peace. We, too, must put legislative building blocks in place and not rest until we have done our bit to give the victims peace.

Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: While Sinn Féin supports the motion, we would have preferred to see the stronger language contained in a previous draft employed. The motion expresses how the House deplores the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the State and Irish bishops. Previously, the motion expressed condemnation. We in Sinn Féin still express condemnation of this scandalous intervention.

The events in Cloyne documented in the report may span a considerable period, but they did not take place 100 years ago. There was still abuse in Cloyne while preparations for the commencement of the deliberations of the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children were under way. It continued up to a couple of years ago.

This is a 400-page document that shows that 17 years after the Brendan Smyth debacle brought down the then Fianna Fáil-Labour Party Government in 1994, the official Catholic Church has learned nothing. While the State has neglected its duties by failing to put mandatory reporting requirements in place earlier, in Cloyne Bishop John Magee held Canon Law superior to the civil law of the land. That disposition directly led to the abuse of more children through not adhering to correct reporting procedures and, thereby, placed more children at risk.

How many inquiries do we have to go through before real action is taken on this dreadful neglect? We have seen the Murphy, Ferns and Cloyne reports. The Catholic Church still controls many of our schools. As stated, this report investigates incidents which only took place a short number of years ago. I shudder to think of the real facts, the full story. Will more reports and inquiries on the lack of adherence to reporting protocols have to be commissioned?

The papal nuncio refused to answer queries from a commission of inquiry and claimed diplomatic immunity. The same papal nuncio still has the role of issuing Vatican instructions to the bishops in this country. I expect that if a school system operated and directly controlled by a third party state in Ireland consistently failed to report allegations of child sexual abuse against its teachers and ancillary employees to the Garda, that state’s ambassador would be required to answer questions. If he or she failed to do so, he or she would be asked to leave. The church is not above the law and it is high time it stopped thinking it was. Fr. Federico Lombardi may claim his recent remarks were made in a personal capacity, but this is the disingenuous double-speak that must come to an end.

[526]Bishop John Magee had no interest in protecting the children of Cloyne and fobbed off his responsibility to Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan who equally had no interest in reporting the abuse of children to the authorities. Bishop John Magee actively and knowingly lied to the Government, the health service and the Garda. He concealed information on the crimes committed by the priests in his diocese. He actively engaged in the reckless and, at times, wilful endangerment of children.

There are prosecutions to be faced by those who perpetrated crimes against children, either through directly abusing them or being complicit in the cover-up of their abuse. Nothing less, I fear, will bring to an end this lurid regime.

Two thirds of complaints made between 1996 and 2008 were not reported to the Garda and no complaint was passed to the Health Service Executive during this period. While Members of this House, including the current Ministers for Children and Youth Affairs and Justice and Equality, were sitting in a committee room deliberating on the rights of children, Bishop John Magee was still not reporting allegations of abuse.

The cardinals may have apologised for this report, but that is not good enough. The official church has disgraced itself in the handling of this most serious of issues. It is absolutely disgusting and goes right to the top. The bishops, with the Vatican, played a major role in aggravating the level of abuse of children in Ireland. The Cloyne report, measured in its tone, has found the Vatican’s reaction to the 1996 framework document was “entirely unhelpful” to any bishop who wanted to implement it, while giving any bishop the individual freedom to ignore it. We now need cast-iron guarantees from the church authorities that they will adhere to the civil law when it comes to the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse when it is introduced with immediate effect. They have a moral obligation to do so. However, moral obligations on members of the clergy in Cloyne have not worked well in the past. Accordingly, we also need cast-iron guarantees from the State that if any more flagrant breaches of the law which we have seen on many occasions in the past must be held to account.

For the Vatican to state the framework document of 1997 was merely a study document rather than an official document was nothing short of an insult to the survivors and victims of abuse. It stated it had “serious reservations of a moral and canonical nature” about the document. It is now up to it to state exactly what it meant by having moral reservations about reporting allegations of abuse or the actual knowledge that some Cloyne clerics were child molesters.

The Vatican, through the papal nuncio, refused to explain to the commission of inquiry in 2005 why the updated guidelines were not recognised officially by the church. Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan actively obstructed the implementation of these guidelines in Cloyne. It is this complete and unreserved disregard that some senior voices in the church have for child protection in this case that is hard to stomach. There have now been three statutory inquiries into abuse in church dioceses in Ireland in which child protection procedures were found wanting. Will there be more?

Only in 2009 Cardinal Seán Brady said Bishop John Magee was “dependable and reliable” and that he did not need to resign. This was a man who had been found by the church’s own national board for safeguarding children to be presiding over practices that were both inadequate and actually dangerous. It is a scandal.

Many have said we can learn from all of these reports. It is hard to see how so many reports highlighting similar failures can all have different lessons from which we can learn. In looking at the lessons of the Cloyne report, will the Minister agree we can teach others? Last December the Executive in the Six Counties announced the setting up of an inquiry into historical insti[527]tutional abuse in the North. A cross-departmental working group set up to examine how an inquiry would proceed reported to the Executive almost a fortnight ago. A decision will be made on how to investigate crimes committed in institutions, those run by the Catholic Church and State-run institutions, in the autumn. The Minister will also be aware that several dioceses, including Raphoe, Derry, Clogher and Armagh, stretch across the Border. In looking at possible future inquiries in other dioceses, it may be useful to co-ordinate with the initiative under way in the Six Counties. Members of the Northern Executive may also benefit from the experience of Members, victims groups and wider civil society as to how the inquiries into abuse in the Twenty-six Counties have been handled. Several meetings with individuals have taken place. We may benefit from having a more structured or formal approach.

If the Vatican has demonstrated contempt and disregard for the concerns of the State and the abuse investigations, it is only in keeping with the arrogance with which it approaches the mechanisms for the protection of international human rights. The Vatican was due to submit its second report under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1997. Fourteen years on, it still has not done so. It was supposed to submit its first report under the UN Convention against Torture in 2003. Eight years on, it still has not done so.

In countries and continents across the world the Catholic Church, acting as a religious organisation when it suits its interests and as a state with all the protections that entails when it suits, has covered up the abuse and torture of hundreds of thousands of innocent children and young people. While many of these cases may have occurred in the past, the cover-ups are taking place today. The determination to avoid accountability is therefore today’s crime.

As a candidate country for the United Nations Human Rights Council and one struggling to deal with the legacies of generations of abuse, Ireland should be able to show leadership on the international stage by calling on the Vatican to stop acting like a rogue state and live up to the commitments it has made by signing and ratifying binding international human rights treaties. As a Catholic, it is my strong belief that my church should not be a reluctant convert to the protection of human rights and children. Surely it should be in the global vanguard in respect of these issues. That it is not saddens and offends. This must change.

The Vatican has behaved disgracefully. Its ambiguous nature, claiming to be a state and expecting to be treated thus internationally but without the burden of its agents having to adhere to national laws in other states, has meant it has received preferential treatment under a succession of Irish Governments. The persistent attitude of acting solely in the interests of self-protection is fundamentally anti-Christian. It is sad to note there is a real likelihood that those who for so long have been ordained with this doctrine of complicity and silence will not easily abandon such habits. That said, it is important to reflect that there are many good priests in all dioceses of the Catholic Church.

When Israel compromised Irish passports it was taken to task. Hundreds of children and young people have been raped and abused by members of an institution controlled by the Vatican. Their actions led to the amplification of the devastating emotional and psychological consequences of abuse. Are we to truly believe this is a matter of just a few bad eggs? It is striking that the Cloyne report found there were concerns raised about almost 8% of the 163 priests serving in the diocese in 1996. It is ten years since the State’s official apology for its role in abuse yet the response by the relevant authorities in the report was demonstrably wholly inadequate. The church failed to uphold child protection procedures and repeatedly failed to report complaints to the Garda. Meanwhile, the Garda failed to fully investigate complaints. The State must apologise again to the victims of abuse for its failings.

The report details one case where, despite Garda assurances, the commission found no evidence of police investigations into allegations by two women against a single priest. The com[528]mission stated it was concerned and does not accept there was a proper investigation into the complaints against the priest named as Father Corin. I welcome the joint statement issued by the Ministers for Justice and Equality and Children and Youth Affairs on the publication of the report wherein they express “profound sorrow” regarding the failures of the State. While this motion may be about Cloyne, the State still has questions to answer regarding its procedures. There is an overwhelming sense of déjà vu with all of this.

Only this week, as Deputies are aware, we heard of a case in County Donegal where the owners of a school premises continued to employ a man convicted of sexually assaulting a young male despite the Garda expressing concern about the matter. I am informed that the owner of the school was in court when the individual in question was convicted on a litany of sample rape and abuse charges, including the making of child pornography. The head of the school stated the keys of the building were taken from him when the school authorities learned of his conviction. Despite this, the individual in question continued to do odd jobs around the school premises. Michael Ferry should never have been allowed to set foot inside the walls of a school or any premises that catered to the needs of children and young adults ever again. How many other similar cases are there across this country? Either way, this case shows a wretched failure of procedure within the school in question and demonstrates the need for the Government to bring forward the publication of the national vetting bureau Bill and establish the long awaited child welfare and protection agency. I ask the Government to resource these bodies accordingly and ensure they are effective and capable of carrying out their responsibilities. Procedures, as we have seen ad nauseam, are of no use unless implemented. I wish the Ministers for Justice and Equality and Children and Youth Affairs well in ensuring these measures are put in place at the earliest opportunity.

Deputy John Halligan: I will share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Maureen O’Sullivan, Wallace and Boyd Barrett.

I was horrified and sickened to read the findings of the Cloyne report. That abuse was not reported in the Diocese of Cloyne is utterly reprehensible. I call on the Government to break off diplomatic relations with a state that, at its worst, shields paedophiles. The papal nuncio should be expelled without delay due to the Vatican’s massive deceit, the office of papal nuncio stripped of the title of Dean of the Diplomatic Corps and our ambassador immediately withdrawn from the Vatican. If any foreign government conspired with Irish citizens to break the law here, the ambassador of the country in question would be expelled. In this case, the Vatican, a sovereign state, has refused to co-operate with the investigation into a criminal conspiracy against children here. It instructed our citizens, who are its priests and bishops, not to comply with Irish law and our law was broken as a result. We would not tolerate such behaviour by any other government or state.

Ireland has a legitimate claim that the Vatican State has breached the legal principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states. The Holy See is party to various conventions, including the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, which requires that:

Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.

The Holy See has conducted itself in a manner which belies any special relationship between it and the Irish State and it must now be held accountable.

Earlier this month, the Vatican went to great lengths to make its new financial watchdog agency more independent and ensure all Vatican financial transactions comply with European [529]Union and international anti-money laundering and anti-terrorism financing laws. What about the criminals who inflicted such terrible suffering on children here? Surely the violation of children and sheltering of abuse perpetrators by the church should take precedence over suspicious financial transactions. I urge the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to use every channel available to challenge the failure of the Vatican State to report on its compliance as a party under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child since 1997 and the United Convention against Torture since 2003. I draw the Tanaiste’s attention to Articles 6 and 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the failure of the Holy See to ensure on its part, in conjunction with Irish authorities, that all cases of sexual abuse are reported. Furthermore, a clear statement as to the primacy of the convention over canon law is required. I urge the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs to set a timeframe for a response from the Vatican without delay and, once received, to place such response before the Dáil.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: I was angry on reading the Cloyne report, mainly because it shows that the culture has not changed for many senior figures in the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. It takes great courage to come forward to give testimony and I applaud those who did so. For years they were not believed, fobbed off and treated as though they were in a confessional, which was wrong. The law of the State, it appears, was subverted in favour of the Vatican. For too long in this country we have outsourced sexual morality to the Roman Catholic Church. It was an institution that was placed in a privileged position. What is really horrific about the report is that even after all the revelations there were people within the church who still did not get it. The culture of protection is still alive in the church, and many are still in denial.

I am not religious myself, however, I have watched the way Archbishop Dermot Martin has been sidelined on the issue. He is one of the few who have given me any confidence that the protection of children is an absolute and there must be no ifs, buts or maybes. That is the approach he has taken. His obvious alienation sends out the most appalling message, namely, that those who question his approach are more likely to take the approach of Monsignor O’Callaghan, who said “Why should we take it on ourselves to report when the complainant does not want it done”. I do not know how he could have failed to understand that the requirement was there to protect other children. He seems to have been completely trusted by Bishop Magee, who on page 6 of the report said he was shocked to discover in 2008 that the framework document was not being implemented. After all that has been revealed in recent years, how could Bishop Magee detach himself in that way?

On page 24 of the report we are told that Bishop Magee sent out a circular in 2003 which heralded a series of meetings to be held for all priests of the diocese to discuss the persistent crisis in the church in regard to child sexual abuse. It is even more outrageous that he did not supervise those he appointed to act on his behalf when complaints were made.

I welcome the announcement that a statutory reporting requirement will include a legal duty on State agencies to share relevant information and co-operate in the best interests of the child. After all, it is the responsibility of the State to ensure systems are in place that are capable of handling complaints in a comprehensive manner. I am not at all confident the system is sufficiently robust. Social workers have complained that they are being blamed although there are not enough of them in place to deal with matters that arise. I am also appalled by the complaints being made about how people are being treated in the lower courts. I hope the issue will be addressed in the context of the Cloyne report.

Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I am struck that this time last week we were discussing residential institutions redress which was about the institutional abuse of children. I described it as one of the darkest moments in our history. This week we have the report into the Catholic [530]diocese of Cloyne, which accentuates further that darkness. What is it about the institutions in this country — the church and the State — that they have this ability to treat children and young people so cruelly either in carrying out abuse or allowing it to continue? Other nations have had their dark moments: the Jewish nation has had the Holocaust and Cambodia has its “Killing Fields”. We have had the systematic abuse of young people — abuse that is sexual, physical, intellectual, emotional and spiritual — carried out by those in authority in the church, the State and within families. While we may not have had the death toll involved in those other disasters there is a part of every young person that dies when they are abused.

It is noted in the report that there were reservations about some priests while in training. They were obviously attracted to the position because it gave them such scope when it came to abuse. The concern for the welfare of the abuser above that of the abused, as one victim put it, and damage limitation rather than a genuine wish to help unreservedly was evident. When the church did have clear guidelines in place on the duty to report to the Garda and the health authorities that was not done. Inadequate records were kept and the tendency was to keep the complaint within the church. I acknowledge that at times the complaints were handled properly. Again, we acknowledge the complainants who came forward to give evidence. It is harrowing to read their statements. We also note the reference to the Vatican in the report. There is widespread sexual abuse of young people by clerics not just in this country but in America and other countries with horrific effects. It is equally heartbreaking for those in religious life who are as appalled as we are by what was done by other people of the cloth.

The Cloyne report stated: “The standards which were adopted by the church are high standards which if fully implemented would afford proper protection to children.” The key word is “implement”. It continues to say that the standards set by the State are less precise and more difficult to implement so the State cannot afford to take the high moral ground when cases are being investigated concerning 200 young people who died in State care. The Donegal report has emerged this week and last week there was the case of a family who was abused.

I welcome that the proposed Bill also includes crimes against intellectually disabled persons, the national vetting bureau and Children First guidelines. We have all the measures now, but I agree with the Ombudsman for Children that we must have the resources to match.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I agree that the Government is correct to be critical of the Vatican but I regret the change of wording from the original text. The word “condemn” has been downgraded to “deplore”. The dictionary definition of condemn is to declare to be reprehensible, wrong or evil usually after weighing evidence and without reservation, whereas deplore means to feel or express grief, to regret strongly, to consider unfortunate or deserving of deprecation. I much prefer the use of condemn in this situation. There is no excuse for the behaviour of the Vatican. I am not in favour of expelling the papal nuncio simply because it is more important to keep the lines of communication open rather than out of respect, as the Vatican has been deplorable.

The Government must reassess the church-State relationship. The church has played too big a part in the fabric of the State. The sooner they are divided the better for both parties. The Government should focus on the conduct of State officials and Departments in this case such as the Office of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs which is strongly criticised in the report:

The Commission found it interesting to contrast the investigations carried out by the HSE and that of Mr. Elliott on behalf of the National Board for Safeguarding Children in relation to this case. Both investigations had access to the same material. While the HSE dealt only with the question of the failure to report to it, Mr. Elliott took a much more robust approach [531]to the inadequacies as he perceived them of the diocesan approach. In the Commission’s view, the National Board for Safeguarding Children and Mr. Elliott are to be commended for that.

At the same time the Office of the Minister for Children was overly and unnecessarily concerned about the delivery of the Elliott report to it in July 2008. When Mr. Elliott sent the report to the office, officials seemed to be more eager for it to go to the HSE. The Minister seemed to be eager to absolve himself of any influence or responsibility in the area. It would be interesting to get answers on why that was the case. The commission makes it clear that the official who asked Mr. Elliott to withdraw his report, redraft it in a nicer way and softer manner and send it to the HSE was more concerned with protecting the Minister from involvement than dealing with the serious issue of concern, namely, the clear and certain knowledge of the failure of the diocese of Cloyne to implement child protection guidelines.

The terms of reference of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin required the Minister for Health and Children to refer any Catholic diocese which was not compliant with either the recommendations of the Ferns report or church guidelines on child protection to the commission for investigation. It was not the responsibility of the HSE or Ian Elliott, it was the responsibility of the Minister, who along with his officials appeared to have wanted to avoid it at any cost.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: The pain and suffering of people who have been victims of abuse by church institutions is just too horrific to describe. In that context the catalogue of abuse, and cover-up by the church authorities of it, and failure to act is an absolute outrage. While this motion constitutes a good start in being so critical of the church authorities, Members must go considerably further. First, as Deputy Halligan stated, the papal nuncio undoubtedly should be expelled until the church issues a clear and unequivocal statement that it will give precedence to civil law, that is, the law of the State, on these matters over canon law or its own concerns to defend its reputation or any other self-interest it may have. In addition, the church and the State should be forced into some form of truth and reconciliation forum in which the victims of abuse by the church and other institutions within the State should be given the opportunity to confront the authorities of the institutions that abused them, to have their own voices heard and to articulate their demands on what they need in respect of redress.

While the church authorities have, rightly, been criticised, the Minister also must consider the issue of the failure of the Garda to report complaints of abuse to the health boards, as well as the fact that in some cases, gardaí were assessing whether priests about whom complaints had been made were an ongoing risk to children. The Garda has no qualification to assess whether alleged abusers are an ongoing risk to children as that is a matter for the health authorities. The role of the Garda is to use different criteria to assess whether legal prosecutions can be taken. In other words, when one talks of mandatory reporting, the key question is to what authority is one reporting and for what purpose. Reporting should not be to the Garda alone, as I heard the Minister mention on radio today, although it certainly should be reported to. Reporting also must be to the health authorities, which must consider the interests of the child. Consideration must be given to whether a legal prosecution can be taken and to the best interests of the child, as well as to what measures must be put in place to secure those best interests.

As has been agreed and as the wording of the motion suggests, many of these problems would not have occurred had the Children First guidelines been in place, had they been implemented fully by all agencies and bodies and had they been respected by church institutions and everyone else. Therefore, I greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to put in place [532]and give legislative force to the Children First guidelines. However, it is clear these guidelines cannot be implemented fully and properly unless the resources are provided to so do. This goes far beyond the commitment to an additional 250 social workers, as many other types of supports, resources and staffing issues also must be addressed. This comes at a time at which the public sector recruitment embargo is slaughtering staff numbers in many of the areas which it would be necessary to resource fully and this point must be considered. If children are to come first, the resources must be put in place to ensure they do.

Debate adjourned.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Select Sub-Committee on Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht has completed its consideration of the following Revised Estimates for Public Services for the service of the year ending 31 December 2011: Votes 24 and 27; and the Select Committee on Health and Children has completed its consideration of the following Revised Estimates for Public Services for the service of the year ending 31 December 2011: Votes 39, 40, 41 and 43.

15. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will confirm that there will be no cuts to current rates of social welfare payments. [21598/11]

Minister for Social Protection (Deputy Joan Burton): The Government is committed to tackling Ireland’s economic crisis in a way that is fair, balanced and that recognises the need for social solidarity. The appropriate level of overall expenditure by my Department will be considered in the context of budget 2012 and subsequent budgets. This consideration will be informed by the commitment in the programme for Government to maintain social welfare rates. However, sustainable public finances are a prerequisite for future economic stability and growth, as well as being a prerequisite for maintaining and developing our social protection system. To this end, the State must pursue a determined deficit reduction strategy. The Government believes it is appropriate, to enhance international credibility, to stick to the aggregate adjustment as set out in the national recovery plan for the combined period of 2011 and 2012. Accordingly, there will be an ongoing requirement to curtail expenditure in 2012 and in later years. This is necessary for many reasons, not least so that the State can continue to make social welfare payments at appropriate levels, sustaining social cohesion and treating people with dignity.

The priority of the Government is to get the economy moving, restore confidence, fix the banking system and support the protection and creation of jobs. The success of its economic plans will lay the foundation for the rest of its agenda for change. The jobs initiative is the first step in its recovery strategy and includes a number of initiatives that will be administered by my Department, including the recently-announced internship scheme, JobBridge. In addition, the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2011 provided for the halving of the lower rate of employer PRSI, thereby making it cheaper for employers to take on and retain workers and thereby reduce unemployment.

[533]There are considerable challenges ahead including the need to protect, as far as possible, the key income supports and services operated by my Department. This process will be informed by the comprehensive review of expenditure currently under way in all Departments and Government agencies, with the key decisions being made in the context of framing the budget for 2012.

Deputy Barry Cowen: I thank the Minister for her initial response. While I acknowledge I have asked this question in the past, I do so in the context of more recent developments such as last week’s cut in fuel allowances and so on. The question also arises in the context of the statement made by the Tánaiste, Deputy Gilmore, on the Government’s 100th day in office when he stated categorically that welfare rates would not be cut, as per the commitment in the programme for Government. When asked previously, the Minister stated that while she could not necessarily stand over that commitment, she would do what she could for it. Only last week at a meeting of the Select Sub-Committee on Social Protection, she spoke of the efforts being made to make further savings in respect of anti-fraud measures——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should frame a question.

Deputy Barry Cowen: It is envisaged that only €50 million will be available in that regard over and above what was saved last year. This is what an official stated in the Minister’s presence in response to an answer last week. Where does this sit in respect of the commitment made in the programme for Government or in respect of the Tánaiste’s statement? Where does it sit in respect of the statement by the Minister, Deputy Howlin, who also entered the debate some weeks ago, to the effect that the Government would protect rates as far as possible? Does it remain the case that rates cannot be guaranteed as per the commitment in the programme for Government?

Deputy Joan Burton: My Department, in common with every other Department, is engaged in the comprehensive review of expenditure. Budgetary decisions will be made in the context of that review and in the context of the budget for 2012. As I have stated to the Deputy previously and as he will appreciate, I am not in a position to make statements or announcements on budget 2012 or in respect of the comprehensive review, given it is under way at present. However, I point to two issues. The Deputy referred to reductions in respect of certain elements of the household benefits package. One legacy issue from the previous Government relates to certain indicative savings, as I discussed in this Chamber during Question Time previously, pertaining to social welfare which included savings in the household budget scheme. Those commitments related to 2011, but they had not been published. They had not all been identified by the previous Government, but the indicative headings had been.

I have a problem with the second legacy issue arising from the period in office of Fianna Fáil and the Green Party. In its budget plan for this year it made provision for an unemployment job seekers’ figure of 405,000, which is way out of line with the actual average figure, 445,000. There are attendant pressures. The decision taken last week was very difficult. However, as I said this morning at the committee meeting, there have been savings; for example, the Department no longer pays for the rental of telephone handsets from Eircom for which it was paying a significant amount of money. A discount has been achieved and the service has not been altered for individuals, but there has been a saving to the Department.

16. Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will reverse her decision to cut the fuel allowance and household benefits package in view of the impact such cuts will have on thousands of vulnerable persons including older people and those with disabilities. [21600/11]

[534]Deputy Joan Burton: My Department will spend over €530 million in 2011 on the fuel scheme and the telephone, gas and electricity elements of the household benefits package which will benefit over 630,000 people. Difficult decisions have had to be made in the light of commitments made by the previous Government. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to reconsider the changes to the fuel allowance and household benefits package announced last week. From September, the fuel allowance is to be standardised at €20 per week, the current rate for the majority of customers, with no additional allowance payable to those living in a smokeless fuel area. The cost of the telephone allowance will be reduced following negotiations with Eircom which will ensure customers will receive €26.86 of value on their bills, at a cost to the State of €22.22 per month. The number of free units provided under the electricity and gas allowance scheme will be reduced to the level at the start of 2007 from 2,400 units to 1,800 per month. These three measures will generate savings of €17 million in 2011 and €65 million annually.

While we have had to implement these measures, the House should be aware that the savings were provided for last December in budget 2011 but were not specified or announced by the Government at the time. While, of course, we want to protect the basic social welfare payments which have very positive economic and social effects, regrettably there is an ongoing necessity to achieve savings owing to our commitments with the IMF-EU-ECB troika. There will be an ongoing necessity to curtail overall expenditure in 2012 and later years.

Energy poverty is a factor of income, energy prices and the thermal efficiency of the home. The most cost-effective means of protecting households from energy poverty is to reduce their consumption of energy through improving the thermal efficiency of the home. My colleague, the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Rabbitte, and I are working towards this end.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Minister’s reply contains an amount of information but an amount of information is not contained in it. The Minister states €530 million will be expended this year, while the Estimates suggest a figure of €395 million; this is without taking into account the cut of €17 million which the Minister did not announce to the committee last week when we dealt with the issue. This is a time of rising prices and the Minister is cutting gas and electricity allowances by 20% and 25%, respectively, for pensioners in the main. In attempting to defend these indefensible cuts in recent days the Minister has repeatedly argued that 21% of those in receipt of the household benefits package do not use all the units included in the allowance. Will she acknowledge that neither she nor the Department knows anything about the circumstances of these 21% of recipients or, in fact, in many instances, the circumstances of the remaining 79%? Will she admit she does not know who they are, whether they are the ones sitting in the dark and the cold, scrimping and scraping and afraid to turn on the light and use up their allowance in case they exceed it? This is especially pertinent, given the recent hard winters we have endured. Many of them may be in hospital or even on holidays abroad, but we do not know. The Minister is basing a cut on the 21% on whom she has no information as a result of which the remaining 79% of recipients who exhaust their full fuel allowance will now be hit by a 25% cut.

Deputy Joan Burton: In reply to the Deputy’s first point and his justified concern about the rise in energy prices my Department supplies a number of units, in this case, 1,800. If the energy price changes and is increased, the Department will cover this increase. I reassure those in receipt of energy units under the household scheme that any rise in the cost of the units is covered by my Department. If there are exceptional needs, community welfare officers can provide additional specific exceptional needs payments for those who may have specific additional needs. I have also said that should there be a third bad or very cold winter — I hope [535]this will not happen — I will be open to considering, as was done by the previous Government last year, additional payments.

Total fuel allowance payments amount to €228 million, while the amount for electricity, telephone, TV licence and gas allowance payments comes to €367 million. The free travel allowance is a separate allowance and not under discussion, but the total amount comes to €74 million. I do not know from where the Deputy got his figures. Perhaps we might compare them. It may be that they relate to people in receipt of allowances as opposed to those in receipt of benefits who may be counted separately in a different part of the volume.

17. Deputy Tom Fleming asked the Minister for Social Protection the way in which she will reform the systems of payments from her Department, through the provision of part pensions to persons nearing retirement age; the contacts that she has had with other Government Departments in attempting to draw up such schemes in an effort to reduce the numbers claiming social welfare; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21029/11]

3 o’clock

Deputy Joan Burton: The presumption underpinning this question appears to be that, by enabling people within five years of retirement to reduce their employment and, presumably, have their income supplemented by the State, unemployed people will benefit from such an arrangement. Apart from the budgetary implications attaching to such an arrangement, there is no guarantee that job creation would result from such measures. In fact, recent research on intergenerational solidarity by the OECD demonstrates that the rate of employment of younger people has no relationship with the rate of employment of older people. The OECD states, “the idea that public policy can re-shuffle a fixed number of jobs between workers of different ages is simply not true in anything but the very short-term”.

The critical factor is that if we are to deliver on our social contract to those in retirement, we need people to remain in work for as long as possible in order that we can deliver the supports necessary on retirement. In this context, the challenges facing the Irish pension system are significant. The population share of those aged 65 years and over is expected to more than double between now and 2050, from 11% to 26%. Thankfully, people are living longer and healthier lives with average life expectancy set to rise even further in future, up to 88 years for women and 83.9 for men. In contrast, the share of the working age population is projected to decline gradually from 68% to 58%.

There are currently six people of working age for every pensioner and this ratio is expected to decrease to less than two workers to one pensioner by the middle of the century.

Spending on public pensions, that is social welfare pensions and public service occupational pensions, is projected to increase from approximately 5.5% of GDP in 2008, to almost 15% by 2050.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

For these reasons, State pension age will be increased gradually to 68 years. This will begin in 2014 with the standardisation of State pension age at 66. State pension age will be increased to 67 years in 2021 and to 68 in 2028.

The introduction of a scheme which encouraged reduced participation in the labour market for older workers would, therefore, be inconsistent with the interaction of current working age and pensions policy. In regard to occupational pension schemes, the trust deed and/or scheme rules will determine the retirement date for such schemes. Any change to these provisions would be a matter for the pension scheme trustees and/or employer.

[536]Regarding assisting those on the live register to secure employment, the Department of Social Protection operates a range of employment support measures designed to encourage and support social welfare recipients of working age to reduce their dependency on welfare payments. These measures are consistent with efforts being made to encourage and facilitate people to continue to work up to and beyond pension age.

Deputy Tom Fleming: I originally submitted this question to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton, and it has been transferred to the Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton. The question has also been reworded. As there are approximately 450,000 unemployed people we need to promptly introduce some jobs initiatives. I proposed to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation that we should sponsor a programme across the private and public sectors whereby employees who are within five years of their normal retirement date could, with the approval of their employer, job-share with a person on a fixed-term contract. The scheme should be attractive to a person agreeing to a job-share arrangement for a specific number of years within the five-year period. Therefore the person opting to work should have each job-sharing year counted as a full year for pension purposes, whereas the person on the fixed-term contract, while not having pension contributions made for him or her by the employer would have the benefit of getting off the unemployment register and entering the workforce where he or she can develop and acquire new skills.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should frame a question.

Deputy Tom Fleming: The Minister said some people would not avail of the scheme because of the age difference; it would not be relevant. In principle the scheme should be workable. Graduates coming from college cannot get to develop what they have and are losing what they acquired in education. It is very demoralising for these people and I believe many would avail of such a scheme which would allow them to go into semi-retirement and take up other recreations and so on.

Deputy Joan Burton: I thank the Deputy for the question. He indicated he had submitted a proposal to the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Bruton. I would also be very happy to receive the submission. There is an issue of balancing. Many older people wish and need to work longer to build up their pension entitlements for when they are retired, particularly women who might have been out of the labour force because they were on family duties during part of their working years. Some older people may wish to reduce the number of hours they work, but there are also older people who definitely want to stay working. The Polish Presidency of the EU has been holding a number of discussions on the issue. There is no absolute link between older people retiring and those jobs being made available and created for younger people. In some cases the jobs may simply be suppressed entirely.

I understand the Deputy’s motivation and perhaps the watchword is to try to produce a flexible system for what people may wish to do as they approach retirement. Up to approximately 2007, there was a pre-retirement payment that was abolished by the previous Government in 2007. That payment recognised that people who left work at a certain age were unlikely to resume working again or perhaps for health or other reasons did not. I understand and share the Deputy’s concern.

Regarding jobs for young people, we have just created the national internship scheme, which is designed to do some of what the Deputy is suggesting. We are beginning to roll it out and seeing the first people getting six and nine-month internships with employers in a variety of occupations throughout the country. I would be delighted to receive the Deputy’s submission [537]and I share his concerns. However, I am not sure it is possible to match older retiring workers exactly with younger people.

18. Deputy Barry Cowen asked the Minister for Social Protection if she is satisfied that there are sufficient supports in place to help people struggling to pay their electricity fuel and other utility bills. [21599/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: I am satisfied that there are sufficient supports in place to help people with their electricity, fuel and other utility bills. Energy poverty is a factor of income, energy prices and the thermal efficiency of the home. The most cost-effective means of protecting households from energy poverty is to improve the thermal efficiency of the home. The Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland has administered an energy efficiency programme for privately-owned low-income households, the warmer homes initiative, since 2001. More than 65,000 such households have benefited to date, with a further 15,000 expected to receive energy efficiency upgrades this year. A similar upgrade programme is also in place for social housing with the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government supporting local authorities to improve the energy efficiency of older social housing stock.

On income supports, my Department assists low-income households with their energy costs through their basic payments, through the means-tested fuel allowance scheme and the household benefits package. The fuel allowance of €20 per week is paid to people who are dependent on long-term social welfare and unable to provide for their own heating needs. It is paid for 32 weeks, from late September to the end of April. The household benefits package, comprising telephone and electricity or gas allowance, as well a free television licence, is available for all those aged 70 or over; those in receipt of carers allowance; those who are 66 to 70 and in receipt of a qualifying payment and generally living alone; and those aged under 66 and in receipt of a disability or caring related payment.

Under the Department’s supplementary welfare allowance scheme, a special heating supplement may be paid to assist people in certain circumstances who have special heating needs because of ill health or infirmity. In addition, exceptional needs payments may be made to help meet an essential, once-off cost which an applicant is unable to meet out of his or her own resources.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

Unfortunately, because of commitments made by the previous Government it was necessary last week that the Government approve changes to the fuel, telephone and electricity or gas allowances which will generate savings of €17 million in 2011 and €65 million annually. While this Government has had to implement these measures, the House should be aware that these savings were provided for last December in budget 2011 but were not specified or announced by the Government at that time. While we want to protect the basic social welfare payments which have very positive economic and social effects, regrettably there is an ongoing necessity to achieve savings due to our commitments with the IMF, EU and ECB Troika.

Deputy Barry Cowen: I still believe last week’s measures will have a detrimental effect on many vulnerable people. In her earlier response pertaining to the issue I refrained from asking a second supplementary question, because I wanted to put this question in context further to the answer just given. The Minister mentioned in her earlier response that this was a legacy issue upon which the Government was forced to act and the Tánaiste said the same thing in the Chamber last week.

[538]Is it not a fact that the previous Minister met providers and other stakeholders to secure a better deal on electricity and communications elements of the household benefits package, which would have been a win-win situation? As the Minister said, we are paying approximately €500 million per annum in guaranteed payments and it was not unreasonable to seek a discount of approximately 10% which would have resulted in savings for the Exchequer but would not have affected the package of benefits. This is even documented on page 24 of the budget brief for 2011 from the Department of Social Protection. In the context of those savings being sought, which were not pursued by the Minister or her officials on the Minister assuming office — she took the soft option of informing the House it was a legacy issue — is the Minister willing to confirm that the previous Government at no time proposed the reduction in the free electricity units and had instead proposed a reduction similar to the Eircom reduction to be negotiated with the electricity suppliers?

Deputy Joan Burton: In the 2011 budget, the previous Government included indicative headings of savings that it did not announce or, in some cases, specify. I have advised the Deputy of this fact previously.

The Department is a major purchaser of utility services. Upon becoming Minister, I was surprised to learn that the Department did not get much in the way of discounts. The change to the telephone allowance is effectively a discount, with free rental of telephones provided by Eircom. The previous Minister may have been affected by this problem and I do not know whether he entered into negotiations. The nub of the problem seems to be that, according to the advice of the Chief State Solicitor’s office, the Department of Social Protection does not have the right to go to the market to procure electricity as it is not the customer in the first instance and, therefore, has no entitlement to approach the market. To make matters even better, the Competition Authority stated that it is more important than ever that any scheme administered by the Department should not favour one electricity supplier over another.

I am obtaining legal advice on this matter. I do not know whether the previous Minister did so. Effectively, the current advice means that, although the Department is spending more than €500 million purchasing gas, electricity and other utilities for its clients, we have no right to get bulk discounts. I am confident that previous Ministers must have been aware of this feature of competition law, but we may need to change that law.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I must interrupt because the Deputy may want to ask a further question and we are running out of time.

Deputy Barry Cowen: I want to narrow it down.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Briefly, please.

Deputy Barry Cowen: According to the Minister, she has sought legal advice.

Deputy Joan Burton: I am seeking it.

Deputy Barry Cowen: Yes, on her Department consulting providers to seek discounts. Is the Minister now saying she is unaware that the previous Minister and his officials were also seeking discounts, irrespective of the legal opinion? Despite the fact that this matter was referred to in the budget briefing, is she claiming that she is unaware of those negotiations and intentions? Did she disregard them when making last week’s cut?

[539]Deputy Joan Burton: The Deputy will understand that I will not speak for the previous Minister or his opinions.

Deputy Barry Cowen: I am not asking the Minister to do that. The officials are the same.

Deputy Joan Burton: For example, he had conversations with the late Minister for Finance regarding the family income supplement. However, nothing occurred as a consequence. I do not know what the previous Minister did——

Deputy Barry Cowen: He instructed his officials.

Deputy Joan Burton: ——but I was astonished upon arriving in the Department that, despite being a large bulk purchaser of utilities, we did not get discounts. I must seek legal advice to determine how to get better value through discounts for those who rely on the package of household benefits.

19. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Social Protection the criteria by which placements offered by organisations in the national internship scheme are judged appropriate and posted to the JobBridge website; her views on introducing a clear set of rules that must be adhered to by all organisations providing internships in order for them to avail of free labour; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21818/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The objective of JobBridge, the national internship scheme, is to assist individuals to bridge the gap between unemployment and the world of work. It will provide those seeking employment with an opportunity to undertake a six or nine-month internship in a host organisation. Participants will benefit from learning new skills to complement their existing skills. Participation on the scheme will assist in breaking the cycle of unemployed people being unable to get a job without experience, either as new entrants to the labour market after education or training or as unemployed workers whose existing skills will not be appropriate to the types of jobs that will emerge in post-recession Ireland. On completing their internships, participants will have improved their prospects of securing employment.

A host organisation participating in JobBridge must be in a position to provide a substantial commitment to its intern to ensure the provision of a quality internship. To this end, a clear set of rules has been developed to protect the intern and safeguard JobBridge from potential abuse. In addition, potential host organisations can avail of the JobBridge guidelines, toolkit and other helpful facilities available on the JobBridge website.

In order for an application from a host organisation to be put up on the JobBridge site, it must meet a number of criteria. The placement must not allow the intern to work unsupervised, he or she should accrue significant experience throughout the entire placement and an internship will not be approved where, in the absence of the intern, the organisation would need to recruit an employee to carry out the tasks identified in the internship.

Following this application process, in order for an internship to commence, a standard internship agreement must be signed by the intern and the host organisation. It specifies a number of conditions, including the number of hours worked, rest breaks and so on. To ensure compliance with the scheme, the Department of Social Protection and the employment services division of FÁS, which is operating the scheme with my Department under the national employment and entitlements service, are monitoring internships to ensure they are of sufficient quality and that both host organisations and interns are abiding by the spirit and the rules of the scheme.

[540]Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

In this regard, each host organisation will be required to submit monthly compliance reports verifying that the internship is proceeding as set out in the standard internship agreement. The employment services division of FÁS will also undertake random site visits of internships as part of this process. In addition, a whistleblowing feature has been introduced whereby any individual who suspects that an internship may be in breach of the scheme’s criteria may contact the national call centre. All such claims will be investigated. The control mechanisms and conditions have been put in place to protect the integrity of the scheme and to ensure the intern and host organisation both benefit from the arrangement.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I thank the Minister or her reply. Will FÁS check to ensure job placements meet the criteria?

Deputy Joan Burton: Yes.

Deputy Mick Wallace: I have a concern. I saw an advertisement on the Internet for a forklift driver who must have a forklift licence. Such a person would replace someone who should have a job. Given that the State is paying all the money, the employer is getting someone to drive his forklift for nothing. Another advertisement was for someone to help a gardener weed. That helper will replace a labourer and will not learn much from weeding flowers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I must call the Minister.

Deputy Mick Wallace: The guidelines listed on the website state that the work environment should provide practical tasks to enable an individual to apply the particular skills he or she wishes to learn or enhance and the opportunity to obtain wider product or service knowledge in established networks for future employment. Should this not be a compulsory condition rather than a general guideline imposed on participating organisations, given that the entire scheme is paid for by the State?

Deputy Joan Burton: I thank Deputy Wallace and other Deputies who are following the website and closely monitoring the positions on offer. Their efforts are important and I have a number of volunteers, departmental staff and people in the labour services side of FÁS doing likewise. Some 1,100 opportunities are available on the JobBridge website. Given their range, the Deputy will agree that many of them are good and there has been a significant number of expressions of interest in them from people wishing to become interns.

I recognise what the Deputy is saying. In some situations, people might try to migrate an ordinary job, one that is not an internship experience as most people would understand it, on to the website. I do not have the exact figures, but approximately 30 or 40 such advertisements have been taken down from the website. We must continually monitor the site to try to ensure the quality of job offerings.

The Deputy asked why the regulations were not more specific. We are trying to provide a general template for a range of different internship opportunities without being so restrictive as to prevent people, whatever their level of training or educational qualification, from taking up interesting internships. The people interested in being interns range from postgraduates to those who have completed various levels of FETAC training.

Deputy Mick Wallace: The Minister can see where I am coming from. There must be a follow-up. Unless the intern is picking up a skill, the scheme is being abused by employers to get cheap labour.

[541]Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: We could create a few internships monitoring the website.

Deputy Joan Burton: The Department monitors the website, as do the people in FÁS. This is an important job.

Internationally, internships have a good history of filling in the gap for someone who has qualified at a certain level but in a recession cannot get a job because he does not have experience and cannot get experience because he cannot enter a job. We want to stop that catch-22 situation.

There is monitoring at each stage and, ultimately, when an intern is matched with a host employer, an agreement is made between the two of them, including an agreement to be monitored and to check, for instance, on the intern’s side if he or she shows up, because he or she will get his or her social welfare and an extra €50 per week, and on the employer’s side that the internship delivers what it said it would deliver. In addition, if interns have problems they can complain and if an employer abuses the internship scheme, he or she will not be granted further internships.

We are still at the start-up stage but I appreciate Deputies monitoring this. It is helpful because it is the first time we have done it and there has been a hugely positive response. I want this to work as well as possible.

20. Deputy Sandra McLellan asked the Minister for Social Protection if she will offer a commitment that there will be no further cuts to the various social welfare payments for carers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21358/11]

25. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Social Protection if she can reassure the 161,000 carers in the country that there will be no further cuts to their payments in Budget 2012; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21409/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 20 and 25 together.

There will be an ongoing necessity to curtail overall expenditure in 2012 and in later years. The comprehensive review of expenditure currently under way in all Departments and agencies will form the basis for making the necessary decisions to achieve this. The outcome of the review will be considered by the Government in September.

There are not 161,000 carers in receipt of payments from my Department. That figure is the number of persons identified in the 2006 census as providing as little as one hour of care per week. There are currently just over 51,000 full-time carers in receipt of a carer's allowance payment from the Department. This includes almost 22,000 who are receiving half-rate carer's allowance in addition to another social welfare payment. There are just over 1,700 people in receipt of carer’s benefit. In addition, more than 17,000 people who are not in receipt of a carer's allowance or benefit payment received the annual respite care grant of €1,700 in June.

Since the introduction of the carer’s allowance, payments to carers have been expanded greatly. Carer's allowance was increased in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively and recipients are also eligible for household benefits, free travel and the respite care grant.

The rate of carer's allowance for those over 66 was maintained at €239 in the budget for 2011. The current rate of carer's allowance for those aged under 66 is €204 per week. The [542]estimated expenditure for carers in 2011, including carer’s allowance, carer’s benefit and the respite care grant is approximately €658 million.

The means test for carers is one of the most liberal means tests in the social welfare system, most notably with regard to spouse’s earnings. The income disregard is currently €332.50 per week for a single person and €665 per week for a couple. This means that a couple with two children can earn in the region of €35,400 and qualify for the maximum rate of carer's allowance as well as the associated free travel and household benefits. A couple with an income in the region of €59,300 can still qualify for a minimum payment, as well as the associated free travel and household benefits package.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: Last week the Minister indicated her intention to do a U-turn on the commitment to maintain social welfare rates by introducing a cut in the household benefits package. That caused huge anxiety among carers and even the words she used in her answer about the means test, calling it one of the most liberal means tests, will cause further anxiety. Will the Minister commit today to not cut or restrict in any way the carer’s allowance, half rate carer’s allowance, carer’s benefit, domiciliary care allowance or respite care grant in the budget in December?

Deputy Joan Burton: A couple with an income of just under €60,000 can still qualify for a minimum payment in respect of carer’s allowance while still getting the associated free travel and household benefits package. In anyone’s language, that is a generous income disregard.

I have already said the comprehensive review of expenditure is under way and budgetary decisions will be made in the context of the budget in December. I am not in a position to indicate at this point what decisions will be made in the context of the comprehensive review of expenditure and in the context of the budget. I am simply not in a position to say anything; these are budgetary matters for the Minister for Finance and I am not in a position to give an undertaking on them at this point.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: When talking about the liberalism of the means test for the carer's allowance, is it not the case that the real story is that carers save the State an estimated €2.5 billion euro per year, according to the Carers Association? The cost to the State would be massively higher if those being cared for had to be looked after fully by the State. Is it not also the case that what the Minister calls the generosity of the scheme results from the fact that carers have extra financial burdens, such as increased electricity costs, extra washing and lighting costs, extra heating costs and extra medical bills, along with many other extra burdens that other people do not have to face? That is why we need a carer’s allowance. Carers are already shocked that the Minister has cut the home benefits package. All they want is an assurance that given the contribution they make to the State and the welfare of sick and vulnerable people, the Minister will not cut their allowances further.

Deputy Joan Burton: I agree with the Deputy that carers do a very important job. Their contribution in looking after members of their own families with particular needs, who are ill or may have a disability is truly heroic in many cases. However, as I have said, I am not in a position at this time to make any commitments regarding the outcome of the comprehensive review of expenditure or budget 2012. During the years when the economy was doing well we perhaps lost an opportunity to develop services which were often as important to carers, if not more so, than cash amounts, although they are important also. In looking at the best way to assist carers in the important job they do within their own families I will certainly do everything I can to ensure carers are treated as fairly as possible within the system. Given their significance [543]and importance, particularly those providing full-time care for people with various needs, including disabilities, their needs must be recognised.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I must interrupt the Minister and remind the House that there is one minute to ask a supplementary question and a maximum of one minute for the Minister to reply.

Deputy Derek Keating: I will be very brief. I know the Minister fully appreciates the value of the role and task of carers, as well as their commitment to helping those most in need of care. Recently I have received a number of complaints from people who are experiencing delays in having their applications for carer’s allowance processed. Is the Minister aware of this and does she have any suggestions to make or plans to help to fast-track applications for carer’s allowances?

Deputy Joan Burton: Receipt of carer’s allowance is based on medical evidence. One of the difficulties with the system is that very often the initial application does not contain sufficient medical evidence of the quality required by deciding officers in the Department. There is scope to improve on this because when decisions on applications for carer’s allowance are appealed, the successful appeal rate is over 50% which suggests the initial application submitted is often inadequate. There is something we can do in this regard. Shortly after becoming Minister, I appointed an extra nine appeals officers because I was conscious of how important this matter was. They will not just be deciding on appeals from carers, they will be working throughout the entire appeals structure. We are beginning to make progress in reducing the time taken to process appeals.

Deputy David Stanton: To follow up on an issue raised by Deputy Boyd Barrett, has the Government carried out an objective economic impact assessment of carers’ work to assess exactly how valuable their work is from an economic viewpoint? We already know how valuable it is from a human viewpoint. Has any proposal been examined to differentiate between the levels of care provided, for example, low, medium or high dependency? Does the Minister agree it would make sense for somebody who needs high dependency care who is bed-ridden to receive more assistance than someone who needs low dependency care?

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: It is alarming that the Minister cannot confirm there will not be cuts in this area in the budget. The EU-IMF-ECB troika requires that there be “reforms”— as they are euphemistically called — in the social welfare system. Has the troika commented or made any specific demands concerning carer’s allowance?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I have a brief question about carers and the programme for Government. The Labour Party made a commitment in its election manifesto to abolish the habitual residency condition for family carers, in particular. Has there been any such move since the Minister has announced that she cannot stick to the commitment that there will be no social welfare cuts?

Deputy Joan Burton: As regards Deputy Stanton’s point on carers providing care for adults or children with a severe disability, I am not aware if such a study has been conducted. The previous Government made commitments in respect of a carers’ strategy. From my own experience, the provision of services is as important as providing income. For instance, the provision of services for a child with a high-level disability is absolutely critical. I will come back to the Deputy on the matter.

[544]As regards the European Union and the IMF, I can only say to Deputy Boyd Barrett they have not mentioned the matter to me, but that is not to say they have not mentioned it, perhaps to officials, in their detailed discussions with the Department of Finance. What they said about budget 2012 concerned reductions of €3.6 billion, if I remember correctly. These included reductions in expenditure across the board. However, as far as I am aware, they did not specify any particular areas. As regards social protection, they did specify the need to activate people to move them from social welfare back into education, training and gaining work experience. Mr. Chopra was extremely keen on this, as were some of his associates.

As regards the habitual residency condition, I will have to revert to Deputy Ó Snodaigh in some detail.

21. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Social Protection the position on the integration of community welfare officers into her Department, including whether it will be fully completed by September; if the necessary accommodation is available; and her plans to inform the public of the new situation. [21328/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: The transfer of the community welfare service to the Department of Social Protection is part of the process of streamlining the health service. By taking income support functions from the HSE and merging them with my Department, the HSE has more capacity to concentrate on its core functions of health service delivery. As a first step in the process, the staff of the community welfare service were transferred on secondment to the Department from the Health Service Executive on 1 January this year. During this time they have remained employees of the HSE and retained their current terms and conditions of employment. Plans are well advanced to have them fully transferred to the Department by the end of September. Talks are ongoing at the Labour Relations Commission to agree the terms for the final transfer. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on the labour relations aspects of the transfer at this time. The Department is confident that the talks, taking account of some recent recommendations from the Labour Court, will conclude in time for the transfer to be completed by the target date.

The community welfare officers coming into the Department are part of the creation of what one would call a public employment service, to be called the national employment and entitlements service, whereby somebody will be able to have an integrated service for entitlements to payments and income, as well as advice on jobs and training opportunities. This will ensure people will be positively encouraged to take up options and opportunities offered in respect of training.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

The transfer of the community welfare service to my Department is also part of the process of developing and implementing the national employment and entitlements service, a commitment given in the programme for Government. In establishing this new service, the aim of the Department is to integrate employment and benefit payments within one service and thus provide a more complete service for customers. The focus of the new service will be on activation; enabling and encouraging the individual to take up job opportunities and engage on developmental pathways to employment. Continued payment of full welfare allowances and benefits will be conditional on the individual engaging in this process.

[545]Since January my Department and the HSE have been working closely to ensure the various HR and administrative systems such as payroll records and IT systems will be put in place for the full transfer of staff at the end of September. Significant progress has been made as follows: legislation providing for the integration of the community welfare service with the Department, including the transfer of staff and buildings, was passed in the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2010. This provision is subject to a commencement order which will be signed as soon as the full service is ready to transfer.

A programme of communications with community welfare service, CWS, staff is being implemented and this includes ongoing communications about the transformation agenda through newsletters, question and answer updates and information through the intranet and email. In addition, all CWS staff were issued with a welcome pack at the beginning of the year and a number of meet and greet sessions for all staff have been held at six regional locations as follows: Dublin, Cork, Sligo, Galway, Waterford and Limerick.

In relation to communications with the public and customers, a comprehensive external communications strategy is being prepared. This will provide relevant and timely information for all stakeholders and key customer groups on changes to service delivery as they are implemented.

Until the end of June CWS staff continued to provide appeals and means-testing services in relation to medical cards and other health services. The HSE has now established an alternative system for providing these services.

An interim management structure has been put in place for the community welfare service. This will be finalised as part of the full transfer.

As regards location, CWS staff will, on transfer, continue to be headquartered at their current base location or town. However, in the interests of improving customer service and reducing costs, opportunities for co-location with other departmental staff will be pursued as appropriate. This may involve staff of the Department moving to CWS locations or vice versa. Any changes that may be proposed in relation to geographical deployment will take account of the relevant provisions on staff deployment contained in the public service agreement 2010-14.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: I welcome the changes being brought about, as well as the concept of a one-stop-shop, as the Minister has described it. My questions were not about labour relations and IR issues, and I welcome the fact that there is progress. They were more about accommodation. If they are being transferred, has the accommodation been made available? Will it be available by September to ensure that they are in the same building as people dealing with applications for social welfare payments? Will there be an advertising campaign on this so that the public know about the change? It is a substantial change, given the fact that many people have been dependent on the community welfare officer system. I hope people will understand what they are entitled to apply for in the future, so that if they are refused at one hatch, they can go to another hatch rather than to another building.

Deputy Joan Burton: I appreciate the Deputy’s concern. It is anticipated that there will be no change to current base locations immediately following transfer. However, as the establishment of the national employment and entitlements service progresses, there will inevitably be changes in office locations to facilitate the integration and the provision of the so-called one-stop-shop area to customers. This may mean that departmental staff could transfer to community welfare officer locations or vice versa. The Department is working on a stakeholder [546]communication strategy to ensure that communication is made with internal and external customers in the most appropriate way at the most appropriate time.

I am aware that there is a long history of particular individuals having an ongoing relationship with a particular community welfare officer in their district or area. That is very valuable to certain people, and we will do our best to ensure that this service remains intact. However, there is also more direct payment of certain services at the local office, such as the one-parent family payment. That often entailed visits to community welfare officers while the payment on the status was being sorted out. That should now happen directly in the social welfareoffice.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: How will this improve waiting times for people? A lady in my area has been waiting 17 weeks for a decision on her habitual residency. In the meantime, she has had no income because the community welfare officer is unable to process any payments for her. Will this move help alleviate those waiting times? Will there be better communication?

Deputy Joan Burton: I hope it will, once the initial changeover period has been achieved. Additional guidelines on habitual residency were issued in recent weeks for people who are Irish passport holders or who are originally Irish and who have come back to Ireland. I am not sure if that is the kind of person the Deputy has in mind.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: It is.

Deputy Joan Burton: Sometimes people come home perhaps to look after an elderly relative, but they still might have a house in the UK or wherever they have come from. New guidelines have come out in recent weeks, so I hope they may be of benefit to that particular individual. The Deputy might correspond with me on the issue and I will ask the Department officials to have a look at it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call on Deputy Cowen and Deputy Stanton briefly.

Deputy Barry Cowen: Will this have any cost implications for the Department? Members of our party met EU and IMF officials a couple of weeks ago and were told that they would not allow for any savings or cutbacks that would impinge on the less well off, the old and the vulnerable. I am mindful of what was done last week, which may have had implications in that very area. They mentioned that the Minister had passed on some correspondence to the EU and the IMF. Is it possible for that to be made public?

Deputy David Stanton: Does the Minister intend to involve MABS and the citizens information centres in some way with the national employment and entitlements service?

Deputy Joan Burton: The IMF officials visit the country one week after the end of every quarter, so there are ongoing discussions between the IMF and my Department. I have also met the troika team and spoken to them about the importance of social welfare to domestic spending in the Irish economy. I will speak to officials in the Department about Deputy Cowen’s request.

On MABS and citizens information centres, I hope that there will be a role for citizens information centres and that in some cases they will be able to be near the one-stop-shop area, so that people can get information about entitlements. Social welfare staff have access to social welfare lines, but I do not think that citizens information centre staff have such access, and we may need to examine that issue with a view to improving it. That suggestion has been made.

22. Deputy David Stanton asked the Minister for Social Protection further to Parliamentary Question No. 65 of 10 May 2011, 28 out of the 166 applications finalised by the Social Welfare Appeals Office in 2010, the numbers which were allowed and partially allowed by revised decision, summary decision or oral hearing; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21357/11]

26. Deputy Derek Keating asked the Minister for Social Protection the number of persons in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance for longer than three months pending an appeal for a social welfare payment; the reasons for the delay; if she has satisfied herself with the manner in which the appeals are being managed; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21394/11]

37. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Social Protection the extent to which she expects to be in a position to deal with backlogs and appeals in respect of various payments that have accumulated over the past 12 months; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [21392/11]

Deputy Joan Burton: I propose to take Questions Nos. 22, 26 and 37 together.

Figures on the breakdown of decisions in respect of the 28,166 appeals disposed of by the social welfare appeals office during 2010 are enclosed in the following table. I am informed by the social welfare appeals office that the number of appeals waiting to be processed on 17 July was 19,525. There are limited statistics available on the number of individuals in receipt of supplementary welfare allowance for greater than three months pending an appeal for a social welfare payment. However, Department records show that there are currently 1,257 such individuals awaiting the outcome of their appeal on either a jobseeker’s allowance, a jobseeker’s benefit or an illness benefit claim.

In an effort to reduce the backlog of appeals, I made nine additional appointments to the appeals office in recent weeks. These assignments will augment the three appointments made to the office in 2010, bringing the total number of appeals officers serving in the office to 29. In addition, since July 2010, eight retired appeals officers, equating to a further three full-time officers, have been assisting on a strictly part-time basis with the backlogs of appeals and it is intended that they will be employed until the end of the year.

I am assured by the chief appeals officer that she is keeping the methods of operation by which the social welfare appeals office conducts its business under constant review, and that the processes are continuously being enhanced to reduce the backlogs in the office and to reduce the overall processing times for dealing with appeals. In that regard, 3,000 cases registered prior to 31 December 2010 have been ring fenced and a team of ten of the most experienced appeals officers have been freed from all other work in the office and will concentrate on clearing this backlog. This project began on 1 July.

More emphasis is now being placed on dealing with appeals on a summary basis where possible to increase productivity. In some cases, if applications were made more clearly and the medical evidence more clearly laid out, that would certainly assist the process of making a decision in the first instance. As a result, the number of appeals dealt with by way of oral hearing was reduced from 42% for the first six months of 2010 to just over 30% for the same period in 2011.

I have been to the appeals office to visit the staff. They are under tremendous pressure and to give them their due, they are working flat out to deal with the backlog.

[548]Appeals Disposed of During 2010

Appeals Determined by Appeals Officers

Revised decisions by Deciding Officers	Allowed	Partially Allowed	Appeals Disallowed	Appeals Withdrawn	Total
7,282	4,124	623	12,752	3,385	28,166

Oral Hearing	2,094	389	3,031
Summary Decision	2,030	234	9,721

With the extra staff, who are all experienced social welfare staff, I am hopeful we will continue to make inroads into dealing with the backlog.

Deputy David Stanton: I thank the Minister for her reply. I am delighted to hear of the progress that is being made. Has the Minister a target set for waiting times, whether it would be acceptable to have three weeks or five weeks or what would be the target time at the end of this process? Is it true that the number of appeals received by the social welfare appeals office has increased by more 100% from 2007 to 2010? Can the Minister advise as to why this might be the case? Has it anything to do with claims being refused by deciding officers or the application of stricter qualifications criteria? Can the Minister advise on the impact of the office deciding more appeals by summary decision? Is this translating into more appeals being turned down? How is the decision on whether to grant an oral hearing made? Who makes the decision? Are there transparent criteria for that?

Deputy Joan Burton: I will arrange for the details to be forwarded to the Deputy. There has been an enormous increase in the number of appeals. The number of them has multiplied several times in each of the recent years. There was a 46% increase in the number of appeals in 2009 compared with 2008, and that was 27% greater than the number in 2007. There was a further increase of 26% in the number of appeals received in 2010. There has been an enormous increase in the number of appeals. I will forward the Deputy the statistical information.

On the question of cutting back the time involved in the processing of an appeal, we are not yet at the stage where we can give an indicative time for this. We have to reduce the backlog and improve the system. People will be familiar with the idea that in the case of passport applications and citizenship applications, it has become a standard that an applicant must complete the application properly and that greatly increases the opportunity to deal with the application at first instance. If applications can be dealt with on a summary, first instance basis, then the matters which go to appeal can be dealt with much more rapidly. Because there is more than a 50% success rate on appeals, that is a strong indication that many of the appeals are not fully presented with the fullest amount of information that would enhance the making of a decision by the person who decides initially and, subsequently, on appeal.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh: The Minister has referred previously to the review by a deciding officer before an application would reach the stage of an appeal. I wonder if anything more can be done in that respect. For instance, in many cases where an application for carer’s allowance is refused, a simple telephone call or an explanation of the information that is missing would probably prevent the application having to be appealed in the first instance. Can more be done at the early stage of the processing of applications before the stage of appeal? This would help to reduce the waiting list.

[549]Deputy Joan Burton: That is a very sensible suggestion. As the community welfare officers move into the Department, this is an area where they in particular probably have enhanced experience and sensitivity. Perhaps we can have better advisory services and a better quality of information available in citizens information centres. Various organisations supply excellent information which enables people to make a much more directed application that is likely to be successful. We will return to this topic as, hopefully, we reduce the backlog and we will see what can be done to streamline and improve the quality of the application process.

Deputy Derek Keating: I did not realise that Question No. 26 was being taken with Question No. 22. These are difficult times and the appeals system is under severe pressure. The Minister said that community welfare officers will be transferring to her Department. Will that require the introduction of legislation? Under the 2005 supplementary welfare legislation, SI 412, a community welfare officer has exceptional powers of discretion when it comes to emergency funding or in circumstances where he or she and the primary team who might work with the community came across a situation that allows them to override the system. The Minister is aware that the supplementary welfare legislation is known as the payment of last resort and considerable changes have taken place in practice whereby the community welfare officer can now act as a buffer until the appeals system is dealt with. I am mindful of extraordinary cases, be they of poverty, where a special appliance is needed, a payment is required by a person who is terminally ill and there may be no time to carry out a means test, or a payment is required to cover the cost of a funeral. Is there a need for the supplementary welfare legislation to be reviewed? When community welfare officers transfer to her Department, will they no longer have the title “community welfare officers”? What level of community contact will they have and will there be a service available for people with exceptional needs, some examples of which I gave?

4 o’clock

Deputy Joan Burton: Negotiations are ongoing in the Labour Relations Commission in regard to the community welfare officers. They will become full civil servants and they will be community welfare officers. On the matter of whether changes are required to the legislation, I will return to the Deputy on that. First, we must achieve the integration of the service. The community welfare officers have a potentially extremely valuable and important role to play in improving the services of the Department. The number of people getting special needs payments and the amounts of the payments have grown significantly in recent years. It is perhaps an area which could be reviewed but first we want to get the integration of the community welfare officers into the Department and that in itself is a big job. There will be up to 1,000 extra staff and that will be a big change for the staff in the Department of Social Protection. Obviously it will be a very big change for the community welfare officers. There has been a fair number of meetings of senior staff in the Department with community welfare officers and I am very anxious to see them successfully joining the staff of the Department.

Deputy David Stanton: Is it true it is taking six weeks for appeals to be logged to the system from the time they are received in the office? In saying that I am not criticising the staff in any way because I realise the pressure they are under. If that is the case, when does the clock start ticking? Is it when the appeal is received or when it is logged?

Deputy Joan Burton: It can take quite a period of time. There is an attempt to streamline what is happening to improve the quality of the decision making and particularly to improve the time period in which decisions are made. The streamlining is being achieved through meetings with various areas of the Department.

Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 21 and the name of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Nicky McFadden — the provision of funding for RAPID groups in Athlone and Mullingar, County Westmeath; (2) Deputy Bernard J. Durkan — the need to amend legislation in order to provide accommodation for persons becoming homeless by being made redundant; (3) Deputy James Bannon — the need to debate the decision which has led to the suppression of the posts of resource teacher for Travellers and the rural co-ordinator for disadvantage at St. Mary’s national school, Edgeworthstown, County Longford; (4) Deputy Thomas P. Broughan — the provision of acute psychiatric services in the north Dublin and Fingal area; (5) Deputy Joe Costello — the reason persons in receipt of income less than the supplementary welfare allowance are ineligible to apply for a medical card; (6) Deputy Michelle Mulherin — the need to confirm DEIS status for Inver national school, Barnatra, Ballina, County Mayo; (7) Deputy Kevin Humphreys — the cost to the taxpayer through the four local authorities in Dublin of acquiring the incinerator site at Poolbeg; (8) Deputy Noel Coonan — the need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to outline his policy on the future of court sittings in Roscrea and Borrisokane, to state whether his Department will revisit and reconsider the proposal by the Courts Service to cease sittings at Roscrea and Borrisokane District Courts and merge both areas with the District Court area of Nenagh, taking into consideration the considerable inconvenience and expense this move will incur for the people of the locality, the lack of consultation with communities and shareholders, the displacement of gardaí from both areas to attend the court sittings and to make a statement in this regard; (9) Deputy Mattie McGrath — the extremely serious changes being introduced by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, namely, the motion on planning and development regulations that are literally with the stroke of a pen condemning each and every parcel of land perceived to be wetland over 30 sq. m requiring planning permission and any parcel over 2 ha. requiring an EIS to never again being utilised by rural families for any productive use; (10) Deputy Anthony Lawlor — the need for funding from the environment fund to be ring-fenced for the remediation of the landfill site at Kerdiffstown, Naas, County Kildare; (11) Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett — the introduction of a national home retrofit loan scheme; (12) Deputy Gerald Nash — the pardoning of former Defence Forces servicemen who deserted during the Second World War in order to fight fascism; (13) Deputy Ciarán Lynch — the need to amend the Litter Pollution Act 1997 to allow local authorities to take action when waste is not visible; and (14) Deputy Dessie Ellis — in the light of the fact that since the economic collapse there has been a considerable rise in the incidence of suicide across Ireland and specifically in my own area of Dublin North West which has been very hard hit with a number of deaths of young people by suicide and there being no doubt that the desperation of the recession is a major contributory factor, to ask what is being done to tackle this problem and what more can be done.

The matters raised by Deputies Lawlor, Ciarán Lynch, Broughan and Costello have been selected for discussion.

The following motion was moved by the Taoiseach on Wednesday, 20 July 2011:

That Dáil Éireann:

[551]expresses its sympathy with the victims whose suffering is set out in the report;

expresses its thanks to the Commission of Investigation for their work carried out with sensitivity;

deplores the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the Irish State and the Irish bishops;

acknowledges that child protection requires a cross-societal awareness and a purposeful co-operative response from all organisations working with children;

welcomes the publication of the provisions concerning the Criminal Justice (Withholding Information on Crimes against Children and Vulnerable Adults) Bill 2011 and welcomes the announcement made that the heads of the National Vetting Bureau Bill 2011 will be published by the end of July 2011 and furnished to the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality for a consultative process; and

affirms its determination that the State will take all necessary measures to protect its children.

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): Last Wednesday I published the Cloyne report and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and I set out the Government’s response. On that occasion I said it was difficult to read the report and avoid despair. My feelings have been strengthened by the reactions of victims and their families in the week since the report was published. Sadly, some of the victims are no longer with us, but their families have spoken. We owe a debt of gratitude to the victims for their courage in telling the commission of investigation about their experiences of abuse and what happened afterwards when they came in contact with those in authority who were in a position to take action which would have made a difference to their plight and that of others. I share the commission’s hope the report’s publication may to some degree alleviate the hurt and anger they rightly and naturally feel. We should also pay tribute to the work of all those individuals and organisations that have supported them.

I acknowledge the contribution of Judge Yvonne Murphy and her colleagues on the commission of investigation. They have delivered a report of clarity and carried out their difficult task sensitively and meticulously. The victims had to relive painful memories and the commission members had to help them to relive these memories in the least distressing way possible, while at the same maintaining a professional approach. They succeeded admirably in doing this.

The report’s findings are unambiguous. It is severely critical of the diocese of Cloyne. The response of the diocese to complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse in the period from 1996 to 2008 was totally inadequate and inappropriate. Specifically, church guidelines were not fully or consistently implemented in the diocese. Primary responsibility for this lies with the bishop who the report describes as ineffective and the vicar general charged with investigating [552]complaints against priests of child sexual abuse who did not approve of the procedures set out in the church guidelines, in particular, the requirement to report to the civil authorities. The diocese failed to report all complaints to the Garda. Out of 15 complaints in the period that should have been reported, nine were not. In two of these the subject of the complaint was a minor at the time the complaint was made. After reporting complaints against one priest in 1996, the diocese did not report any complaints to the health authorities again until 2008. Furthermore, it did not put a proper support system in place, as mandated by church guidelines, nor did it operate an advisory panel which was independent. The panel’s documentation was inadequate and the diocese did not properly record and maintain information on complaints of child sexual abuse up to 2008.

The report describes as quite extraordinary the failure to read and take heed of the 2004 McCoy report on the diocese’s procedures and processes which showed that the diocese was not implementing required procedures. The diocese did not carry out proper canonical investigations, nor did it comply with the 1999 child care guidelines. It is appalling that those who presented a public face of concern had a private agenda of concealment and evasion.

The commission found that in 2008 the diocese had started to follow the procedures set out in the church documents and it is satisfied that the diocese now has an independent advisory panel. It commends the diocese for its efforts in training both church personnel and the laity in the area of child protection and for recruiting risk assessment specialists in 2009.

Particularly disturbing is the commission’s finding that the Vatican’s response to the church guidelines was entirely unhelpful, describing them as “merely a study document”. This gave comfort and support to those who dissented from the guidelines. The Vatican’s intervention and the letter sent by the papal nuncio undermined not only the obligation of dioceses to comply with the church’s own framework document but also the application of the State’s child care guidelines. Rightly, the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade has pursued this matter with the papal nuncio. We await the Vatican’s official response.

The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs and I are taking a twofold approach. We are responding to the immediate problems identified in the report and, importantly, introducing measures which will help to establish the system of child protection children need and deserve. We cannot depend on the undertakings of others to correct failings and introduce robust and effective structures of protection. The Cloyne report irrefutably confirms that some who in the past gave such undertakings acted in bad faith. It is important to remember that the people primarily responsible for the abuse at the centre of the report were the abusers themselves.

The Garda Commissioner has appointed Assistant Commissioner Derek Byrne to examine the report and determine whether further action can be taken against the abusers referred to in it. The Garda has set up a special telephone line which victims of clerical abuse or anyone who has information on abuse can contact. Following the publication of the report on the Dublin archdiocese, Assistant Commissioner John O’Mahoney was appointed to examine it specifically in relation to how complaints had been handled and investigated by the church and State authorities to determine whether there had been criminal behaviour. A number of files have been submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the examination will now be extended to the Cloyne report.

After the publication of the Dublin archdiocese report, the Garda Inspectorate was requested to carry out a comprehensive review of Garda arrangements for dealing with allegations of child sexual abuse. I have agreed with the chief inspector, Kathy O’Toole, that in the weeks prior to the publication of its report, it will be given a chance to review its findings in the light of the Cloyne report.

[553]Most regrettably, the commission was very concerned about the approach adopted by gardaí in a small number of cases. Following consultations with the Garda Commissioner, I have sent the report to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission to examine it as a matter of urgency and see whether further action is warranted. That examination is taking place. I repeat to the House the apology I gave last week on behalf of the State for the Garda’s failure in three cases detailed in the report. These failures should not have occurred. It is important to note that the commission’s overall conclusion was that the Garda response to the cases covered by the report had been generally adequate and appropriate. A number of complainants were highly complimentary about the way in which gardaí had dealt with their complaints.

I am also determined to deal with the deeper gaps which underlie the report. Last week I published detailed legislative proposals for a criminal justice (withholding information on crimes against children and vulnerable adults) Bill. Deputy Calleary proposed that my proposals be considered by the Joint Committee on Justice and Equality and I have no difficulty with this proposal. What I am proposing will make it an offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment for a person who has information that could help in the arrest, prosecution or conviction of an offender of a serious offence committed against a child or vulnerable adult not to pass that information on to the Garda where he or she knows that information could help. We have already done substantial work on this in consultation with the Attorney General and her office and I intend that it will be a Government legislative priority to have it enacted in the autumn. Its enactment will enable the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions to investigate and prosecute those who conceal and fail to report to the Garda sexual offences against children. The legal position will be clear.

We have to ensure in so far as possible those who come into contact with children do not present a danger. There is widespread agreement that we need to make it possible to disclose what is called soft information where this is necessary to protect children. The need for legislation in this area was most recently highlighted in the report published by the Joint Committee on the Constitutional Amendment on Children which in September 2008 called for the necessary legislation to be published by the then Government by the following December. Unfortunately, the Government failed to meet that commitment and the legislation was not published during its lifetime. I am working to bring proposals to the Government next week setting out the heads of a national vetting bureau Bill to place the vetting of persons working with children and vulnerable adults on a statutory basis. The vetting of persons for certain employment positions is available on a non-statutory basis. The Bill will provide a legislative basis for existing arrangements in line with the recommendations of the joint committee and the disclosure of soft information for the purposes of child protection. Following Government approval the heads of the Bill will be furnished to the Attorney General’s office with a view also to its publication in final form and enactment in the next Dáil session. As part of the Government’s new approach to legislation, the Oireachtas justice committee will have the opportunity to consider its content and to propose in September any constructive amendments or additions, and to contribute to the Bill’s developmental process.

I am determined to ensure that the church and State do what is necessary to protect our children from those who sexually prey on them or physically abuse them. I am determined that those who work with children and those who recruit others to do so, in either the public or private sector, in commercial or voluntary organisations, behave with awareness and responsibility and in the best interests of children. I am determined to ensure that those who know a child has been assaulted or abused will be required to report such offence to the Garda and that there will be consequences for their failing to do so. I am determined that children will not be put in the way of harm to be preyed on by those already known to have harmed a child. We cannot correct past wrongs perpetrated on our children but we can take action to prevent, [554]in so far as is possible, the wrongs of the past being perpetrated on our children in the future. Let us on all sides in this House join together in clearly stating that in addressing and bringing to justice those who perpetrate child sexual abuse, the era of “mental reservation” is over and the laws of this land will prevail and be applied.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue: Shock, revulsion, dismay and sadness — the full lexicon of condemnation has been used in response to the report of the Murphy commission into the Diocese of Cloyne. I share those sentiments while realising that no words of mine can do justice to the horrors that were inflicted on those who suffered child abuse. It is the survivors that should be foremost in our thoughts when dealing with this subject. The hurt they feel must only be surpassed by the bravery of those who came forward to give evidence to the commission of investigation. I only hope that the publication of the report will give them some comfort that, at last, their dreadful experiences are being believed and acknowledged. We must bear in mind the many other survivors whose experience of abuse is known to themselves alone and who continue to feel unable to articulate what they went through. The State owes a significant debt of gratitude to those survivors who gave evidence to the commission and to the members of the commission itself — Ms Ita Mangan, Mr. Hugh O’Neill and its chairperson, Judge Yvonne Murphy.

The most shocking aspect of this report is that the failures it describes are not ancient history. All of the complaints, allegations, concerns and suspicions of child sexual abuse referred to in the report occurred between January 1996 and February 2009. The year 1996 is the crucial dividing line in the handling of clerical sexual abuse in Ireland as it was the year in which the Catholic Church in Ireland put in place detailed procedures for dealing with child sexual abuse. The mishandling of complaints of child sexual abuse by members of the Catholic hierarchy can never be excused no matter when it occurred, and the fact that the Cloyne diocese simply ignored the guidelines and procedures put in place by the hierarchy is utterly unforgivable. It placed children in greater danger and compounded the suffering and feeling of betrayal of survivors even further.

That the authorities in the Diocese of Cloyne, in particular Bishop John Magee and Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan, failed in their duty until so recently gives the lie to the oft repeated mantra that the response to abuse reported in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was a product of its time, when bishops and others had little understanding of the nature and scale of abuse. This was never a defence and has been rubbished even more by the revelation that the church’s own guidelines were not being followed in Cloyne until 2008. In addition, the attitude of the Vatican towards the Irish church’s guidelines and to the commission of investigation was nothing short of deplorable. It is not the behaviour that we expect from a sovereign state with whom we have friendly relations, and it certainly lacked the moral courage and integrity that one would expect from an entity that preaches such values.

When the Cloyne report is added to what we have learned from the Murphy commission’s report into the Dublin archdiocese, the Ryan report and the many other aspects of the scandal of clerical abuse, one conclusion is very clear — self regulation is not enough, and it must be backed up by a robust legislative framework. In that regard, I welcome the proposals put forward by the Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Fitzgerald, and I look forward to debating the detail of them in the House. I hope that will occur as a matter of urgency when we return in the autumn.

I particularly welcome the commitment that persons in certain professions, including clergy, will be obliged to report suspicions of abuse or face criminal penalty. This is an important step but it must be backed up by the appropriate resources. The experience in other jurisdictions, [555]where a mandatory reporting requirement has been put in place, is that the volume of reports of abuse increases massively. For example, the number of reports made increased six-fold when mandatory reporting was introduced in New South Wales in Australia. It is vital that the number of social workers is increased to cope with this. If this does not happen, the mandatory reporting requirement may actually end up doing more harm than good, with social workers sitting at their desks assessing the urgency of cases rather than getting out of the office and fulfilling their role of supporting families and protecting children. I urge the Minister to assess carefully over the summer the resource requirements involved in mandatory reporting before coming back to the House with legislation in the autumn.

The other main policy issue which arises here is whether to extend the remit of the commission of investigation to the remaining dioceses. Fianna Fáil’s position is that at the very least all survivors should have the opportunity to have their experiences acknowledged in a formal setting. It would be unfair to survivors of abuse in the 23 remaining dioceses that they would not have the chance to give testimony to what they endured. I appreciate that many do not wish to revisit this painful chapter in their lives. However, many survivors were met with scepticism or denial when they first came forward with their stories and so desire to have it acknowledged that they were telling the truth. Fianna Fáil has an open mind on whether this needs to be done through a full blown commission of investigation and we hope that we can have a discussion on it in the coming months.

It is sensible that the relevant Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Fitzgerald, should wait for the completion of the HSE and the Catholic Church’s national board for safeguarding children audits to be completed before making a final decision on this. I know some doubt has been cast — not unreasonably — on the usefulness of these audits given that they rely on voluntary information from the church authorities. We should wait to see Mr. Ian Elliot’s assessment of the audits and what level of compliance there is from bishops in publishing the audits. It is our belief that nothing short of full publication by all bishops would be acceptable. I note that the stance being taken by the Government now differs from that expressed by the Fine Gael spokesperson on children a few months ago, who called for the Murphy commission to be extended to all dioceses. We should continue to consider the matter.

There is also a cross-Border dimension to the question of extending the commission’s work. Six dioceses fall into this category, and we believe it is important that the two Ministers consult their colleagues in the Northern Executive regarding co-operation to ensure that the audits and any possible extension of the Murphy commission can take place effectively. Perhaps they could update the House on their contacts in that regard when responding to this debate.

The systematic and endemic abuse of children by clergy that has been revealed in report after report shames our State and our nation. Church and State failed far too many children by exposing them to predatory abusers and then compounded their suffering by failing to act in an effective manner when the abuse was brought to light.

For the sake of some of the survivors, I hope prosecutions will follow from the publication of the Cloyne report. More importantly, perhaps, the outcome of the work of the Murphy commission should be total dedication on the part of official Ireland to ensuring all children are protected to the greatest extent possible. That is the priority of my party, as I am sure it is of all Members of the House. I am sure we will disagree on nuances, but Ministers can be assured that they will find willing allies on this side of the House in all their efforts to protect children. I hope we can work towards that objective on a cross-party basis. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Dan Neville: I would like to share time with Deputy Mulherin.

[556]An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Dan Neville: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and would like to deal with one aspect of the issue. Just as it is right that we abhor child abuse, it is important for us to understand its effects and destructive outcomes for children. When child abuse occurs, the victim can develop a variety of distressing feelings, thoughts and behaviours. No child is psychologically prepared to cope with repeated sexual stimulation. Even a two year old who cannot know sexual activity is wrong will develop problems as a result of his or her inability to cope with over-stimulation. A child of five years or older who knows and cares for the abuser will become trapped between affection or loyalty for the person and the sense that sexual activities are terribly wrong. If the child tries to break away from the sexual relationship, the abuser may threaten the child with violence or loss of love. A child who is the victim of prolonged sexual abuse usually develops low self-esteem, feelings of worthlessness and abnormal or distorted views on sex. The child may become withdrawn or mistrustful of adults. He or she can become suicidal. Children who have been sexually abused have difficulty relating to others other than on sexual terms. Some become child abusers or prostitutes, or experience other serious problems, when they reach adulthood.

There are often no obvious physical signs of child sexual abuse. A number of signs can be detected through physical examination by a doctor. Sexually abused children may develop an unusual interest in, or avoidance of, things of a sexual nature. They can experience sleep problems and often have nightmares. They can suffer depression and become withdrawn from friends or family. They may make statements about their bodies being “dirty” or “damaged”. They might think there is something wrong with them in the genitals area. They may refuse to go to school, or become delinquent and have behavioural problems. They often become secretive. They sometimes display aspects of their sexual molestation in their drawings, games or fantasies. They may be unusually aggressive. The child may be extremely fearful of telling someone, although he or she might talk freely when a special effort has been made to help him or her to feel safe. If a child says he or she has been molested, parents should try to remain calm and reassure him or her that what happened was not his or her fault. They should seek a medical examination and a psychiatric consultation.

The initial and short-term effects of abuse usually occur within two years of the termination of the abuse. These effects vary depending on the circumstances of the abuse and the child’s stage of development. They may include regressive behaviour such as a return to thumb-sucking or bed-wetting, sleep disturbance, eating problems, behavioural or performance problems in school and non-participation in school and social activities. The negative effects of child abuse can affect victims for many years and into adulthood. Adults who were sexually abused as children commonly experience depression. High levels of anxiety in these adults can result in self-destructive behaviours such as alcoholism, drug abuse, anxiety attacks, situation specific anxiety disorders and insomnia. Many victims encounter problems in their adult relationships and adult sexual functioning. Revictimisation is a common phenomenon in people who were abused as children. Research has shown that child sexual abuse victims are more likely to be victims of rape or be involved in physically abusive relationships as adults.

The ill-effects of child abuse are wide-ranging. There is no one set of symptoms or outcomes. Some children report little or no psychological distress from the abuse. These children may be afraid to express their emotions and may be denying their feelings as a coping mechanism. Other children may have sleeper effects — experiencing no harm in the short term but suffering serious problems in later life. In an attempt to assess whether a child can recover from sexual abuse and to better understand the ill-effects of child abuse, psychologists have studied the factors that seem to lessen the impact of such abuse. The factors that affect the amount of [557]harm done to the victim include the age of the child, the duration, frequency and intrusiveness of the abuse, the degree of force used and the relationship with the abuser. Issues such as the child’s interpretation of the abuse, whether he or she discloses the abuse and how quickly he or she reports it also affect the short-term and long-term consequences of the abuse. As I said, it is very easy and important to abhor child abuse. It is just as important to understand its effects and destructive outcomes for children.

Deputy Michelle Mulherin: I welcome the motion. I am pleased that the proposed mandatory reporting of knowledge of abuse of children and vulnerable adults, as envisaged in the Children First national guidance document and recommended in the Ryan report, will be set in stone through legislation of this Parliament. I commend the Taoiseach, the Ministers, Deputies Shatter and Fitzgerald, and all Members who are grasping the nettle. The institution of the Catholic Church failed to act correctly to protect the innocence of the country’s children. Those involved did not live up to their responsibilities as representatives of God’s kingdom on Earth.

Many of us who were raised as Christians in the Catholic tradition are absolutely dismayed by the failure of the institution in these matters to honour and stand by Christian principles that transcend Canon Law. The separation of church and State is an imperative. It is in keeping with the worldly authority given to us as Christians. If it were not the case that the rule of the Earth was given to men and women, surely the perpetrators of these most heinous crimes, including some priests, would be struck down by God. We know this has not happened. Therefore, it is a matter for us as human beings to correct these wrongs politically and by means of the law. In this case, we can do so by introducing appropriate legislation. This domain is our God-given responsibility.

The comments of Fr. Vincent Twomey, professor emeritus in theology in Maynooth, demand a response. He spoke about the sanctity of the seal of the confessional, as set out in Canon Law. He said, in effect, any interference by the civil law would offend God in some way. He also said he was “incandescent with rage” when he learned of the contents of the Cloyne report. He is unrepentant about the shocking truth of how the systems of the Catholic Church served to protect abusers and sacrifice innocents in the process — not just in years gone by but also today in modern Ireland. This attitude created a climate favourable to abuse in the first place and will allow it to continue. We will not address the problem by calling for the heads of a few bishops to roll towards atonement.

It is nothing short of idolatry to regard the institution as a sacred cow. Idolatry is forbidden in the first and second commandments because it creates a substitute God. Evil acts like child abuse are carried out by individuals who are individually accountable to God who gladly pardons repentant sinners. It is not written anywhere that God’s forgiveness and divine law will protect, or be used to protect, someone who has committed a crime from the full rigours of our criminal justice system. No institution is sacred but for the God they worship. When an institution’s members accept acts contrary to God’s will, God rejects and judges the institution. No institution is infallible. Every institution is a human construct, even if it has a divine mandate. The Old Testament is full of examples of this.

Our Lord — Jesus Christ — said that if anyone harmed one of “these little ones”, it would be better for that person “to be drowned”. He never spoke more seriously, other than when he said it would have been better if His traitor had never been born. Members of the Catholic Church who truly love God should be glad that this evil which was perpetrated by false shepherds has been exposed in order that they can be rid of it. It is because I care very much about the Catholic Church and want to see it at its best that I say this.

[558]Again, I congratulate the Government on taking this step which is long overdue and for which we as a nation have been crying out for decades. If we do not protect our children, who will? I am proud to be part of this Government which is taking this action.

Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I wish to share time with Deputy McLellan. As was previously stated this morning by my colleague, Deputy Ó Caoláin, while my party welcomes the motion, we certainly would have liked to have seen more robust wording in some areas. Yesterday’s draft motion was more definitive.

As someone who is a devout Catholic and who puts great stock in his faith, I must say reading the Cloyne report was very disturbing. Not only has the action or, depending on how one looks at it, inaction of the church caused untold suffering on victims, it has betrayed the many people like myself who placed faith in the teachings of the church. The church authorities have failed to live up to the expectations of those who believe in its teachings, and who are still committed to the teachings, by failing to get their house in order and putting their own self-interest above the protection of children. They have done themselves a disservice.

No doubt this is a depressing and painful chapter in Irish history, with each new revelation even more shocking than the one that preceded it. The Catholic Church, the State, society and all of us as individuals must ensure there is real change in this issue. We could not afford the failings of the past and we certainly cannot afford to leave our children exposed in the future. There is no easy solution to end the vile crime of child sexual abuse but we must ensure all the necessary protections available to us as a society are in place. The safety of our children is paramount. There is no room for political points scoring or ambiguity. Society demands action and our children deserve action.

We failed to learn from the lessons of the past. We have seen the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy reports, and now we have Cloyne. While the Cloyne report did not investigate the abuse, but rather how the church did or did not deal with the allegations, it was still very sickening to read. The various infractions contained in this report have been detailed in the House, in the media and in homes throughout this State. The unacceptable lack of recording surrounding child sexual abuse allegations and the failure to report nine out of 15 complaints made against members of the clergy is a shocking indictment on the church as an entity. Abuse allegations that the report states very clearly should have been reported to the relevant authorities and were not tell their own story.

The Commission also tells of how the papal nuncio said that he was unable to assist in this matter when requested for information. The personal statement yesterday of Fr. Lombardi just does not cut it. What we need, and demand, is an official response from the Vatican.

The State must also face up to its failings. Concerns regarding the approach of Garda investigations in two cases and a dispute between the Commission and the Garda on whether an investigation actually occurred in a third case are worrying revelations. This level of State incompetence is particularly worrying in the context of the recent reports on the Ferry-Donegal school abuse controversy.

One lesson we must learn from this report relates to guidelines and rules. It is now clear that guidelines are meaningless unless there is a legal requirement placed on those tasked with implementing them or the guidelines themselves are put on a statutory footing. That is why I welcome the comments from the Minister for Justice and Equality and the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, and their strong, unequivocal response in the wake of this report. I assure both Ministers that Sinn Féin will not be found wanting in supporting promised legislation by the Government that can ensure increased protections for children. We have long [559]advocated the use of soft information on persons who have had allegations of child sexual abuse made against them. It is a vital tool in protecting children in the future and we look forward to the publication of the promised national vetting bureau Bill.

There is no room for knee-jerk legislation in this area. We should not do something for the sake of being seen to do it. We need good, well thought-out and comprehensive legislation on the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse. The proposed legislation on withholding information on crimes against children and vulnerable adults is urgently needed and we welcome the commitment of the Government to move swiftly on this. Then, and only then, can we bring about a situation where the children of this State have adequate protections.

Deputy Sandra McLellan: At the outset, I commend the rigorous work of her honour Judge Yvonne Murphy and the commission. It is an absolute disgrace that it was necessary at all.

Regrettably, we have all been down this road before. We have seen the Ferns, Ryan and Murphy reports and now this particular report on the diocese of Cloyne — more cases of the abuse of children by priests and a church reluctant, at the very best, to live up to its responsibilities to protect its flock. Unfortunately, it is no longer shocking that the Catholic Church failed our children. We have been over similar ground previously.

Far too often we have investigated the unhealthy relationship between church and State and the horrors that have been perpetrated on children by both over a long period. My party believes the motion before the House today should have acknowledged the failure of this State to protect children in law and in reality.

What astonishes most people about this report is that it related to a time when the Catholic Church in Ireland had put in place detailed procedures for dealing with child sexual abuse, and during a period of constant revelations about child abuse by priests. Best practice, as contained in guidelines and rules, does not matter one iota if there is not implementation.

There was abject failure on behalf of the church and to a lesser degree the State. This report details a litany of concealment and evasion by the Catholic Church, including Bishop Magee’s incomplete account of how he was handling allegations; the diocese failure to report nine out of 15 complaints made against priests which clearly should have been reported; the failure to report the two cases in which the alleged victims were minors at the time the complaint was made; the placing by the diocese of far too much emphasis on the concerns of the alleged offenders; Monsignor O’Callaghan withholding the identity of an alleged perpetrator from authorities and attempting to have a particular Garda carry out the investigation; the commission statement that it cannot understand how the monsignor concluded no sexual abuse had occurred in a situation where clearly and unequivocally it had — the mind boggles; bad policing practices by the Garda in three cases; an allegation made against Bishop Magee in 2008 which called into question his judgment; and one complaint in 1996 and another in 2008 being all that was reported to the health authorities. I cannot imagine the pain, hurt and suffering caused by this abuse. I extend my deepest sympathies to all the victims. In the case of Cloyne, they are my friends and neighbours.

I am glad that the Government has taken issue with the disgraceful lack of engagement by the papal nuncio with the commission and the outrageous interference of the Vatican in matters of child protection in this State. While we still await an official Vatican response, the comments today from the papal nuncio do not go nearly far enough.

I welcome the Government’s stated priority of bringing abusers to justice, in particular, the appointment of the assistant commissioner to examine the possibility of doing this. In addition, I make a personal call on all abuse victims to go straight to the Garda as the body best able to deal with allegations of abuse.

[560]Sinn Féin will not be found wanting in supporting promised legislation by the Government if it can be proven to improve child protection. Like my colleagues, I call for well worked-out, good legislation and the resources to ensure the outcomes we desire. Sinn Féin is heartened by the Children First child protection guidelines being placed on a statutory footing. The Government has made firm commitments on these following the Cloyne report. We are determined to ensure these commitments are delivered upon. We support the motion before the House today with the caveat that we would have preferred some areas to be stronger. This has been a long and painful chapter in Irish history and the reports and investigations are set to continue. The Legislature must ensure that from this day forth no child is ever subjected to the horrors visited upon the victims detailed in the reports to date. This must end immediately.

Deputy Regina Doherty: I am pleased to speak on the motion but I am distressed and saddened that we are discussing the matter in Parliament today. I wish to focus on something one of the victims said last week. She said, “I smell freedom”. The phrase has been going around and around in my head. In many ways I am pleased for that lady because people who have been sexually abused or those close to people who have been sexually abused explain that there is no escape or freedom. I am glad that lady feels that she is nearing the place of escape from what she has been through. There is a great deal of suppression by victims but there is no escape because one can never be prepared for the trigger that set off the roller-coaster of pain, the vivid memories, the re-living, the “if onlys” and the “what ifs”. The life of victims is one of constantly rehashing something over which they have no control. For many victims the only escape is to suppress the myriad emotions which sexual abuse causes and not to deal with them. It gives me great hope that at least one victim has stated that she smells freedom and I pray for a good deal more of it.

The hierarchy of the Catholic Church has let down the children of Ireland very badly. According to Rome, the church is infallible in its definitions on faith and morals. Plainly, this infallibility only takes regard to the principles rather than the application. The rules of conduct differ so widely when one considers the Vatican’s direct intervention in Ireland undermined our child protection framework and directly contributed to the vast number of victims of the clerical sexual abuse. The church’s ideals around the Canon Law versus State law argument clearly demonstrate how out of touch the church is. Clerics assumed and continue to assume the high moral ground using the cloak of Canon Law, while contributing directly to the abuse of children and then to covering it up. This is heartbreaking for any Catholic or Christian in this country and it causes its own set of internal faith dilemmas.

I am encouraged that we are putting on a statutory basis the measures necessary to ensure every child is protected here. There is no more doubt. No longer will we leave it to chance or to an internal moral code which, we now know, does not exist among some members of our infallible church. The church as an institution has a great deal for which to atone. It must reflect on this moral dilemma and leave law-making to the legislators.

I take great solace in my faith, my spirituality and in God. The gospel of Mark states, “Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God”. It gives me solace that the gospel goes on to state that “those whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea”. I believe in heaven and an afterlife and I believe that someday we must all stand before God Almighty and be judged. It gives me solace that all of those who perpetrated these crimes against children and young adults in the past must stand before their maker at some stage one day. It gives me comfort that our State will enact legislation at this time to take care of people who have failed children by directly [561]involving themselves in the abuse of children or thereafter covering up alleged abuse by members of their organisations or members that were known to them. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Derek Keating: Like all Members, I am appalled at the findings of the commission of investigation report into the handling by the church authorities of the abuse of children in the Catholic dioceses of Cloyne. It makes distressing reading. I stand beside and in support of those who have been abused in the diocese of Cloyne.

The diocese of Cloyne is more than 800 years old, it has 46 parishes and a population of more than 160,000 people. There are 12 religious communities working in the dioceses with approximately 140 priests. I make this point because I wish to highlight to the House the power that one person, one bishop, has over a dioceses and how that one person in Canon Law and in practise is all-powerful. I emphasise the point because page 33 of the report states that “as long as he operates within the canon law the bishop is free to organise the day to day running of his diocese as he sees fit”. The commission of investigation is aware that some 40 people may have been affected by clerical sexual abuse in the diocese of Cloyne. It is unacceptable and appalling that the diocese of Cloyne never attempted to ascertain if there were other complaints involving the 19 clerics within its remit, of which 12 had a single complaint made against them. I was also shocked to discover from the report that only one priest has been convicted of child sexual abuse.

Perhaps the most distressing and shocking aspect of the report, other than the abuse against children, is the fact that the then Bishop of Cloyne, Bishop Magee, lied, concealed and frustrated investigations into the abuse of children. Effectively, this gave individual Irish bishops the freedom to ignore the procedures agreed nationally by the Irish church. It allowed Monsignor O’Callaghan to dissent from the stated official church policy on protecting children. Here, the conflict between Canon Law and civil law clashes. No individual, organisation or group can act autonomously under the law here. Yet we have seen that through Canon Law the Bishop of a diocese may decide to ignore civil law with the protection of the Holy See.

I refer to the issue of mandatory reporting and why we must have it in this jurisdiction. Mandatory reporting requires citizens to report all suspicions of serious crime, including child abuse. Mandatory reporting of child abuse requires all citizens or designated professionals to report child abuse if they are aware of or suspect that child abuse exists and that a child is at risk. However, mandatory reporting of child abuse, suspected child abuse or wilful neglect in the European Union falls into four categories. Of the 27 member states, Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom do not have mandatory reporting as of yet. I was pleased to hear the Minister, Deputy Shatter, announce last week as part of the Government’s response to the report on Cloyne a new programme to protect children.

It is interesting to note that the majority of member states have a form of mandatory reporting of child abuse and wilful neglect. For example, Minister Paula Bennett of the New Zealand Government is currently presenting a Green Paper on child protection which will include mandatory reporting. It is expected to be finalised in the autumn of this year. In Ireland, some 90% of school principals have supported mandatory reporting of child abuse and wilful neglect. More recently, Cardinal Seán Brady has called on the Government to introduce mandatory reporting in its fullest form. The State has seen numerous reports including, the Kilkenny incest case, the Kelly Fitzgerald case, the Roscommon investigation case, the Ferns report and the Murphy report on the Dublin dioceses. All have called for the introduction of mandatory reporting.

A basic civil right for children is that they should be treated the same if not better than adults, especially if a crime is committed or suspected to have been committed against them. [562] They should have the full support of the State and its professionals if there is a question of abuse or wilful neglect. Child welfare issues should not be used by social workers and other professionals to highlight the problem of child protection. The wrong message is being sent to victims when we have one law for adults and another for children. It is unacceptable that this is so, which is why I endorse wholeheartedly the Government’s approach to dealing with this problem in society.

In the last few days I have received a number of items of correspondence, some from members of the clergy, and telephone calls about the discussion on mandatory reporting. I will not be put off my responsibility to this House and the people who sent me here. The Government has sent a very clear statement, expressed today, deploring the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection framework and guidelines in the State. I commend the motion to the House.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I wish to share time with Deputies Clare Daly and Stephen Donnelly.

An Ceann Comhairle: Is that agreed? Agreed.

Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to speak in this important debate on the Cloyne report. I thank and commend Judge Yvonne Murphy, Ms Ita Mangan and Mr. Hugh O’Neill for their excellent work. I support the all-party motion on the report and the issue of child abuse generally.

In the debate it is important to sympathise with and support all of the victims and remind ourselves of the trauma they have gone through. Sympathy is not enough, however, and words are very hollow, unless action is taken to deal with the issue of child abuse and put in place practical supports. In the overall context of the wider debate, let us put the blame where it lies. The leaders of the church, the State and people failed the victims. We should never forget this. We can have all the legislation and all of the reports we like, but they are no good if people do not act in the interests of the child and the victim. There can be no running away from this reality and we all have a responsibility to ensure it happens.

I dedicate my contribution to the protestor at the gate of Leinster House, Mr. Peter Preston, who himself was a victim of a miscarriage of justice in regard to his family. He spends every Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday protesting on the issue of child abuse and neglect, as well as the drugs issue. I commend him for his magnificent work in carrying on his protest.

I express my dismay at the disturbing findings of the report and the inadequate and inappropriate response, particularly of the church authorities in Cloyne, to complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse. I deplore the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the State and the Irish bishops. When I read this 421 page report and see the evidence, I wonder what is going on in this country after all the talk on child abuse and the so-called protections introduced. The church, the State and the people did not take the necessary measures to protect children — that is the reality and it must change.

My other major concern on the issue of child sexual abuse concerns the fact that there is another core group who have not been discussed in great detail, namely, children with an intellectual disability who were abused and who often have no voice. They have been and are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse. We will always have paedophiles in society who will look at new ways to access children and children with disabilities are a soft, open target. Many have suffered already and my concern is that because they are forgotten, they will suffer again. [563] I appeal to all front-line caring staff to be vigilant and keep a close eye on all children and adults, particularly those with an intellectual disability. I do not want to read about another Roscommon or Galway case. Those involved in front-line services must be extra careful in this regard.

The Cloyne report at page 351, paragraph 2, states:

Children have been placed at risk of harm within the Diocese of Cloyne through the inability of that Diocese to respond appropriately to the information that came to it regarding child protection concerns involving the clergy. It failed to act effectively to limit the access to children by individuals against whom a credible complaint of child sexual abuse was made.

That conclusion is the bottom line in this debate. We have had enough talk. We have had professional, objective and sensitive reports. What the victims want is real action. They deserve compassion, support and justice. The church, the State and the people must face up to that reality and, once and for all, try to end child abuse for all children.

Deputy Clare Daly: If this was the first report on clerical child sex abuse, it would be tragic. The fact that it is one of many indicates the scale of the horror our society has allowed to continue for far too long. I do not believe it is something that would be tolerated or would have happened in any other country. It is a legacy of the privileged position of the Catholic Church and the manner in which it has been intertwined with the development of the State from the framing of the Constitution to its primary role in schools, hospitals and so on, as well as in the horrors in residential institutions as discussed last week. That special or privileged relationship with the church is graphically shown by the all-party motion before the House. On the one hand, it shows how far we have come, but, on the other, it shows that we have not really moved at all. The fact that the original wording was changed from “condemns the actions of the Vatican” to “deplores the actions of the Vatican” sums up the situation in which we find ourselves. I do not just deplore what happened. In the dictionary the meaning of “deplore” is to regret deeply. The feelings of people in this country go way beyond regretting deeply. They are absolutely outraged at what has been allowed to happen. If these actions had been taken in any other country, there is no question but that it would have been deemed to be a hostile act. If the Libyan ambassador behaved in the same way as the papal nuncio, there would almost be calls for the Army to assemble at the Libyan border. The reality is that, between the Murphy and Cloyne reports, the Vatican was a party to a criminal conspiracy to prevent the Irish authorities from being informed in a timely fashion of reported cases of abuse. The refusal of the Papal Nuncio to respond to questions is an affront to victims and Irish society at large. As other Deputies have said, at a very minimum, he should have been expelled. One wonders what it would take to have some people here condemn the actions of the church if the revelations in the Cloyne report are not enough for them to do so.

It is clear that words are inadequate to describe the harm inflicted on children abused by the clergy. I express my own and my party’s solidarity with the victims and commend them for their bravery in stepping forward and telling their stories to the commission. The fact that these crimes were perpetrated after 1996, by which time the church was supposed to have child protection measures in place in the aftermath of the Brendan Smyth case, goes to the heart of the matter and demonstrates that the public repentance of the church hierarchy cannot be trusted.

This is the most serious incident to date and the lack of prosecutions post the Murphy report means many do not have huge confidence that justice will be meted out to the perpetrators mentioned in the Cloyne report either. This is an issue for which the Minister must account. Much funding has been expended on these reports but very few have been brought to justice. [564] We need to see action in this regard. Obviously, the State is also hugely culpable and while it is very convenient to allow the church to take the blame, it must step up to the mark also. Unless there is full separation of church and State, these issues will never be adequately addressed.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: I would like to step back in time a little to the Ireland of the 1970s. A young man enters a seminary; the priestly vocation is a challenging one and, accordingly, in 1978 the young man goes for a psychological assessment which does not go well. There is an indication of deep sexual repression and he scores very high on the psychosis scale. However, no obstacles are put in his path. He is ordained and joins a parish in north Cork in the mid-1980s. We will call him Fr. Calder which is not his real name.

5 o’clock

People became worried almost immediately. In 1988, a young man alleged a sexual assault but did not make a formal complaint. There were reports that Fr. Calder had been giving alcohol to young adults and spiking their drinks. Another report of sexual abuse was made but again no formal complaint followed. Fr. Calder then moved to another parish in Cork where another “soft” complaint of sexual abuse was made. In July 1997, the diocese announced that Fr. Calder was to move to a new parish in north Cork beside the one in which he started his career. However, the locals there did not want him near their children and they mounted a campaign. The diocese made some inquiries, asked Fr. Calder about the allegations, which he denied, and the transfer went ahead.

Almost immediately, Fr. Calder was appointed chairman of the board of management of the local national school. The principal was concerned for the safety of the children in her school but was unable to do anything or bring it to the attention of the board of management because Fr. Calder was its chairman. There had previously been a custom in the school of letting boys leave school during the day to serve as altar boys for daily mass. The principal had stopped this practice some time previously but her new chairman, Fr. Calder, now asked her to start letting the boys out again and moreover, he asked that they come to him for altar boy training during school time. The principal, out of concern for their safety, refused. Was Fr. Calder embarrassed, uncomfortable or ashamed? No, he threatened her and stated that effectively, he could withhold her salary unless she did what he asked. Finally, the diocese launched an investigation into Fr. Calder. In October 1997, he was sent for assessment to the Granada Institute, where he was unco-operative.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Jack Wall): I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy Stephen Donnelly: What happened? He was neither defrocked nor stripped of his right to practice as a priest. Instead, he returned to ministry, albeit this time to an old folks’ home, and further reports then ensued.

This story is at the heart of the Cloyne report. A possibly abusive priest was placed in a position with access to children and with authority over the school principal. When the church finally took note of the concerns about the priest, it apparently launched an inquiry but the Cloyne report implies the documents may be deliberately inaccurate. The priest was moved but not supervised and Bishop Magee made no attempt to monitor his progress. A report was made to the Vatican but nothing has been heard of it since. This organisation controls 93% of primary schools in Ireland. This organisation actively discriminates against children who do not belong to it from joining the State schools it controls. There is a problem in this regard. It is not simply about secularisation or multiculturalism but is about care for our children. I believe in the value of faith formation. However, the Catholic Church has proved it is absolutely unfit and absolutely not competent to run our schools. It is time for it to remove itself or be removed.

[565]Deputy Michael McCarthy: I wish to share time equally with Deputy Maloney.

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

Deputy Michael McCarthy: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. What has happened in the context of Cloyne is appalling. It is immoral, illegal and disgusting and during this week, more of this spin, this language and these questions have emanated from people who are at the centre of the report. I refer in particular to Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan, who is a former chairman of County Cork VEC. He served on boards of management and was involved in an authority that educates young children in County Cork. There was zero accountability from that man this week and when it was put to him by a reporter that he had failed the victims of this abuse, he had the temerity and cheek to ask in what way. That is damned brazen, to say the least. Moreover, no account has been given of Bishop John Magee’s whereabouts. Allegedly, he could be in Rome or in America. Is one honestly expected to believe that people involved in that organisation do not know where he is?

I find it equally appalling that the Vatican would meddle in affairs of the Irish State. Deputy Clare Daly was quite correct to state that had it been any other ambassador, he or she would have been expelled. This is an option the Government should consider. One should note that although guidelines were established in the wake of the horrific abuse perpetrated by Fr. Brendan Smyth, people like Monsignor O’Callaghan did not believe in them. Moreover, he openly admits to not having any faith in the aforementioned guidelines and did not consider it necessary to pass on details of abuse to members of An Garda Síochána. It is critical that Members bear in mind the timeframe in this regard. These are not atrocities one can consign to the 1950s, 1960s or the 1970s as the period under investigation extends from 1996 to 2008.

One should note that the church authorities in the present era are still fumbling when it comes to this issue, to put it mildly, and that this is the fourth major clerical abuse inquiry to take place in Ireland. An absolutely disturbing aspect of this report is that it is patently clear that church authorities appear to have learned nothing from previous reports. On foot of the Murphy report, the papal nuncio stated that the Vatican was ashamed of its findings and that he would undertake to assist in the forthcoming report into the diocese of Cloyne. He and the Vatican did so by doing their level best to obstruct it. Judge Yvonne Murphy has proved the nuncio’s statement to be absolutely and utterly redundant. She has accused the Holy See of being “entirely unhelpful” in its reaction to inquiries from the commission. As Judge Murphy has concluded the Vatican was unhelpful despite a commitment given by the papal nuncio to the effect that it would assist in the investigation into abuse, I believe it is a resigning matter for him.

It is important to stress that the report was not an investigation into allegations of child sexual abuse but rather a report into how allegations made in Cloyne were handled after January 1996. In that vein, the report has singled out Bishop John Magee, who was a personal secretary to three Popes, for misleading inquiries into the mishandling of abuse claims. The report concluded that Rome effectively gave Bishop Magee carte blanche to ignore guidelines and offer comfort and support to senior clerics such as Monsignor Denis O’Callaghan who defied official policy on paedophile priests and did not believe they should be reported to the authorities.

One aspect of this abhorrent case is that Monsignor O’Callaghan refers to survivors of this abuse as “accusers”, almost as though their claims were spurious and without foundation. That man, who was the delegate of Bishop John Magee, has contributed singularly to the hurt and pain of the survivors of this abuse. Moreover, this man contributes to the ongoing pain and hurt of those who have been victimised and abused by paedophile priests. I echo the sentiments [566]expressed by the Taoiseach, who eloquently spoke in this Chamber this afternoon about this ugly and disgusting saga of Irish history. I also agree with the Tánaiste’s comment that what has happened was totally inappropriate and unjustified and constituted an unacceptable intervention.

I welcome the plans proposed by the Minister for Justice and Equality to jail for up to five years any priest who fails to disclose information on serious offences against a child. I also welcome confirmation from Garda assistant commissioner Derek Byrne that the Children First guidelines will be incorporated into Garda training. While the findings of the Cloyne report are abhorrent, it singles out the individuals who were responsible and who continue to contribute to the hurt and suffering experienced by victims. It goes against the teachings of the Gospel and of Jesus Christ and these people are nothing short of being outright criminals.

Deputy Eamonn Maloney: I thank the Minister for Justice and Equality for the prompt manner in which he has published this unfortunate report. I am sure that any new Minister in that portfolio would have gained some relief during the early months of his or her tenure from not being obliged to deal with this subject matter. However, it is part of our history and thanks to the report by the commission, is now public knowledge. I also wish to mention the commission’s members, namely, Judge Yvonne Murphy, Ms Ita Mangan and Mr. Hugh O’Neill for the valuable work they have done. More importantly, I wish to single out those mentioned in the report who have been hurt the most, that is, the victims who have suffered in isolation. I pay homage to them and to their bravery in coming forward to co-operate with this commission as it has not been an easy decision for them.

Human beings have inflicted different types of cruelty on children. Cruelty can take different forms such as the denial of food, bullying or lack of adequate clothing. These are examples of the neglect of children by adults. However, there is no more horrible crime against children than sexual abuse and this is what some members of the clerical orders of the Roman Catholic Church engaged in over a long period of time in this country. Other speakers referred to other various reports in this regard. It is part and parcel of the hidden Ireland and, as the previous speaker said, has been happening in more recent times. The church has many questions to answer. People are angry with the church and rightly so. Those who committed the crimes and those in the church who knew but who said nothing are all guilty.

Previous speakers have referred to the church and the State. I seldom use the word “state” because of what was happening during the period since our independence. The church failed these children and so did politicians. The Roman Catholic Church had a special position in this State and it used it. A very few in this House questioned the authority and the rule of the Roman Catholic Church but they paid a great price and one or two notable people spoke out to their cost.

I refer to an interesting example of an individual speaking out on a “Late Late Show” 44 years ago in 1967. An unknown person who was a member of a movement called Reform was invited onto the guest panel. His name was Frank Crummey — he is still alive, in his 70s and I am honoured to say he is my neighbour and a good friend. During the panel discussion Frank stated that as the panel members were sitting in the studio, children in institutions in Ireland were being abused. He paid a big price for his statement. Apart from the fact that he was heckled and could not continue, he was almost physically attacked during the break in the programme. It did not end there. His children were ostracised at school on the following days and he was spat upon in public. Frank Crummey was the first man to state publicly that abuse of children was taking place and that politicians and the church should deal with it. Let us hope this is the end of this and that this report is the last report.

[567]Deputy Barry Cowen: I join with other speakers in supporting the motion and I commend all parties for agreeing the motion. Like others, I deplore the Vatican’s intervention which contributed to the undermining of the child protection frameworks and guidelines of the Irish State and of Irish bishops. I further concur with the condemnation of the inadequate and inappropriate response of, in particular, the church authorities in Cloyne, to complaints and allegations of child sex abuse. I understand the frustration and anger of many people with regard to these matters. I can empathise with the call for the expulsion of the papal nuncio. However, it is this line of communication which must be continued to be used and which must be continued in our efforts to demand answers from the Vatican. I also compliment Judge Murphy and her colleagues on the commission for their sterling work in this regard. I compliment the victims for their courage and fortitude, for the initial telling of their abuse and their subsequent dealings with those in authority.

I refer to a statement in a newspaper today from Derek Mulligan who is connected to the case in Donegal. I note the eloquent manner in which he described his feelings and the consternation caused in his life before he came forward with details of his own abuse:

I carried this cross on my back for 12 years, unable to forgive myself for what this demon did to me. He took my soul, my faith and my heart. He also haunted my dreams. I was unable to love. I was scared of everyone and everything. I kept running from place to place, Dublin to Spain to Letterkenny and to Derry.

This is a snapshot of the hurt and pain and the feelings of many young people throughout the country and specifically of those we talk about today and we commend them for their part in bringing forward this report and in bringing forward what will be a new direction for the State in imposing the will of the people and the will of this House as to how these matters are dealt with in the future.

I commend the initial response of the Government and I commend the programme for dealing with this issue. I commend the movement from voluntary reporting to that of mandatory reporting. However, I ask what measures will be put in place to augment this policy. Examples from other jurisdictions show that the move from voluntary to mandatory reporting results in a significant increase in the number of reports. I refer to the example of New South Wales in Australia which in 1998 adopted a policy of mandatory reporting instead of voluntary reporting. Thirty thousand cases were reported in 1998 and in 2008 the figure was 180,000 cases reported. There had been a sixfold increase in a ten-year period. The number of social workers was doubled from 1,000 to 2,000 on the day mandatory reporting was introduced.

In Ireland today, between 5% and 10% of children in the care of the State do not have an assigned social worker. There is already pressure on our system and this is before putting in place the correct facilities, implementation plan, funding and personnel. We should take lessons from the Ryan report which was issued two years’ ago. It dealt with abuse in residential institutions. The subsequent implementation plan was accompanied by funding of €24 million. The plan provided for the provision of 270 new social workers. A total of 200 have been employed but 70 are still required in that area. In addition to the percentage of children who do not have an assigned social worker or care assistant, there is a deficit of 70 social workers for those affected by the Ryan report. These are further strains and further pressures.

What assessments have been carried out by the relevant Departments of the move from voluntary to mandatory reporting? What provisions are consequent to that assessment? What funding or personnel can be provided in order to ensure the success of the plan? Will the Government publish any assessments which have been carried out? Can we scrutinise them and ensure adequate resources are being provided? If it has not been carried out can the [568]Government commit to carrying it out forthwith? Can it commit to augmenting it with the relevant funds and personnel to assure our people that these children can be assured of the sort of care that is required further to the publication and further to the distress heaped upon them?

I commend the strength, depth and quality of debate that has been forthcoming from all sides of the House today. I commend the Government on its initial reaction and for its goodwill, good faith and commitment to introduce the sorts of measures that will prevent issues such as this from arising again. However, in the recent Donegal case there was reporting and the HSE and Garda were informed and yet it still persisted. We are at a major juncture in the history of the State in this regard. The Members of this House can have a significant impact on how we deal with these issues in the future and we must deal with them correctly. Every effort should be made to ensure that the provisions and steps being discussed are followed through, not only by means of words and reporting, but we also need the support system in place to coincide with that report. I refer to a support system in the area of funding and in personnel and then we will be able to address all the issues that have arisen in Dublin, Cloyne and Donegal. Despite the drip-feed of this terrible saga in the past 20 years, the Cloyne report refers to 2008 and the Donegal case refers to the present day. Reporting is not enough without the relevant funding and personnel in place to augment and support it. I commend the motion to the House.

Minister for Children and Youth Affairs (Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): It is important that we together declare our determination in one voice, clear and unequivocal, to stand with the nation in seeking to safeguard our children. We have done that today by the adoption of an all-party motion in this House. I welcome that and I express my appreciation for the all-party support in the range of contributions here today. For our part and on behalf of the Government, the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, and I are acting with an urgency and absolute determination to bring forward a programme of firm actions to strengthen our nation’s child protection framework.

I commend the bravery of all those individuals who came forward and told the commission of their experiences. Without their crucial input we would not have a report of such detail and quality. I appreciate that events of this nature can cause painful memories to resurface. For any person affected by the report’s content I wish to repeat that help is available and join the Minister, Deputy Shatter, in expressing our sincere apologies for any failings of the State.

For all of us last week is one that we would love to forget, but must always remember. This is not the first investigation into the handling of allegations of child abuse by church authorities, but is one of many. However, unlike previous reports, the Cloyne report showed us that child abuse and endangerment is not something that happened back in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. The report showed us that child abuse and endangerment can happen and is still happening today.

Chapter 27 of the report goes into some detail about the experiences of the victims of clerical abuse. It is the last chapter and has a simple and almost bureaucratic title: “The Complainants”. It contains the evidence of what happens to little children when child protection guidelines are declared by the Vatican to be nothing more than “study documents”. While the study continued, so did the abuse. Chapter 27 quotes the adults those little children become. The Complainants is a chapter largely made up of their words, which I wish to put on the record of the House. One comment was: “my mother reared five children, how did she get one so different. I am like a shadow.” Another comment was: “Separate instances. They all mulch into one, one long brain turning, nauseating role of events.” Yet another comment was: “what was so awful about all of this all of my life is I felt that I was the one who did something dreadful, that I [569]was the one so isolated in shame until I knew better, you know, and that is exactly what he wanted.”

Over the past few days we have heard additional commentary from individuals affected by clerical child abuse in the Cloyne diocese and their families. It is heartbreaking to hear of normal lives being thrown so far off course that some of those affected have never experienced the stability we all yearn for in our lives. Modest goals such as relationships, family and employment eluded people who just could not cope. Some individuals have taken many years to rebuild their lives. Some, tragically, never recovered.

The publication last week of the Cloyne report has generated significant public anger and concern as was reflected in the contributions here today. However, reports since then of cases in Galway and Donegal have further heightened that anger and concern — and rightly so. We owe it to our children to ensure that whether in the family home, at school, in church or in engaging in any other activities, formally or informally, they are protected.

The Government must be assured that all legal and practical measures are being taken to guarantee this. On behalf of the Government and in conjunction with my colleague the Minister, Deputy Shatter, we are engaged in a series of measures designed to achieve this. As the Minister outlined to the House, he has published the Criminal Justice (Withholding Information on Crimes against Children and Intellectually Disabled Persons) Bill 2011. Last week I published the Children First National Guidance 2011. It provides a robust code for the protection and welfare of children offering clear direction to individuals, organisations and agencies on what they need to do to keep children safe. I urge people and organisations to familiarise themselves with it.

In recognition of the importance of Children First, the HSE will publish an associated child protection and welfare practice handbook, which will be very helpful for front-line professionals. These two publications will provide clearer direction and support to front-line staff and organisations working with children. They will also set out the respective roles of the statutory agencies responsible for child protection.

Last week I received Government agreement to introduce legislation to require, for the first time, statutory compliance with Children First. This will include a statutory requirement on individuals to report to the relevant authorities where, in good faith, they have reasonable concerns over the abuse or neglect of a child. However, the scope of Children First extends beyond the narrow focus of reporting on its own. We do not want to create simply a reporting culture and nothing else because protecting children involves more than making a once-off report. Instead, through requiring statutory compliance with Children First, I propose a much broader-based and comprehensive approach to child protection laying down the broader responsibilities of organisations that are in contact with or providing services to children. This will include a requirement regarding the sharing of information, which is so important if we are to protect children. The need for such requirement was proven again this week on foot of reports of the Donegal case.

Last week, we learned of the shocking inadequate and inappropriate response by the diocese of Cloyne, to complaints and allegations of child sexual abuse in the period from between 1996 and 2008. The diocese did not comply with the church guidelines, nor did it comply with Children First. It is therefore vital that guidance translates into implementation on the ground. We must have compliance without exception or exemptions. Never again should someone be allowed to place the protection of the institution or organisation above the protection of children. As I stated last week, the days of voluntary compliance are over when it comes to child protection. The new legislation I will introduce will provide for a strong system of inspection and oversight. On the need to provide demonstrable evidence that the guidance is being [570]implemented correctly across all sectors, we will also have what is called an assurance framework, an assurance setting out the responsibilities of each Department and sector working with children and it will be implemented. I will chair an interdepartmental committee in this regard.

We need capacity in our child protection services, but it is equally important that we focus on appropriate management, consistency of response and the creation of a world class model of child protection, as stated by Mr. Gordon Jeyes, the new director of the HSE’s child and family services section.

Yesterday, I laid before the Houses the second progress report on the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Ryan report implementation plan. Putting Children First on a statutory footing was a key recommendation of the Ryan report. As to those Deputies who raised doubts in this regard, this is the policy of the Government and every political party in the House. Although it was promised by the previous Government in 1999, it is being done only now. The proposed recruitment of 270 additional social workers will go ahead. These posts are exempt from the public service recruitment embargo and 260 of them will have been filled by the end of this year.

The Department of Justice and Equality, with some support from my Department, is close to completing its work on the vetting legislation.

The report’s principal findings cast cold light over the practices of church authorities in the diocese of Cloyne. It is particularly disappointing that the diocese did not as a matter of course report and notify allegations and concerns to the statutory authorities. This would have been in keeping with State guidelines and the reporting procedures adopted by the church.

For those who reported painful and horrific episodes in their lives in the expectation that some positive action would be taken by the diocese, I cannot imagine the sense of disappointment and anger at what can be only seen as the inaction of the church authorities in Cloyne. The initial surprise response yesterday from a Vatican spokesman, whether in a personal capacity or not, has not helped.

The church in particular must fully engage with the outcome of and responses to the Cloyne report. Last week, I called for a decisive shift to a culture of transparency and public accountability. In particular, I called for the publication by the National Board for Safeguarding Children of the audit of each diocese it undertakes and for acceleration in its conduct of all such audits. I note and welcome that Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has joined in my call to publish the diocesan reviews by the board.

I will soon be in receipt of the long awaited report of the HSE audit of child protection in Roman Catholic dioceses, which should indicate whether all allegations known to church authorities are being properly reported to the State authorities, namely, the Garda and the HSE. In the meantime, I have asked the HSE’s national director for children and family services, Mr. Jeyes, to engage directly with the National Board for Safeguarding Children on a programme of action designed to ensure that the Catholic church is responding properly and comprehensively to all child protection concerns. Mr. Jeyes has already made contact with the board in this regard and will report to me on the progress achieved.

I commend all those who already work so hard to ensure every child with whom they interact is cared for, supported and protected. These are the practitioners in the professional and voluntary sectors, medical professionals, gardaí, youth workers, teachers and coaches all over Ireland who already passionately employ best practice in child protection. They understand their duties and do not need legislation to keep children safe. As the reports recount, though, there are those who do not make child protection their prime objective, whether by omission or com[571]mission, out of ignorance or malice. We are introducing new laws to use the State’s powers of prosecution to protect our children.

Although we will introduce laws, it takes a community to protect a child, as evidenced by recent cases. The measures proposed by the Government will, with Opposition input and support, cumulatively leave a lasting legacy when it comes to child protection by putting in place laws, practices and mechanisms to ensure the evils highlighted in cases such as Cloyne and other cases are never again allowed to take root in any setting.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I move amendment No. 6:

In page 15, lines 35 and 36, to delete “authority for the purposes of the Directive” and substitute the following:

“authority. The Minister shall reserve the right to veto decisions of the Commission where it is deemed to be in the national interest.”.

This amendment is self-explanatory and any Minister would, in almost all circumstances, put the national interest before any decision of an outside body like the commission. In this context, will the Minister take on board the amendment?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I support the amendment.

Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (Deputy Pat Rabbitte): I regret I cannot take on board the Deputy’s amendment. I will reiterate some points we have already discussed about the Bill’s origins.

Under section 11 of the Communications Regulation Act 2002, the Commission for Communications Regulation, ComReg, is statutorily independent in the exercise of its functions. A regulator independent of postal service providers is an explicit requirement of article 22 of the directive. Where member states retain ownership or control of postal service providers, the effective structural separation of regulatory functions from activities associated with ownership or control is required. Since the post office is in State hands, it is a requirement that we must separate regulation from ownership. For this reason, I cannot have conferred on me power to overrule the regulator in this regard.

I understand that an issue aired in the debate in the Seanad and on Committee Stage in the Dáil concerned the perception of a lack of accountability by ComReg to the Houses. I assure Deputies that the 2002 Act, which established ComReg as an independent statutory body to regulate and take key decisions on the electronic communications and postal sectors, also provides in section 34 that ComReg is accountable to the Oireachtas concerning the performance of its functions. Where it is strategically necessary, the Act allows the Minister to issue policy directions to the regulator.

As I stated last week, the proposed amendment would create uncertainty around ComReg’s operations and could compromise its independence. ComReg’s statutory functions and objectives, as amended by sections 9 and 10, respectively, of the Bill, require it “to ensure the provision of a universal postal service that meets the reasonable needs of postal service users”. Thus, any decision taken by ComReg must take account of the reasonable needs and interests of postal service users. Under the Bill, the regulator’s decisions on postal services can be appealed to the High Court.

[572]Deputies will have noticed that a Government amendment to section 17 tabled and agreed to on Committee Stage provided that certain decisions made by ComReg relating to the designation of a universal service provider would be subject to the Minister’s consent. I hope this gives Deputy Martin Ferris some comfort in terms of what he is trying to do.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: The Minister started by stating that the regulator was statutorily independent and he could not be given powers to intervene. Then, at the end, the Bill provides for the Minister to intervene in certain circumstances.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: In certain circumstances.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Deputy Ferris only proposed that, when it was in the national interest, the Minister could intervene. He did not propose the Minister would intervene willy-nilly. It would only happen when it was in the national interest. It would have to be an issue of overriding national interest and it could not be in the interest of An Post. The argument, therefore, that this is impossible because the regulator is independent is untenable. The Bill is full of provisions where the Minister’s consent is needed.

The only way ComReg can be brought to heel by the House if it disagrees with what ComReg does is by changing the law. We can ask ComReg to appear in committees and we can debate with it forever. If ComReg then decides to ignore us, it can and there is no sanction. The only sanction on ComReg is that we change the law or allow for cases where the Minister’s consent or direction is needed. That is how simple this is. Many of us have experienced bodies that come in for meetings and give an account of what they are doing but we have little influence on what they do because they can do what they want.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Michael McCarthy): Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and will be discussed together by agreement.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 7:

In page 15, between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:

“(2) In regulating the postal market the Commission must take into account the unique value that post offices have in Ireland, with its substantial rural population and that particular care should be given to ensure that the interests of a competitive market will not take precedence over, or put at risk, the network of post offices which are part of the fabric of our community and which are essential in maintaining social cohesion.”.

I will not delay the House because we are going round in a circle with this Bill. This amendment seeks to ensure the commission, otherwise known as ComReg, takes into account in all its decisions the value of the post offices and the nature of the country we are legislating for, and that it would not make decisions that would jeopardise that fabric. It is important to provide for that in the Bill. We cannot over-emphasise the need, in the national interest, to try to direct ComReg from this House in the direction we see fit. Most people believe that for the vulnerable in society especially, those who do not use digital media, the post office is an important service and that should be taken into account in all decisions made by the commission.

Deputy Martin Ferris: This amendment would ensure the interests of the market do not take precedence over the social value of the service or put that vital public service at risk. We spoke last night about the value of and contribution made by that service. Opposition TDs want to [573]ensure that service is protected and not compromised by market value. There are more important things than the market when it comes to services for those who are most in need and those who depend on those services.

Deputy Joan Collins: I also support this amendment. Last night there were references to the Dutch postal services, with someone mentioning there had not been deregulation. The Minister said yesterday that we are all afraid of competition but postal workers have a right to be afraid of competition judging by an article on the Dutch postal service in The Guardian on 29 April:

Somewhere in the Netherlands, a postwoman is in trouble. When I visited her, bad health, snow and ice and a degree of chaos in her personal life had left her months behind on her deliveries. She rents a privatised ex-council flat with her partner and so many crates of mail had built up that it was getting hard to move around. Twice a week one of the private mail companies she was working for, Selektmail, dropped off three or four crates of letters, magazines and catalogues. She was sorting and delivering the fresh crates but the winter backlog was tough to clear. I counted 62 full mail crates stacked up in the hallway [...] The postwoman had a similar problem with the other private mail company she works for, Sandd, a few years back. “When I began at Sandd in 2006, I delivered about 14 boxes of mail every time,” she said. “I could not cope and at Christmas 2006 I had about 90 of these boxes in the house. By New Year’s Day we had 97.” [...] Each week, Dutch households and businesses are visited by postmen and postwomen from four different companies. There are the “orange” postmen of the privatised Dutch mail company, trading as TNT Post but about to change its name to PostNL; the “blue” postmen of Sandd, a private Dutch firm; the “yellow” postmen of Selekt, owned by Deutsche Post/DHL; and the “half-orange” postmen of Netwerk VSP, set up by TNT to compete cannibalistically against itself by using casual labour that is cheaper than its own (unionised) workforce. TNT delivers six days a week, Sandd and Selekt two, and VSP one. From the point of view of an ardent free-marketeer, this sounds like healthy competition. Curiously, however, none of the competitors is prospering.

The article outlines how many workers are sorting the mail in their apartments on their beds and that, curiously, when such backlogs build up, there is no system for complaints about delayed mail. That is why postal workers are fearful of competition and that is why I fully support the amendment. The Minister should take this on. It is not about trying to protect a corner. It is about providing proper, regulated and safe conditions and that postmen and women are provided with proper gear for the weather. These workers get a bag and a jacket and that is all. We should take this more seriously.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I agree with the spirit of the amendments but I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that there is no requirement or necessity to put this into primary legislation because the cornerstone of the Bill is the universal service obligation, which is the real tacit recognition of the importance of the role of the postal service. I fully acknowledge the social function of the postal service and agree with it. The postal network is not affected by this Bill.

Deputy Ó Cuív cannot argue that his Government introduced a regulator for the postal service, the electronic communication service or the energy service and then say the Government can overrule those regulators when it feels like it.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I did not say that.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: The Deputy cannot have it both ways. Either we set up a statutorily independent regulator or we do not. The requirement behind this is that An Post is a State-[574]owned postal company and we must separate regulation from ownership. Either he accepts that basic principle or not but he cannot argue for both sides.

I accept the importance of the social role of the postal service in Ireland. As Deputy Ferris said, it was the subject of much debate during the evolution of this Bill and on Committee Stage. Of course I recognise the important role of the postal service in this country and I accept the spirit of the amendments. I would point out to Deputy Ó Cuív, however, that the post office network does not fall within the remit of the postal directive and is not affected by the provisions of the Bill. I am sure the Deputy will be glad to hear that section 12 of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act 1983 is remaining unchanged. An Post will continue to be statutorily obliged to provide nationwide counter services both for its own business and that of the Government. That has not changed.

The social importance of a universal postal service is encapsulated in the universal service obligation, the essential element of which is the collection and delivery of mail to every home and premises in every corner of the State on every working day. This key principle is enshrined in the Bill, which designates An Post as the universal postal service provider. Designating An Post offers certainty to postal service users and the universal service obligation will be met throughout the country with no urban-rural divide.

In addition, ComReg, as the postal services regulator, is charged with ensuring the provision of a universal postal service that meets the reasonable needs of users. Deputies will be aware that the Bill augments the functions and objectives of ComReg to promote the development of the sector, to promote the interests of users and, subject to these two objectives, to facilitate the development of competition and innovation in the market. These are not equal objectives and I believe this hierarchy of objectives adequately addresses the concerns Deputy Ferris is seeking to address in this amendment.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: When the Minister talks about an independent regulator, is he referring to one that is totally independent of direction either from the Oireachtas or the Minister? Unless we change the law, it is independent of the Oireachtas and that is why I have very little faith in this so-called accountability to the Oireachtas. It is true to say, however, that this Bill is full of cases where the Minister’s permission is needed and therefore this independence is not absolute. The idea that An Post or the regulator can do what they want is clearly constrained by the Bill. Presumably the Minister’s officials have advised him this is all kosher. The simple question then arises as to when the Minister should have the right to intervene, because it is clearly stated in the sections every time the Minister’s consent is needed. How far should the Minister retain control and over what?

All that Deputy Ferris suggested, and I support him, is that where the national interest is involved — not An Post’s interests — the Minister should step in. That is what was proposed. To rubbish that means the Minister thinks ComReg’s independence is more important than the national interest. The Minister has made his point and so be it. We have clearly heard where he stands on that issue. It is his decision and we will remember it.

The Minister said this does not affect post offices but of course it does, although it is not directly related to them. It is like saying that if the wall falls down it does not necessarily bring the window with it. If An Post loses the universal service in future, the post offices will follow.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The spirit and principle of my amendment are to protect the postal service indefinitely. That is the reason I have tabled the amendment. We either have faith in politics or we do not. In his reply, the Minister said ComReg will protect the service in future, but I would dispute that. What we have seen from past regulation in other spheres has certainly [575]not been in the national interest. It is so important that a service which is provided in the national interest continues to operate as such. We can be proud of the postal service that has been consistently provided across this island. I have major worries going forward, despite the fact that, as was stated yesterday, ComReg can continue for a further 12 to 20 years. I do not believe that to be the case.

I am not pointing the finger at the Minister in any way, but this Bill is all about the liberalisation of the postal service and its privatisation in the long term. That will be a huge disadvantage to people who are most in need of the service, including those living in isolated areas who are dependent on that social contact. Effectively, privatisation or liberalisation is all about profit before anything else. Therefore any protections we can insert in the legislation to assure postal workers, as well as the recipients of the service, need to be taken on board. I would like the Minister to reconsider the amendment.

6 o’clock

Deputy Robert Dowds: I have listened to much of this debate because I have considerable concerns about the postal service. I agree with the Minister that the main threat to the service comes from email and other electronic forms of communication. I have sought assurances on a number of aspects of the legislation, but I wish to read into the record one such aspect. There are provisions in the legislation dealing with an industrial levy which are designed to ensure that if there is cherry-picking of profitable routes and An Post — as the universal postal service provider — is left with the unprofitable ones, it will be compensated by way of contributions from the profitable commercial sector. That is an important aspect of this Bill. The Minister has done his best to protect An Post and our postal services generally. It is important that should be done and I entirely accept the importance of having a good postal service for the country. I also acknowledge the social aspects that Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív have mentioned, but it is not simply a straightforward liberalisation of the market.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I agree with Deputy Ferris that the service provided by An Post across the country is very important and is appreciated by the people of Ireland. I have no doubt about that. The universal service obligation enshrined in this legislation will protect that important aspect of An Post. Deputy Joan Collins quoted an example from Holland, but I have no intention — neither does the Government — of privatising An Post. It will not happen while this Government is in office.

Deputy Ó Cuív states that the law is not absolute, and of course he is right. The Minister has reserved rights under the legislation to give a policy direction if he or she thinks it is appropriate to do so. It is entirely proper that the Minister should reserve that right, but it can be only exercised consistent with the law. Deputy Ó Cuív asks how I can argue that there is absolute independence while the Minister’s consent is called for, but he has been advocating that the Minister’s consent be enshrined in the Bill since we started the debate.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Exactly, and a little more than that.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I have made a number of concessions to him to put into the Bill where the Minister’s express consent is required, for example, if there was any question of ComReg trying to shut down the universal service obligation after seven years. This was the situation in the Bill when I inherited it from Deputy Ó Cuív’s party. The Minister can intervene and say “Sorry, we are not wearing that.”

The protection of the service is one of the objectives of ComReg under the law. Given that it has been regulated since 2000, why has no decision of ComReg ever been challenged? It has consistently protected the universal service obligation. I am aware of people in An Post who [576]think that the imposition on them to deliver the mail every day to every house in the country as required can be extremely costly and extremely severe, but they do it because ComReg insists they do it. That is the position.

I accept the spirit of the amendments, but it is carefully provided for in the legislation. As Deputy Dowds said, in so far as one can do it in law, it is in law. That will continue and it is not the intention of this Government to privatise the post office. Whatever threat there is to postal services and to future employment in the post offices, it comes from matters other than this Bill, such as the pervasive electronic substitution.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I move amendment No.8:

In page 16, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following:

“(4) The Commission will take into account the unique value that the postal service has in Ireland with regard to the substantial rural population and that particular care should be taken to ensure that the interests of the market will not take precedence over, or put at risk, this vital public service which is part of the fabric of communities and which provides a sense of national and social inclusion.”.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 9:

In page 16, to delete lines 42 to 45 and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 7.

The Minister keeps telling us he is taking a minimalist approach to complying with European law. Why is there a provision that the universal service obligation can be reduced from 20 kg to 10 kg? I just do not get it. Perhaps the Minister can explain why he is not willing to delete this and insist on the 20 kg figure. It is a black and white issue. I have no good explanation for this other than to assume that this is unnecessary creeping liberalisation. The Minister said he is all for keeping An Post as a universal service operator, but I do not think this Bill will do that.

I am interested in hearing that An Post would like to get out of this area, because it shows us that even within the citadel, there are people who think it is too onerous to go to every house every day. That will become much more vociferous as the good parts of the market are taken away. An Post management will keep coming back and say that mail is declining and it is not profitable any more, and that the good parts of the market in Dublin 2 and Dublin 4 are gone. The Government will try to levy the private sector but it will not be paid, as we saw with the VHI. The pressure will come on ComReg and it will be said that it is ridiculous to go to a house every day if there is no piece of mail every day. Then the service will begin to diminish step by step. That is the scenario and the Minister is adding to this by reducing the service obligation from 20 kg to 10 kg. It is very simple; he just needs to remove those parts from the Bill.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae: I declare an interest in this. I am the local post master in our small village and that is why I fully appreciate and value the excellent service provided over the years in rural areas. I remember Deputy Harrington giving a very eloquent speech on rural post offices one evening in the House.

I fully accept the Minister’s bona fides and that he may not think that this is what will result, but I am afraid that if this is opened up and others come in to cherrypick, they will not under[577]stand that the service as carried out in the past was more than just delivering mail and was more than just a business. An Post and the postal people who ran our post offices over the years are like social workers. It might seem like a miserable letter to some people, but the act of going to meet a person in a rural location is more than just delivering the mail. The postman might inform the person about who died that week, tell a bit of gossip, or have a debate about politics or football. If that kind of social interaction is taken away in the future, then it is another death knell to rural Ireland. It is losing something that we have cherished and appreciated. That is why I am concerned about the content of this Bill and that is why I put forward an amendment and support other amendments in the same area. They are in the interests of rural Ireland. I am not saying for one minute that the Minister does not have the interests of rural Ireland in his heart as well, because I know that he does. I just have a deep concern about this, as someone who worked in the post office and who knows how important the service is to people in rural locations.

Loneliness is an awful problem in rural areas, and the postman calling and delivering the mail really means so much to people. As everything has become so money orientated, I could see people in the future saying that it does not make financial sense to deliver one letter to a person at the end of a long road. It might not make financial sense, but from a human point of view, it makes great sense and it might mean so much to that person. That is why I am worried about cherrypicking in the future and is why I wanted to voice my concerns. However, I am not trying to say that the Minister is the big bad wolf putting something through against the people, because that would not be the case. I certainly hope that my heartfelt views will be taken on board in this matter.

Deputy Joan Collins: Dutch mail is privatised and liberalised to a point where private companies can bring their mail to a delivery area, where it is then delivered by the workers. However, we are missing the point on cherrypicking. The Minister said that nobody wants competition. The reason we do not want competition is there for all to see right across Europe. The US does not allow private mail companies to work in their states as it is a public service. It is not a question of the profitable parts subsidising the unprofitable areas for An Post. It is a question of jobs being lost, what companies are picking up those jobs and the conditions those jobs entail. We have seen it happen in private companies in England and elsewhere throughout Europe where a postal worker is given a jacket and a satchel and paid much less than the postal worker employed by the State who has good conditions, reasonable pay, a pension to which to look forward and with the security of steady job he or she can possibly afford to go to a bank in the future to put a down payment on a house and take out a mortgage. That is what is being lost here. The security associated with being employed in a huge State body is being lost and that will have an impact. All the money in the world that is provided by a private company that has chosen to deliver a service in Dublin 4, in the inner city area where all the offices are based or in a high residential area will not save those jobs. That is why this Bill must be rejected.

In certain circumstances, we can bring this case to Europe and point out that this is not what we need here at this time. I am sure something can be done in that respect. The Bill must be opposed. I cannot accept the Minister’s arguments in this respect.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I cannot and would not be able to get the kind of derogation Deputy Joan Collins advocates. It is not consistent with the directive which has been passed. It is not the intention of this Government to privatise An Post. An Post is a State company and it has a place of affection in the hearts of most people. The universal service obligation remains and we do not intend to go down the privatisation route.

[578]I do not dispute what Deputy Healy-Rae said. We had that discussion with Deputies Ferris and Ó Cuív who drew attention during the course of the debate to the importance of the postal service, especially in rural Ireland. Deputy Healy-Rae is right in that the postman calling to a house can certainly be an occasion in the day for people who are isolated. As he put it, the postman is a kind of a social worker. Deputy Ferris had him collecting the messages and bringing them to the person in an isolated community.

Deputy Martin Ferris: It might be the Minister some day.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I accept there is a social dimension, interaction, gossip and all the rest associated with the postman when he calls. I acknowledge all of that but the postman’s job is to deliver the post, not to be a social worker or to collect the messages. If he can do all those things as well, that is a matter for the postal manager, but I have no objection. The postman is not a multi-tasker like Deputy Healy-Rae, he is a postman. This reminds me of a famous former Deputy from County Kerry who had a row with the postman. It was thought a bit odd in the post office that every day without fail there was a letter for a Kerry constituent who lived three miles up a hill in an isolated farmhouse. The postman had to cycle up the hill every day to deliver the letter. It was very odd that the man got a letter with the Dáil stamp on it every day of the week. When the matter was examined it turned out it was the TD’s way of getting his own back on the postman by having him cycle in wind and rain three miles up the hill to deliver a letter every day of the week, and sometimes there was nothing in the envelope.

Deputy Martin Ferris: We send many letters.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: That is true. To return to the amendment, Deputy Ó Cuív knows as well as I do that fashion changes. Some of things that were everyday occurrences in rural Ireland 30 years ago have changed dramatically. He knows that the marketplace here will change as well. He knows that change is coming down the tracks at the post office everyday and that it is in the interests of the postal service that An Post maintains flexibility in terms of its ability to adapt to those changes in the marketplace.

Deputy Ó Cuív’s amendment would make the position of An Post less flexible and it would make the obligations on ComReg less flexible. It would put An Post into a straitjacket, so to speak, in terms of its capacity to adapt to the changes coming down the tracks. For that reason I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

Section 16(3) relates to ComReg’s power to review the minimum weight limits in regard to the clearance, sorting, transport and distribution of postal packets that a designated universal postal service provider must provide. The directive sets out the parameters within which this minimum can be set — a range between 10 kg and 20 kg. The Bill sets the minimum weight at 20 kg, which is the minimum requirement set out in the current postal regulations and allows, rather than requires, ComReg, by order, to reduce that to 10 kg. In considering any change to the weight limits allowed, ComReg must take into account the reasonable needs of users and also must hold a public consultation in advance of making any change. There are therefore a number of built-in safeguards relating to any decision that ComReg might make to change the weight limits.

Deputy Ó Cuív’s proposed amendment would remove a certain flexibility from the regulation of the market which is required to meet the evolving needs of users. This need for flexibility is particularly pertinent in regard to the parcels market which is fast becoming one of the more dynamic sections of the postal business. The reasonableness of this section, as drafted, was [579]supported on Committee Stage by Deputy Harrington based on his experience and knowledge of the sector. I do not propose to amend this section as proposed.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Section 16 outlines what a universal postal service means. Among its provisions is the sorting, transportation and distribution of parcels from other member states up to 20 kg in weight. I cannot understand how a user of the service could benefit from An Post being able to say at some time in the future, with the approval of ComReg, that a package is over 10 kg in weight and therefore it does not have to carry it. How that would benefit the user escapes me. It might benefit An Post but it will not benefit the user. The regulation provides that any package weighing up to 20 kg from another member state must be sorted, transported and distributed but the Minister wants to allow for a scenario where some fine day, following public consultation and so on, and we know all about public consultations, ComReg will be able to say that if it weighs between 10 kg and 20 kg it does not have to carry it. The Minister has the gall to stand up and say that benefits the users.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I do not know if it is Deputy Ó Cuív’s long years in government that has made him so cynical of all exchanges that take place between the elected Oireachtas and institutions established by the Oireachtas. I have not got that cynical yet. I believe ComReg takes into account the sensible views of Oireachtas Éireann and sensible views argued with it by other interests. Why would ComReg approve a change that would be deleterious either to postal users, whom it is required to protect, or to the interests of An Post? It is unlikely to happen. The reason we are putting this in the Bill is to ensure that there is flexibility on the part of An Post to react to changes that take place in the market. I cannot see how the regulator of the service would impose a change that would damage the interests of users and harm the commercial potential of the postal company.

Throughout the debate Deputy Ó Cuív has posited the regulator as the big, bad bogeyman trying to do down the postal user. We have no evidence for that since 2000. A 2002 statute sets out a hierarchy of goals and objectives, in respect of which ComReg must function. I do not know where this is coming from. I hope the Deputy’s 14 former Cabinet colleagues did not share his cynical view of the world because if that is the case, what is the point in any of us being here?

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: To ensure the will of the Oireachtas predominates over the will of the system. Let me spell it out. There are powerful lobbies in Europe, mirrored in this country, which believe competition is an absolute good and the more unfettered it is, the better it is.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: The Deputy is beginning to sound like Deputy Higgins.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I agree with him on certain issues.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: Only since the Deputy went into opposition.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: No, I have been consistent on these issues during the years. If the Minister checks the record, he will find that I have been consistent on them. I have never bought into the god that the European Union and its followers in this country have made out of competition. Did the Minister ever think ComReg had arrived at an incorrect decision? Has he ever criticised a decision made by a regulator in this country? Did he ever think a regulator had failed in its national duty? I put it to him that on numerous occasions he criticised the banking regulator who was acclaimed as a great independent regulator. One of the lessons we learned in government was that giving too much independence to regulators made us vulnerable. We often discussed this issue and, if we made a mistake, it was to make these bodies too independent of the Government, the Oireachtas and the political system. The notion that the [580]Minister has never criticised the decision of a regulator is laughable. I wish I had time to count all of the occasions on which he claimed regulators had got it wrong.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I concur with Deputy Ó Cuív’s comments on regulators. It is an abrogation of political responsibility to give powers to regulators without giving the Minister of the day the right of veto. As we have seen in the recent past, the record of certain regulators has been disgraceful. While I accept the Minister’s assurance that he will protect the postal service while he is in government and I want to believe the Labour Party has as its core a commitment to public service for the benefit of all the people, I do not have the same confidence in his partners in government. Elements of previous Governments pursued a privatisation agenda, whether for hospitals or whatever else. The privatisation agenda does not have the national interest at heart. The national interest and the common good have to be protected by elected representatives. It is not in the common good to erode or undermine a national service provider such as An Post. If we depart from the common good, we will allow a system of privatisation which has no interest in anything but making a profit.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae: We saw what happened following the changeover from Telecom Éireann to Eircom. As Deputy Martin Ferris noted, pure profiteering has left the service in such a state of neglect that it is in complete disarray. Having studied the profiteering that milked millions of euro from Eircom, I am genuinely worried about the watering down of all that we cherish so dearly. Our experience has taught us a tough lesson about profiteering, which is why I dearly value our network of post offices and delivery services. That is the reason I see danger in this legislation. I bring forward my amendment because I do not support the Bill, as it stands. If we cannot learn from our mistakes, we will become very poor indeed.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand,” put and declared carried.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 are related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 10:

In page 17, line 19, after “users” to insert the following:

“and any such exception shall only be with the consent of the Minister”.

Under the amendment ministerial consent would be required where a watering down of the universal service obligation was proposed. The Bill is full of promises, but when we read the next section we find derogations all over the place. I propose that ministerial consent be required for derogations from the universal service obligation. It is a self-evident and simple amendment that would provide an extra safeguard at a time when the Government has made it clear that it intends to sell State assets to fund the NewERA programme.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I have repeated ad nauseam that the Government has no intention of privatising An Post. Deputy Healy-Rae is correct about the experience of Telecom Éireann, now Eircom, and the asset stripping which resulted in a legacy of under-investment in the network. However, he is wrong to make a comparison with the provision before us. The regulator or competition was not at fault in the case of Telecom Éireann. It was the privatisation of the company that caused the problems. We are not privatising An Post. It will remain in State hands. While Deputy Martin Ferris asked what a Government of a different hue might [581]do, I do not think that position would change. Fianna Fáil has swung dramatically to the left and is now opposed to privatisation, even though it privatised Telecom Éireann. The Technical Group which is represented in the Chamber by Deputy Joan Collins might combine into a left-wing group with Fianna Fáil.

Deputy Joan Collins: I do not think so.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: If Deputy Shane Ross and a couple of others were stripped out, there would be a powerful left contingent in the House if this Government was replaced any time soon.

Deputy Joan Collins: There is a strong right contingent on the other side.

Deputy Martin Ferris: The Minister could come back to the left. We could have the first Taoiseach of the left.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I will protect An Post while I am here. I have every confidence that the left turn being taken on the benches opposite will protect it if there is a change in the Government.

The effect of the amendments before the House would be to require the consent of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources with regard to any determination made by ComReg allowing the designated universal service provider any exemption to the requirements of section 16. ComReg is charged with regulating the market and has the necessary economic and regulatory expertise and knowledge to do so. If one reads the Bill in its entirety, one would appreciate that there is an onus on ComReg, through its augmented objectives and functions, to ensure the provision of a universal postal service that meets the reasonable needs of users and which must promote the availability of such a service that is affordable for the benefit of all users.

Any determination made regarding exemptions would only be made after ComReg had full regard to the reasonable needs of users. It would not be appropriate to require ministerial approval for any such decision by ComReg, first because of the independence of ComReg in the exercise of its functions and because it would require the Department to duplicate ComReg’s work and expertise in the area.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: We are getting the same comments over and over again, read out by rote. It is interesting that if this power is exercised, the Minister, European Union and the national regulatory authorities in all member states must be notified. It is such a big issue that all these bodies across Europe must be informed. All I suggested was that rather than just informing the Minister, the consent of the Minister must be obtained. As the Minister has noted, ministerial consent is required all over the place in the Bill, so why not in this aspect, which is so important that everybody in Europe must be told? The Minister will not accept the amendment but I will press it.

Deputy Joan Collins: I support the amendment because this important point should involve ministerial consent. The Minister does not seem to get it as this is not about privatisation. We are not discussing that, although I am opposed to privatisation. We are not talking about what happened with Eircom. When the parcel service was deregulated, SDS was set up by An Post as its parcel service but it collapsed because competing companies were able to open a warehouse and pay workers low wages with no conditions, contracts or pensions. Hundreds of good jobs were lost when SDS closed down, and that is what I am talking about. Everything should [582]be put in place to protect strongly the workers in An Post, which is why the issue should revert to the Minister for consent.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Amendment No. 11 has already been discussed with amendment No. 10.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 11:

In page 17, to delete line 33.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I move amendment No. 12:

In page 18, to delete lines 20 to 45 and in page 19, to delete lines 1 to 18 and substitute the following:

“17.—An Post is designated as the universal postal service provider.”.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I will move amendment No. 13 to give the Minister one last chance to honour the commitment given in the programme for Government that he would designate An Post as universal service for 20 years.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): I apologise for interrupting the Deputy but if amendment No. 12 is dealt with and lost, the Deputy’s amendment cannot be moved. The same applies to amendments Nos. 14 and 15.

Deputy Michael Healy-Rae: That is my amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Yes, and it cannot be moved if amendment No. 12 is defeated.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 13 to 15, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 16:

In page 21, lines 24 and 25, to delete “under comparable conditions”.

I do not like to question procedure but the rejection of amendment No. 12 did not preclude the Minister from accepting amendment No. 13, which is completely different, and which proposed substituting “12” for “20” and making further deletions. They are completely unconnected proposals.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): The ruling is they are connected and because amendment No. 12 has been defeated, the following amendments cannot be moved.

Deputy Martin Ferris: Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 are totally different.

[583]Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): They refer to similar text in the Bill.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: If Deputy Ferris and I had known that such a ruling would come from the Chair, we would have called a vote on the amendment.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): I take the point but the ruling has been made.

Question, “That the words proposed to be deleted stand”, put and declared carried.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 17:

In page 21, line 27, to delete “approved” and substitute “published”.

This amendment arises from amendments made on Committee Stage to the provisions relating to the terms and conditions of the universal postal service provider. It clarifies that a universal postal service provider must comply with its terms and conditions, which have been “published” rather than “approved” under sections 22 and 23 of the Bill. The change is necessary to cover the first six months after the passing of this Bill, during which the terms and conditions will have been published but not approved by ComReg. It is essentially a drafting amendment.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 18:

In page 21, line 38, after “service” to insert “provision”.

This is another drafting amendment which seeks to correct the omission of the word “provision”, which in this context and in the interests of continuity should have been linked to the term “the universal postal service”.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Amendment No. 19 is consequential on amendment No. 20. Amendments Nos. 21 to 23, inclusive, and 26 are also related and will be discussed together.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 19:

In page 25, to delete lines 36 and 37 and substitute the following:

“(c) subject to any decision made by the Commission under paragraph (b) of subsection (2), prices shall comply with the uniform tariff referred to in that subsection;”.

Following our discussion on Committee Stage, I undertook to look again at uniform tariffs. As I mentioned in that debate, the reality is that there has been a uniform domestic tariff in place since the introduction of the penny post in 1840.

Having listened to Deputy Ó Cuív — not since 1840 — and explored the issue further, I propose to require that this will be the default in law. Under section 28, therefore, a uniform tariff will apply throughout the State to any postal service provided at the single piece tariff. The intention is to ensure An Post’s ability to compete with other postal operators is not inappropriately restricted. Naturally, provision is being retained for the option to move away from this default position if the market develops in a way that necessitates it. Decisions in this respect would be made by ComReg, having regard to the reasonable needs of users and with [584]the consent of the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. This is in line with the postal directive that permits the imposition of a uniform tariff in the public interest. My proposal also provides that if it is decided to undo the requirement for a uniform tariff, ComReg may — again with the consent of the Minister — undo such a decision.

I have also re-examined the issue of a cross-Border uniform tariff, as requested by Deputy Ó Cuív. I am not proposing to change this option to make it the default in legislation. As we know, the 55 cent stamp that is charged by An Post for delivering single piece mail covers delivery for the whole island of Ireland. As pricing issues north of the Border are matters for postal service providers based there and are subject to regulation by a different national regulatory authority, it would be inappropriately restrictive to require An Post to have a cross-Border uniform tariff in primary legislation. It is more appropriate for the position to remain as it is in the current legislation, which provides that a cross-Border uniform tariff may be required by An Post or ComReg with the consent of the Minister. As I understand it, An Post has no intention of changing the position that has obtained.

Arising from these proposals, I have decided to amend section 28(2). A small number of consequential amendments are required to update cross-references. I trust that Deputy Ó Cuív will support these amendments, which arise from our discussion on Committee Stage. I cannot accept amendment No. 23, which proposes to add the words “which are less” to section 28(3). The section in question provides that the application of a uniform tariff does not prevent a designated universal service provider from negotiating and concluding individual agreements with users on prices. The proposed amendment is not necessary and may unduly constrain An Post in negotiating with other postal service providers.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I welcome this as far as it goes. I thank the Minister for having gone part of the way that I wanted him to go. I believe in the fundamental geographical and — I hope in the future — political and social unity of this island. Therefore, I would like it to be enshrined in primary law that the uniform tariff should apply to a letter posted from anywhere within the State to anywhere on this island. I am glad the Minister has come some of the way. I particularly note that despite all the Minister’s protestations earlier that he cannot be directing here and there, amendment No. 20 provides for the phrase “with the prior consent of the Minister” to be included in sections 28(2)(b), (c) and (d). He has proved my point that it is easy to write lots of ministerial consents into the legislation. The idea that to do so would interfere with the independence of ComReg in some way is totally undermined by all these provisions requiring the consent of the Minister.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: There is absolutely no inconsistency between emphasising the statutorily based independence of the regulator and making express provision for the consent of the Minister to be required in certain circumstances or providing for the capacity of the Minister to issue policy directives. Deputy Ó Cuív used a good example earlier when he spoke about the banking regulator. He was quite right to say I criticised the banking regulator. I was right to do so. It is a great pity that his colleagues did not criticise the banking regulator. If they had done so, we would not be in the mess we are in. If I had a choice — I am speaking on the eve of the most momentous meeting in Europe since we joined the EEC in 1973 — I would prefer if the cock-ups that were made in the banking service had been made by the postal service regulator. We could have survived that. It remains to be seen whether we will be able to survive the legacy of Deputy Ó Cuív and his colleagues, who were asleep at the wheel when the banking regulator was failing to do his job. There was negligence of duty on the part of the various mechanisms that were built into the system, in terms of the Central Bank, the Department of Finance and the Minister for Finance. That left us in the situation we are in this [585]evening, on the eve of a meeting in Europe of a magnitude of importance that this country has never experienced in its time as a member state of the European Union.

There is no conflict here. The areas where the consent of the Minister must be sought have been carefully calibrated. The underlying theme in Deputy Ó Cuív’s argument is that he is feigning not to accept the role of regulation. Let me take that back. I will take him at face value. He does not accept the role of regulation in the utilities that have been the subject of regulation in recent years. Ironically, the paternity of those arrangements lies with successive Governments of which he was a part. The regulation of energy, telecommunications, electronics, the postal service and so on has come with particular directives, one of which we are transposing into Irish law.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: When I was in government, I was always very wary of transposing power away from Ministers. I have always believed the Minister will get the blame, even if independent regulation has been provided for. There seems to be some amnesia within the Labour Party about its love affair with independent regulation. The Deputies opposite have forgotten that the demand for an independent banking regulator, separate from the Central Bank, arose from the Opposition benches. When it turned out that the system was not great, they emphasised the fact that it had been introduced by the Government. At the time, however, there had been great demand among Opposition Deputies for its introduction. They wanted everything to be independent. As Minister, I consistently made a different argument. In the Departments for which I was responsible, I was careful to act in a way that did not allow things to move too far away. I did that for the obvious reason that I was concerned about the problems we subsequently experienced. I was worried that regulators who were not answerable to Ministers could make their own decisions. I was aware, as the Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, has said, that Ministers would be held responsible for the actions of regulators at the end of the day even though they had not part in them.

I am openly sceptical about European regulations. The fetish that the regulated market would sort everything led to the banking crisis. The EU imposed strict controls on how much governments could borrow and what they could do, but it did not impose any controls on the private banking sector across Europe. Even if we had regulated the banks here, that would not have stopped the foreign banks from coming here, as they did, and engaging in crazy lending. I believe we should maintain maximum control here. The Minister has agreed with the principle here. All we are arguing about this evening, in large measure, is where the line between ministerial oversight and regulatory discretion should be drawn. We are arguing that the Minister has not gone far enough in ensuring ministerial oversight. We believe anything that is in the national interest should be the subject of ministerial oversight rather than being at the discretion of ComReg.

Amendment put and declared carried.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Amendment No. 20 has already been discussed with amendment No. 19. I ask Members to note that if the question on amendment No. 20 is agreed, amendment No. 21 cannot be moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 20:

In page 25, to delete lines 44 to 47 and substitute the following:

“(2) (a) Subject to paragraphs (b) and (d), a uniform tariff shall apply throughout the State to any postal service provided at single piece tariff.

[586]

(b) The Commission may, having regard to the reasonable needs of users, with the prior consent of the Minister, decide that a uniform tariff referred to in paragraph (a) shall not apply, and shall publish any such decision.

(c) The Commission may, with the prior consent of the Minister, make a decision that a uniform tariff shall be applied cross border to any postal service provided at single piece tariff and shall publish any such decision.

(d) The Commission may, with the prior consent of the Minister, revoke a decision made under paragraph (b) or (c).”.

Amendment No. 21 not moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 22:

In page 25, lines 48 and 49, to delete “a decision under”.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 23:

In page 26, line 2, after “users” to insert “which are less”.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 are related and alternative to each other and will be discussed together. I ask Members to note that if the question on amendment No. 24 is agreed, amendment No. 25 cannot be moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 24:

In page 26, to delete lines 7 and 8.

There was an interesting debate at Committee Stage on An Post handling of international mail and the levels of remuneration it receives for this mail. I undertook at Committee Stage to have a look at the issue again.

To remind Deputies, terminal dues is the mechanism used by national postal operators to settle with each other for the delivery of international service mail. In terms of international mail, given the reciprocal nature of terminal dues agreements, the handling of mail between national postal operators is inherently different to handling mail from non-designated or private postal service providers and consolidators who manage companies’ large mail requirements. The directive acknowledges this difference by distinguishing between the regulation of tariffs for universal services generally and the regulation of terminal dues. I therefore concluded that the link between special tariffs and terminal dues was not appropriate and that section 28(5) should be deleted. I hope this meets the arguments advanced by Deputy Deering on the last occasion and Deputy Olivia Mitchell and others.

Amendment No. 25 not moved.

[587]Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 26:

In page 26, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:

“(d) for the purpose of tariffs a uniform tariff will apply across the State and Northern Ireland.”.

Deputy Martin Ferris: I move amendment No. 27:

In page 31, line 1, after “provider” to insert “up to the inward mail centre”.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 28:

In page 32, to delete line 4 and substitute the following:

“(f) the feasibility of granting the access sought,

(g) the capital investment in the postal network made by the universal postal service provider concerned, and”.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): Amendment No. 29 in the name of Deputy Ó Cuív. Amendment No. 30 is an alternative to amendment No. 29 and amendment No. 31 is related to amendment No. 29. Amendments Nos. 29 to 31, inclusive, will be discussed together.

Amendment No. 29 not moved.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: I move amendment No. 30:

In page 36, line 17, to delete “a decision under”.

Amendments Nos. 31 to 33, inclusive, not moved.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I move amendment No. 34:

In page 56, after line 41, to insert the following:

“(6) In operating a system of postcodes the Minister shall have regard to the position of the Irish language as the national language.”.

Go bunúsach, an t-údar atá leis an leasú seo ná go gcaithfear stádas na Gaeilge mar chéad teanga agus mar phríomh theanga oifigiúil na tíre seo a thógáil san áireamh nuair a bheidh na cóid phoist á réiteach. Tá súil agam go nglacfaidh an tAire leis an leasú seo. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the position of the Irish language as the first official language of the State will be taken into account in deciding the postcodes.

We saw the difficulty that arose many years ago with the registration of cars. We should lay down a clear direction from the Oireachtas to those who are developing this that the consti[588]tutional position of the language cannot be ignored in devising a postcode system. It is a simple, basic and fundamental concept.

There are those who argue that this poses great difficulties but in society nobody has a problem with Bord na Móna, CIE, FÁS and many other terms such as Oireachtas, Cathaoirleach, Ceann Comhairle. There was a good positive tradition in the State, which, unfortunately, in more recent years has waned, to ensure that in public nomenclature the Irish language was given its proper place.

It is important in this legislation that we ensure the position of the Irish language is protected. If the Minister checks the record of the observations made on this Bill, no doubt he will find observations made by the Department which I headed up when I was in Government on this issue seeking that this matter would be addressed. It was agreed by the previous Government that no decision was to be taken on this issue without the explicit permission of Government and the previous Government was quite clear that the Irish language had to be taken into account in any postcode system that would have been brought forward by the previous Minister. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is put down and that we come up with a system that is uniformly acceptable to people across the State.

Deputy Pat Rabbitte: The amendment submitted by the Deputy would require the Minister to have regard to the position of the Irish language as the national language in the operation of any national postcode system.

7 o’clock

While I am sympathetic to the aims of the proposal I do not propose to accept it on a number of grounds. The first is that a procurement process is currently under way for a national postcode system. That procurement is designed to produce a technical specification and an implementation plan for a national postcode system. The issue of what that specification will be and how it will take effect in an operating postcode will be determined through that competition. The issue of memorability or placename recognition by the general public will be an important consideration in any final recommendation to Government. The Government will take a view on the proposals emerging from the procurement process before committing to a postcode roll-out process. The language issue will be dealt with as part of the procurement but it is neither necessary nor appropriate to set language related conditions on the process at this stage.

My Department has published a notice seeking candidates to implement a national postcode system. That notice states that the conclusions and recommendations of the National Postcodes Project Board should be the basis of the implementation but that innovation with regard to the incorporation of the unique identification of properties should be investigated.

Although the procurement is being managed by my Department on a ring-fenced basis, any final go-ahead will require Government approval.

In making a final decision on the project the Government will consider a variety of issues, including financial, operational and technical issues. The position of the national language will form part of this consideration.

Acting Chairman (Deputy Paudie Coffey): As it is now 7 p.m., I am required to put the following question in accordance with the order of the Dáil of this day: “That the amendments set down by the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources and not disposed of, including those in respect of which recommital would in the normal course be required, are hereby made to the Bill, that Fourth Stage is hereby completed and that the Bill is hereby passed.” Is the question agreed to?

[589]Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: It is not. We wish to give the Labour Party and Fine Gael one final chance to honour their commitments in the programme for Government.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 102; Níl, 41.

Tá
Bannon, James.	Barry, Tom.
Breen, Pat.	Broughan, Thomas P.
Bruton, Richard.	Burton, Joan.
Butler, Ray.	Buttimer, Jerry.
Byrne, Catherine.	Byrne, Eric.
Cannon, Ciarán.	Carey, Joe.
Coffey, Paudie.	Collins, Áine.
Conaghan, Michael.	Conlan, Seán.
Connaughton, Paul J.	Coonan, Noel.
Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.	Costello, Joe.
Coveney, Simon.	Creed, Michael.
Creighton, Lucinda.	Daly, Jim.
Deasy, John.	Deenihan, Jimmy.
Deering, Pat.	Doherty, Regina.
Dowds, Robert.	Doyle, Andrew.
Durkan, Bernard J.	English, Damien.
Farrell, Alan.	Feighan, Frank.
Ferris, Anne.	Fitzpatrick, Peter.
Flanagan, Charles.	Flanagan, Terence.
Gilmore, Eamon.	Griffin, Brendan.
Hannigan, Dominic.	Harrington, Noel.
Harris, Simon.	Hayes, Brian.
Hayes, Tom.	Heydon, Martin.
Hogan, Phil.	Humphreys, Heather.
Humphreys, Kevin.	Keating, Derek.
Keaveney, Colm.	Kehoe, Paul.
Kelly, Alan.	Kenny, Seán.
Kyne, Seán.	Lawlor, Anthony.
Lynch, Ciarán.	Lynch, Kathleen.
Lyons, John.	McCarthy, Michael.
McEntee, Shane.	McFadden, Nicky.
McGinley, Dinny.	McHugh, Joe.
McLoughlin, Tony.	McNamara, Michael.
Maloney, Eamonn.	Mathews, Peter.
Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.	Mulherin, Michelle.
Murphy, Dara.	Murphy, Eoghan.
Nash, Gerald.	Neville, Dan.
Nolan, Derek.	Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
O’Donnell, Kieran.	O’Donovan, Patrick.
O’Dowd, Fergus.	O’Mahony, John.
O’Reilly, Joe.	O’Sullivan, Jan.
Penrose, Willie.	Perry, John.
Phelan, Ann.	Phelan, John Paul.
Quinn, Ruairí.	Rabbitte, Pat.
Reilly, James.	Ross, Shane.
Ryan, Brendan.	Shatter, Alan.
Shortall, Róisín.	Spring, Arthur.
Stanton, David.	Timmins, Billy.
Tuffy, Joanna.	Twomey, Liam.
Varadkar, Leo.	Wall, Jack.
Walsh, Brian.	White, Alex.

Níl
Adams, Gerry.	Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Browne, John.	Calleary, Dara.
Collins, Joan.	Colreavy, Michael.
Cowen, Barry.	Crowe, Seán.
Daly, Clare.	Doherty, Pearse.
Ellis, Dessie.	Ferris, Martin.
Flanagan, Luke ‘Ming’.	Fleming, Sean.
Fleming, Tom.	Healy, Seamus.
Healy-Rae, Michael.	Higgins, Joe.
Kirk, Seamus.	Kitt, Michael P.
McConalogue, Charlie.	McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Michael.	McGuinness, John.
McLellan, Sandra.	Martin, Micheál.
Moynihan, Michael.	Murphy, Catherine.
Naughten, Denis.	Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.	Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.	O’Brien, Jonathan.
O’Dea, Willie.	O’Sullivan, Maureen.
Smith, Brendan.	Stanley, Brian.
Tóibín, Peadar.	Troy, Robert.
Wallace, Mick.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies John Lyons and Paul Kehoe; Níl, Deputies Aengus Ó Snodaigh and Seán Ó Fearghaíl.

Question declared carried.

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

Deputy Finian McGrath: I wish to share time with Deputies Catherine Murphy, Shane Ross, Clare Daly and Richard Boyd Barrett.

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

Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Leas-Cheann Comhairle for the opportunity to speak on this new legislation which will provide legal protection for low-paid workers. This should be supported by all parties in the House as it protects the workers in the regulated sectors who are affected by the High Court judgment. The Government should face up to reality and assist hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers. Once again, the Labour Party has walked off the pitch. It should stop hiding behind Fine Gael on this priority issue.

The recent statements by the Minister for Social Protection were a disgrace, misinformed, dangerous in the current climate and, above all, insulting to the tens of thousands of people who are unemployed. This is not acceptable from the Minister and she should withdraw her remarks or resign. I was shocked and dismayed that a Labour Party Minister would say that. The more worrying aspect for the poorer section of society is what the Minister has planned next in her so-called reforms, which is the new code for cuts.

The late Deputy and former Minister, Mr. Frank Cluskey, in 1977 set up the community welfare service, which was to provide a safety net for the poorer and weaker sections of society and to help people on the margins. The current Minister plans to scrap these 1,000 front-line staff, with their transformation team, and — wait for it — turn them into social activation officers, which in fact means snoops. These welfare police will now become hit men and hit women against the poor and the Minister will have dismantled the last line of defence. Did [591]anyone ever think they would see a day when a Labour Party Minister would slash and burn welfare services?

The Government cannot hide behind the troika of the IMF-EU-ECB. These are choices and many of us in the Independent group have put forward options on these choices in recent months. We have dealt openly with the debate on tax versus cuts and all proposals have been costed. We are not just against issues; we are also putting forward sensible solutions. However, hammering low-paid workers, the unemployed and the disabled should never be an option in any democratic republic.

This Bill seeks to help 250,000 workers over the summer period and will prevent exploitation. Kicking the now famous can down the road is not an option and definitely not a solution. I urge Members to support this legislation.

Deputy Catherine Murphy: Prior to the High Court decision, I attended a large meeting in my constituency of people, mostly women, who were employed under the joint labour committee, JLC rules. All were low paid and all were concerned about maintaining their living standards. Some spoke of there being little incentive to work were they to take further pay cuts or were their incomes to be reduced further or eroded through levies or charges. Some were at pains to point out their employment was of a casual nature and their employer kept cutting their hours to the point where it was no longer worthwhile to work. Moreover, they told me that others were being employed at the minimum wage to replace them.

Since the High Court decision, Members have been informed that those who were employed under JLCs would be protected by their contract of employment. The experience I have just recounted outlines how vulnerable some of these workers are and demonstrates how in many cases their contracts are not worth the paper on which they are written. These workers were employed in the retail sector and spoke of how they used to enjoy their jobs but that it now has become a battle between themselves and their employer. Many were sick with worry about how they would pay their bills and mortgages or how they would feed their families.

While I support this Bill in principle, I acknowledge it is flawed. I note the Government has promised a more comprehensive Bill in the autumn and there is an absolute need to give guarantees to the approximately 200,000 people who are meant to be protected under the former JLCs. Moreover, it is essential that information be given to these people in the shortest possible time. When the Technical group devoted its Private Members’ time to this issue, it was possible to discern a clear difference between Fine Gael and Labour Party Members as one party articulated the employers’ side while the other articulated that of the employees. It is essential to outline what exactly will be the approach to give some comfort to these people who are concerned about their living standards. At present, it is as though it is the last secret of Fatima. The Government should outline exactly what is ahead for these people even if there will be a delay in bringing forward legislation.

Deputy Shane Ross: On this issue, a little unlike Deputy Finian McGrath, I stand firmly behind the Labour Party. This is an extremely difficult problem and it would not be a good idea to have a knee-jerk reaction to a highly controversial court case of this nature. It appears as though this pertains to the discretion that is exercised by the joint labour committees and it probably will take some time to sort out this matter. In the present climate, there is a danger of creating an industrial relations atmosphere that is conducive to old-fashioned hostilities. In particular at present, on foot of the death of social partnership, a new plan and model for industrial relations probably is needed. This certainly will not be built on the old social partnership model, which now is dead and which bears much responsibility for the artificial boom [592]because of excessive payments. However, it also demands a great deal of thought as to how to match the legitimate grievances of people for whom this Bill caters with the needs of small businesses.

At the time, many Deputies and Senators were lobbied extensively about the proposed increase to the minimum wage. I could not help but be split on that issue because on the one hand, as Deputy Catherine Murphy has so eloquently noted, the plight of people who are in receipt of the minimum wage is something that cannot be allowed as a civilised society. On the other hand, I also was impressed by small employers in the retail sector who came forward and stated with legitimacy and honesty that they could not afford to pay the premium rates that were being demanded for Sundays and so on.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I remind the Deputy that time for the debate is limited and only a few more minutes are left for the two remaining speakers in the slot.

Deputy Shane Ross: This is a very difficult issue and Members must be balanced. They must think both for the guy on the minimum wage and the small businessman with a family who will go out of business and who will be placed in poverty if they push too far in this direction.

Deputy Clare Daly: It appears as though Fianna Fáil does not seek to have this Bill passed through all Stages before the Dáil rises for the recess but rather through Committee Stage only. In that sense, anything that might come out of it would not take effect until the autumn in any case and could not offer additional protection to workers formerly covered by the JLCs and employment regulation orders, EROs. If this is the case, the Bill amounts to nothing more than a stunt.

Fine Gael’s response has been to state that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, will instead introduce an interim protection in the autumn. The idea that the person whose stated objective is to neutralise the entire system of registered employment agreements, REAs, and EROs will somehow transform himself into its saviour is laughable.

Deputy John Paul Phelan: Nonsense.

Deputy Clare Daly: The High Court decision that the JLCs were unconstitutional represents an extremely serious attack on workers who already were highly vulnerable. Statistics were provided during the last debate on this topic that showed the enormous number of breaches that take place in these sectors in any case. In effect, employers now have been given the green light to decimate wages and conditions and this intention is spelled out clearly by organisations such as IBEC, which is lauding the fact that pay rates for new workers have fallen by as much as 20% to 30% in recent years. It is quite clear that over the summer, workers will face the issuing of new contracts. My point is that if Fianna Fáil is serious in this regard and is serious about introducing protection, the legislation must be pushed through all Stages before the Dáil rises for the summer.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: A lot of politics is being played with this issue. The Government has of course questioned Fianna Fáil’s credentials, and rightly so given that the latter reduced the minimum wage and signed up to the IMF-EU deal which demanded this so-called labour market restructuring. The Government also has described this Bill as being inadequate, which it is, but that is all politics. The Government has chosen not to oppose this Bill because it, and its Labour Party component in particular, is on a hook over this issue. This is because the base of the Labour Party’s support in the trade union movement would explode with anger [593]were it to oversee the dismantling or weakening of the JLCs. Were the Labour Party Members serious when stating they do not intend to oppose this Bill, they would be screaming from the rooftops both to see this Bill proceed beyond Second Stage and to demand the reconvening of the Dáil next week to push through this legislation, imperfect as it is, as a stopgap to protect the workers covered by the JLCs and REAs. Of course, none of them intend to do this because it is all about simply pushing the issue down the road before the real decisions are made in the autumn.

I believe I speak on behalf of low-paid workers who are affected by the JLCs and REAs and who are deeply fearful because their already miserable pay and conditions are under attack when I tell the Government that if it is serious about caring for such workers, it should give Members absolutely cast iron assurances that as a result of the review it is bringing forward, not a single cent will be lost from the incomes of low-paid workers. Moreover, it should provide assurances that none of the protections enjoyed by low-paid workers now covered by the JLCs or REAs will be taken away from them. This is the assurance they seek and I note the Minister, Deputy Bruton, has not given to them. This gives me reason to believe, as both Fine Gael and Labour Party Members are aware, that under the diktats of the EU-IMF, the Government intends to attack these low-paid workers, that is, those who already are the working poor.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy must conclude.

Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett: If the Government is not so minded, it should give this assurance now and should do something before the summer to ensure these protections remain in place while all its members go on holidays.

Deputy Damien English: I wish to share time with Deputies Keaveney, Doyle, Nash, Áine Collins and John Paul Phelan.

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

Deputy Damien English: I have a couple of comments to make. First, the Government is not opposing this Bill because it recognises its intention is genuine. However, it does not believe it goes far enough and does not consider it to be sufficiently legally sound to achieve the job. Nevertheless, it recognises that this Bill constitutes a genuine attempt. There is nothing wrong with it on its own but it simply is not good enough. Rushing it through tonight or allowing it to proceed would only introduce more confusion and grey areas because it will not achieve the desired changes in this area. It will not deal with the judgment. It is piecemeal legislation and it will not provide clarity and direction. It is all right to move slowly in the right direction but moving fast in the wrong direction means one is no further on.

The Minister, Deputy Bruton, has committed to introducing legislation as soon as possible, and I understand this will be in the first week of the new Dáil session, which is only five or six weeks time. We are not taking a 12-week holiday as was the case in the past. For the sake of a few weeks let us get it right. I imagine Deputy O’Dea would like to get it right because it has been wrong for a long time. Others had the chance to fix it. They talked about it and even produced Bills and left them sitting there. This Government will do it because it said it would. This Government wants to see jobs being created and to protect jobs.

Deputy Ross referred to the debate about the minimum wage. The former Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment heard calls from various groups who wanted to reduce the minimum wage. We always asked them to prove to the committee that leaving the minimum wage alone was an impediment to job creation, but they could not prove it. We did the right [594]thing by returning the rate to what it had been because it was wrong to lower it. It was not the IMF or the EU but rather a Fianna Fáil and Green Party Government that did that. It suggested it to the Commissioner and not the other way around. We put that right because we believe in protecting low-paid workers and we believe in protecting jobs.

The issue regarding the JLC agreements and other agreements is very complicated. The structures, rules and regulations, the red tape and the procedures are a deterrent and they are costing business, as are some of the rates. Deputy Ross gave the example of a local shop on a Sunday or a bank holiday Monday. In some cases such shops genuinely cannot afford to employ a person at twice the rate of pay or more in some cases. Something has to be done because this situation is costing jobs. Our duty is to create jobs and to protect jobs. I know that the owners of shops are working on Sundays or a bank holiday Monday rather than giving a job to a student or someone with no other source of income bar that one day a week. They are missing out on the opportunity for work.

I know that Christmas, Sunday and bank holiday work is unsocial work because I did that work for years when I was young. We have to recognise that fact but it is also a chance for a person to start a job and learn about the world of work. We owe a debt of gratitude to many of these businesses because they have given young people a start in a job.

It is right to reform this area to make it easier for jobs to be created. The evidence is that jobs have been lost and that is why it must be addressed, not because of a mean Government. The minimum wage was mean but we are planning a proper reform. The rates of pay will be dealt with by the joint labour committees. The Minister will not be lecturing us on the exact rates of pay because this will be done as part of the process. The reform has to be done. This Bill does not go far enough and it does not deal with all the implications of the judgment. We will not have the full details of the judgment until 25 July. It would be most unwise to push through legislation without having a proper, informed debate which would begin with a detailed judgment to hand.

Deputy Colm Keaveney: There are two ways we can view the recent High Court ruling on the issue of JLCs and EROs. We can look at the situation as it currently pertains as a complete disaster or we can look at it as a new opportunity. In my view, we really do not have the time to waste looking at this as a disaster. It should be seen as an opportunity. I appreciate that Deputy Boyd Barrett is very concerned about the situation, as are we all. I remind him it was not the Dáil which dismantled the JLCs but rather the High Court. I hope there is broad agreement in the House that this is a matter to be addressed as comprehensively and speedily as possible once we return in September. Admittedly, however, there is no straightforward, quick-fix solution, as Deputy Finian McGrath would like to believe. The complexity of the issues surrounding the High Court ruling on the joint labour committee agreements cannot be understated. It is no exaggeration to say that we have a mountain to climb over the course of the summer recess to put the correct legislation before the House at the earliest opportunity. However, we should not use any excuse to delay action because it would be regarded as a fault of this House if there were to be an attack on the working poor before the publication of the legislation.

I am surprised that someone with the legal wisdom of Deputy Willie O’Dea, whom I have always considered to be a person of great legal mind and a good political operator, has failed to foresee the sequence of events which led to this situation. Fianna Fáil had the time and the opportunity to enact the required change but it passed up on that opportunity. It cannibalised its own Bill in the process and, in effect, its members have done a cut and paste job to take [595]advantage of vulnerable working people. I am not going to argue with Deputy O’Dea on that point because we need to focus on how we can help the situation. The Members of this House were not elected to talk about Fianna Fáil but rather to protect those in society who are unable to protect themselves.

The High Court ruling does not provide an opportunity for reform. We have to set out a goal to limit any unfair treatment by opportunistic employers and we need to decide how quickly we can put strong legislation in place. We are faced with an opportunity to overhaul comprehensively an archaic and broken system. The High Court has decided it is broken. With the correct approach we can set down new, modernised wage setting mechanisms in a constitutional manner. This is an opportunity to restore full decency and fairness to the system, for workers and employers alike, and to introduce mechanisms which realistically reflect the challenges of a modern economy and society.

We have had the dialogue and the debate. We are all in broad agreement on the necessity of reforms. Despite the difficulties we face and the legal complexity surrounding the issues, this is not an insurmountable challenge. The crucial point is we must move quickly.

Any new system developed over the course of the summer must ensure unreservedly that workers in JLC sectors end up earning no less than their current wages. A new system should allow for equal if not greater levels of pay for workers who are the real backbone of this economy. When this issue is discussed in September, I do not want to hear the term “pay flexibility” thrown around as corporate and political language in an attempt to attack the working poor. This group has been hit the hardest as a consequence of the downturn in the economy. These are the lowest paid workers in society who are least deserving of a pay cut as a consequence of the failure of the previous Administration.

I wish to highlight a recent League of Credit Unions survey which found that more than 585,000 people surveyed see no future for themselves or their families in this country. This is a shameful number. It is up to this Government to put a stop to this thinking. We will not do so by undermining the ability of ordinary workers to live stable and financially secure lives without the worry that their jobs will be taken from them or that they will be subject to cuts in their wage rates.

The Minister and his Department have a mountain to climb but there is nothing that cannot be achieved. I am confident a political solution will be found and that workable, robust and constitutionally viable reforms will be put in place when the Government returns to business in September.

Deputy Andrew Doyle: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Deputy Ross is correct that this is a complicated issue. There is a balance to be struck in trying to ensure those who are protected under what was the JLC system continue to be protected to ensure it is more attractive to seek a job than not to, which would be the risk if the JLC system were to be turned upside down. We would be in a much worse position on foot of this judgment had the Duffy-Walsh review not been initiated. Otherwise we might have been looking for a suspension of Standing Orders to allow the House to discuss the situation because we had nothing prepared. As it is, quite an advanced amount of preparation work has been done and we are awaiting the final report and conclusions from the consultation process that took place on foot of the report.

We all agree on certain things. The areas to which the main EROs and REAs apply have suffered the greatest job losses since 2008. There has been a 60% loss of employment in construction, and 15% in the retail and wholesale sectors. Catering and hotels have seen a 20% [596]loss. Something is broken and needs fixing. Any employer will say — I am sure no employee will disagree — that there is too much bureaucracy in employment law. While employment legislation was introduced, the law it replaced still seems to remain on the Statute Book. The JLCs were introduced before we had a minimum wage and legislation to protect the rights of workers in the workplace and to ensure they and the employers were given equal opportunity to ensure fair play existed.

There are people on the minimum wage to whom this JLC structure does not apply. For 4% of the working population, employers have been able to avail of a 50% PRSI reduction. It does not apply to people on JLCs. As a young and not so young fellow, I worked behind a bar on a Sunday, which was the only day of the week I could work. Under the current regime I would not be able to work and there are many people in that category. Deputy English spoke about the people for whom weekend work is critical to allowing them to go to college or whatever, and we need to be cognisant of that.

We need to strike a balance and it will be difficult. It is accepted that people come from different perspectives on this issue. People in this Chamber can be pigeonholed politically. If we get too political on this, we will not resolve it. We will have a halfway to nothing solution that will still be archaic and unfit for purpose. Let us realise that and try to work it together. It is not often I call for all-party agreement, but on this one we need to have it.

Deputy Gerald Nash: As a contribution to the challenge we face over the need to protect and secure the wages and conditions of those employed in areas governed by the JLC and ERO system, I welcome the publication of this Bill and the opportunity to speak on its provisions. Elements of the Bill attract my support and that of the Labour Party and Government in general. The basic principals are philosophically sound and it represents a reasonable effort to address some of the fall-out from the Feeney judgment two weeks ago.

However, even to the untrained eye, the frailties inherent in the legislation are all too apparent. In whatever way we slice and dice it, the Bill is essentially a reheated version of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009. However, that was then and this is now, and in light of the Feeney judgment, we have entered an entirely new dimension. The JLC and ERO system which has served our economy and society well since its inception has been struck down as unconstitutional. Despite what some members of the Opposition would have us believe, the direct implications of the judgment are such that no quick-fix solution exists that can be taken off the shelf, dusted down and represented as something it is not.

We need fresh thinking to deal with a fundamentally altered scenario while achieving the same outcomes enjoyed by those employed under the JLC and ERO system. It would be disingenuous and dangerously misleading for anyone in this House to suggest that this, or indeed any other legislative proposition that has been put forward, whether in this House or outside in recent days, is sufficiently robust to achieve the outcome on which there is a degree of unanimity around the House.

I accept the Bill represents a genuine effort to have one substantial element of the Feeney judgment settled, which is the issue to do with the glaring absence of strong guiding policies and principles from this law-making body in terms of wage setting mechanisms. This is all well and good up to a point. However, any reasonable analysis of this effort presented to us by Fianna Fáil is completely silent on the entire issue of property rights. Not just in this instance, but in a whole raft of trade union and employment rights legislation, this constitutional issue of property rights has reared its unwelcome head. It is grotesque and, frankly, disturbing to me that in the context of this and other matters, the issue of the protection of individual property [597]rights appears to have primacy in our Constitution over the rights of the individual citizen to a decent living wage and, moreover, the right to have those circumstances protected. This is a matter that should be pursued and examined shortly by the constitutional convention.

Last night Deputies O’Dea and Niall Collins, from the party that brought us such hits as the slashing of the national minimum wage and the blanket bank guarantee, were straining at the leash to have a go at the Labour Party, asking us what we stand for. It could be argued that the crocodile tears they shed on this serious matter are an insult to honest crocodiles everywhere. As Deputy White said yesterday evening, we stand for legislation that will work and not for legislation that is clearly frail and frankly a bit on the anaemic side. We will not do a Grand Old Duke of York on it and pretend that if this so-called emergency legislation is passed, everything will be fine in the morning, which it will not.

Notwithstanding all of that, the Bill requires additional examination and has a degree of merit, and I support what the Minister is doing now and what we will be doing over the summer period to address comprehensively the issues facing us and the 200,000 workers who need our protection and need a new structure to protect and vindicate their interests and rights robustly and vigorously.

Deputy Áine Collins: We all agree this is a very important issue on which a balance needs to be found. It is vital that the Government reforms the present system in order that businesses that are struggling will be able to hold on to existing jobs, create new jobs and encourage others to set up business. The downturn in the economy has had a profound effect on the labour market, with areas such as retail, accommodation, food and construction being among those hardest hit. For example, there has been a 60% loss of employment in construction and a 15% to 20% loss in the wholesale and retail sectors. Hotels and catering have seen a 20% loss in employment alone in the past three years. While demand in these sectors is clearly a key factor, labour costs represent a high proportion of total costs. Some 39% of restaurants no longer open on Sundays owing to labour costs.

In the present environment it is vital to ensure that these structures are flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances and that they reflect the realities of our present day economy. The recently published live register figures make it clear that the time for business as usual in any sector of the economy is long past. The challenge facing the Government is indeed enormous. We were elected to change current practices and it is clear from the Duffy-Walsh report that reform is needed. The policies pursued over the past 14 years by our predecessors in government have got us into the mess we are now experiencing. The previous Government had ample time to pass such a Bill through the Oireachtas, but as usual it procrastinated. It will take several years of good government and good policies to put things back on track.

The Bill is largely cut and pasted from the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 which was introduced by the previous Government in August 2009 in response to the commencement of the Quick Service Food Alliance case in December 2008. However, despite being welcomed by all sides, the Bill was never progressed by that Government beyond Second Stage in the Dáil and it lapsed with the end of the previous Dáil in early 2011. With 446,800 people on the live register at present, we must realise that action is needed urgently which is why the Government will address the issue early in September. We need to provide people with the opportunity to get back to work, and job creation must be on the top of all our agendas. To that end, I welcome this debate.

Deputy John Paul Phelan: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on the Bill. I feel a sense of déjà vu. I agree with Deputy Keaveney’s comments that the Bill is rather similar to [598]one introduced in 2009. I was Fine Gael’s enterprise spokesman in the Seanad when it discussed Second Stage of similar legislation, the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which was agreed by all parties in both Houses. For Fianna Fáil to propose what is more or less the same Bill is a bit rich, as is its claim that it supports poorly paid workers. For 14 years, Fianna Fáil had the opportunity to support them and could have introduced legislation in the past year and a half, but it did not.

Given our support for the Bill a year and a half ago, we will not vote it down tonight, but the legislation’s thrust does not address most of the key issues raised by the Feeney judgment in the High Court a couple of weeks ago. Deputy Doyle was correct to state that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, had done a great deal of work on this area in recent months. Thankfully, when the Houses return in September, the Minister will be in a position to introduce a more detailed and comprehensive Bill to address a complex set of questions.

Approximately 450,000 people in our society are out of work. It must be the clear priority of everyone in both Houses to ensure we do everything we can during the lifetime of this Oireachtas to return as many of those people to work as possible. I support the Minister’s efforts to reform the JLC structure. While debating the previous Bill in the Seanad a year and a half ago, I highlighted to the then Minister, Mr. Batt O’Keeffe, the inadequacies of the JLC system whereby different payments are made in different parts of the country based purely on a job’s geographical location and not on the role being performed. The Minister, Deputy Bruton, is correct to try to reform that structure.

I do not agree with some Deputies who said people are playing politics with this issue. The Government has already shown itself to be committed to protecting the poorest workers by increasing the minimum wage to the level from which our predecessors reduced it. We are committed to ensuring the lowest paid workers are looked after, but our overarching commitment must be to the 450,000 people who do not have jobs but want them.

Before attending this debate, I spoke with a friend who has been offered a job in London and is about to leave. I have countless friends living in that city and other parts of the world because of the policies pursued for 14 years by Deputy O’Dea’s party in government. It is disingenuous to introduce this legislation and claim that Fianna Fáil is looking after the poorest workers in the land when it is responsible for so many of them needing to leave the country in the first place.

Deputy Tom Barry: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill. The JLCs need to be put on a strong constitutional footing. Until this is done, uncertainty will reign, which will be of no benefit to anyone concerned. We have witnessed the death of social partnership, although I have my doubts about whether it was ever a real social partnership. It based its foundations on the notion that money could solve all problems. This was true for a time, but we no longer have money and must now face the challenge of making the system work. We must look forward and there is no point in looking back, as it will not put bread on the tables of those who constantly worry about how they will keep their homes etc.

I grow disappointed with Deputies jumping up and down and getting excited about protecting workers while not realising that we are all here to stand up for workers. As an employer, it disappoints me to see some Deputies who do not know how to create a job speaking on the subject and accusing everyone else of having no conscience on the matter. I have trained employees who then left because of €1 or less per hour at high rates, but the circumstances [599]have reversed. Long-term employees bring stability and continuity to a business. If a business has long-term employees, it is operating well.

The question of employers needs to be addressed, as it is not in many employers’ interests to decimate workers’ wages. We all must come through this financial crisis, which we will do by co-operating. Some people will try to abuse the system.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has one minute remaining.

Deputy Tom Barry: Regarding atypical hours, countries like Spain virtually shut down on Sunday whereas we have become used to our country working throughout Sunday. People should only work all day on Sunday if something critical needs to get done that day. One cannot demand money from a business if doing so will cause that business to fail in the long term. As many Deputies will realise, the countryside has seen the systematic destruction of its shops and villages. It has no more shops. We need to determine what we can do about thisissue.

Optimising job creation is a skill and must be the priority. We must use our heads in reforming the JLCs, which will play a fundamental role in where we go from this point. We cannot buy job creation with money. The farming industry is a good example of a cyclical system — some years one is down, some years one is up. We need to examine JLCs in the long term and determine how to work through the economic crisis together.

Deputy Brendan Smith: I wish to share time with Deputies Sean Fleming, McConalogue, Kirk and Calleary. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might tell me when my five minutes have concluded.

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

Deputy Brendan Smith: I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this important legislation and I compliment my colleague, Deputy O’Dea, on drafting it. The briefings prepared by the Labour and Fine Gael research offices on the Bill’s contents and its alleged similarity with the 2009 Bill are incorrect. Only one section of this Bill is similar to part of the 2009 legislation.

Deputy Nash stated that, during the summer, Government Deputies will work on this issue collectively. There has not been much evidence to date of collective thinking, given the rush by numerous Labour Party Deputies to criticise the Minister, Deputy Bruton, via their press office. If they were so concerned about the inadequacy of this legislation, I am surprised by their support for it.

Following the 7 July High Court decision, the Minister gave a solemn commitment publicly and in his meetings with senior trade unionists that legislation would be introduced immediately to deal with this emergency issue, but it is another post-election Government commitment that will not be honoured. Deputy John Paul Phelan claimed the Minister had been working hard on this issue, but there is no evidence of such. No preparatory work on the High Court case’s anticipated outcome seems to have been done.

Every Member has received e-mails, correspondence and telephone calls from all individuals across the country.

Thousands of low paid workers are concerned and fearful about this decision. This Bill was drafted to protect those workers. Government inaction on the issue is leaving low paid workers in a precarious position, as outlined to us in correspondence from many individuals; the trade unions went as far as describing the situation as devastating for workers.

[600]The JLC system was established in 1946 when the late Seán Lemass was Minister for Industry and Commerce. In a total revamping of industrial relations legislation of the time, he established the committees. Not alone were they established to set wages, they were established to deal with conditions, another important issue.

The JLCs have been an important part of the industrial relations architecture since that period. With some revamping they set minimum rates of pay, terms and conditions for classes of workers operating in more than one trade. The individual JLCs are composed of employer and worker representatives, generally from representative organisations and trade unions, and an independent chairman. The JLCs propose minimum pay and conditions that are then drafted into employment regulation orders by the Labour Court, commonly referred to as EROs. Enforcement is not through the State industrial relations machinery but through the labour inspectorate in the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. The areas covered by the committees include hospitality, the food and retail sectors, clothing and contract cleaning. They were hugely important in many areas of the economy.

8 o’clock

This emergency legislation is needed because the High Court ruled that the JLC system of setting wages was unconstitutional. As a result, workers whose remuneration was governed by employment regulation orders on or before 7 July no longer have the statutory benefits of those employment regulation orders. This Bill provides for the amendment of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 and 1990 so the statutory mechanism in place for the fixing of remuneration by an employment regulation order is consistent with the requirements of Bunreacht na hÉireann. The Bill also decriminalises any failure on the part of an employer to comply with an ERO as recommended in the Duffy-Walsh report.

If this Bill is enacted it will allow the Minister for Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation to make new employment regulation orders in respect of all such workers under a new statutory mechanism that takes into account and rectifies the failings in the 1946 and 1990 Acts. It is important the case was taken by companies in the catering sector when it can apply to so many workers in different sectors. This is important to a huge number of workers, generally in the lower paid sectors of the economy, and I am glad to support this legislation.

Deputy Sean Fleming: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011. I compliment Deputy O’Dea for being so quick to introduce this legislation. One section is based on previous legislation but much of it is new and was put together in light of the recent High Court judgment.

I commend him for moving so quickly on the issue to protect people’s rights. It is not only a question protecting the pay rates of employees but also the businesses of the employers. It is important people recognise this is not an employee versus employer situation. Everyone must be balanced in our discussions. There are benefits in this legislation for employees and, equally, there are benefits for employers in the short term.

Without this legislation there is a gap in the system and those good employers who want to pay people the rates that had already been agreed and who want to tender for a contract on the basis of those rates could find unscrupulous employers submitting a tender based on lower wages that are not covered in previous agreements. Good employers with long-term employees could find themselves losing business because they are being undercut by those who will take advantage of the lack of legislation or an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The situation was so serious following the High Court decision that the Government should have lodged an appeal. That would have bought time to draft legislation and, in the meantime, the existing regime would have remained in place. By the time we return in autumn, the [601]legislation could have been finalised to deal with these issues and could have overtaken the appeal. I see no reason why the Government will not lodge an appeal on this issue in the morning to show it is committed to protecting the agreements. That does not prevent it from coming forward with new legislation to improve the situation.

People have claimed the legislation is not perfect; they agree with the principles but they have found areas where the phraseology is not sufficient. That is the purpose of this House. The legislation can be published then teased out on Committee Stage, with amendments made, so that by the time it completes its passage through the Oireachtas, it will be better. If Deputies on the Government side refuse to support legislation on Second Stage because there are some imperfections in it, no Bill will ever be passed because I have never seen legislation passed being the same as legislation initiated. That is the essence of a democratic parliament, that it would make changes to legislation. Anyone who had an issue with the Bill would have been able to deal with it on Committee Stage.

People understand the gist of what we are talking about but I got an education in employment regulation orders, registered employment agreements and joint labour committees when issues arose in the catering trade when lots of hotel and restaurant owners in the midlands came to me to complain about NERA inspections. If a wedding took place on a Saturday and it spilled over until 12.15 a.m. on the Sunday morning, NERA said those staff must be paid the Sunday rate because they had been there for half an hour after midnight. In some cases the employees had left the business three years previously and the employers were told to find those people wherever they were in the world and to send them cheques. Employers were made to feel like criminals because they had not paid people their proper wages but those were the wages that were agreed and understood.

I accept some of the legislation was drafted by the last Government but the current Government and its legal advisors should have been ready for this decision. The Duffy-Walsh report had been published and the review was underway. The Government should have drafted legislation on that basis and should have been ready to move the next day if it did not want to go to the Supreme Court.

It decided to do neither, not to appeal to the Supreme Court and not to introduce amending legislation in the meantime that would meet the constitutional requirements highlighted in the High Court. That is why so many workers are in this difficult situation. This was struck down for constitutional reasons but I do not hesitate to say that the legislation, had it been tested with the full rigour of the law, would not have stood up in any court of law and the Department must have known that for a time and should have been ready to bring forward legislation.

Owners of hotels and restaurants, in particular, came to me in the last couple of years and when I pointed out their sector representative had approved of the wage agreement at a JLC, some of them who were new in the business did not know there was a JLC covering it and did not know there was a representative for them on a JLC. If this had been tested, the practicality of implementing these agreements would have been utterly, 100% defective. They were not representative bodies because the majority of people allegedly represented by the employers’ representatives were not represented by them. Representation should mean that people are being represented and not that representatives are there in name only. It would have been struck down on that point.

The Government has choices to make and has made a choice concerning these particular workers. The Government came in with a pension levy, which is fine. It was its decision, as it was to reduce VAT, which is fine also. It also increased the minimum wage, but it has decided not to do anything for this group of 200,000 workers. One must ask therefore why the[602]Government is singling out this group of workers to be left high and dry over the summer months.

If the Government wanted to deal with this matter it could have done so, but it has made choices. Neither the IMF nor anyone else is stopping the Government from doing this, so all it takes is the political will. It is a pity, however, that in this case it is not in evidence today.

I am also concerned about the pension schemes that are now only one step away from being struck down by any challenge, say, in the construction industry. A lot of work has gone into that over the years whereby employers in the construction industry contributed to a pension fund for their employees. People contributed to those funds over a period of time, but the same threat hangs over those pension schemes as with other agreements that have not been specifically brought before the courts. People therefore have a legitimate concern about current and future contributions, as well as the management of those pension schemes, especially in the construction sector. That matter has not been highlighted to any great extent, however.

I accept that the overwhelming majority of employers are good business people. They create jobs and most of them are responsible, but there is an unscrupulous element who will try to win a contract at a lower price by undercutting, getting out of their pension liabilities and avoiding paying traditional industry rates. In addition, such employers may use foreign nationals to clean local authority and government offices.

Where contracts are being paid for by public funds, whether it is to build a school or pay catering staff in a Government office, agency or local authority, there should be some method of on-site inspection to ensure staff in those areas are being paid the proper rate along with proper social welfare deductions. It is important to give fair play to good employers.

I compliment Deputy O’Dea for bringing forward this Bill. I acknowledge the Government’s goodwill in not voting it down, but I would like them to follow through by letting the Bill progress to Committee Stage.

Deputy Seamus Kirk: I am glad of the opportunity to say a few words on this Bill in the limited time available. I support the Fianna Fáil-sponsored Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011. I wish to compliment our colleague, Deputy Willie O’Dea, on bringing this legislation before the House with a considerable degree of urgency. The reason we are pushing ahead with this Bill is because of the ineptitude of the current Government in dealing with this crisis. Following the ruling on 7 July in the High Court, some 200,000 people are at risk and face lower rates of pay and inferior working conditions. The Government promised to address the situation with the utmost urgency, but that simply has not happened.

Deputy O’Dea has introduced this legislation to remedy the constitutional issues related to JLCs in order to protect workers. Unions have describe the situation as devastating for employees. It is worth bearing in mind that it was Fianna Fáil, under the late Seán Lemass, that introduced the JLC system in 1946.

Prior to the High Court ruling it was clear there was a major rift brewing between the coalition parties over the reforms of the Minister, Deputy Bruton, to the JLC system, which went beyond those proposed by the Duffy-Walsh report. Workers already face hard times from the recent ECB interest rate increases. In addition, imminent household utility charges are coming down the tracks, including for water and perhaps septic tank charges in rural areas.

Fine Gael and Labour have broken a number of promises in relation to the JLCs. Those who care about the people affected would like to see the Government focus specifically on this issue. Who will represent the interests and needs of the 200,000 people who are directly [603]affected? Following the ruling, the Government promised that it would move immediately to introduce temporary measures to protect vulnerable workers.

The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, said the matter was being explored “with the utmost urgency” and an announcement would be made as soon as a specific course of action had been decided upon. However, the Government has reneged on this, saying that no legislation will be brought forward before the summer recess. Clearly, the Minister simply does not understand the meaning of the term “urgent”. It is not good enough that thousands of vulnerable workers will be left in a precarious position while the Government goes off on its summer break. The Government had acknowledged the seriousness of the situation, but is still dragging its heels.

On 12 July 2011, the Taoiseach told the Dáil:

The vulnerability of some workers is of concern... There are now limited protections for workers because of contracts entered into. This is a matter the Government feels should be responded to as quickly as possible. It will not, however, be possible for the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to have the matter rectified before the summer recess.

A study published in the Industrial Relations Journal in January 2011 found that two thirds of respondents surveyed considered that JLCs were still necessary in addition to the national minimum wage, while a third thought that they were not necessary. The study is entitled “Minimum labour standards in a social partnership system: the persistence of the Irish variant of wages councils”. Its authors, Michelle O’Sullivan and Joseph Wallace, found that the overwhelming majority of trade union and independent members believed JLCs were necessary. Employer members were most likely to hold the view that JLCs were no longer necessary, but there was no consensus among them. A substantial minority of one third of employer respondents believed JLCs were necessary. The reasons with the strongest employer support — 33% of those covered — were that “JLCs are necessary because they tailor minimum pay and conditions to the specific industry/employment covered”, and that “JLCs are necessary because they try to prevent employer undercutting”. Other well supported reasons were that “JLCs provide a negotiating forum for generally non-unionised workers”, and that “JLCs set more minimum conditions of employment than provided in employment legislation”.

As Members will have gleaned from Opposition contributions, we are all supportive of what Deputy Willie O’Dea is proposing in this Private Members’ Bill. We are glad the Government has agreed to allow it to progress to Second Stage, but there are other stages to be negotiated. Hopefully, the Government will recognise the merit of the legislation, support it and allow it through all stages.

Deputy Dara Calleary: In the context of a debate on JLCs and employment rights generally, it is important to emphasise that the vast majority, by which I mean 90% plus, of employers are decent and committed to the well-being of their employees. They are conscious of how that well-being contributes to the overall success of their businesses. The happiness of employees contributes to the success of service industries and other areas covered by JLCs.

Over the past three years, the vast majority of employers have faced unprecedented challenges, as they have tried to keep their doors open and retain people in employment. The machinery around EROs and JLCs, which has been ruled down by the recent judgment, proved itself to be inflexible and unhelpful in that task. I came across many situations, both as a Deputy and a Minister, where there was workplace agreement within companies on a temporary adjustment or change in conditions, but this could not be pursued because of the limitations of the then existing legislation.

[604]We are lucky to have an excellent team of departmental officials who are dealing with this area. We have prepared legislation in this respect. Over the past two nights, I have listened to the cri du coeur from Labour Party Deputies in particular, bewailing where that legislation went. Because of our wish to consult with many organisations, including their own military wing in SIPTU, we were delayed in preparing and introducing that legislation. We were ultimately overtaken by the financial, economic and political events of last autumn.

It is a difficult circle to square. On the one hand, we do not want to give an unfair competitive advantage to unscrupulous employers by allowing them to drive a coach and four through employment rights legislation. However, we must give a chance to businesses that are struggling and that want to do the decent thing. The redesign of JLCs must incorporate flexibilities and must show a recognition that the economic ways of doing things today are very different from those of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s when this system took hold.

We now have the judgment and there are several operational issues I would like to put to the Minister of State. I appreciate he might not be able to give us a response this evening, but if we could get it before the end of the recess, that would be great. What is the status of any ongoing National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, investigations into breaches of JLC regulations? Can he confirm that NERA has begun to withdraw prosecutions related to JLC regulations and pay rates? Given that the system has been ruled as unconstitutional, is it possible that any company or organisation previously found guilty of offences under the legislation might have recourse to seek repayment of damages, fines and legal fees?

The judgment has presented us with a good chance to redraw the industrial relations system. We should never waste a crisis and we should get the combined knowledge of everyone involved to produce a system that is fit for purpose in 21st century Ireland. I welcome the appointment of Mr. Ger Deering to bring the various employment rights agencies together. That system is incredibly complex and it does not assist employees seeking redress, nor does it assist employers. The Bearing Point report, which was prepared by the last Government, as well as the Croke Park agreement and the changes that this is making to Departments, will provide Mr. Deering with a good road map in that area.

We must be realistic. Our economy is in such a situation that this requires a rapid response. It requires a response that realises that inflexibility costs jobs and that the old ways of doing things has to be different. We can do things differently by offering protection to employees and by deterring rogue employers, but let us do so quickly and without any further unnecessary delay.

Deputy Charlie McConalogue: I commend Deputy O’Dea on his prompt response to the decision by the High Court to rule joint labour committee agreements as unconstitutional by bringing forward this Bill. It is particularly unfortunate, as we come into the last week of this Dáil session, that this decision has come upon us and it has made for a difficult scenario. I am disappointed that the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, in spite of his commitment to deal with this urgently following the ruling, has delayed it until the autumn.

The JLCs and employment agreements go back a long time, while it is more than 100 years since the minimum wage was first introduced in Britain and Ireland. The JLC structure came into place in 1946. It served a real purpose by offering protection to employees and ensuring those who have demands on them due to the nature of their work have fair and equitable employment conditions for the job they carry out. However, it has also served many employers well. We want to achieve a situation whereby the industrial relations structure of the State allows for employers to operate in a way which ensures they provide an efficient service to [605]their customers, but which also ensures employees have good terms and conditions in order that they can have the quality of life that all citizens wish to achieve.

It is not surprising that a study published in the Industrial Relations News found that there was much less support for JLC agreements among employers than among employees, but it also found that there was significant support for those agreements among employers, with over one third of employers expressing a need for them. This is an acknowledgment of the fact that well-treated employees are important for any business. In the absence of such agreements, these employers want to ensure that in providing a business and a service to their customers, they are also providing a good standard of employment to their employees and are not undercut by other people who may be less scrupulous. This can lead to a race to the bottom.

A rational understanding of the merit of JLCs shows that we need to continue with this kind of system. However, we must also ensure the system is responsive and there have been issues with it over recent years. JLCs were in place in the building industry which led to inflated prices and costs for construction. As the squeeze came on that industry, many employers and employees found it difficult to come to new agreements which reflected the times in which we were living, even though many wanted to do so.

We have an opportunity to bring in a framework which ensures that employees are protected but which also works well for employers who have at heart the concern for employees. Unfortunately, the Minister’s reluctance to move on this quickly will mean that over the next few months, new employees will be employed under conditions very different to those with existing conditions. Employees could be working side by side under very different terms. I urge the Minister of State to give this urgent consideration and I commend Deputy O’Dea on bringing the Bill before the House.

Minister of State at the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (Deputy John Perry): I thank all the Deputies who have contributed to this debate. The Government has stated it will not be opposing Second Stage of this Bill. Speakers on the Government side of the House have expressed their appreciation for the intention behind Deputy O’Dea’s Bill, since its aim is to protect vulnerable workers. However, as the Taoiseach and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, have both stated in the House, the legal advice available to the Government is crystal clear. The Bill as drafted is not sufficiently robust to deal with the problem Deputy O’Dea seeks to solve. While the intentions are good, unfortunately, the Bill is not adequate.

The measure proposed by Deputy O’Dea is premature. The judgment delivered by Mr. Justice Feeney on 7 July 2011 has so far only been made available in draft form. It has not been finalised. The declaration to which the High Court has said the plaintiffs are entitled has also to be finalised. The Bill is, moreover, insufficient as it does not address the potentially far-reaching consequences of the recent High Court judgement, nor is it likely to prove a bulwark against further legal challenges. We need legislation in this area that will withstand challenge. There is no point in proceeding with half-measures that will only be found to be faulty before long. The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2011 is not adequate to meet the need arising from the recent High Court judgment as it does not contain a sufficiently comprehensive range of reform proposals and cannot guarantee that the limited additional safeguards it seeks to put in place would survive legal challenge. Deputy O’Dea’s Bill relies on a “cut and paste” approach by importing the main provisions of the now lapsed Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, without taking into account the series of specific changes to the legislative framework put forward in the recommendations of the independent review report. It also fails to respond effectively to the more difficult issues raised in the High Court judgment of Mr. Justice Feeney, delivered on 7 July 2011.

[606]Concerns were raised yesterday and again this evening by a number of Deputies regarding the potential for exploitation of vulnerable workers by unscrupulous employers. While the vast majority of workers behave responsibly, there will undoubtedly be a small minority who may seek to exploit the High Court decision.

Workers covered by an employment regulation order, ERO, that fixed minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment will continue to be protected by their individual contracts of employment, whether written or verbal, which in many cases already incorporate the minimum rates of pay and conditions of employment set by whatever ERO may have covered their employment. Any question of a change to an employee’s contractual entitlement is essentially a matter to be agreed between each employee and their employer where this is not already a matter dealt with through collective agreements.

Where an employee is concerned about a possible breach of his or her existing contract of employment he or she can make a complaint under employment law by direct access to the employment rights bodies or in the law courts. Any workers seeking information about how they can bring complaints about variations in pay or deductions made without their agreement should contact NERA.

The fact that the process of making EROs has been found by the High Court to be unconstitutional, together with the identified lack of adequate Oireachtas scrutiny of this process, only underscores some of the main features of the recommendations for reform that were put forward by the independent review report on these statutory wage setting mechanisms.

Deputies on different sides of this House have recalled the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009, which was introduced by the last Government, but allowed to lapse after being left on the Order Paper for 12 months. That Bill had sought to address the vulnerability of both the JLC and REA systems. What is now required is a comprehensive reform measure that can address all of the recommendations for reform that were put forward by the independent review report on these statutory wage setting mechanisms as well as the implications of the recent High Court judgment.

The comprehensive reform proposals that have already been the subject of discussions with stakeholders and at Government will go some way in addressing the weaknesses identified by the court, and would therefore restore protection for workers in the relevant sectors.

Now the priority is to proceed with the preparation of comprehensive reform proposals since the implications of the High Court judgment for our wage setting mechanisms are not confined to the joint labour committee system.

The wide-ranging recommendations of the independent review report underscored the need to bring forward a substantive reform measure. The High Court ruling has posed an even greater challenge. Premature half-measures that tackle only some of these serious issues will not suffice to meet that challenge.

The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has said it considers that the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Bill 2009 can serve as a foundation for the necessary further work. ICTU considers, however, that the best course of action would now be to bring forward substantive legislation to deal with the problem. This means comprehending the recommendations of the independent review report by Kevin Duffy and Dr. Frank Walsh in the form of substantive legislation. Taking into account the High Court judgment, the Government is determined to proceed with urgency to a substantial reform of the current JLC/REA regulatory system in order to protect existing jobs in these vulnerable sectors of the economy and to increase the likelihood of employment in these sectors being increased. The Government’s intention is that [607]legislation will be introduced to the Dáil very early in the next term with prioritised enactment thereafter.

On the question Deputy Calleary raised, I will forward him that detail.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: Tááthas orm an deis cúpla focal a rá ar an mBille. We should reflect on where this process started. The starting point was when the previous Government instituted a review of the JLC system but what was not envisaged was that the total system would collapse. All of us agree there is need for change but change should happen in a controlled and focused way. Because of a court case taken and a ruling in the High Court that has not been appealed by the Government, the whole edifice has been knocked down. All we have been told is that if we wait long enough we will get a new edifice. The strategy being put forward by the Government is that we should wait and it will create a new edifice, but my concern is that the starting point of that edifice will not be the situation that pertained until the High Court gave its ruling, which was that there were very specific protections for workers, which might have been amended or adjusted to deal with the new issues that have arisen in our time. The Government will start from a point where there will be no defence other than the minimum wage and the basic standard law for workers and from that point that it will build.

Deputy John Perry: That is not true.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: That is a fact. That could be the legal situation and once it starts with that legal situation and time passes employers will start employing people under the new conditions: why would they not do so? Then when the Minister tries to bring in his law there will be a huge outcry from employers to the effect that he cannot do so because they are employing people under conditions that are inferior to his law. If the conditions are inferior to the law, perhaps that is the reason for the delay in the Government’s approach to this matter.

There is a conflict between the people who sit on this side and those who sit on that side of the House as to the approach that should be taken. The free marketeers in Fine Gael would like to drop the whole thing but the Labour Party is very wedded to it. There is an ideological conflict between them, which is understandable because the two parties claimed prior to the election that they were totally different. Why would there not be ideological differences between them? It would be amazing if two parties which said their ideologies were different before the election suddenly found they had no ideological differences once they got into Cabinet and, if that were so, one of them would have had to have been telling us fibs prior to the election.

By holding off in bringing forward legislation, it is one up for the Minister. The baseline of where we are starting from is zero whereas if legislation was in place, the baseline would be that legislation. Therefore, I am concerned as to what the intentions are in regard to legislation in this respect.

I accept that in most small businesses there is very little paperwork, dealings with unions and so on but a particular feature of 80% to 90% of good small businesses that I know is that there is great cohesion between the worker and the management and they very rarely have recourse to any of the industrial machinery unless there is a major breakdown on one or other side and they often relate to personality issues. In long-established good small businesses, the reality is that the employers know that without committed workers getting a fair return there would be no business because it is much more of a team effort and it is much more based on personal relationships.

In larger and more impersonal businesses, there is a temptation to take a money view because of the sheer number of employees and the personal relationship element is not such a feature. [608] Employees in such businesses can often themselves in a vulnerable situation. An employer employing 200, 300, 400 or 500 employers who can save so much a week, rather than considering the importance of the personal relationships between management and workers because such relationships are not immediately identifiable because they are immediately available, may avail of that opportunity to make a cash saving.

It is funny that it has been said that in the interim period nobody will move to take advantage of the situation. We were surprised that an appeal was not submitted on foot of the judgment. If an appeal had been submitted, everything would be stalled until the appeal was heard and we could then move forward and introduce a Bill before the law was struck down, but we are not in that situation. I was surprised by the naive view that no employers will take advantage of the position now that the wall has been knocked down. I find that strange. I will mention two cases where people tried to circumvent the law to save money on wages. Does the Minister remember the famous Irish Ferries dispute? It certainly was not within the spirit of what we would like to happen here but the question arose of whether it was legal. Aer Lingus also let staff go before hiring them again on less favourable terms. It is not believable that somebody working in a non-unionised operation on a casual basis will be able to argue past legal cases with a powerful employer to defend his or her position if the latter finds an apparently legal means of reducing terms of employment ahead of the proposed Bill. It is like telling somebody who is deeply unhappy about a decision to appeal it to the High Court on a point of law when that person does not know where to find the money to take on a court case. In the mundane world where ordinary people work, it is disingenuous to suggest it is sufficient to rely on verbal contracts.

We propose that the Minister should accept this Bill for now and, once he has had his proposals debated in Cabinet, he can bring forward a better system. The basic premise is to address the weakness in the system as it existed heretofore. Nobody is against change. We all recognise that parts of the system had to be adjusted to the new realities in which we must work.

We are hearing a narrative from powerful business interests that if only they could persuade ordinary workers to take less, our economic woes would be solved. I do not agree with the Cuban solution of being poor and happy while refusing to pursue economic wealth. However, I am also far from believing that the pursuit of wealth and notional increases to GNP creates a good standard of living in itself. I would argue that the Cuban model simply makes everyone poor and I believe in the creation of wealth but it must be fairly distributed. Those who measure the success of a country purely in GNP terms miss the point of why we emphasise economic growth and wealth creation. I am not concerned with how wealthy people may be but I am concerned with how poor they are. I do not begrudge somebody who owns a few million euro as long as it has not been earned at the disadvantage of those who are struggling to make ends meet. If somebody is making money by creating wealth in society, I have no problem with it but if he or she is helping to create an unequal society in which the poor are in the majority, that is the wrong vision. I do not agree with the narrative that as long as the people at the bottom cut their cloth to measure, all will be right with the world. Having worked in the area of job development, I see the creation of employment as a means of bringing improvements in people’s lifestyles and giving them opportunities to work within their own communities. I did not object if those who created the jobs enjoyed a reasonable living as a result but the current narrative worries me.

I ask the Government to accept the need for this Bill. It is not unusual when the High Court strikes down legislation that we would deal with the specific point of law that was called into question, which is what the Bill does. The Minister can continue to pursue his agenda of long-term reform. I do not need to give him advice because he has been around this House for a [609]long time but all of us who have had the privilege of serving as a Minister or Minister of State understand what it is like to ask when legislation will be ready. We take it at face value when we are told it will take several months and that we are 80% there after six months. However, the delay arises in perfecting the Bill. Every Government I dealt with in this House failed to deliver on the timeframes for their legislative promises. Having been in the system for a long time, I understand why this happens. It is easy enough to get the legislation to 80% of perfection but the final 20% will drive the Minister mad. It will be over and back and subject to negotiation.

The Government’s proposals for industrial reform will be subject to endless negotiations between the Labour Party and Fine Gael and we will wait a long time before legislation comes before this House. The proposals will require detailed debate when we finally receive them and the Bill should not be guillotined. If the Seanad is still around when the Minister manages to publish a Bill, he can figure out for himself how long it will take before it can be passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Deputy Dara Calleary: Perhaps we need a JLC for the Seanad.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I am aware I am straying from the subject of the debate but I am sure the Ceann Comhairle will indulge me.

An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has 54 seconds. He will not be able to stray too far.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: In the context of the Communications Regulation (Postal Service) Bill 2010, it was amazing to see how many technical amendments were made by the Government on Committee Stage and Report Stage. If we had a unicameral Parliament, I wonder how we would make all these amendments. This is why it is important that Bills go before both Houses to perfect the language used in them. Before the Government moves to abolish the Seanad, I suggest it should carry out a survey of all the amendments made by the second House to receive the Bills, whether that was the Seanad or the Dáil. Such a survey will indicate that a bicameral system is required and that the proposals to abolish the Seanad are purely populist and without foundation.

An Ceann Comhairle: I am afraid we will have to wonder for a while longer because the Deputy’s time has concluded and I have to put the question.

Deputy Willie O’Dea: I move:

That the Bill be referred to the Select Sub-Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation pursuant to Standing Order 82A (3)(a) and 6(a) of the orders of reference of that committee.

Sections 1 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.

[610]Question proposed: “That the Bill do now pass.”

Minister for Justice and Equality (Deputy Alan Shatter): I thank the Deputies opposite for their co-operation in the enactment of this Bill. It is a small but important measure in addressing a number of issues that need to be rectified regarding the workings of the military tribunal. I appreciate their co-operation and assistance in facilitating the passage of the Bill so rapidly this evening.