Download Report

Wednesday,
18 February 2015
Vol. 868
No. 2
DÍOSPÓIREACHTAÍ PARLAIMINTE
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
DÁIL ÉIREANN
TUAIRISC OIFIGIÚIL—Neamhcheartaithe
(OFFICIAL REPORT—Unrevised)
Insert Date Here
Ceisteanna - Questions �� 312
Priority Questions �� 312
Defence Forces Personnel �� 312
Defence Forces Fatalities�� 314
Shannon Airport Facilities �� 316
Army Barracks Closures�� 318
Overseas Missions �� 320
Other Questions �� 322
Naval Service Vessels �� 322
Defence Forces �� 324
Easter Rising Commemorations �� 326
UN Missions �� 327
Defence Forces Retirement Scheme�� 329
Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage �� 330
Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Order for Second Stage�� 333
Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Second Stage�� 333
Topical Issue Matters�� 342
12 o’clock
Leaders’ Questions�� 343
Order of Business �� 352
Topical Issue Debate�� 357
Special Protection Areas Designation�� 357
Road Projects�� 360
Aer Lingus Sale �� 363
National Centre for Medical Genetics �� 365
Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Second Stage (Resumed) �� 368
Environment (MIscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Referral to Select Committee�� 382
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Order for Second Stage�� 382
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage�� 383
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Referral to Select Committee�� 405
Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage (Resumed) [Private Members] �� 405
Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015: Referral to Select Committee�� 423
18/02/2015A00100
18/02/2015A00200
18/02/2015A00250
18/02/2015B00200
18/02/2015B01100
18/02/2015C01900
18/02/2015D00850
18/02/2015E01100
18/02/2015E01200
18/02/2015F00650
18/02/2015G00100
18/02/2015G00900
18/02/2015H00500
18/02/2015H01000
18/02/2015K00500
18/02/2015K00900
18/02/2015P00400
18/02/2015Q00100 ��343
18/02/2015S00500
18/02/2015W00100
18/02/2015W00200
18/02/2015X00300
18/02/2015Y00400
18/02/2015AA00250
18/02/2015BB00300
18/02/2015JJ00400
18/02/2015JJ00700
18/02/2015JJ01100
18/02/2015UU00300
18/02/2015VV00100
18/02/2015EEE00300
DÁIL ÉIREANN
Dé Céadaoin, 18 Feabhra 2015
Wednesday, 18 February 2015
Chuaigh an Ceann Comhairle i gceannas ar 09.30 a.m.
Paidir.
Prayer.
Ceisteanna - Questions
18/02/2015A00100
Priority Questions
18/02/2015A00200
Defence Forces Personnel
18/02/2015A00250
1. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence the further developments with
regard to the 21-year rule for service, for certain ranks, in the Defence Forces; and if he will
make a statement on the matter. [7074/15]
18/02/2015A00300
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: This question brings us back to an issue that affects certain
ranks within the Defence Forces which has been raised here frequently in recent times. It is an
issue of paramount importance to rank and file members of the Defence Forces. It relates to the
21-year contract. Having regard to what the Minister said on the issue previously, has progress
been achieved in extending the contract through the arbitration and conciliation process?
18/02/2015A00400
Minister for Defence (Deputy Simon Coveney): I thank the Deputy for raising this matter. On the last occasion we dealt with the issue at Question Time I said I hoped to be able to
provide a good deal of clarity the next time we met to discuss it. I will bring the Deputy up to
date on where the process is at.
18/02/2015A00500
While significant progress has been made in recent discussions between the Permanent Defence Force Other Ranks Representative Association, PDFORRA, and civil and military management on the issue, it has not been possible to reach full agreement. That is the stage we were
at in the process the last day. As a result, the issue was referred for third party adjudication and
a ruling. That adjudication hearing took place on 30 January and the report of the adjudicator
was issued to all parties to the scheme on 12 February. In accordance with the scheme rules,
there is a procedure to be followed in the publication of the report in that it cannot be published
312
18 February 2015
before presentation to Dáil Éireann. As it requires detailed consideration of the findings by me,
as Minister, and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, it would be inappropriate for
me to comment further on the matter at this stage. That is the strong advice I have received on
the matter.
I was anxious to talk about what was included in that recommendation in my response to
questions this morning, but I have been told that I cannot do this because it is a ruling that requires some study. PDFORRA is also examining it in some detail. As soon as I get agreement
from the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Government, I will publish the
report and make it available to everybody, as well as the decisions that we will have to make
on the back of it.
18/02/2015A00600
18/02/2015A00700
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: It appears that progress has been achieved, which is welcome.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Yes, it has.
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: If I am reading what the Minister said correctly, he has received
a report on the outcome of the conciliation and arbitration process in which agreement has been
reached between the parties and that it now rests with him and the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to agree that the State will incur whatever costs are to be incurred. I exhort the
Minister to expedite a decision in this matter. Many of the young people affected by this issue
have effectively had their lives on hold for quite a period of time and are not able to plan for the
future. They find themselves in these circumstances at a time when the financial pressures on
them are probably greater than they will be at any stage in the future. They are carrying heavy
mortgages and, in many instances, have children in education; therefore, they are feeling the
pressure. The Minister appreciates the importance of bringing the matter to a conclusion. If he
could he give us an indication of the timeframe about which we are talking, it would be helpful.
18/02/2015A00800
Deputy Simon Coveney: I thank the Deputy for showing some understanding of the process needed in this respect. As he did not have to take that line, it is appreciated. Unfortunately, the arbitration process did not come up with a compromise or final agreement between
PDFORRA and my Department, which is why we went to a third party for adjudication, to
examine all of the issues involved and make a ruling and recommendation. We are examining
the consequences as regards costs and the decisions to be made on the back of the report. We
will certainly finalise the process within the next two to three weeks. I am anxious to bring
closure to the issue which has been ongoing for a prolonged period. This has caused stress and
uncertainty for members of the Defence Forces. It is also an issue the Department is anxious
to bring to a conclusion.
18/02/2015A00900
It is important to understand the idea behind the rule. There was a reason time limits were
put on contracts in the Defence Forces; it was to ensure the maintaining an age profile that was
appropriate for everyone in the Defence Forces. That approach has been successful and various
compromises have been made along the way. The process seeks to be fair, as well as remaining
consistent with the policy on maintaining the age profile. I hope we will be able to have clarity
for everybody within the next few weeks.
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: The Minister has mentioned that PDFORRA is considering the
adjudicator’s recommendations in this matter. Has he received any indication from PDFORRA
as to what is its approach to the recommendations made? Can I take it that there has been general acceptance by all parties of the recommendations? I acknowledge that in the circumstances
18/02/2015A01000
313
Dáil Éireann
two or three weeks is not a long time to wait, if it takes that period of time for the Government
to come to what we hope will be the right conclusion. People have had to put their lives on
hold and if this matter is not resolved, we will see very fit and able-bodied people, both physically and psychologically, discharged from the Defence Forces, which none of us wants to see
happen.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The adjudicator’s ruling will form the basis of agreement, but I
do not want to go into the detail of that matter. PDFORRA will make its own judgment on it
and I will not speak for it. We have been through an exhaustive process of many months. The
system has been working, we have gone through the various arbitration and, subsequently, adjudication processes and we have the report that will be the basis of an agreement. Everyone
will not get what he or she wants. While the ruling is consistent with the overall objective of
using time limits in contracts, it also tries to take account of some of the concerns expressed
by members of PDFORRA. As soon as I can finalise the process with the Minister for Public
Expenditure and Reform and within my Department, we will be happy to bring the issue to a
conclusion.
18/02/2015A01100
Defence Forces Fatalities
18/02/2015B00200
2. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if he will provide an update on the
case of a person (details supplied), a Lebanese national who is the alleged perpetrator of the
murder of persons (details supplied) and the attempted murder of a person (details supplied),
Irish peacekeepers deployed with the UN in Lebanon; if the Lebanese authorities have been
in contact with his Department over this case; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[7105/15]
18/02/2015B00300
18/02/2015B00400
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I ask members to stay within the time limits.
Deputy Seán Crowe: I have tabled this question to get an update from the Minister on
the case of Mr. Mahmoud Bazzi, a Lebanese national who is the main suspect in the murder
of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek Smallhorne and the attempted murder of Private John
O’Mahony, Irish peacekeepers deployed with the UN. Mr. Bazzi has been deported from the
US to Lebanon. Has the Lebanese Government contacted the Minister about the case, has his
Department provided it with any information or evidence and is it likely that Mr. Bazzi will go
free under an amnesty covering crimes committed during the Lebanese war?
18/02/2015B00500
Deputy Simon Coveney: I thank Deputy Crowe for raising this issue, which is one that we
have taken seriously. It relates to the case of the deaths of Privates Thomas Barrett and Derek
Smallhorne, who were murdered, and the serious injuring of Private John O’Mahony while
serving with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, on 18 April 1980. In July
2014, the alleged perpetrator, Mr. Mahmoud Bazzi, who had been residing in the US, was arrested for administrative immigration violations. Following an immigration court hearing in
August, the judge ruled that Mr. Bazzi be deported to Lebanon, as he had admitted to entering
the US in 1994 without proper documentation. He was finally deported to his native Lebanon
on 30 January 2015. On arrival in Beirut, Mr. Bazzi was arrested and detained by the Lebanese
authorities, where he remains in custody.
18/02/2015B00600
The Irish Government has requested the support of the Lebanese Government in seeking
justice for the murdered Irish UNIFIL peacekeepers, should such action be at all feasible. Dur314
18 February 2015
ing my visit to Lebanon last December, I met the Lebanese authorities at the most senior levels
of government and highlighted the Irish Government’s continued prioritisation of and commitment to progressing this case in the interests of justice. It is now a matter for the Lebanese
authorities to investigate the case and to determine any future action in accordance with their
national legislation and judicial procedures. The Irish ambassador in the region is continuing
to monitor developments in the case and is in contact with my Department on a regular basis.
A total of 199 Defence Forces personnel are currently serving with the UNIFIL mission, but
I have taken a personal interest in the case and have met the families and Mr. O’Mahony. We
are keeping them up to date with everything we know. I am somewhat limited in what I can say
because I am anxious that nothing I say should prejudice any judicial case that the Lebanese
authorities may be taking. While I do not want to go into the legal challenges involved, it is
a question of the murder of two men and the attempted murder of a third. We have asked the
Lebanese authorities to treat this issue as a priority. I am satisfied that they are doing everything
they can to seek justice. We will monitor the situation with interest.
Deputy Seán Crowe: I thank the Minister for the update. I accept that he is limited in what
he can say and do concerning a domestic Lebanese case but it is important that we highlight
the issue, as it also draws attention to the significant risks involved in peacekeeping operations.
18/02/2015B00700
The families started a campaign for which there is considerable sympathy across the
Oireachtas. I welcome the fact that this week, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, Deputy Charles Flanagan, laid a wreath at the memorial to Irish peacekeepers who died in Lebanon.
In light of the fact that the families have been campaigning for the past 30 years, it is important that we do everything in our power regarding this case. The Minister is limited in what he
can say but is there a timeframe for a possible case being taken? I am conscious of the fact that
Lebanon is the only country in which this individual can be charged.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I also pay tribute to the families concerned. Anyone who has met
the Smallhorne and Barrett families and Mr. O’Mahony knows that they are incredibly decent
people who are trying to move on with their lives and seek justice. They have been campaigning on that basis for many years. For this reason we all owe it to them, the Defence Forces and
the former colleagues of the two murdered soldiers to do everything we can to seek justice.
That is what we are doing, but let me be clear, in that we have tried to provide as much information on the case as we can and we have requested that the case be taken seriously, which it
is. We also closely monitored the case in the US that resulted in the deportation of Mr. Bazzi.
Unfortunately, the Irish Government cannot take a case in Ireland. This is an issue for the Lebanese judicial system and Lebanese law. As such, we are interested observers who are being kept
up to date on a regular basis, but we must let the law take its course.
18/02/2015B00800
Deputy Seán Crowe: This case highlights the facts that people are doing peacekeeping
work for the UN and the laws in that regard might need to be changed at some stage.
18/02/2015B00900
The individual in question remains in custody. Does the Minister have information on for
how long the process will last? The families’ campaign was a factor, but there was also media
involvement in the US. We should put on record our welcome for that involvement. Will the
Minister and his Department keep the House updated on the case as much as possible?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Judging by my discussions in Beirut, the authorities are doing
what they can to establish the facts in this case. My understanding is that, with a view to assist315
18/02/2015B01000
Dáil Éireann
ing authorities in the review of the case that was then under way, Mr. Bazzi was detained when
he arrived back in Beirut and that this is still the situation.
Shannon Airport Facilities
18/02/2015B01100
3. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence the Defence Forces resources
allocated to aiding the civil power duties at Shannon Airport to date in 2015; if he is satisfied
that this is an effective use of Defence Forces personnel; and if he will make a statement on the
matter. [7071/15]
18/02/2015B01200
Deputy Mick Wallace: According to the programme for Government, the Government
“will enforce the prohibition on the use of Irish airspace, airports and related facilities for purposes not in line with the dictates of international law”. The Government is using the Defence
Forces at Shannon Airport to protect aeroplanes that it refuses to inspect. In light of the programme for Government, does the Government have a mandate to allow the aeroplanes through
without inspecting them? Last week, a Minister told the House that he did not have a mandate
to pass the fatal foetal abnormalities Bill. I do not believe that the Government has a mandate
to allow those aeroplanes through, given the commitment in the programme for Government.
18/02/2015B01300
Deputy Simon Coveney: We have debated this issue before. An Garda Síochána has primary responsibility for law and order, including the protection of the internal security of the
State. Among the roles assigned to the Defence Forces is the provision of aid for the civil
power, ATCP, which, in practice, means to assist An Garda Síochána when requested. The
Garda has requested ATCP support from the Defence Forces at Shannon Airport since 2003.
To date in 2015 there have been 47 deployments at a cost of €24,116, which includes security
duty allowance, rations and fuel. Such requests are operational matters for An Garda Síochána.
Accordingly, security assessments and decisions to seek support from the Defence Forces are
matters for An Garda Síochána.
18/02/2015C00100
I am satisfied with the existing arrangements and have no plans to recommend a more active
role for the Defence Forces.
Deputy Mick Wallace: I am at a loss to understand why aircraft are not being searched.
The Middle East is in complete turmoil. There is no doubt that there are aircraft leaving America, landing at Shannon Airport and proceeding to war fronts. This is in breach of international
law. Leaving aside the lack of searches, are checks made to see where these aircraft propose to
land? The number of excuses for the lack of searches continues to grow. The latest excuse is
that the current arrangement has been in place for more than 50 years. That is not true. Up until
1999 all such aircraft did not carry weapons or munitions but troops returning to their depots
in Germany or home on holidays. Now, they are going to war fronts and carrying munitions.
The excuse of diplomatic immunity has also been used. Diplomats, not soldiers and munitions,
have diplomatic immunity. This is a smoke screen for the Government in not doing what it
should be doing and taking any responsibility in this regard.
18/02/2015C00200
Deputy Simon Coveney: I will update the Deputy on the facts as I understand them. I
understand from my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, that arrangements
under which permission is granted for foreign military aircraft to land at Irish airports are governed by strict conditions. They include stipulations that the aircraft must be unarmed and carry
no arms, ammunition or explosives and must not engage in intelligence gathering. The aircraft
316
18/02/2015C00300
18 February 2015
in question must also not form part of military exercises or operations. Requests to permit the
landing of military aircraft are considered by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade on
the basis of these conditions. It is the normal diplomatic practice of the Department to accept
the assurances of the foreign government concerned that legislative and policy requirements
have been met. The Deputy’s suggestion that aircraft are carrying arms through Shannon Airport is not consistent with the policy I have outlined.
Deputy Mick Wallace: If a check point is set up by the Garda and a car is stopped because
it is suspected that the occupants might be carrying drugs, gardaí do not ask for an assurance
that they do not have drugs in the boot of the car and, having received that assurance, allow
them to proceed without checking the boot, which is what is happening in the case of military
aircraft landing at Shannon Airport. There is no logic to not searching them. We know that
diplomatic assurances from the United States are not worth the paper on which they are written.
18/02/2015C00400
18/02/2015C00600
Deputy Simon Coveney: How do we know that?
Deputy Mick Wallace: They have been found out. The leaks by Mr. Snowden and Chelsea
Manning revealed that the United States had been telling lies for a long period about its foreign
policy. Shannon Airport was being used to torture prisoners and we are not even prepared to
investigate the matter. When an aeroplane from Ireland carrying the former Taoiseach Bertie
Ahern travelled to the United States, it was checked, yet we continue not to check US aircraft.
Will the Minister give one good reason we should not search these aircraft? I will be appearing
before the court in Ennis next Tuesday. A number of people who have seen guns on aircraft
have been subpeonaed to appear in court. There are munitions on such aircraft and it is ridiculous to pretend otherwise.
18/02/2015C00700
18/02/2015C00800
18/02/2015C00900
Deputy Simon Coveney: There is what is called trust.
Deputy Mick Wallace: They have blown it.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I will give the Deputy an example of trust in the other direction.
As of last week, we are exporting Irish beef to the United States. We approve beef factories
that meet the standards required to sell meat to the United States. This is the result of an arrangement between two friendly sovereign countries. We have an agreement, too, on the matter
raised by the Deputy and we expect the United States to abide by it. This is not the same as the
Garda stopping a car during a drugs operation, assuming one is dealing with a criminal.
18/02/2015C01200
18/02/2015C01300
Deputy Mick Wallace: The criminals-----
Deputy Simon Coveney: In this regard, we are speaking about a government, one with
which the Irish Government has a good relationship.
18/02/2015C01400
18/02/2015C01500
Deputy Mick Wallace: It is lawless.
Deputy Simon Coveney: We are facilitating the landing of aircraft under the conditions I
have outlined which are the responsibility of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The
relationship is one that should be maintained.
18/02/2015C01600
317
Dáil Éireann
Army Barracks Closures
18/02/2015C01900
4. Deputy Robert Troy asked the Minister for Defence with regard to the closure in 2009
of Connolly Barracks in County Longford and O’Neill Barracks in County Cavan and Columb
Barracks in Mullingar, County Westmeath in 2012, if he will provide details of the units and
sub-units at the three barracks that were relocated to Custume Barracks in Athlone, County
Roscommon; if he will provide a list, by name of the military units, Permanent Defence Force
and Reserve Defence Force, that were headquartered in Custume Barracks after these three
relocations up to the disestablishment to the 4th Western Brigade on 30 November 2012; and if
he will make a statement on the matter. [7075/15]
18/02/2015C02000
Deputy Robert Troy: With regard to the closure in 2009 of Connolly Barracks in County
Longford and O’Neill Barracks in County Cavan and Columb Barracks in Mullingar, County
Westmeath in 2012, will the Minister provide details of the units and sub-units at the three
barracks that were relocated to Custume Barracks, Athlone, including a list, by name of the
military units, Permanent Defence Force and Reserve Defence Force, headquartered in Custume Barracks following these three relocations, up to the disestablishment of the 4th Western
Brigade on 30 November 2012, and the permitted strength under S.I. CS4 on establishment.
18/02/2015C02050
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am not quite sure what information the Deputy is seeking.
However, I provide the details I have before me. The 4 Cavalry Squadron, PDF, and 54 Cavalry
Squadron, RDF, relocated from Connolly Barracks in County Longford to Custume Barracks
in Athlone on 30 January 2009. On 29 March 2012 A Company 6 Infantry Battalion, PDF, relocated from O’Neill Barracks in Cavan to Custume Barracks in Athlone. On 28 March 2012
the 4 Field Artillery Regiment, PDF, at Columb Barracks in Mullingar relocated to Custume
Barracks in Athlone. The 54 Field Artillery Regiment, RDF, and the 54 Supply and Transport
Company, RDF, at Columb Barracks were both disestablished and replaced with C Company, 6
Infantry Battalion based in Custume Barracks in Athlone.
18/02/2015C02100
The following units were based in Custume Barracks in Athlone on 30 November 2012:
Permanent Defence Force Units
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4th Western Brigade Headquarters
6 Infantry Battalion
4 Field Artillery Regiment
4 Cavalry Squadron
4 Field Engineer Company
4 Field Communication and Information
Services Company
4 Field Military Police Company
4 Logistics Support Battalion
4 Brigade Training Centre
Defence Forces School of Music (Band of 4
th Western Brigade)
Reserve Defence Force Units
11
12
56 Infantry Battalion
54 Cavalry Squadron
318
18 February 2015
13
14
15
54 Field Engineer Company
54 Communications and Information Services Company
54 Military Police Company
10 o’clock
If the Deputy is querying, as I think he is, the number of units previously based in Custume
Barracks in Athlone, the numbers are slightly higher than heretofore. I can provide more detail
in that regard later, if the Deputy wishes.
Deputy Robert Troy: We witnessed the lack of priority this Government affords the Defence Forces when it took office. For the first time in the history of the State no dedicated fulltime Cabinet Minister was appointed. Under a statutory instrument signed by the Minister, the
CS4 establishment for Custume Barracks, the permitted number of personnel is 1,440. Can the
Minister confirm that figure is correct? Can he confirm that under the same statutory instrument 12 units were established under Custume Barracks, Athlone, following the closure of the
barracks in Mullingar, Cavan and Longford? Can he confirm, following the disestablishment
of the 4th western brigade, how many personnel are permitted under the new statutory instruments? My information is that there are approximately 580 fewer personnel permitted now
than were permitted under the statutory instrument on 30 November 2012.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy is incorrect. There was and still is a Minister with
responsibility for defence. It was previously Deputy Alan Shatter and now it is me. I do not
know what the Deputy is talking about.
18/02/2015D00200
Second, effectively the Deputy was asking about the effect of the Defence Forces reorganisation on the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel based in Custume Barracks.
The Defence Force reorganisation did not significantly alter the number of Permanent Defence
Force personnel serving in Custume Barracks, Athlone. The effect of the reorganisation is that
the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel based in Custume Barracks has been established at approximately 1,000 personnel within the overall strength ceiling of 9,500 Permanent
Defence Force personnel.
At the time of the reorganisation there was some speculation that the number of Permanent
Defence Force personnel serving in Custume Barracks would be reduced by numbers that varied between 400 and 600 personnel. This was based on an incorrect assumption that there were
approximately 1,400 personnel permanently based in Custume Barracks at the time. The figure
of 1,400 personnel appears to be based on the number of personnel that would have been permanently posted to Custume Barracks if the PDF’s strength was at 11,500. This PDF strength
level has not been seen since the 1990s. As such, references to personnel figures in the region
of 1,400 bear no relationship to the number of Permanent Defence Force personnel who were
based in Custume Barracks in recent years.
When the current Government took office in 2011, some 900 Permanent Defence Force
personnel were based in Custume Barracks. The figure is significantly higher than that now.
Deputy Robert Troy: I was referring to a Minister with sole responsibility, and the Minister knows it.
18/02/2015D00300
319
Dáil Éireann
Since this Government came to power there has been a reduction in the number of people in
the Defence Forces. We have also seen the disestablishment of the 4th western brigade. Under
a statutory instrument the number of personnel permitted within Custume Barracks, Athlone,
has been reduced. There were 12 units attached to Custume Barracks, Athlone, before 30 November 2012 and there are now eight units attached. The permitted Defence Force personnel
was 1,440 before 30 November 2012 and the permitted personnel number today is 860. There
might be other personnel attached on a temporary basis but clearly, under a statutory instrument, and the Minister does not need me to tell him the significance of a statutory instrument,
the number of people permitted to Custume Barracks is 860. The units that remain are the 6th
infantry battalion, the 2nd field artillery regiment, the 2nd field engineering company and the
band. Will the Minister confirm whether that is true or false?
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy should check the numbers for the performance of his
party when it was in Government in respect of this barracks.
18/02/2015D00400
18/02/2015D00500
Deputy Robert Troy: We did not downgrade it.
Deputy Simon Coveney: When we took office in 2011 some 900 Permanent Defence Force
personnel were based in Custume Barracks. The Deputy can discuss whatever figures he wishes, but that was the fact.
18/02/2015D00600
18/02/2015D00700
Deputy Robert Troy: I am talking about what the statutory instrument permitted.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am talking about the number of people that were in Custume
Barracks. On the announcement of the reorganisation in 2012, the projected Permanent Defence Force strength for Custume Barracks was 971 personnel. There was no reduction to this
number following the reorganisation and there continues to be 1,000 Permanent Defence Force
personnel in the barracks. Obviously, the figure can vary from time to time because military
service involves moving people around. However, the number of people working in the Permanent Defence Forces in Custume Barracks is higher than when the Deputy’s party left office.
They are the facts, and the Deputy should probably reflect on them.
18/02/2015D00800
Overseas Missions
18/02/2015D00850
5. Deputy Mick Wallace asked the Minister for Defence his long-term plans for the participation of the Irish Defence Forces in the United Nations disengagement observer force operation in the Golan Heights; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7072/15]
18/02/2015D00900
Deputy Mick Wallace: A recent UN report stated that the Israeli military has been in direct
contact with Syrian rebels over a period of months, has facilitated the treatment of wounded
fighters and, at times, exchanged parcels. How can the Minister justify the presence of Irish
soldiers in this region? It is hard to see what they are doing there. If the Israelis are now working with rebels with al-Qaeda links, will the Minister explain what purpose the Irish soldiers
are serving there now?
18/02/2015D01000
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy needs to think about the accuracy of that statement,
frankly.
18/02/2015D01100
18/02/2015D01200
Deputy Mick Wallace: It is in the UN report.
320
18 February 2015
Deputy Simon Coveney: There is a matter referred to as humanitarian assistance. The suggestion that the Israelis are working with Syrian rebels is something of an exaggeration.
18/02/2015D01300
At the request of the United Nations, following Government and Dáil Éireann approval,
a contingent of the Permanent Defence Force has been deployed to the United Nations disengagement observer force, UNDOF, on the Golan Heights in Syria since 2013. The current
Irish contingent, the 46th infantry group, is based in UNDOF headquarters in Camp Ziouani. It
operates in the role of a quick reaction force, which is on standby to assist with ongoing operations within the UNDOF area of responsibility. Eight other Defence Forces personnel are also
deployed in UNDOF headquarters, including the deputy force commander, Brigadier General
Anthony Hanlon.
Following the significant events in August 2014 in the area of separation, and there was
much debate here about those, there was a fundamental realignment of the UNDOF mission
with a view to minimising unacceptable risks to peacekeepers, while continuing to implement
the mission’s mandate in the best way possible. Most UNDOF personnel are now deployed on
the Israeli side of the area of separation. The UN provides regular updates on the mission to
the Security Council in this regard. The presence of the UNDOF mission remains an important
element in ensuring stability on the Golan Heights and in the Middle East region.
Participation in overseas missions is reviewed by the Government on an annual basis. On
17 June 2014, the Government approved continued participation in the UNDOF mission for a
period of 12 months up to June 2015. I intend to bring proposals to Government in due course
for the continued participation by the Defence Forces in the mission beyond June 2015, subject
to the renewal of the UN authority for the mission.
Deputy Mick Wallace: We have pointed out previously that this situation has been ongoing for 40 years. The initial idea was that it would bring peace and ensure there was no conflict
between Israel and Syria through the Golan Heights area. After 40 years that is no longer the
purpose. Recently Israel bombed Hezbollah in Syria, on the other side of the border, over the
heads of the UNDOF mission. The Irish forces are regarded as probably the best available for
that type of work, but their capacity to be effective and positive in a peacekeeping role could
be better used elsewhere than in this location at present. As we have mentioned before, the UN
peacekeeping forces in areas like the Congo and Darfur have serious problems because their
people are not as well qualified, trained and disciplined as the Irish troops, who could be of huge
advantage in such areas. It is a pointless exercise at the moment in the Golan Heights area.
18/02/2015D01400
Deputy Simon Coveney: I agree with the Deputy that Irish troops could be used very effectively in many missions all over the world. Unfortunately, there is no shortage of conflict
zones requiring UN peacekeeping efforts right now. We made a judgment call, which I believe
was the right judgment call, to stay as part of the UNDOF mission, although the mission came
under strain and had to be reconfigured because of what happened last August. This is one of
the longest serving peacekeeping missions, if not the longest, that the UN has been involved
in. It has been very successful. Israel and Syria have not gone to war. This mission was put
in place after the conflict between those two countries. As a result of the ongoing Syrian civil
war and the incredibly complex conflict in Syria in recent years, safety levels in large parts of
the Golan Heights have been compromised for peace observers. This mission is about peace
observation rather than peace enforcement. Following the reconfiguring of the mission, the
vast majority of troops, with the exception of some Nepalese troops, have moved to the Israeli
side of the line of separation. That is where it is at. The aspiration and intention of the mission
18/02/2015E00200
321
Dáil Éireann
is to go back to the Syrian side when it is possible to do so.
Deputy Mick Wallace: The troops were moved because al-Qaeda had moved into a certain
area. I do not see where the positive is in the whole Middle East region. The Minister has said
that Syria and Israel are not fighting across the border at present, but they would fight if they
wanted to. We would not be able to stop them if they did. The UN could play a massive role
in the Middle East, but we are a long way from that. The whole area is in turmoil. It is militarised. It is an exercise in promoting the arms industry. Lockheed’s share value has increased
by 10% in the past six months. The escalation of activity in the area has been a massive boost
to the arms industry and a huge blow for the people of the region. It is just too difficult for the
UN now. Given the dynamics of it, I honestly think we should be putting our forces somewhere
else. They are not serving any reasonable purpose there. I do not know how the Minister can
argue that they are.
18/02/2015E00300
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy seems to suggest our peacekeeping missions should
go into areas that are not militarised or complex because that would be an easy job. We are in
the Golan Heights as part of the UNDOF mission because it is highly complex, volatile and
militarised, and because the two countries have been at war.
18/02/2015E00400
18/02/2015E00500
Deputy Mick Wallace: We are not achieving anything.
Deputy Simon Coveney: We are. The UNDOF mission has been very successful in terms
of bringing some level of stability. It has prevented----18/02/2015E00600
18/02/2015E00700
18/02/2015E00800
18/02/2015E00900
Deputy Mick Wallace: It is past its sell-by date.
Deputy Simon Coveney: That is the Deputy’s view.
Deputy Mick Wallace: It is not just my view.
Deputy Simon Coveney: It is not the view of the UN Security Council or of UN headquarters. People who are engaged in peacekeeping missions all over the world all the time strongly
hold the view that UNDOF still has value in terms of bringing some stability and capacity for
observance. It acts as a significant deterrent on both sides not to breach the agreement that is
linked to the setting up of the UNDOF mission. We have an incredibly complex network of
conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan. The tensions in Israel are linked to its relationship with the Palestinians. All of this requires international observance and attempts by
the UN to bring stability when and where possible. Part of that effort is the UNDOF mission.
I think Ireland’s participation in it is still worthwhile. I value it. Having visited troops in the
region, I assure Deputy Wallace that they believe they have a worthwhile role there.
18/02/2015E01000
Other Questions
18/02/2015E01100
Naval Service Vessels
18/02/2015E01200
6. Deputy Patrick O’Donovan asked the Minister for Defence if home ports have been assigned by the Defence Forces to the new Naval vessels which have been acquired by the State;
and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6799/15]
18/02/2015E01300
322
18 February 2015
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: This question relates to the recent decommissioning of LE
Aoife in Waterford Port and the tradition of establishing a connection between Naval vessels
and their home ports. I know the Department of Defence and the military have plans for further
fleet refurbishment and replacement. Can the Minister provide an update on the work being
done on the assignment of home ports, which is a long-established tradition within the Naval
Service?
18/02/2015E01400
Deputy Simon Coveney: It is normal practice for the Minister for Defence to approve the
twinning of a Naval Service vessel with a coastal city or town when the vessel is commissioned
and has come into service. While no protocols for twinning are set down, the relationship between the town or city that was twinned with a recently decommissioned Naval Service vessel
is traditionally maintained by twinning the newly constructed vessel with that location. For
example, LE Samuel Beckett was commissioned in May 2014 and was subsequently twinned
with Cork, which was also the twinning port of the vessel it replaced, LE Emer. I understand
that cities and towns greatly value this twinning arrangement. This was very apparent in the
wonderful decommissioning ceremony that took place in Waterford last month for LE Aoife.
Every effort is being made to have a wide geographical spread of twinning locations that have
a strong maritime tradition and strong links with the Naval Service. Unfortunately, given the
number of ships we have it is possible to have this arrangement with a limited number of locations only. The Deputy might be interested to know that at present, LE Eithne is twinned with
Dún Laoghaire, LE Niamh is twinned with Limerick, LE Róisín is twinned with Dublin, LE
Aisling is twinned with Galway, LE Aoife was twinned with Waterford before it was decommissioned recently, LE Ciara is twinned with Kinsale, LE Orla is twinned with Dingle and LE
Samuel Beckett, which is the newest addition to the Naval fleet, is twinned with Cork. When the
LE Aoife is replaced with the LE James Joyce in the near future, we will have to make a decision
on what city that ship will be twinned with.
18/02/2015E01500
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: Can I make a pitch for my own home port of Foynes in
County Limerick to be considered when the LE James Joyce is commissioned? As the Minister
is aware, Foynes was the first location in Ireland to provide an aviation base in the north Atlantic. It has a long tradition. During the First World War, the royal navy’s north Atlantic fleet was
tied up in Foynes for a period of time. There is a long tradition there. One of the few maritime
museums in the country is based there. It is one of the deepest, if not the deepest, ports in the
country. It has provided shelter and welcoming hospitality to members of the Naval Service
for a long number of years. The Naval Service has a long tradition of attending festivals and
other events that are organised in Foynes. Over recent years, the Shannon Estuary has shown
itself to be of strategic national importance. Foynes is designated as a port of strategic national
importance. The LE James Joyce is coming on stream and is due to be commissioned in the
near future. I ask the Minister to consider the strategic national port of Foynes. I understand it
has not been a home port to any Naval vessel in the past.
18/02/2015E01600
Deputy Simon Coveney: I know Foynes very well. As the Deputy said, it is a tier 1 port
in Ireland. It is one of the finest natural deep water ports and harbours in Europe. In the past
week, I was glad to hear the announcement of a significant investment programme for Foynes.
I think it is worth approximately €50 million. The ambitious and talented management team
that is managing Foynes Port has big plans for the future development of the port. This is welcome and is very much consistent with Ireland’s new ambition of building a bigger and stronger
marine economy. Foynes will be a major part of that, as will other ports.
18/02/2015E01700
On the issue of whether we will be able to twin new ship with Foynes, it might be difficult
323
Dáil Éireann
but I will consider it. Since LE Niamh is twinned with Limerick and we need to achieve a broad
geographical spread, as best we can, we are trying to ensure the whole coastline is covered. I
suspect there will be a very strong claim from Waterford. We will consider what the Deputy has
asked for but I do not want to decide today.
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: In the first part of the Minister’s response, he gave a very
good reason as to why Foynes should be considered. As he outlined, it is probably one of the
premier ports in the country and certainly the most welcoming. I understand the predicament
the Minister is in but I urge him to consider the proposal. I acknowledge it is very close to the
bottom in the pecking order of the Department of Defence but, in terms of relations between
the Department, the wider community and the people who are on the seas day in, day out, it
would make a very strong statement if a port of this importance had a direct connection to the
Department of Defence.
18/02/2015F00200
18/02/2015F00300
18/02/2015F00400
Deputy Simon Coveney: On the pecking order, Foynes is certainly not close to the bottom.
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: I did not say that.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I refer to the priority list. The Deputy has raised with me many
times issues associated with Foynes. He prioritises the port and is right to do so. Partly because
of the political prioritisation of Foynes, we are seeing many quite exciting developments there.
When making twinning decisions, I must obviously take into account the proximity of cities
and ports that do not have a twinned ship to the nearest ports with twinned ships. We will try
to take into account all these considerations and I will certainly take on board what the Deputy
said.
18/02/2015F00500
Defence Forces
18/02/2015F00650
7. Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl asked the Minister for Defence with regard to his July 2014
statement that the Defence Forces contribute to economic recovery and should not be seen
purely as a cost to the State, and that the Defence Forces can be used for the development of
new design and innovation, the way he is advancing this agenda; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6889/15]
18/02/2015F00700
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: Last July, the Minister made a very interesting statement and
talked about the Defence Forces having the capacity to contribute to economic recovery. He
spoke about the potential for their involvement in the development of new designs and innovation. That might have represented something of a new departure for the Minister for Defence.
I compliment him on that. I understand he may have set up some sort of working group within
the Department involving Enterprise Ireland and the Defence Forces to make progress on this
idea. If so, could he tell us about it? Could he tell us about progress on the whole initiative?
18/02/2015F00800
Deputy Simon Coveney: I thank the Deputy for asking about this because it is an area in
which I am really interested.
18/02/2015F00900
In July 2011, the Government approved an approach whereby Enterprise Ireland supports
the defence organisation by raising awareness of and engaging with Irish-based enterprise and
research institutes that are engaged in activities related to the Defence Forces’ capacity potential.
The primary objective of this initiative is to support Defence Forces’ capability development
324
18 February 2015
for crisis management through the application of new and innovative technology and research.
The application of such technology and research in the defence domain also supports innovation, growth and jobs in Irish industry, particularly for companies and institutions operating in
the security and defence — dual-use — sector. In addition, the Defence Forces’ knowledge of
the defence market and defence capability and technology development means they can bring
valuable experience and knowledge to the attention of these companies and institutes.
Subject to the provisions of the Defence (Miscellaneous Provisions Act) 2010, the Defence
Forces also participate in relevant capability development projects at European level under
the umbrella of the European Defence Agency. Enterprise Ireland also supports Irish-based
enterprise and research institutes in accessing research opportunities in the European Defence
Agency.
Through the Irish Maritime Energy and Resource Cluster, which is a partnership of the Naval Service, University College Cork and Cork Institute of Technology, the Naval Service has
been involved in various initiatives with Enterprise Ireland within its capability requirements
sphere. In supporting the Defence Forces’ capability and making a contribution to economic recovery, my Department will continue to provide assistance to Enterprise Ireland and companies
supported by Enterprise Ireland in 2015. In addition, my Department will ensure all interested
parties are kept abreast of European Defence Agency developments.
Multiple companies are working in partnership with the Defence Forces to test products.
Let me give the Deputy some examples.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I will come back to the Minister on that because we are running behind schedule.
18/02/2015F01000
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: I am interested in hearing the examples because we want to
know whether the initiative has been progressed and whether there are projects coming to fruition as a result of it. Nobody doubts the potential of the Defence Forces to contribute added
value to business and the economy using its technical capability and proven field experience,
particularly in the areas of technology and research outlined by the Minister. Could the Minister give us some sense of the particular projects that have been advanced? It would be useful.
18/02/2015F01100
Deputy Simon Coveney: Absolutely. I am referring to maritime surveillance, energy conservation, chemical, biological and radiological research, and improvised explosive devices
detection. These initiatives have direct relevance to defence but can use the Defence Forces’
infrastructure to test products that may well have relevance and an application outside the defence sphere. In Cork Harbour at present, a company has been developing a communications
system based on wireless technology. It is providing high-speed broadband to ships entering
the harbour that use the platform. The company has worked with the Naval Service to develop
the technology.
18/02/2015F01200
We will see naval vessels testing kite technology to improve the capacity for surveillance
by having cameras on kites to expand the horizon and, consequently, the surveillance radius.
We may well see the testing of kite technology to power ships patrolling at slow speeds along
the west coast.
These are the kinds of technologies that are being considered. Drone technology is being
developed by the Irish Marine and Energy Research Cluster currently. This involves a partnership of University College Cork, Cork Institute of Technology, the Naval Service and ap325
Dáil Éireann
proximately 28 companies, all of which are trying to develop new technology. In the Curragh,
similar projects are being developed with the Army. There are exciting developments, and the
partnership between the Defence Forces and private sector can produce some very exciting
results.
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: What the Minister is saying is very positive. I tabled this question because I had concerns based on the soundings I made that process might have been taking
precedence over progress in terms of the initiative the Minister has undertaken. He has gone
some way to allay my fears in that respect. Can he confirm that there is a working group or
standing group of some nature in place that is working assiduously on these matters? Could he
clarify the make-up of that group, if it exists?
18/02/2015F01300
Deputy Simon Coveney: Most of the strategic thinking in this area is now happening in
the context of the White Paper. I hope to bring a draft White Paper to the Government before
we break up for the summer, if possible. I believe it is possible. One objective of the White
Paper is to focus on how the Defence Forces can contribute to the innovation agenda in terms
of developing new products and technology that can be applied not only within the Defence
Forces to improve efficiency, safety and effectiveness but also outside the Defence Forces in
terms products and innovations that have an application beyond defence. The Deputy will see
quite a lot in the White Paper in that regard.
18/02/2015F01400
Easter Rising Commemorations
18/02/2015G00100
8. Deputy Terence Flanagan asked the Minister for Defence the role the Defence Forces
will play in the 1916 commemorations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [6800/15]
18/02/2015G00200
Deputy Terence Flanagan: Does the Minister have a plan of action for the role that the
Defence Forces might play in next year’s commemorations of 1916?
18/02/2015G00300
Deputy Simon Coveney: I discussed this issue with the Taoiseach and the Minister for the
Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht as recently as yesterday. Responsibility for the decade of centenaries programme rests with the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys, but my Department
and the Defence Forces will play a significant role in many of the events planned for 2016. Two
existing annual 1916 commemoration events which have significant Department of Defence
and Defence Forces involvement are the Easter Rising anniversary ceremony at the GPO on
Easter Sunday and the annual 1916 commemoration ceremony at Arbour Hill.
18/02/2015G00400
Following the recent launch by the Taoiseach and the Minister of the programme of events
for Easter 2016, discussions are now taking place with regard to the involvement of the Defence
Forces in various events. It has already been decided that the ceremonial event at the GPO in
2016 will be followed by a march past involving significant military input. There will also be
military participation in a wreath laying ceremony at Kilmainham Gaol. In addition, the Arbour
Hill 1916 commemoration will be held on Sunday, 24 April 2016, the centenary of the Rising
on Easter Monday 1916. The ceremony will take the form of a requiem mass in the Church of
the Most Sacred Heart, Arbour Hill, Dublin 7, for those who died in the Easter Rising. This will
be followed by a graveside ceremony, including inter-faith prayers. As part of the Government’s centenary commemoration programme, the Department is
cataloguing and partially digitising the military service pensions collection, which is in the cus326
18 February 2015
tody of the military archives. The collection contains nearly 300,000 files relating to the period
from Easter week of 1916 through the War of Independence and Civil War to the 1 October
1924. There were two releases of information to date and a further release is planned between
now and Easter 2016. The Department is also building a new facility for the archives at Cathal
Brugha Barracks to provide modern storage and reading facilities. We will also be involved in
other events but I think I have given a flavour of our plans.
Deputy Terence Flanagan: I thank the Minister for his response. We are all proud of the
role our Defence Forces have played over the last 100 years. Given that 1916 was principally
a military event, it is important that a balance is struck between celebrating the Rising and respecting the sensitivities of others. We do not want the commemorations to be hijackeds. Has
the Minister received any suggestions from the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association, RDFRA, and PDFORRA regarding the role they might play in this important anniversary?
18/02/2015G00500
Deputy Simon Coveney: I met the representative bodies in recent weeks, and this issue
arose in the course of our discussions. Members of the Permanent and Reserve Defence Forces
want to participate, and former members of the Defence Forces are also anxious to be involved.
I assure the Deputy we will do what we can to ensure this is a year in which everybody in Ireland, including in particular those in the Defence Forces who commit their lives to the defence
and security of the State, can participate in the commemorations.
18/02/2015G00600
Deputy Terence Flanagan: I welcome that retired members of the Defence Forces will be
involved in the anniversary events. Concerns have been expressed by some Defence Forces
personnel that the military side might be toned down by the Government but we should not
forget the military nature of 1916. When will the Minister be in a position to publish his plans
for next year?
18/02/2015G00700
Deputy Simon Coveney: Many of the plans have already been finalised but there are still
things we need to do. The Government is broadly ambitious in terms of what it wants to undertake regarding the commemorations. Some of this involves capital works in Dublin city centre
and elsewhere, while others are ceremonial events. I hope everybody in this Hose will work
together to ensure this is an appropriate commemoration for all those in this country, regardless
of background, who want to commemorate an event with such significance for Irish history. I
am confident that the Defence Forces will add to that in an appropriate manner.
18/02/2015G00800
18/02/2015G00900
UN Missions
9. Deputy Seán Crowe asked the Minister for Defence if any members of the Defence
Forces will take part in the investigation by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon into
the recent death of a Spanish peacekeeper serving on the mission; and if the Defence Forces
taking part in United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon,UNIFIL, will now review their security
and their procedures mandate, following the recent death of this Spanish peacekeeper. [6877/15]
18/02/2015G01000
Deputy Seán Crowe: A Spanish peacekeeper with the UNIFIL mission in the Lebanon,
Francisco Javier Soria Toledo, was killed recently. It is believed that he was killed by Israeli
artillery fire and UNIFIL is currently carrying out an investigation. Are Irish personnel taking
part in the investigation?
18/02/2015G01100
18/02/2015G01200
Deputy Simon Coveney: On 28 January 2015, a member of the Spanish armed forces who
327
Dáil Éireann
was serving in Sector East with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon was killed near
Ghajar on the border with Israel. I understand that the precise cause of the peacekeeper’s death
remains undetermined. UNIFIL has launched an investigation to determine the facts and circumstances of the incident. One Irish officer in UNIFIL headquarters is a member of the United
Nations investigation team that is examining the incident.
Following news of the fatality, I extended my condolences to the Spanish Government, the
Spanish armed forces and the family of the UN peacekeeper on his tragic loss of life. Irish
personnel deployed with UNIFIL serve in Sector West and were not involved in the incident,
although I understand they were only 20 km away. I have been assured that all necessary
force protection measures are being implemented by the Defence Forces contingent in the UNIFIL and United Nation Disengagement Observer Force, UNDOF, missions in accordance with
standard operating procedures. While I am fully aware that peacekeeping operations are not
without risk, the safety of our troops is our priority. The Defence Forces continue to actively
monitor developments in the region.
This was an incident in which rockets were fired into Israel from that part of southern Lebanon and there was a response from the Israeli side. Unfortunately, it appears that the Spanish
peacekeeper was tragically killed as a result of that. However, we should wait to establish the
full facts, which we will get once the investigation has been completed.
Deputy Seán Crowe: Does the Minister have any information on when the report is expected to be published? Is information on the exact locations of UNIFIL troops passed on to
the Israeli army? The Israelis usually conduct their own investigations of these incidents. Is the
Minister aware of any follow-up or information in that regard? I noted earlier that the Minister
for Foreign Affairs and Trade had visited the region, where I understand he met the UNIFIL
force commander, Major General Luciano Portolano, and members of the joint Finnish-Irish
battalion stationed there. He was also briefed on the security situation and the impact of the
Syrian conflict. Will the Minister meet formally the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade to
discuss what is happening on the ground?
18/02/2015G01300
Deputy Simon Coveney: There are always conversations ongoing between the Department
of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Defence on peacekeeping missions and
the conditions under which we operate. I visited our troops with UNIFIL and UNDOF before
Christmas and it was a fascinating experience. In the build-up to it, I am glad that we had seen
a sustained and lengthy peaceful period in southern Lebanon, given its history. It is unfortunate that in recent months we have seen breaches of that calm. I cannot speak for the Israeli
defence forces which will conduct their own internal investigation, but the Deputy should not
forget that two Israeli soldiers were killed and five were injured in the rocket fire. That is not
to justify anything; I am just giving the Deputy the facts. I expect the IDF to be very clear on
the locations of UN sites which are visible from a distance, apart from anything else, as most
of them are on hillsides. I do not know the exact circumstances surrounding how a Spanish
soldier lost his life, but we will get the full details when the report is concluded. Obviously, we
will be interested in it, as we have 199 soldiers with UNIFIL, our largest overseas contingent.
18/02/2015H00200
Deputy Seán Crowe: When the report is concluded, there should be an opportunity for the
Dáil or the committee dealing with defence matters to look at and discuss it with the Minister.
Circumstances in the region have changed for a number of reasons, one of which has been European Union member states taking sides in the conflict within Syria and supplying weaponry.
That was a game changer. I am interested to hear from the Minister if there will be a discussion
18/02/2015H00300
328
18 February 2015
following this incident and if any report will be made available to the House.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The advice I have received is that there has not been a dramatic
change of circumstances in southern Lebanon. There was a very significant and serious exchange between Hezbollah and the Israeli defence forces, but there has been no other incident
since. My interest is in ensuing Irish troops are safe and that the UNIFIL mission generally is as
safe as it can be and performs its role of maintaining relative stability and peace on the IsraeliLebanese border. It has been very effective in doing this in the last couple of years. This was a
significant breach which had tragic consequences for a Spanish soldier. We extend our condolences to his family and the Spanish armed forces. We should not necessarily infer from this,
however, that there has been a dramatic change in southern Lebanon. I agree with the Deputy
that what is happening in Syria spills over, has consequences and is incredibly complicated in
terms of how we can or should respond from a peacekeeping point of view. We can only continue to observe developments and respond as best we can. That is exactly what we are doing.
18/02/2015H00400
Defence Forces Retirement Scheme
18/02/2015H00500
10. Deputy Bernard J. Durkan asked the Minister for Defence the progress made in resolving issues arising from members of the Defence Forces who are due to retire, having completed their requisite number of years service but who are interested in continuing their service;
if he has concluded his discussions in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
[6872/15]
18/02/2015H00600
Deputy Simon Coveney: I answered a related Priority Question earlier and said we had
made significant progress on this issue. Since 12 or 15 February, we have the result of third
party arbitration on a final recommendation to the Government on how to proceed. I cannot publish the arbitration report until it has been considered fully by my Department and
the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in respect of any cost consequence of the
recommendations. As soon as this has been done, we will make the recommendations known
and decisions on the back of them. There are many Defence Forces personnel who have been
awaiting the outcome of this process for some time. They can now be reassured that there will
be a final decision probably in the next two to three weeks. It is not going to be an outcome with
which everyone will be happy, but it is a compromise that has resulted from the conciliation
process and, subsequently, a third party arbitration process. I hope PDFORRA will accept the
final outcome. We will certainly use the arbitration process as the basis for a final agreement
that can bring clarity for everybody waiting for a result.
18/02/2015H00700
Deputy Bernard J. Durkan: I thank the Minister for his reply. In fact, I was present
when he replied to my colleague, Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl, and, like him, I welcome what the
Minister has hinted at. I hope the final resolution will go some way towards addressing the
concerns expressed by several Members and PDFORRA, while keeping in mind the unique
circumstances now prevailing which were not really applicable in the past. I thank the Minister
for his attention to the detail.
18/02/2015H00800
Deputy Simon Coveney: The Deputy has raised the matter with me a number of times and
I am very conscious of the fact that he represents a constituency that has a very strong Defence
Forces interest. This has been one of the issues that has been ongoing for some time. We are
very close to a conclusion and I hope people will be able to accept the final outcome when we
publish it in a few weeks.
329
18/02/2015H00900
Dáil Éireann
Written Answers follow Adjournment.
18/02/2015H01000
Redress for Women Resident in Certain Institutions Bill 2014: Report Stage (Resumed)
and Final Stage
Debate resumed on amendment No. 17:
In page 5, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“Establishment of a Restorative Justice Scheme
5. The Restorative Justice Scheme proposed by the Magdalen Commission Report on the establishment of an ex-gratia Scheme and related matters for the benefit
of those women who were admitted to and worked in Magdalen Laundries, authored
by Mr Justice John Quirke and published in May 2013, shall be enacted.”.
-(Deputy Ruth Coppinger).
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I had spoken before the debate adjourned yesterday to
amendment No. 19 in my name which proposed a review of the legislation to check its accuracy in delivering on Mr. Justice Quirke’s recommendations. I have suggested a mechanism
for such a review. Yesterday, when I asked the Minister to look favourably on the amendment,
I was making the point that it would not prove a costly or very time-consuming exercise. In the
interests of everybody concerned, not least the survivors and their advocacy groups, it would be
a very useful exercise and I urge the Minister to consider the amendment favourably.
18/02/2015H01200
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: There is nothing to lose by constant monitoring and evaluation and it is in everybody’s best interests to provide a mechanism whereby it can be examined
within a month or another period of time. I agree with Deputy McDonald that there would be
no cost issue. It would ensure that the many positive elements of the Bill would be addressed
adequately.
18/02/2015J00200
Minister for Justice and Equality(Deputy Frances Fitzgerald): I dealt with this in detail
on the previous Stage when I explained why I could not accept the amendments. I will take
up Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan’s suggestion that we produce an information booklet for the
women outlining their entitlements under the Act. It is a good idea and it would be helpful.
My Department and the Department of Health will ensure it happens. We are in daily contact
with the women who have outstanding issues and there is a very good relationship between the
women who are in receipt of the ex gratia payments, and who are inquiring about the various
benefits, and the approximately eight staff who have been dedicated to this over the past year
and who have done very detailed work which the women have greatly appreciated. I have
gone into detail on the reasons why the two issues regarding advocacy and the complementary
therapies cannot be dealt with in the scope of the Bill. However, all of Mr. Justice Quirke’s
recommendations are being met by the Bill. The recommendations on health are being comprehensively dealt with by the legislation.
18/02/2015J00300
Amendment put and declared lost.
18/02/2015J00500
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: I move amendment No. 18:
330
18 February 2015
In page 5, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
“Implementation of Magdalen Commission Report recommendations
5. The Minister shall report to Dáil Éireann within 6 months of the enactment of this Act
and each subsequent 6 months on the implementation of the recommendations of the Magdalen Commission Report on the establishment of an ex-gratia Scheme and related matters
for the benefit of those women who were admitted to and worked in Magdalen Laundries,
authored by Mr Justice John Quirke.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
18/02/2015J00700
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I move amendment No. 19:
In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following:
“(2) That within 1 month of enactment of this legislation the Irish Human Rights and
Equality Commission will independently verify, in a report laid before the Houses of the
Oireachtas, that the legislation does indeed fully and faithfully implement the relevant
recommendations contained within the Magdalen Commission Report on the establishment of an ex-gratia Scheme and related matters for the benefit of those women who
were admitted to and worked in the Magdalen Laundries, authored by Mr Justice John
Quirke and published in May 2013.”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 34; Níl, 52.
Tá
Adams, Gerry.
Boyd Barrett, Richard.
Calleary, Dara.
Collins, Joan.
Colreavy, Michael.
Coppinger, Ruth.
Cowen, Barry.
Crowe, Seán.
Daly, Clare.
Ellis, Dessie.
Ferris, Martin.
Fitzmaurice, Michael.
Fleming, Tom.
Grealish, Noel.
Halligan, John.
Healy, Seamus.
Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
McDonald, Mary Lou.
McGrath, Finian.
McGrath, Mattie.
Níl
Breen, Pat.
Butler, Ray.
Buttimer, Jerry.
Byrne, Catherine.
Byrne, Eric.
Cannon, Ciarán.
Carey, Joe.
Collins, Áine.
Connaughton, Paul J.
Corcoran Kennedy, Marcella.
Creed, Michael.
Daly, Jim.
Deasy, John.
Dowds, Robert.
Durkan, Bernard J.
Feighan, Frank.
Fitzgerald, Frances.
Flanagan, Terence.
Gilmore, Eamon.
Griffin, Brendan.
331
Dáil Éireann
McLellan, Sandra.
Martin, Micheál.
Mathews, Peter.
Moynihan, Michael.
Murphy, Catherine.
Ó Cuív, Éamon.
Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
O’Dea, Willie.
O’Sullivan, Maureen.
Pringle, Thomas.
Smith, Brendan.
Stanley, Brian.
Troy, Robert.
Wallace, Mick.
Hannigan, Dominic.
Harrington, Noel.
Heydon, Martin.
Howlin, Brendan.
Kenny, Seán.
Kyne, Seán.
Lawlor, Anthony.
Lyons, John.
McCarthy, Michael.
McEntee, Helen.
McFadden, Gabrielle.
McGinley, Dinny.
McHugh, Joe.
McNamara, Michael.
Maloney, Eamonn.
Mitchell O’Connor, Mary.
Mulherin, Michelle.
Neville, Dan.
Nolan, Derek.
Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
O’Donovan, Patrick.
O’Mahony, John.
O’Reilly, Joe.
O’Sullivan, Jan.
Perry, John.
Phelan, Ann.
Ring, Michael.
Stagg, Emmet.
Stanton, David.
Wall, Jack.
Walsh, Brian.
White, Alex.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Mary Lou McDonald and Seán Crowe; Níl, Deputies Joe Carey and
Emmet Stagg.
Amendment declared lost.
11 o’clock
332
18 February 2015
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
18/02/2015K00500
Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Order for Second Stage
Bill entitled an Act to make provision for transfer of certain functions under the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act 1932 to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht; to amend
and extend the Air Pollution Act 1987, the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and the
Waste Management Act 1996; to amend other Acts and to provide for related matters.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Ann Phelan): I move: “That Second Stage be taken now.”
18/02/2015K00700
Question put and agreed to.
Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Second Stage
18/02/2015K00900
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Ann Phelan): I move: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”
18/02/2015K01000
I welcome the opportunity to introduce Second Stage of the Environment (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Bill 2014. The Bill provides for a number of important legislative amendments,
corrections and updates to a range of policy areas across the environmental field and is important in introducing new streamlined procedures that will help to reduce the administrative burden on enforcing authorities, as well as companies and individuals. It also provides for a more
responsive system to changing environmental pressures and priorities. This included provision
for fixed payment notices - or on-the-spot fines - for certain alleged offences under existing
environmental regulations. Fixed payment notices have proved an effective deterrent against
breaches of environmental regulation. They also provide local authorities with an additional
enforcement tool that is less costly and resource-intensive than prosecutions in the Circuit and
District courts, especially for relatively small-scale offences. The Bill also proposes to extend
regulation-making powers providing for payments to the Environmental Protection Agency,
EPA, for areas that are generating a large volume of work and providing a significant service to
industry while not currently generating any fee income. These amendments will strengthen the
agency’s own income strand.
The Bill makes provision for several items, the first being the transfer of powers and functions under the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the
Gaeltacht. In effect this will transfer ownership of the core of Killarney National Park to the
Department of the Minister, Deputy Heather Humphreys. Second, it provides for the reinstatement of existing fixed payment notices, FPNs, for certain offences relating to the marketing,
sale and distribution of solid fuel by referring to the updated consolidating regulations, namely,
SI 326 of 2012. Third, it provides for the extension of FPNs to a range of other existing offences in the areas of air quality and waste management, in particular with regard to waste electrical
and electronic equipment, WEEE, batteries, waste packaging and end-of-life vehicles. Fourth,
it extends the scope of the EPA to impose licensing fees for new and expanding areas. Fifth,
it extends the deadline for the making of a declaration of non-use in the case of registration of
a new vehicle and on change of ownership of a vehicle and sixth, it amends some minor typo333
Dáil Éireann
graphical errors in existing primary legislation.
There are 35 heads in the published Bill and my Department has worked closely with the
Office of Parliamentary Counsel to advance the Bill for publication. Legal advice was received
from advisory counsel on several heads and in particular on the conditions that allow for the
application of fixed payment notices to certain offences. The Bill is divided into seven parts.
Part 1 deals with preliminary and general matters. Part 2 covers the amendments to the Bourn
Vincent Memorial Park Act 1932. Part 3 addresses amendments to the Air Pollution Act 1987.
Part 4 deals with amendments to the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992. Part 5 covers
amendments to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992. Part 6 provides for amendments to the Waste
Management Act 1996. Part 7 deals with amendments to the Dog Breeding Establishments Act
2010 and the Control of Dogs Act 1986.
I will now give Members a more detailed overview of the Bill. Part 1 is a preliminary and
general part and contains two sections. Section 1 sets out the Short Title of the Bill on enactment and allows the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Acts 1932 and 2014 to be construed together
as one Act. Section 2 defines the use of key terms and phrases upon enactment.
Part 2 concerns amendment of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act 1932. It deals with
the transfer of functions under the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park Act 1932 from the Minister
for the Environment, Community and Local Government to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and
the Gaeltacht. In so doing, it provides specifically for the transfer of ownership of the property
forming the park. Part 2 consists of four chapters. Chapter 1 consists of one section, section 3,
which defines key terms the use of which is specific to Part 2. Chapter 2 consists of two sections. Section 4 provides that the functions identified in it will, on the commencement of Part 2
in its entirety, transfer from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The functions that will so transfer
include all those functions which, under the 1932 Act, were exercisable by the Commissioners
of Public Works.
The transferred functions will also include most of the functions which, under the 1932
Act, were exercisable by the Minister for Finance. One function under section 3(2) of the
1932 Act relating to the disposal of moneys received under the Act, which is currently vested
in the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, will remain with the Minister for Public
Expenditure and Reform. Section 5 clarifies that references to any Minister or to the Commissioners of Public Works contained in any other enactment and relating to functions transferred
by section 4 will mean the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Chapter 3 consists of
four sections which deal with matters consequent on the transfer of functions brought about by
chapter 2. Section 6 provides that all the property currently vested in the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government under the 1932 Act will transfer to the Minister
for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Section 7 provides for the transfer of rights and liabilities
arising from the exercise of the transferred functions and for the continuation of leases, licences
and permissions granted under the transferred functions. Section 8 clarifies that following the
transfer of functions, a claim for loss or injury arising out of the exercise before that transfer of
any of those functions will lie against the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Section
9 contains a number of miscellaneous provisions intended to ensure continuity in the management of the park following the transfer of functions.
Chapter 4 consists of seven sections that amend the 1932 Act. For the most part, these
amendments are intended to revise the 1932 Act to ensure clarity that there will be one statutory
334
18 February 2015
authority managing the park, namely, the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. The
1932 Act, as enacted, provided for some functions to be exercisable by the Minister for Finance
and others to be exercisable by the Commissioners of Public Works. The management of the
park by the commissioners was subject to the general directions of the Minister for Finance
and certain other functions required specific ministerial sanction or approval. It is important
to understand that the commissioners have not been involved in the exercise of any of these
functions since 1996 and they all have been exercised as ministerial functions since that time.
Section 10 amends section 3 of the 1932 Act, concerning expenses and receipts, by inserting
a requirement that expenses incurred in the administration of the Act be sanctioned by the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform. This brings the section into line with current standard
procedures. Section 11 amends section 11 of the 1932 Act to remove the redundant requirement
that management and control of the park be carried out in accordance with the general directions of the Minister. It is appropriate to do this, given that the management of the park is now
a ministerial function. Section 12 amends section 12 of the 1932 Act by deleting the reference
to ministerial sanction regarding aspects of the management of the park, such management now
being a ministerial function.
Section 13 amends section 13 of the 1932 Act by deleting requirements for ministerial
approval and sanction in respect of appointments made under the Act, as the making of such
appointments is now a ministerial function. Section 14 amends section 14 of the 1932 Act by
deleting the requirement for bye-laws made in respect of the park to be approved by the Minister, given that the making of such bye-laws is now a ministerial function anyway. Section 15
amends section 21 of the 1932 Act by deleting requirements for ministerial sanction in respect
of aspects of the management of the chattels, that is, personal property, acquired under the
1932 Act. As with previous amendments, the management of this property is now a ministerial
function. Finally, section 16 repeals section 20 of the 1932 Act. Section 20 provides that the
management of the chattels acquired under the 1932 Act would be carried out in accordance
with the general directions of the Minister. This is no longer necessary as such management is
now a ministerial function.
Part 3 deals with amendments to the Air Pollution Act 1987. Section 17 inserts a new
definition for the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, established in 1992, some five years
after the Air Pollution Act had been given effect. The agency has an integral role in air quality monitoring, air pollution prevention and control, as well as enforcement. Definitions are
also inserted in the section relating to fuels registers and activities. The EPA already maintains
registers for certain upstream activities in the supply of bituminous coal - smoky coal - for the
residential heating market.
Section 18 amends the penalties provision in the Act with regard to fixed payment notices,
or on-the-spot fines, for alleged breaches of certain designated offences. This amendment will
remove the option for indictable prosecutions against fixed payment notice offences.
Section 19 sets out fixed payment notice offences for alleged breaches of the Air Pollution Act (Marketing, Sale, Distribution and Burning of Specified Fuels) Regulations 2012, SI
No. 326 of 2012. The regulations provide for the ban on the marketing, sale, distribution and
burning of bituminous coal inside certain designated areas - the smoky coal ban as it is more
commonly known. There are 26 areas where the ban applies, including all urban areas with
populations greater than 15,000. The amounts of the fixed payment notices range from €250
to €1,000. The offences relate to the distribution and-or sale of bituminous coal and other pro335
Dáil Éireann
hibited fuels within ban areas. These fixed payment notice offences were previously provided
for under section 10 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2011. However, the
regulations have since been consolidated. This requires references to the fixed payment notice
offences to be updated accordingly. It is important to note that no new fixed payment notice offences relating to solid fuel are being introduced. However, fixed payment notices have proved
to be resource-efficient enforcement tools, as well as effective deterrents. As such, the EPA has
recommended extending fixed payment notices to other areas relating to the wider protection
of air quality.
Section 20 introduces two new fixed payment notice offences under the European Union
(Paints, Varnishes, Vehicle Refinishing Products and Activities) Regulations 2012, SI No. 564
of 2012. The first offence concerns the sale or supply of prohibited paint products and the
amount of the fixed payment notice is €1,000. The second offence concerns the operation of
an uncertified vehicle refinishing installation. The amount of the fixed payment notice is €500.
Section 21 introduces a new fixed payment notice for a designated offence under the European Union (Installations and Activities Using Organic Solvents) Regulations 2012, SI No.
565 of 2012. The offence concerns the operation of an uncertified solvents installation and the
amount of the fixed payment notice is €500.
Section 22 amends the powers of authorised persons under the Air Pollution Act. As certain activities regulated under the Act such as the distribution of solid fuel are carried out from
vehicles, the powers of authorised persons are being strengthened to allow for the stopping and
searching of such vehicles.
Section 23 introduces a new Part 1A to the Act that provides a legal basis for the EPA to
establish and maintain a fuels register. The persons and activities required to register with the
agency will be set out separately by way of regulation. The EPA already maintains registers
of coal bagging operators and certain upstream solid fuel suppliers trading in bituminous coal
under the Environmental Protection Agency Act (Registration of Coal Bagging Operators and
Solid Fuel Suppliers) Regulations 2012, SI No. 454 of 2012. Persons supplying bituminous coal
to the residential market are required to demonstrate that their product contains no more than
0.7% sulphur content and to be registered with the EPA. The Bill’s provisions will strengthen
and clarify existing provisions relating to registration, in particular the circumstances in which
the agency can refuse or revoke registration, as well as provide for an appeals procedure relating to such decisions.
Section 24 will replace An Bord Pleanála with the EPA as the appeals body for decisions
made by local authorities for the licensing of certain small-scale industrial activities under the
Act, given the agency’s particular expertise in this area. This will give effect to a recommendation of the independent review of the EPA carried out in 2011.
Section 25 amends and clarifies the scope of the regulation making powers of the Minister
under section 53 of the Act. This will allow for the regulation of the storage of fuel alongside
the existing powers to regulate for the placing on the market, distribution or sale of fuel. Further provisions will provide for the designation of persons involved in commercial fuel activities who are required to be registered with the EPA, the conditions that must be satisfied prior to
registration and allow for the charging of fees relating to registration. The activities envisaged
all relate to the supply of solid fuel, in particular bituminous coal.
336
18 February 2015
Part 4 amends the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 to extend the fees base of
the EPA. On the matter of environmental licensing fees, the EPA provides several licensing
services without charge as it does not have the statutory authority to levy an appropriate fee. In
many cases, work to assess and license these activities can be resource and time-consuming, as
well as costly. These costs are often borne by other revenue generating activities carried out by
the agency, which is inappropriate. The proposed amendment of section 99A of the 1992 Act
will extend the powers of the Minister to make fee regulations in respect of these EPA services.
Such regulations will also require the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.
It is also proposed to make required minor technical amendments to the 1992 Act following
transposition of the Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU. Section 26 proposes to extend
the definition of an integrated pollution control activity to include the industrial processes involved in certain wood-based production systems.
Section 27 proposes to extend the application of section 82A(5)(e) of the 1992 Act to independently operated wastewater treatment activities in compliance with the terms of the industrial emissions directive. The effect of this amendment is to underpin the requirement that, with
effect from 7 July 2015, operators of independently operated wastewater treatment plants must
hold the appropriate licence from the EPA.
Section 28 proposes to amend section 99A of the 1992 Act which empowers the Minister
for the Environment, Community and Local Government to make regulations providing for
the payment of fees in respect of a range of environmental licensing services. The proposed
amendment will allow the Minister to make regulations to set charges for the licence reviews
instigated by the EPA - licence reviews necessitated following publication of a decision by
the European Commission on best available techniques, BAT, conclusions under the industrial
emissions directive; licence reviews, instigated by the EPA, in response to improved environmental protections, safety concerns, legislative change or substantial changes in the nature or
extent of emissions or the local environment; licence reviews, in specified circumstances, of licences issued in respect of air, water or noise pollution; where new environmental standards are
prescribed; and to make technical amendments under section 96 of the 1992 Act. The proposed
amendment will require the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government
to obtain the consent of the Ministers for Public Expenditure and Reform and Jobs, Enterprise
and Innovation before making the aforementioned fees regulations. The proposed amendment
within this section will empower the EPA to pursue fees owing as a simple contract debt before
an appropriate court.
Section 29 proposes to amend the First Schedule to the Environmental Protection Agency
Act 1992. The First Schedule defines industrial activities as either “industrial emissions directive” activities or “integrated pollution control activities” for licensing purposes. The effect of
the proposed amendment will be to refine further certain definitions to ensure full compliance
with the terms of the Industrial Emissions Directive.
Part 5, Sections 30 and 31, contain two amendments to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, which
provides for the making of a declaration of non-use of a motor vehicle. Amendments to the
1992 Act were made last year in the Non-Use of Motor Vehicles Act 2013 to introduce a system
of prospective declarations if a vehicle is temporarily not being used in a public place. This was
intended to replace procedures which had allowed non-use to be declared after the fact, which
was unverifiable, and which were estimated as leading to losses of some €50 million annually.
337
Dáil Éireann
The new system has, in general, been working well. In 2014, revenue, at €1.159 billion,
was up €41 million on 2013, despite the fact that there had been no increase in motor tax since
the new measures took effect, and where losses of the order of €20 million would otherwise
have been expected given the ongoing changeover of the car fleet to the CO2-based system
which carries a lower average car tax. However, under the new system, owners have ten days
from change of ownership or from registration to make a declaration of non-use if it is not intended that the vehicle will be in immediate use. This has proven to be quite a tight deadline,
particularly on change of ownership of a vehicle. Accordingly, it is proposed to extend the
ten-day deadline to 21 days. While delays are not proving problematic on registration of a new
vehicle, it is proposed, for consistency of approach, to apply the same 21 day deadline. These
are both minor technical changes intended to provide additional time to allow owners of newlypurchased vehicles to comply with the legislation.
Part 6 amends the Waste Management Act 1996. Section 33 inserts a new section 10A in
the Waste Management Act to provide for the introduction of a range of fixed payment notices,
ranging from €100 to €2,000, in respect of specified offences under regulations concerning
producer responsibility initiatives, PRIs. PRIs are based on the producer pays principle and
have been developed over a range of waste streams, including waste electrical and electronic
equipment, WEEE, batteries, packaging, and end-of-life vehicles, ELVs. There are a range of
administrative-type obligations, most of which are required under EU law, in the producer responsibility area, such as registration and reporting requirements. Non-compliance with these
provisions represents breaches of national and EU legislation. In such instances, the introduction of fixed payment notices will be a less costly and less resource-intensive enforcement route
than initiating court proceedings against the offender and will also serve to build on the successful implementation of the PRI system in Ireland, tackling free riders and increasing compliance
at local level.
Under Part 7, section 34 amends the Dog Breeding Establishments Act 2010 by making two
minor typographical corrections to existing provisions and clarifying one existing provision.
There are no new or changed policies being introduced as a result of the proposed changes,
which are intended to simply clarify what is required under the 2010 Act and minimise any
policy confusion if these matters were raised as part of a court action. Section 35 amends the
Control of Dogs Act 1986 to ensure that establishments which are registered as dog breeding
establishments, DBEs, but which are exempt from dog breeding registration fees, do not also
have an exemption from paying for a general dog licence fee.
While I appreciate that this Bill proposes to address a wide and diverse range of issues, it
is nonetheless an important technical Bill with a number of broad-reaching provisions ranging
from the transfer of certain State-owned assets through to measures which will serve to enhance
the protection of the environment. I commend the Bill to the House. Go raibh maith agaibh.
Deputy Barry Cowen: I thank the Minister of State for her detailed briefing on the contents of this miscellaneous Bill. For a miscellaneous Bill, there are quite a lot of miscellaneous
provisions within it. It appears to be a big tidying effort to adhere, one would imagine, to many
EU controls that have been brought to bear on the Department. While one might initially react
positively to the thrust of the Bill, when one begins to read into it and analyse exactly what is
being proposed, one does so with a note of caution.
18/02/2015N00200
The fixed payment notices that deal with air and chemical pollution offences are, of course,
a more reasonable and cost-effective means for local authorities to deal with issues that are
338
18 February 2015
brought to their attention by the general public for pollution matters and offences, which may
be quite obvious, in the areas for which they have jurisdiction. There is no doubt that the costly
manner in which these issues were dealt with in the past - trawling through the courts with
great cost and great effort on the part of the local authority, often without achieving the desired
result - did have to be analysed and examined. It was necessary to find a resolution and a solution that would be more beneficial to the localities in which these issues occur, and that would
incur the least cost to local authorities in order for them not to be hamstrung in their efforts to
address other issues for which their representatives chase them on a daily basis, considering the
mandate they have been given by the public they represent.
I welcome those increased functions and powers being given to local authorities in those
areas, but there are some issues I would like to query or question. I hope during the course of
Second Stage or on Committee and Report Stages that many of these issues will be expanded
upon and more reasoning and explanation will be given. We must be happy that the relevant
and appropriate consultation has taken place with the various stakeholders affected by what is
proposed within many of the miscellaneous provisions in the Bill.
In the first instance, taking them in the order in which they appeared during the course of
the Second Stage speeches, regarding the amendments on the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park
Act 1932, which deals with the whole area of Killarney National Park, I seek assurance and
guidance from the Department and the Minister in respect of legal issues and overhangs from
the abolition of town councils and the transfer of properties to local authorities and the county
councils thereafter. I seek assurance that there are no outstanding issues impinging on the ability of local authorities to provide services pertaining to their localities, whether it be in the area
of housing and lands that may have been in the ownership of town councils and so forth. I need
clarification and confirmation that all issues pertaining to the adequate and appropriate transfer
of lands formerly in the ownership of town councils have moved swiftly and effectively into
the ownership of local authorities and that there are no constraints attached to or conditions
within any mechanism of transfer denying local authorities the capacity to use and maximise
the use of those lands and buildings for the provision of services and facilities to the electorate
in the respective area. This was brought to my attention by Senator Byrne in respect of issues
concerning Navan town council or urban council as a particular example at that time. I am sure
that was replicated throughout the country. As I said, I would appreciate it if the Minister of
State took the opportunity, when replying, to clarify that issue.
I refer to the amendments to the Air Pollution Act 1987 and the Environmental Protection
Agency Act 1992 designed to enhance enforcement of the ban on smoky coal within restricted
boundaries. The ban on the burning of this coal was recently extended beyond the major cities to the urban centres of Greystones, Letterkenny, Mullingar, Navan, Newbridge, Portlaoise
and Wicklow town. What consultation, negotiation or engagement took place with the sectoral
interests? In the event of this being enshrined in law, what provisions will be available in terms
of fines for failure to comply? If it is not provided for in this legislation, it will be very easy for
people to go to areas outside the restricted boundaries to purchase coal. There is nothing wrong
with that. It is a free market and it is up to consumers to decide what fuel they use, what they
pay for it, where they get it and so on. I see dangers there as there must be uniformity. What
engagement has taken place? What concerns were raised? How have these concerns been addressed? Do the provisions cater for what was raised during that process?
The Bill aims to enhance enforcement measures by the EPA by introducing a ban on the
marketing, sale and distribution of smoky coal within specified areas. The EPA can introduce
339
Dáil Éireann
a ban on the marketing, sale and distribution of certain forms of coal within specified areas, but
not with other areas. That is what is jumping out at me when I read the provisions in the Bill.
How that can be the case needs to be clarified.
The Bill also puts the EPA’s existing register of smoky coal bagging suppliers on a statutory
footing, with the intention of deterring the sourcing of coal from Northern Ireland where lower
environmental solid fuel standards apply. What research or what information has been supplied
to substantiate those claims? Where is the scientific evidence to substantiate this? What exactly
is the difference in standards in the EPA’s guidelines as against the guidelines imposed in the
North of Ireland? That must be clarified so that we understand exactly the provisions relating
to this sector and the implications they have on it. While increased powers for the EPA and the
local authorities may be welcome, it is questionable how enforceable this ban is, and will be,
in restricted areas.
Individuals willing to flout the ban can simply go outside the ban zones to buy the fuel.
This should be uniform across areas to support the monitoring of households and businesses
within banned zones to ensure compliance. The onus of responsibility will be placed on local
authorities. What is the extent of their resources, in terms of staff and funds, to deal with the
extra responsibilities they have been given in this area to carry out what the Minister of State
expects them to do appropriately? Have there been consultations with the unions and the managers’ association? Have they given a commitment that they can work within the confines of
this? Have they given a commitment that they are prepared to stand over the provisions which
seek to restrict certain areas but not others? I find it incomprehensible and I expect the Minister
of State to elaborate on its workings. Is it a pilot scheme in certain areas? It is quite extensive
when one thinks that Greystones, Letterkenny, Mullingar, Navan, Newbridge, Portlaoise, and
Wicklow town will be included. What are the thoughts of the specific staff in those areas?
I refer to the regulation of harmful chemicals in paint products. The Bill transposes an EU
directive into law to charge persons supplying paint products which supposedly have harmful
chemicals in them. How extensive is this among our EU partners? Has this been piloted in
other countries? Has it worked successfully? No more than in the area of fuel suppliers, what
consultation or engagement has taken place with the paint manufacturing industry and the retail
industry which supplies paint throughout the country? What scientific evidence is available to
support the EU directive? Could we have examples of where this is in place and how effective it has been? Has this had any harmful effect on that sector, the trade and the stakeholders
involved? Have they been given ample time to change the products to adhere to the directive
coming down the tracks? The Minister of State said many products in paints are a threat to
public health. If that is the case, we welcome this provision but we need to substantiate those
claims with proper and adequate expertise in the areas of relevance in order to enforce that
point.
I refer to the regulation of vehicle respraying operations. The Minister of State, who comes
from a partly rural constituency, knows well, no more than myself, that many small car repair
garages are located at the back of houses. They carry out an effective and appropriate service
in their localities. If they were seeking planning permission for such businesses today, they
may not meet with the requirements or planning regulations associated with such operations.
However, they have been there for many years and, in some cases, the businesses have been
passed from one generation to the next. therefore predating the very laws which govern planning, dating from 1963 and 1964 onwards. Has an audit of such facilities been carried out by
the Department, in conjunction with the local authorities, in order to ascertain the extent of
340
18 February 2015
this? Are they aware of the implications of what is contained in this Bill? Are they aware that
it appears their activities have been harmful to those around them because of the lack of proper
facilities in the EU’s mind to deal with these issues? While it appears a sound basis from which
to proceed into the future, that is, to monitor and police that whole area, many people are carrying out effective and appropriate businesses from which they achieve their livelihoods. My
party, representatives throughout the country and I need to know if there has been positive and
appropriate engagement with this sector also, considering the possible implications of the provisions in this Bill on their livelihoods in the future.
I refer to the regulation of dry cleaning solvents. This Bill allows local authorities to issue
fixed payment notices to dry cleaners and other operators using a solvent installation without
required certification. I would have expected that in the course of the planning process, any
such operation would have been through the rigours of the planning process which would have
contained many queries and questions about the various solvents and chemicals being used by
such an operation in carrying out its business effectively and in order to assure the public no
pollutants or potential danger was entering into wastewater treatment plants which, in time,
would be treated and used for other purposes. This is almost a retrospective provision in this
legislation perhaps to penalise people who were not afforded the correct procedure during the
planning stages of setting up their businesses in the first place. Many agents within that business would have been working to certain standards with their advisers and their planning expertise when making an application in the first place. Now they find that the provisions and
deterrents that exist at present must be retrospectively applied. Is the industry to suffer such a
blow that it might affect its ability to move forward without having adequately provided for the
changes that are necessary to meet these new directives and the provisions of this Bill? The Bill
transfers the appeals procedures in the granting or refusing of air pollution licences issued by
local authorities from An Bord Pleanála to the EPA. Could the Minister of State confirm that
in the case of applications already in the system, only the laws pertaining to their application as
of the date of the application itself will affect that process? If that is the case, what plans does
she have to deal with it, any more than the way in which she is dealing with the dry-cleaning
industry retrospectively? Under the present appeals system, the appeals mechanism for anybody who is in the system seeking a licence is to An Bord Pleanála and new applications from
the date this legislation is enacted will be to the EPA. If the EPA in its subsequent decisions is
found to be more stringent and restrictive, will local authorities be forced to retrospectively apply conditions imposed by the EPA to those who received permission during the course of the
existing legislation? If so, what provision is there to assist that industry rather than expecting it
to find funding to deal with it by virtue of the existing legislation?
On the regulations on non-use of motor vehicles, the Minister of State has said there was a
€41 million increase in revenue. I asked in a parliamentary question about the breakdown of
the increase in revenue throughout the country, because I want to see local authorities retain
those funds for the provision of facilities and services in their own counties, especially in the
area of the upkeep and maintenance of roads, because we have seen a progressive fall-off in
funding being made available. We have seen much of the motor tax revenue, unfortunately
and unbelievably, transferred to Irish Water. We have seen Irish Water gobble up enough of
the taxpayers’ money from other sectors without motor tax being an annual contributor to that
super-quango. That is for another day’s argument. We have had many of them and we will have
many more. People need to see a correlation between the revenue derived from motor taxation
in a particular local authority area and an improvement in their roads.
341
Dáil Éireann
I had representations from many people who are associated with and partake in the vintage
car industry, the vintage tractor sector and so forth, and were very worried about impending
amendments to existing legislation, which will leave them facing huge costs for their hobby in
the future. I hope the Minister of State has met them. I do not believe there is anything in the
provisions of this Bill that seeks to implement what was spoken about towards the end of last
year. Can she confirm that representatives of her Department have met with these people, have
listened to their concerns about what was proposed and its effect on their industry and the huge
costs associated with them continuing in that sector? It is not only of benefit to themselves, but
generates a great deal of money for the charity sector and also the tourism sector, by virtue of
many of the rallies that are held in various locations throughout the country at various times of
the year. During the course of this debate on Committee and Report Stage, she must confirm
she has met with that sector, has allayed its fears and will row back on the intentions she had to
further increase costs associated with road tax for vehicles in that sector.
The Bill gives provision to an EU directive based on the “producer pays” principle. We welcome that concept, which specifically deals with the disposal of electrical equipment, batteries,
packaging, end-of-life vehicles and so forth. It is paramount that the House is informed that
there has been extensive negotiation, consultation and engagement with the relevant sectors to
allow them appropriate time to carry out the sort of research that is necessary for them to meet
the provisions of this directive, among many other provisions within the Bill. There must be
active engagement with that sector, whereby we can assure the House that there is agreement
between both parties to address the issues in a cost-efficient manner that will not negatively
affect the industry or jobs in the industry, while recognising their obligation from an environmental perspective not to harm the environment to such an extent that it costs local authorities
a significant amount of money to rectify this.
That is where we stand on the Bill. We agree with its thrust. We agree with the concept
and the background to it, but we expect the Department to have engaged with the relevant sectors and stakeholders to such an extent that it has their co-operation to make the provisions
contained within the Bill appropriate to the needs in that sector by balancing those against the
effect of continual harm that might exist for many of these sectors. We ask the Minister of State
to address many of the concerns during the time allocated for the remainder of this debate and
through the various Stages of the passage of the legislation.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan): Before we move to Topical Issue Matters, I can call on Deputy Brian Stanley if he wishes to speak now, but he will be the next
speaker anyway.
18/02/2015P00200
Deputy Brian Stanley: Given the length of time left, I ask that we leave the debate until the
afternoon, after the Order of Business. It would be better than starting and stopping.
18/02/2015P00300
Debate adjourned.
Topical Issue Matters
18/02/2015P00400
Acting Chairman (Deputy Bernard J. Durkan): I wish to advise the House of the following matters in respect of which notice has been given under Standing Order 27A and the name
18/02/2015P00500
342
18 February 2015
of the Member in each case: (1) Deputy Dominic Hannigan - issues involved school places for
children at certain schools in County Meath; (2) Deputy Brian Stanley - funding of domestic
abuse services in Laois; (3) Deputy Terence Flanagan - the need for a cap to be placed on rental
prices in Dublin; (4) Deputy Peadar Tóibín - the proposed privatisation of local development
companies and the threat to jobs of community sector workers; (5) Deputy Martin Heydon - the
implications of the loss of Newbridge Credit Union, locally and nationally; (6) Deputy Brendan
Smith - developments in the Ukraine and the EU’s engagement on the matter; (7) Deputy Seán
Kyne - the need for a permanent extension at Scoil Mhuire, Moycullen, County Galway; (8)
Deputy Thomas Pringle - the crisis in Letterkenny General Hospital; (9) Deputy Brian Walsh
- the need to reconsider route proposals for the N6 Galway city transport project; (10) Deputy
Colm Keaveney - the HSE service plan target to reduce the number of young people with mental health problems admitted to adult psychiatric units; (11) Deputy Jerry Buttimer - the need
to open the new psychiatric unit at Cork University Hospital; (12) Deputy Michael Moynihan
- the need to address funding by EirGrid of Tarbert oil and gas-powered station, County Kerry;
(13) Deputy Denis Naughten - the need to implement the HIQA recommendation on ambulance
by-pass protocols; (14) Deputy Joe Costello - the need to clarify the future of the Aer Lingus
board and its manner of appointment, role and tenure in the event of an IAG takeover; (15)
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl - the preparedness of the Air Corps to deal with incursions into airspace here by unauthorised craft; (16) Deputy Áine Collins - the composition of the interdepartmental steering group for the threat response plan; (17) Deputy Brendan Griffin - the need for
upgrading the N22 Kerry to Cork road; (18) Deputy Dara Calleary - the future of the fair deal
scheme; (19) Deputy Eamonn Maloney - the need to address the instability of the rental sector;
(20) Deputy Clare Daly - the need to secure support material in respect of a case established
to review the death of Mr. Shane Tuohy; (21) Deputy Billy Kelleher - concerns regarding the
future of the National Centre for Medical Genetics; (22) Deputy Dessie Ellis - the progress with
measures to protect tenants from losing their homes and needing emergency accommodation;
(23) Deputy Mick Wallace - the need to secure support material in respect of a case established
to review the death of Mr. Shane Tuohy; (24) Deputy Barry Cowen - the lack of facilities for
primary pupils due to start secondary school in the Edenderry area, County Offaly; (25) Deputy
Paul Murphy - the ongoing arrests in the Tallaght area of anti-water charges protesters; (26)
Deputy Joe Higgins - the ongoing arrests in the Tallaght area of anti-water charges protesters;
(27) Deputy Ruth Coppinger - the ongoing arrests in the Tallaght area of anti-water charges protesters; (28) Deputy Joan Collins - the need to address the homelessness crisis, both nationally
and in Dublin; (29) Deputy Charlie McConalogue - the crisis in Letterkenny General Hospital;
and (30) Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett - the lack of availability of inpatient beds for children
with mental health difficulties.
The matters raised by Deputies Áine Collins, Brian Walsh, Joe Costello and Billy Kelleher
have been selected for discussion.
12 o’clock
18/02/2015Q00100
Leaders’ Questions
Deputy Micheál Martin: What does the Government have against lone parents? On 2 July
next, lone parents working more than 19 hours per week will lose the one-parent family pay18/02/2015Q00200
343
Dáil Éireann
ment when their youngest child turns seven years of age. Up to 32,000 families will be affected
by this measure and in many cases their incomes will be slashed by up to €80 per week. By
any yardstick or objective analysis, this is a cruel and brutal cut. The Tánaiste and Minister for
Social Protection, Deputy Joan Burton, has been persistent and consistent in reducing the age
threshold for this payment. It was reduced from 14 to 12 years in 2012 and to ten years in 2013
and is now being reduced to seven years. When one takes into consideration that the deprivation rate among lone parents is 230% higher than it is among the general population and 33%
higher than it is among those who are unemployed, this measure amounts to a serious attack on
the quality of life of lone parents.
The implication from the commentary emanating from the Government and Minister for
Social Protection is that lone parents are somehow not doing anything at home when they are
looking after children or in part-time employment. The measure is appalling by any standards.
The Minister promised the various activist groups that she would not introduce it until a Scandinavian model of child care had been put in place. One newspaper columnist - I believe it was
Victoria White - made the telling point that the nearest thing we have to a Scandinavian child
care model is the drop-off facility at IKEA stores.
It is insulting to argue that this measure will move people into employment because the
proposed cut comes on top of many other cuts introduced in successive budgets. For example,
the income disregard for lone parents who secure employment was reduced from €147 to €90,
lone parents were effectively barred from vocational education committee and community employment schemes which act as a gateway back into employment and changes were made in the
second payment allowance. I ask the Taoiseach, in the interests of social justice and equality,
to show a degree of solidarity by not proceeding with this measure and reversing the policy
on which the Minister for Social Protection has embarked, which targets and treats one-parent
families in a most cruel manner.
The Taoiseach: I do not accept Deputy Martin’s view of what the Government is doing in
this area. The reason many people are in great difficulties is the extent of jobless households.
What is involved here is a reduction of the disregard not in the rate of payment. The plan set out
by the Government is to make work pay in all cases. We cannot allow an economy that is beginning to recover to bypass thousands of families who are locked into jobless households. These
households, particularly those where there are children, are at particular risk of joblessness being perpetuated from one generation to the next. We have evidence of this for many thousands
of people. The work activation programmes introduced by the Government have transformed
the way in which the State supports jobseekers to get back to work and makes work pay.
18/02/2015Q00300
18/02/2015Q00400
Deputy Willie O’Dea: How does making people poorer activate them?
The Taoiseach: The focus in years to come will be to extend services that improve a person’s ability to work. The purpose of the reforms introduced by the Tánaiste and Minister for
Social Protection is to reduce long-term social welfare dependency by ending the expectation
that lone parents will remain outside the workforce indefinitely. That is what this is about.
These reforms aim to provide the necessary supports to lone-parents to help them to access a
range of education, training and employment programmes, develop a skill set and, ultimately,
secure employment and financial independence.
18/02/2015Q00500
18/02/2015Q00600
Deputy Barry Cowen: They can no longer afford to access education.
344
18 February 2015
The Taoiseach: As Deputy Martin is aware, a range of measures has been introduced to
assist lone parents. They include the jobseeker’s allowance transitional arrangement, the backto-work family dividend----18/02/2015Q00700
18/02/2015Q00800
Deputy Barry Cowen: The Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
The Taoiseach: ----and the re-rating of the family income supplement. All of these measures are designed to assist rather than do down lone parents and give them an opportunity to
get back to work. We have also provided enhanced access to the Intreo service and JobsPlus
scheme and introduced elements of child care provision. The measure does not involve a reduction in the rate of payment lone parents receive.
18/02/2015Q00900
18/02/2015Q01000
18/02/2015Q01100
Deputy Mattie McGrath: They are all happy.
Deputy Barry Cowen: It is a reduction of €80 a week.
18/02/2015Q01200
18/02/2015Q01300
An Ceann Comhairle: Deputies should be quiet and listen to the answer.
Deputy Barry Cowen: The Taoiseach is some republican.
The Taoiseach: It is a reduction in the offset that applies to what they can earn at the higher
level. The reduction is not in the rate of payment lone parents receive.
18/02/2015Q01400
18/02/2015Q01500
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Those most damaged by the change are people at work.
The Taoiseach: All of the issues and incentives that have been introduced for lone parents
are aimed at overcoming the expectation that lone parents will never be able to return to work
on a full-time basis or have an opportunity to retrain, upskill or secure financial independence.
They are also intended to deal with the expectation that joblessness in households will continue.
This is where the real problem lies for many thousands of people and the Minister introduced
these reforms to put an end to that.
18/02/2015Q01600
Deputy Micheál Martin: What is frightening about the Taoiseach’s response is the ignorance it displays in so far as he does not appear to understand the issue. The issue is not a
reduction of a payment but the elimination on 2 July of the one-parent family payment when
children reach seven years. Does the Taoiseach understand that this is what is happening? I
cannot understand how he can credibly come into the House without realising what his Government and Minister with responsibility for welfare are doing. It is a scandal.
18/02/2015Q01700
The Taoiseach referred to the idea of expectation. As a politician, I have worked with lone
parents for many years. The measures introduced in the late 1990s were progressive and there
was a progressivity as time evolved in terms of moving into work. It is insulting to lone parents
to state there is an expectation that they will be welfare dependent for the rest of their lives
simply because they qualify for the one-parent family payment. That is an insult which reflects
a mindset and policy orientation that are as Thatcherite as one could get.
18/02/2015Q01800
18/02/2015Q01900
Deputy Dara Calleary: Tories.
Deputy Barry Cowen: It is elitism.
Deputy Micheál Martin: This right-wing attitude has seeped into Fine Gael and, regrettably, the Labour Party.
18/02/2015Q02000
345
Dáil Éireann
18/02/2015Q02100
Deputy Mattie McGrath: It was always there.
Deputy Micheál Martin: No one is standing back and saying this will hit one-parent families by up to €80.
18/02/2015Q02200
18/02/2015Q02300
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should ask a question as we are over time.
Deputy Micheál Martin: The family dividend is worth up to €80. I have a copy of the tables, which show that the elimination of the payment will result in a reduction of €50 in the first
year, €65 in the second year and €80 in the third year. I want the Taoiseach to stand back from
the gobbledygook and language of social engineering that are emanating from the Department
or elsewhere and get down to the reality of families on the ground who will lose a substantial
amount of money in addition to all the other cuts. For example, funding of €50 million for the
back-to-school allowance has been abolished, maternity benefit is being taxed and the income
disregard has been reduced.
18/02/2015Q02400
18/02/2015Q02500
An Ceann Comhairle: We have been through all that.
Deputy Micheál Martin: These measures have a cumulative impact on lone parents who,
among all the groups in the social welfare code, have been targeted in a most brutal manner. We
have inquiries into mother and baby homes and all of that.
18/02/2015Q02600
18/02/2015Q02700
An Ceann Comhairle: I ask the Deputy to recognise the Chair, please.
Deputy Micheál Martin: This is a new targeting of families who need to be targeted least
and require support instead. I implore the Taoiseach to speak to the Minister and prevent this
measure from proceeding on 2 July. The silence on the Fine Gael back benches eloquently attests to how correct and accurate I am in describing this issue.
18/02/2015Q02800
The Taoiseach: Deputy Martin has moved to a point where he expresses his understanding
of just how ignorant other people are. This is coming from a person who represented a Government which cut the blind pension and made 12 other cuts in social welfare payments without
any discussion.
18/02/2015Q02900
Deputy Dara Calleary: Did the current Government restore the blind pension to its previous level?
18/02/2015Q03000
18/02/2015Q03100
18/02/2015Q03200
18/02/2015R00100
18/02/2015R00200
18/02/2015R00300
18/02/2015R00400
An Ceann Comhairle: Quiet, please.
The Taoiseach: Perhaps the Deputy should reflect on his role in times past.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: Answer the question.
The Taoiseach: The position is that lone parents are not being targeted.
Deputy Dara Calleary: They are.
Deputy Joan Collins: They are.
The Taoiseach: They are being supported. The answer to transforming the opportunity for
any family is----18/02/2015R00500
18/02/2015R00600
Deputy Barry Cowen: Give them nothing.
346
18 February 2015
The Taoiseach: -----to get away from social welfare dependence and into the world of
work.
18/02/2015R00700
18/02/2015R00800
Deputy Barry Cowen: The Taoiseach is some republican.
The Taoiseach: What the Government is doing is introducing a range of opportunities for
lone parents and others----18/02/2015R00900
18/02/2015R01000
Deputy Willie O’Dea: Such as.
The Taoiseach: -----to be retrained and upskilled to achieve financial independence by
getting a job that pays----18/02/2015R01100
18/02/2015R01200
18/02/2015R01300
Deputy Micheál Martin: The Government has taken them from CE and VEC schemes.
Deputy Barry Cowen: This is absolutely shocking
The Taoiseach: -----either through the jobseeker’s allowance transitional payment, the
back-to-work family dividend or the re-rating of FIS.
18/02/2015R01400
18/02/2015R01500
18/02/2015R01600
Deputy Micheál Martin: On which they receive no subsidy.
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has had an opportunity to speak.
The Taoiseach: These are all designed to assist people to get away from social protection
dependency and into the world of work.
18/02/2015R01700
18/02/2015R01800
18/02/2015R01900
Deputy Barry Cowen: But they do not.
Deputy Willie O’Dea: Does the Taoiseach not understand they are still at a loss?
The Taoiseach: It was always the case with Fianna Fáil every time it came to a budget that
the people concerned were thrown a few more quid to buy them off.
18/02/2015R02000
18/02/2015R02100
Deputy Barry Cowen: It is a case of throwing them to the lions.
The Taoiseach: In this case, we need to transform what we are doing in getting people back
into the world of work, including lone parents. Many of them have said to me that this is what
they want to do.
18/02/2015R02200
18/02/2015R02300
18/02/2015R02400
18/02/2015R02500
18/02/2015R02600
Deputy Barry Cowen: Do not cod us.
The Taoiseach: They want to be able to find a job.
Deputy Dara Calleary: Did the Taoiseach meet them on the streets?
Deputy Timmy Dooley: That is an outrageous comment to make, as the Taoiseach knows.
The Taoiseach: The Deputy may well laugh at lone parents if he wants to, but many of
them want to move from social protection dependency to financial independence by having an
opportunity to go out to work.
18/02/2015R02700
18/02/2015R02800
18/02/2015R02900
Deputy Micheál Martin: Of course, they do, but they also want to mind their children.
The Taoiseach: The reforms to the schemes are designed to help them to do this.
347
Dáil Éireann
18/02/2015R03000
18/02/2015R03100
18/02/2015R03200
18/02/2015R03300
Deputy Micheál Martin: How will they pay the child care costs for a seven year old?
Deputy Sean Sherlock: A seven year old child will be in school.
Deputy Barry Cowen: Fifty two weeks of the year.
An Ceann Comhairle: Will Members, please, stay quiet?
The Taoiseach: When we launched JobsPlus or the jobseeker’s allowance, it was perfectly
obvious that we had one of the highest rates of jobless households in Europe. That is one of the
causes of the financial difficulties people get into.
18/02/2015R03400
18/02/2015R03500
18/02/2015R03600
18/02/2015R03700
Deputy Willie O’Dea: Therefore, lone parents have to pay for this.
The Taoiseach: The reforms are designed to help lone parents----Deputy Willie O’Dea: By penalising them.
The Taoiseach: -----to achieve financial independence by upskilling and following through
to a job that pays and benefits their families.
18/02/2015R03800
18/02/2015R04000
Deputy Micheál Martin: The Taoiseach should talk to the groups.
Deputy Willie O’Dea: He should speak to the Tánaiste, in particular. She might explain to
him what is happening.
18/02/2015R04100
Deputy Gerry Adams: Will the Taoiseach comment on the salary increases for special
advisers which are in direct breach of Cabinet guidelines? An adviser to the Minister for the
Environment, Community and Local Government was paid €85,750 to advise him on everything relating to housing and Irish Water, which is €5,000 above the recommended level. The
Minister for Finance who wants to impose austerity on the people of Greece sought to have an
adviser paid €3,000 more than the Cabinet guidelines. This was initially rejected because, in
the words of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, there was “no compelling reason
to sanction the increase,” yet five days later, he granted the increase. What was the compelling
reason for this? The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources had an adviser put on a salary of €91,624, €12,000 higher than the salary originally offered. The Minister
for Agriculture, Food and the Marine secured a €25,000 salary increase last July for an adviser.
I would like an explanation for these increases. However, this exposes that there is no austerity
for the Government. The Taoiseach has created a culture of privilege and a golden circle that
rivals the old Fianna Fáil one. Meanwhile the Government has imposed pay cuts on front-line
staff, destroyed public services and social protections and cut benefits for the most vulnerable.
For example, a special category of lone parents who are also carers will lose €86 per week if
the Government goes ahead with its cuts to the one-parent family payment which will push all
lone parent families further into poverty. Does the Taoiseach accept that the continued breach
of pay guidelines by Ministers for advisers is also in breach of his election promises and much
vaunted commitment to the reform of the political system?
18/02/2015R04200
The Taoiseach: I notice that the salaries of special advisers in Northern Ireland have increased from Stg£90,000 to Stg£110,000 and I did not hear the Deputy comment on this.
18/02/2015R04300
18/02/2015R04400
18/02/2015R04500
Deputy Barry Cowen: It is all right so.
The Taoiseach: The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform received claims for in348
18 February 2015
creases in salary from a number of Ministers and ruled on them based on experience and competence. Many of the claims were rejected at the levels sought and ruled on by the Minister for
Public Expenditure and Reform.
Deputy Gerry Adams: That was a short answer which did not deal with the question. The
Taoiseach is living in a bubble.
18/02/2015R04600
18/02/2015R04700
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: What about the Deputy’s trampoline?
Deputy Gerry Adams: Every so often when he comes into House, we try to prick his little
bubble. It is not surprising that he is insulated from many of these difficulties-----18/02/2015R04800
18/02/2015R04900
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: There is not much insulation in a trampoline
Deputy Gerry Adams: ------because he is paid more than the President of France which
has a population of 64 million. The Tánaiste’s chief of staff is on a salary of €144,550, almost
as much as the Taoiseach and the President of France. Her economic adviser is on a salary of
€114,424 and she sought to have a former PA put on a salary of €79,401 before eventually settling for a figure of €75,000.
18/02/2015R05000
18/02/2015R05100
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: What about Sinn Féin’s MPs on the Queen’s shilling?
Deputy Gerry Adams: Would it not be great if the Tánaiste negotiated as strongly on behalf of all citizens in difficulty, particularly lone parents?
18/02/2015R05200
18/02/2015R05300
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: The Deputy negotiated well for his MPs.
Deputy Gerry Adams: While she lobbies for these extravagant pay hikes for her advisers,
contrary to what the Taoiseach said, she plans to lower the cut-off age for one-parent family
payment to seven years from 2 July. A total of 63% of one-parent households are living without basic necessities. How on earth will they live after these draconian cuts are made by the
Government? Thousands will be pushed into dire, extreme poverty. In the light of the hardship
caused and what is being imposed on citizens through the Government’s austerity policies, does
the Taoiseach agree that the continued breach of pay guidelines for extremely well paid ministerial advisers is entirely unacceptable? This is the question I asked previously, which he ignored.
It is shameful and an insult to citizens. Will he stop these obscene pay rises and halt the cuts to
the entitlements of lone parent families?
18/02/2015R05400
The Taoiseach: I have dealt with the question on lone parents. The reforms are being introduced to move people from social protection dependency and give them the opportunity to
achieve financial independence by getting a job that pays in their own interests and those of
their families.
18/02/2015R05500
18/02/2015R05600
Deputy Gerry Adams: Halt the cuts.
The Taoiseach: We have one of the highest rates of jobless households in Europe, which
is the cause of the difficulties for thousands of people in terms of the availability of finance at
the end of the week to look after their families, households and themselves. The path out of it,
in which the Deputy does not believe, is by giving people jobs and opportunities because work
can pay.
18/02/2015R05700
18/02/2015R05800
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: That is so insulting to lone parent families.
349
Dáil Éireann
18/02/2015R05900
Deputy Brian Stanley: What about child care?
The Taoiseach: The reforms are to the disregard to let people have an opportunity to upskill, retrain, get a job and have financial independence. We have created 80,000 new jobs in
the past few years, while 40,000 new jobs will be created this year. I hope many of these jobs
will go to lone parents who can move into the world of work and have a job that will give them
financial independence in order that they will have more money to spend on their families and
on the opportunities that present. They can never have this when year after year, generation
after generation, there is unemployment and dependence on social protection.
18/02/2015R06000
The Deputy referred to living in bubbles. I would like him in some of his statements or
tweets to answer the questions I understand have been levelled at his party and the way it raises
money.
18/02/2015R06100
Deputy Seán Crowe: Are they posed by Fine Gael trolls?
The Taoiseach: It is interesting that Sinn Féin is by now far and away the best resourced
party in the country.
18/02/2015R06200
18/02/2015R06300
Deputy Brian Stanley: Ours is a 32 county party in two states.
Deputy Gerry Adams: The allegations are untrue. Why will the Taoiseach not answer the
question?
18/02/2015R06400
The Taoiseach: Everybody else seems to have to own up, rightly, about from where the
money comes. When the Deputy levels accusations, I do not know whether they are true or
false. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform has ruled on the appropriate levels for
claims for increases. He has shot down most of them and determined what the levels should be.
18/02/2015R06500
18/02/2015R06600
18/02/2015R06700
18/02/2015R06800
Deputy Gerry Adams: What about the ones he has given? Are they okay?
The Taoiseach: The advisers do a very important job----Deputy Dara Calleary: Of spinning.
The Taoiseach: -----in the implementation of the programme for Government. I do not
accept Deputy Gerry Adams’s assertion. The reason for the reforms is to give people an opportunity, motivation and an incentive to move away from dependence on social protection into
the world of work.
18/02/2015R06900
18/02/2015R07000
18/02/2015R07100
18/02/2015R07200
Deputy Seán Crowe: Give to the wealthy. It is not fair.
Deputy Gerry Adams: What reforms?
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: Keeping them dependent is all Sinn Féin is interested in.
The Taoiseach: I have outlined the reforms for Deputy Micheál Martin on two occasions
this morning.
18/02/2015R07300
18/02/2015R07400
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: That is insulting to the families.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: The final debate in the Chamber prior to the Christmas recess involved statements opposing domestic violence. It followed an event outside Leinster
House on 20 November in memory of the 78 women and children who had been murdered by
350
18/02/2015R07500
18 February 2015
their partners or former partners. Agencies tell us that the Christmas period was the worst on
record for domestic violence against women - the word “unprecedented” was used - with high
levels of physical and sexual violence. Many of these activities were carried out in front of
children. We know this is an ongoing problem in society and that there is a culture of silence
around it.
We accept that in the main, men are the perpetrators. They are the problem. However, I and
others believe men must also be part of the solution. Therefore, today I want to highlight the
gaps in services for men who are violent and the gaps in services to prevent violent behaviour. I
acknowledge the work of MOVE, men overcoming violence, but there is a need for a dedicated
helpline, support groups and a campaign of awareness of the help available. It is vital men are
encouraged to acknowledge abusive behaviour and to try to prevent it. This will benefit the
person, his family and the community.
I call for a commitment in the House on this. I suggest we start by looking at a pilot programme in this area that will support the work of MOVE, which is not a nationwide programme.
We have Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based
Violence, but its work is concentrated on the victims, a service which is badly needed. However, if we want to stop the cycle of violence, men must be involved. I ask for the various
Departments and Cosc to take this on board and that they have the Taoiseach’s support on it.
The Taoiseach: This issue is a cause for shame in our country and those who inflict domestic violence on women bring shame to the nation. I have met with a number of groups working
in this area. The Minister met with all of the groups recently and some moneys have been allocated directly to them for dealing with the problem. The Istanbul convention will be signed
and new legislation introduced. The issue of domestic violence is a high priority for the Garda.
Having spoken to members of the Garda and having looked at the number of call-outs on domestic violence incidents throughout the country, I know violence against women is a terrible
blight on society.
18/02/2015S00200
This is a priority issue. The Istanbul convention will be signed and a new package of legislation will be introduced in this area. I accept the Deputy’s point regarding the need for a
helpline and support group. Some moneys have been provided directly for dealing with the
issue and recently a meeting of all of the groups involved was held with a view to getting their
views and proposals on how best to deal with the issue.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: It is positive that there is some movement on this, but the
signing of the Istanbul convention will not be enough in itself unless there is proactive engagement on preventing and making unacceptable this type of violent behaviour. Also, those who
want help must be able to access that help.
18/02/2015S00300
Women are the main victims, but there are increasing numbers of men are suffering domestic violence. There is a particular shame and culture of secrecy in regard to this being acknowledged by men. The organisation Amen tries to support men in this situation. There is nowhere
for the abused man and his children to go. We do not have enough refuges for women and
children, but there are no refuges for abused men with children who need shelter. I call for the
Government to do what it can for abused people, regardless of gender, so that the victim does
not have to leave the family home.
Extensive research has been carried out and a report issued at a seminar in December on
351
Dáil Éireann
restorative and transformative possibilities. The report suggests that sexual crime could be included in this regard. It had been felt that sexual crime was not suitable for restorative justice
practices. I ask for this to be examined. I would like a response from our national office, Cosc,
on the issues I have raised today in regard to male violence, men who are abused and victims.
We must be more proactive in regard to victims to ensure they do not have to leave the family
home in these situations.
The Taoiseach: These matters will be dealt with as crimes. I accept the Deputy’s point that
signing a convention does not mean the issue will be dealt with and will not happen again. All
of the groups were invited by the Minister to attend the seminar recently in Dublin Castle to
get their views on a programme of action to be put in place. This is being followed through.
Also, the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will report on the hearings it held in
February this year following a number of submissions regarding domestic and sexual violence.
The Minister for Justice and Equality will take the committee recommendations seriously when
available and will consider them in the context of the proposals that came from Dublin Castle.
18/02/2015S00400
Cosc, the National Office for the Prevention of Domestic, Sexual and Gender-based Violence, is an executive office of the Department of Justice and Equality and it is driving the
implementation of the national strategy on dealing with domestic, sexual and gender-based
violence in the programme for 2010-2014. The office has commenced a review of that, with a
view to devising a new strategy. This will mean new legislation. Cosc’s role is to address domestic, sexual and gender-based violence from the perspective of a number of Departments and
it endeavours to facilitate co-ordination across the areas of justice, housing, health, education,
family support and the community sector. We are well aware of the issues.
The recommendations from the Oireachtas committee and from the groups that participated
at Dublin Castle will play an important part in regard to the Minister being able to set out a
programme for action. A number of the groups were funded directly from the Department of
Justice and Equality, with a view to providing information and education. Hopefully, the committee recommendations and the group proposals will enable the Minister to put in place an effective programme of action to deal with this issue and allow her to sign the Istanbul convention
and keep it a priority for the Garda to implement.
Order of Business
18/02/2015S00500
The Taoiseach: It is proposed to take No. 6, Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
2014 - Second Stage (resumed); No. 7, Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Order for
Second Stage and Second Stage. Private Members’ business shall be No. 68, Road Traffic
(Amendment) Bill 2015 – Second Stage (resumed), to conclude at 9 p.m. tonight, if not previously concluded. Tomorrow’s Business after Oral Questions shall be: No. 1, Irish Collective
Asset-management Vehicles Bill 2014 - amendments from the Seanad; and No. 7, Teaching
Council (Amendment) Bill 2015 - Order for Second Stage and Second Stage.
18/02/2015S00600
Deputy Micheál Martin: It is appropriate to condemn the major incident yesterday involving a prisoner from Portlaoise Prison who violently attacked two prison officers while attending
a hospital appointment and subsequently escaped. Can the Taoiseach confirm that every support will be given to those prison officers and that they will receive full payment while unable to
work and while they recover from this horrific incident? Will the Taoiseach also confirm there
will be a review of the procedures for prisoners with a history of violence and how they are as352
18/02/2015S00700
18 February 2015
sisted with hospital visits? This person was a well known violent criminal. He has a history of
violence and on his last two visits he was accompanied by armed officers. In this context, when
will the Garda Síochána (compensation for malicious injuries) Bill be published?
On promised legislation, will the Taoiseach inform the House of the outcome of the deliberations of the group that was set up to examine the motorised transport grant and mobility allowance? This involves some 5,000 people and was promised two years ago. In a reply from the
Minister of State at the Department of Health, it was stated that the Government decided from
the preparatory work that this required a new travel subsidy scheme and that the associated
statutory provision should be progressed by the Minister for Health. Legislation was promised
in the reply, which stated that once a policy proposal had been finalised and approved, the timeframe for the introduction of a new scheme would become clear. The response is a masterpiece
in departmental speak, but I seek clarity on the issue. When will the legislation dealing with
this matter, which has been ongoing for some time now, be published? We need certainty for
those in receipt of the allowances.
The Taoiseach: I would like to express the sympathy of the House to the families of the
prison officers who were attacked and stabbed by the prisoner concerned. They showed, as do
all prison officers at all times, great courage in dealing with a very difficult situation. I trust that
they will make a full recovery. The Minister for Justice and Equality has asked for a full report
on this matter. The priority is the return of the prisoner as soon as possible. On presentation of
the full report to the Minister she will follow through on the matter with the Garda and prison
authorities.
18/02/2015T00200
The health (transport support) Bill is due for publication later this year. It is included in
the Department of Health’s legislative programme for 2015. Work is under way on the policy
proposals to be brought to Government for the drafting of primary legislation for a new scheme.
When the policy proposals have been finalised and approved by Government the timeframe for
publication of the Bill will become clearer. In the meantime, the monthly payment of €208.50
continues to be made by the HSE to the 4,700 people who were in receipt of the mobility allowance at the time it was closed-off.
Deputy Micheál Martin: Did the Taoiseach say that the timeframe for the health (transport
support) Bill would become clearer soon?
18/02/2015T00300
The Taoiseach: The Bill is included in the Department of Health’s legislative programme
for 2015 and so should be published later this year.
18/02/2015T00400
Deputy Gerry Adams: I commend and endorse the Taoiseach’s comments regarding the
two injured prison officers and extend best wishes to them and their families. I cannot help
wondering if the absence of armed Garda officers on this occasion was due to Government cuts.
I do not know if that is the case.
18/02/2015T00500
I have a couple of questions in regard to the International Protection Bill, the report of the
McMahon working group and the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill. The Criminal
Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill 2012 allows sentences of 12 months or less for certain types of
offences to be spent. The Bill was published in May 2012 and has been awaiting Report Stage
since November 2013, the reason for which we are told is because the Department is awaiting
a British Court of Appeal decision. As I understand it, that decision was given two years ago.
This legislation is a step in the right direction in supporting the reintegration of ex-offenders
353
Dáil Éireann
into society. When will Report Stage of that Bill be taken?
Last Friday, along with other colleagues of the Oireachtas, I again visited the Mosney direct provision centre. Does the Taoiseach have a firm date for publication of the International
Protection Bill? The two issues that again emerged from the visit to the Mosney centre are that
parents continue to be denied child benefit and women who come from a culture in which it is
forbidden that they be treated by a male GP are being denied their right to access to a female GP.
Also, those who are sick, even though they receive only €19.10 per week, have to pay €2.50
for each prescription item. Some of the women concerned have children who were born in and
have lived all their lives in semi-captivity in this direct provision centre, without any status
whatsoever. When will the McMahon report be published, and when published will its content
be debated in the Dáil?
The Taoiseach: The McMahon group is expected to report by Easter. There will be an opportunity to debate that report when published. All of the issues raised by Deputy Adams are
being considered by the working group, including through engagement with the Departments,
where relevant, and the NGOs. I expect that the International Protection Bill will be dealt with
subsequent to the McMahon report being made available.
18/02/2015T00600
On the Criminal Justice (Spent Convictions) Bill, there have been a number of engagements
between the Department and the Attorney General’s office in regard to a number of amendments to the Bill, including its relationship to the vetting Bill. Work on the Bill is under way.
On the prisoner escape issue, this is not based on cutbacks. These matters are reviewed on
a regular basis between the Garda and the prison authorities. As I said, the Minister for Justice
and Equality has asked for a full report on the matter and will follow through on it.
Deputy Michael P. Kitt: In regard to the commemoration events, has any thought be given
to an appropriate way to mark the centenary of the birth of Walter Macken, a renowned novelist
and playwright who rose to international prominence? Many people in Galway and the west
have brought this matter to the attention of the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
Has the Government considered this proposal?
18/02/2015T00700
The Taoiseach: It is a long time since I read his books. I thank the Deputy for raising this
issue. The birth of W.B. Yeats and others is commemorated but that is not the case in regard to
Walter Macken. I will have the matter raised with the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. There is a range of opportunities for communities all over the country to commemorate
many of these issues in an appropriate way. I will refer the matter to the group tasked with
considering all of these issues.
18/02/2015T00800
Deputy Joe O’Reilly: What is the status of the apprenticeship Bill, bearing in mind the
current shortage of apprentices? We need to modernise our apprenticeship system for sound
economic and educational reasons and to provide simulated apprenticeships in particular areas.
During his visit to Cavan-Monaghan last week the Taoiseach will have seen how the ETB there
has adjusted to the modern situation in terms of providing training and apprenticeships.
18/02/2015T00900
18/02/2015T01000
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy has made his point.
Deputy Joe O’Reilly: This legislation is very important from an education and economic
point of view. I am anxious to see it progressed.
18/02/2015T01100
354
18 February 2015
The Taoiseach: The Deputy is correct that I saw first-hand the work being done by the
Cavan-Monaghan ETB. The Minister of State, Deputy English, expects to receive proposals by
the end of March on new ways of addressing apprenticeship requirements, which evolve on an
ongoing basis because of the nature of industry and business. On receipt of the proposals, the
Minister, Deputy English, will bring them to Government and this House for debate.
18/02/2015T01200
Deputy Dara Calleary: On the events of yesterday involving the prison officers, I, too,
extend my sympathies to all concerned. In 2012, I introduced the Assaults on Emergency
Workers Bill, which provided for additional protection for gardaí, nurses and prison officers
who in protecting society put their lives in danger. The Government voted down that legislation because of technical difficulties and also because at that time it was awaiting a report on
mandatory sentencing from the Law Reform Commission. The need for greater protection of
our emergency workers has increased since 2012. Where are we at in terms of mandatory sentencing and would the Taoiseach be willing to take another look at my Bill if I reintroduced it?
18/02/2015T01300
The Taoiseach: I do not have a date in regard to the mandatory sentencing report referred to
by the Deputy. I recall the Bill introduced by him. The events yesterday are the subject of a full
report to be presented to the Minister for Justice and Equality. As I said, issues such as prisoner
transport are regularly reviewed by the Garda and the prison authorities. It might be wise to
await that report before making any further comment. I thank the Deputy for his expressions of
sympathy to the prison officers who were attacked.
18/02/2015T01400
Deputy Robert Troy: The Child and Family Relationship Bill which I understand will
be brought before the House next week acknowledges the new composition and make-up of
families in Ireland versus the traditional family. When will the family court Bill, to reform our
family courts and to provide for a consistent approach by them in ensuring the best interests of
children are taken into account at all times, be published?
18/02/2015T01500
The Taoiseach: I do not have a date for the Deputy, but the groundwork is being done on it.
The Child and Family Relationships Bill will be the subject of discussion on Second Stage next
week. I can advise the Deputy in due course on the extent of progress made in the preparation
of the Bill on the family law courts.
18/02/2015U00100
Deputy John McGuinness: The National Standards Authority of Ireland in its regulations
has imposed major costs on the commercial vehicle body building sector. As a result, some
firms have paid €20,000 to receive the appropriate certification. Having achieved it, they are
unable to have the certificates passed by the National Standards Authority of Ireland to sell a
vehicle and have it registered. I ask the Taoiseach to allow time in the House to debate the issue
because it is affecting small firms all over the country. They have appealed to the Department
and the National Standards Authority of Ireland. It has become a major issue since October,
but nothing has been done about it. I ask for immediate action to protect the industry and the
jobs it provides.
18/02/2015U00200
The Taoiseach: It is a valid point that the Deputy raises. I suggest to him that he submit a
Topical Issue request----18/02/2015U00300
18/02/2015U00400
Deputy John McGuinness: Can the Taoiseach not ask the Minister sitting beside him?
The Taoiseach: -----and the Ceann Comhairle might be able to accommodate him at some
point in the future.
18/02/2015U00500
355
Dáil Éireann
18/02/2015U00600
An Ceann Comhairle: I will keep an eye out.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: On the water services Bill and the bits that must be tidied up in
the November 2014 package, it is rumoured that the company installing meters is pulling out.
They are more than rumours. The company will not continue because of many issues, but the
main one is the lack of work and payment.
18/02/2015U00700
The judicial council Bill is supposed to provide effective remedies for complaints about
judicial misbehaviour. There is a new Court of Appeal.
18/02/2015U00800
An Ceann Comhairle: We will not get into that issue.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: I visited a farmer in prison. He has tried to have his case raised
in all courts, including the High Court, the Supreme Court and the new Court of Appeal.
18/02/2015U00900
18/02/2015U01000
An Ceann Comhairle: I do not think the legislation deals with that matter.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: There is movement backwards and forwards but no clarity on
the role of the new Court of Appeal. As there is vagueness, I ask the Minister for Justice and
Equality to provide clarification on its role.
18/02/2015U01100
The Taoiseach: Both Bills are due to be published this session. The Court of Appeal is up
and running, as the Deputy is aware.
18/02/2015U01200
18/02/2015U01300
18/02/2015U01400
18/02/2015U01500
18/02/2015U01600
18/02/2015U01700
Deputy Mattie McGrath: It is up but not running.
The Taoiseach: It is doing very effective work in dealing with many cases.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: It is all over the place.
Deputy Frances Fitzgerald: It is working its way through the backlog.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: It is going nowhere.
Deputy Willie O’Dea: A section in the programme for Government concerns political reform. One of the promises made is: “We will introduce a role for the Ceann Comhairle in
deciding whether a Minister [which I presume includes the Taoiseach] has failed to provide
reasonable information in response to a question”. Has it been introduced and, if not, when will
it be introduced?
18/02/2015U01800
18/02/2015U01900
18/02/2015U02000
18/02/2015U02100
Deputy Brian Stanley: He will be busy.
The Taoiseach: The Ceann Comhairle has already made rulings on that issue.
Deputy Willie O’Dea: Excuse me.
The Taoiseach: The Ceann Comhairle has already ruled, on a number of occasions, that
Ministers did not provide adequate information.
18/02/2015U02200
18/02/2015U02300
Deputy Dara Calleary: Has the Taoiseach been sent to the corner?
Deputy Willie O’Dea: I cannot remember it being invoked. This morning, when the Taoiseach was answering questions about lone parents, provided a classic example of where it
should have been invoked.
18/02/2015U02400
356
18 February 2015
18/02/2015U02500
The Taoiseach: The Deputy can check the record.
An Ceann Comhairle: It is Standing Order 40A and I have dealt with a number of such
requests.
18/02/2015U02600
18/02/2015U02700
18/02/2015U02800
Deputy Willie O’Dea: May I invoke it?
An Ceann Comhairle: At any time.
Deputy Willie O’Dea: The Taoiseach did not provide proper information this morning in
reply to Deputy Micheál Martin.
18/02/2015U02900
An Ceann Comhairle: The Deputy should write in the normal way and the matter will be
considered appropriately. If he makes a formal complaint in writing, I will look at it.
18/02/2015U03000
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl: No. 68 in the Government’s legislative programme dates back
to the period when Deputy Pat Rabbitte was in office. It was proposed that the television licence fee be abolished and a new broadcasting charge introduced. Will the Taoiseach update us
on this item of legislation and indicate when we can expect to see it being published?
18/02/2015U03100
The Taoiseach: The Minister is considering the approach to be taken on a range of matters
in broadcasting. They include consideration of the proposed public service broadcasting charge
and a number of matters that have arisen since the five-year review by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland of the funding of public service broadcasters, including a new system to determine
the adequacy of funding for public service broadcasters and revision of the current governance
arrangements for advertising. In conjunction with this, the Minister is considering possible legislative amendments to administrative and operational issues identified in the period since the
Act took effect. The public service broadcasting charge will be considered by the Minister for
Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, Deputy Alex White, in the context of funding
public service broadcasters.
18/02/2015U03200
18/02/2015U03300
18/02/2015U03400
18/02/2015U03500
Deputy Barry Cowen: It is a two-term job.
Deputy Dara Calleary: After the election.
Deputy Micheál Martin: Sir Humphrey is still alive and Bernard is helping him.
Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 1.45 p.m.
Topical Issue Debate
18/02/2015W00100
Special Protection Areas Designation
18/02/2015W00200
Deputy Áine Collins: I thank the Minister for attending to hear my points. This is an issue
about which I am very concerned. The question of the hen harrier is one that affects my part of
the world in Cork North-West and in particular the areas of Rockchapel, Newmarket, Ballydesmond, east Limerick, and up to Clare and Galway. The issue has lingered since the previous
Administration was in office in 2007 when it was agreed that the hen harrier would become a
protected species. Since then, 80,000 ha of land has been designated for the protection of the
18/02/2015W00300
357
Dáil Éireann
hen harrier. There are 3,854 families affected and the farmers involved can only farm their
land to a certain capacity. They cannot build wind farms and they cannot develop forestry.
Their land is of pretty much no value today. Of the 3,054 farmers, approximately 400 received
compensation while the rest currently receive none. There is a possibility that this issue will
be considered under GLAS, but the farmers believe that is not acceptable. I agree with them as
their land now has no value. I wonder if it is constitutionally correct for this to happen without
payments being made to these families.
One of the issues about which I ask the Minister today is the establishment of a new steering
group for the formulation of a threat response plan for hen harriers. It is the Minister’s intention
to place a member of the SPA on the group. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration
to putting a member of the IFDL group on the steering committee to represent farmers whose
lands have been designated for the protection of hen harriers. It is very important to include
the IFDL in the threat response plan and to give its members a say at the steering group. Right
now, they feel very let down, not particularly by our Government, but certainly the previous
one. They are asking us to listen to their concerns. Farmers spend 95% of their money in local
communities which has a huge impact on rural Ireland.
The farmers have told me that the hen harrier originated in Waterford yet there are no designated lands in Kilkenny, the Golden Vale, or eastern Cork which are some of the areas with
better land. Farmers with designated lands are taking the burden for all the other farmers in
Ireland to deal with the issue in regard to the hen harrier. They deserve compensation over a 15
year period in lieu of growing forestry. A constituent approached me recently who has land in
Rockchapel. He wanted to sell 5 acres to help his son buy a house in Cork but found when he
went to sell the land that it was hen harrier designated and had no value. Even though there was
forestry on both sides of him owned by two different farmers, he could not grow forestry on his
land. This is a decision he did not want. He is quite happy for his land to be redesignated if that
is possible, but in the alternative he believes farmers need compensation. In order to at least
give them a hearing, I ask the Minister, who is very close to this and has had questions from
many other representatives, to appoint to the steering group a representative from the IFDL
group so that they feel their voice is being listened to.
Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht (Deputy Heather Humphreys): I thank
the Deputy for raising this matter. The hen harrier is an endangered species protected under
EU nature directives. The objective of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht is to
ensure that important species are protected while ensuring in parallel that the work of farmers
and other landowners in managing the habitats which support these species is recognised. Hen
harrier protection was a major issue in the judgment of the European Court of Justice of the
EU in 2007 against Ireland in what is known as the “birds case” for failure to provide adequate
protection for wild birds. As a result of the judgment, Ireland designated six special protection
areas, or SPAs, for the conservation of this species. The case remains open with the continuing possibility of reputational damage and substantial fines being imposed on Ireland if we are
not seen to be in compliance with the judgment. Hen harrier SPAs are at risk due to a number
of factors, including the reclamation of upland open habitats for agriculture, the development
of wind farms and the maturing of large-scale forests planted in upland areas. These activities
have a serious impact on breeding populations of birds. According to the most recent survey
in 2010, there are between 128 to 172 hen harrier breeding pairs. Agricultural reclamation of
heath or bog is restricted in these SPAs as it removes nesting and foraging habitat for the species.
18/02/2015W00400
358
18 February 2015
The Government is working hard in the wake of the birds case to develop a threat response
plan for hen harriers. An inter-departmental steering group has been established to draw up the
plan and it comprises representatives from my own Department, the Department of Agriculture,
Food and the Marine, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government,
and the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. The steering group
will examine all of the issues at hand, including forestry consents, planning permissions for
wind farms and financial supports for farmers with a view to determining the appropriate course
of further action. The steering group has met on two occasions to date and will continue its
important work over the next number of months.
The members of the steering group were asked to nominate relevant stakeholders to form
part of a consultative committee to include broader representation from sectors likely to be
affected by the plan. Through the consultative committee, the views of those affected will be
sought and incorporated into the work of the steering group. The composition of the consultative committee is still under consideration and my Department has had a number of further requests in relation to its composition. It is my intention that the committee will include a farmer
or farmers with lands designated as a special protection area for the hen harrier. It is expected
that the first meeting of the consultative committee will be convened soon.
Deputy Áine Collins: I thank the Minister for her reply in regard to the birds being recognised as an endangered species. Nobody has a problem with that. The farmers’ issue is that if
their land is designated as protected, they should be compensated.
18/02/2015W00500
2 o’clock
I am glad to hear the threat response steering group has already met twice and that the
Minister has agreed to appoint somebody from a SPA to it. Would she ensure the appointee is
a member of the group that is representing the hen harriers, such as the one I mentioned, the
IFLD group? This group has come together in the past 12 months to work diligently on the hen
harrier issue and they are seriously affected. I know a young farmer in his 30s with 100 acres
of land, which he wanted to sell to buy farmland in a better area, that is now worthless to him.
There is an issue under contract law, given the State has rendered farmers’ land worthless.
I appreciate that the issue is not of the Minister’s making but was brought in under the
previous Administration in 2007. Although compensation was offered at the time, it is no longer available. We are left with a legacy which affects 3,800 families and the future of those
farms. Unfortunately, some of the other farming groups feel this land is of no value because
sometimes it is in upland areas, which might be wet. However, many good families have come
from these lands and have farmed them very well to the best of their abilities and survived and
grown, and they now want to expand. All I ask is for a commitment that the member appointed
to the consultants’ group will be a member of IFDL. I would appreciate it very much. I thank
the Minister for taking this matter.
Deputy Heather Humphreys: I am very aware of the situation because among the areas
designated for the hen harrier across the country there is one in my county. The role of farmers in effectively managing important conservation sites has always been recognised and this
is evident through the frequent contact between my officials and farmers and their representative groups. Unfortunately, under the last RDP it was too late to include specific measures for
the hen harrier, however my Department included a small-scale farm plan to support farmers
in adopting appropriate management practices in the hen harrier SPAs and the Department has
18/02/2015X00200
359
Dáil Éireann
paid out some €14 million for the scheme to date. Due to budgetary constraints, the scheme
was closed to new applicants in 2010 and not all the farmers were able to avail of the scheme
at the time.
It was always envisaged that the support would ultimately fall under the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine’s remit as part of its future agri-environment schemes. Future
payment schemes, including that for the hen harrier, will be implemented by that Department,
primarily through the GLAS scheme. The Department is still in the process of finalising the
details of GLAS. The consultative committee will be only one conduit for input into the development of the threat response plan and it is expected that a broader public and stakeholder
consultation process will be undertaken with input being sought from all interested parties.
Submissions from the public will also be sought at the time of publication of the first draft of
the threat response plan and all these actions combined will help bring the necessary clarity and
appropriate supports to farmers operating in these unique landscapes.
Road Projects
18/02/2015X00300
Deputy Brian Walsh: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this item and the Minister
for attending to hear my contribution. I have been a public representative for ten years and
since my time on Galway City Council I have been an ardent advocate of the need for an outer
bypass in Galway. The Minister recently visited our city and saw the traffic gridlock we Galwegians experience on a daily basis. Journeys that should take 15 minutes, such as travelling from
the east to the west of the city and on to Connemara, take an hour and a half or two hours. The
Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Varadkar, carried out an assessment of all the roads infrastructure projects proposed and the Galway city outer bypass was ranked as the top road project in
terms of cost-benefit ratio. The need for a city outer bypass is well established and I support it.
18/02/2015X00400
Planning permission was granted for the original part of a route and an appellant brought it
to the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court referred it to the European Court
of Justice, ECJ, because the appellant argued that it compromised the integrity of an SAC. After
receiving the ECJ’s response, the Supreme Court refused permission. Like so many, I awaited
the publication of the new proposed route with great hope that it would, finally, address traffic
gridlock in our city and lift constraints that are hampering business and economic development
in our city and the quality of life of its residents. However, the routes chosen and put before the
public are complete and utter madness. They are not feasible alternatives to the original plan
for an outer bypass, for a number of legitimate reasons.
The first reason is the cost. The original budget, prepared at the height of the economic
boom, was approximately €320 million. The new proposal will cost up to €750 million. It will
result in the destruction of up to 130 homes in the city, family homes, some of which are among
the most valuable properties in the city, hence the increased cost. It will cause the destruction
of a number of businesses in the city and will have a very negative impact on some institutions
in the city such as NUI Galway as new buildings recently developed there would have to be
demolished. Most significantly, it will have a very negative impact on the world famous Galway racing festival. It is an area in which the Minister has an interest, with his tourism hat on.
The Galway Races are the jewel in the crown of the Galway tourism product and digging up
the racecourse, as required under these plans, would be akin to draining the canals of Venice or
boarding up the Colosseum in Rome for a week during the peak tourism season. The plans for
360
18 February 2015
this project were supposed to enhance Galway’s economic growth, not cripple it. The Galway
Races are worth more than €60 million per year to the local economy and these plans would
have a detrimental effect on it.
The refusal of permission for the original route was due to the presence of bog cotton and
the impact the road would have on a small area of limestone paving. While we all have great
respect and affection for our environmental heritage, I have a problem with the prioritisation
of bog cotton or limestone paving over people’s lives. We must put people before plants and
paving. The elephant in the room is that the new routes also go through ecological sites of international importance. If we pursue this course of action, there is no doubt that it will come
before the courts again. The plan must be halted and I ask the Minister to use his offices to
review the proposals before the public for their consideration and come back with something
that will deliver the much needed infrastructure sooner and at a fraction of the cost envisaged.
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Paschal Donohoe): I thank Deputy
Walsh for the opportunity to address this issue. I acknowledge the Deputy’s concern and interest in the matter. Since the latest development of the project, Deputy Walsh has raised the
project with me and articulated his concerns about it and I am glad to have the opportunity to
publicly respond. I have responsibility for overall policy on and funding of the national roads
programme. The construction, improvement and maintenance of individual national roads is
a matter for the National Roads Authority, NRA, in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. Within its capital budget, the assessment and prioritisation of individual national road
projects is a matter for the NRA in accordance with section 19 of the Roads Act.
18/02/2015X00500
I am aware that Galway County Council, on its own behalf and on behalf of Galway City
Council, is focused on addressing existing transportation issues in Galway city and surrounding areas. As part of this process I understand that the council initiated a public consultation
to inform the public of the transportation options which have been developed to address the
problems identified, the constraints identified to date, the implications of the EU Habitats Directive and the project programme. These options cover public transport, smarter travel and
road elements.
As indicated in the public consultation documents, the position of Galway city, between
Lough Corrib and Galway Bay, together with the presence of designated sites, presents significant constraints for developing new infrastructure and the council has, therefore, focused on
considering all alternatives in order to minimise the impact on designated sites. The stated objective of this phase of the council’s work is to identify a suitable study area for the examination
of alternative routes and transportation solutions, to identify key constraints within this study
area, to develop feasible route options and transportation solutions and to carry out a systematic
assessment of these options leading to the selection of a preferred route corridor or transportation solution, which will form the basis for the detailed design. Road options to connect the
R336 on the west of the city to the existing N6 on the east have been identified in respect of
the possible road component of the transport solution. Six such options have been included in
the public consultation process and the Council has indicated that these are draft options and
subject to change in light of more detailed assessments. In this context I understand that the
purpose of the recent second consultation is threefold: first, to update the public on the work to
date, second, to obtain input from the public on any additional significant constraints and third,
to offer the public an opportunity to propose further alternative options, which had not previously been considered.
361
Dáil Éireann
The design team will examine the feasibility of such options and determine whether they
merit inclusion in the final appraisal of options. I have also been informed that the design team
is currently engaged in individual meetings with directly affected landowners and the general
public to provide more detail on the various options under consideration. Submissions in respect of the route options can be submitted to the project office until the end of February 2015.
The information received will be collated by the design team and used in the assessment of the
route options. I understand the assessment process is due to be completed by the end of March
2015 and an emerging preferred route option will be identified. This emerging route corridor
will be subsequently put on public display.
Deputy Brian Walsh: The new routes before the public for consultation also compromise
the integrity of ecological sites of international importance. That is precisely why the Supreme
Court refused the first plan, having considered the advice of the European Court of Justice.
The new rules will end up before the courts again. We need a solution to the gridlock in the
city and for the brakes to be put on this process. The study area should be extended and other
options should be considered outside the study area that do not have such a negative impact on
people’s lives and will result in something to be delivered sooner and at a fraction of the cost
to the Exchequer.
18/02/2015Y00200
We expected that the National Roads Authority and local authorities would consider a variation on the original route and that an application would be made under the little used structure
- imperative reasons of overriding public interest, IROPI. It is clear that there is an imperative
reason of overriding public interest here, a well-established traffic gridlock in the city. Unfortunately, those adjudicating on the new plans decided otherwise and have considered routes closer
to the city that can deliver an option but at huge cost to the State.
The Minister has been very good to Galway in recent months but I shudder to think what his
reaction might be when I approach him and ask for €0.75 billion to construct 16 km of a ringroad around Galway. Would he accept that the funding is available to do this? He must accept
that this will end up again in the High Court, Supreme Court and before the European Court of
Justice. We need to put a halt to this. I ask the Minister to use his offices to get the NRA and
the local authorities around the table to examine alternative routes.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank Deputy Walsh for the points he has made. I understand
the concerns he has raised and acknowledge the huge progress being made by the Department
in many areas in Galway. Whether in respect of transport or tourism, the Department has
worked hard to support the good work under way in Galway city and County.
18/02/2015Y00300
There is support for the objective described, to find a way to alleviate congestion that is
growing increasingly severe. There is a process under way that allows for the public and other
stakeholders to make submissions until the end of February in respect of route options. That
process will afford the Deputy the opportunity to make an input if he believes that is appropriate. By raising this in the Dáil he is putting down a clear marker of his concerns about this
matter and the negative effect he believes the project could have on the people he represents
and the wider city and county.
This process is being led by the local authority. I have outlined my role, which is responsibility for all road policy in the country and working to deliver funding for projects prioritised
by the NRA. I have to wait until the process in Galway city and county reaches a conclusion
but I acknowledge the Deputy’s concerns about the matter and hope the process can be used to
362
18 February 2015
respond to matters of legitimate concern to many within the city and beyond.
Aer Lingus Sale
18/02/2015Y00400
Deputy Joe Costello: The CEO of the International Airlines Group, IAG, came before the
Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications last week. At the committee
meeting and in public utterances he gave a cast iron guarantee that he would commit to certain
undertakings for five years, particularly in respect of the Heathrow slots. He indicated that in
the event of a takeover of Aer Lingus it would continue as a separate entity in its entirety.
18/02/2015Y00500
What would be the situation of the board of directors of Aer Lingus in such an event? It has
certain responsibilities in respect of commercial strategy, the operating budget and the present
role of Aer Lingus. To what extent will that all remain in place if it is a separate entity? There
are 12 members on the board, which could have 13 members. The former CEO, Christoph
Mueller, was recently replaced by Stephen Kavanagh and I wish him well. The chief financial
officer is Andrew McFarlane. They are the new executive directors, whereas I understand all
of the others are non-executive directors. Did the Minister appoint any member of the existing
board and, if so, whom? Will he tell me why, although three appointments can be made by the
relevant Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, only two of them have been filled? Does
he have plans to make the third appointment within his remit? Will he further tell me what is
the term of office of each of the members of the board of directors? On examining the available information, it appears as though most of the appointments were made in 2009 or 2010 and
that, therefore, most of the appointees are in their second term of office. The Minister should
confirm whether that will be the end of their tenure and indicate what his intentions might be at
the end of that period.
If a takeover takes place, what will happen to the existing board? Will it continue as before, with all of the powers it has at present as laid out in statute? Will there be a change to the
board’s current powers? How long will the existing board be allowed to stay in place and how
will this operate? Will it stay in place for a period of three or five years or until its current term
expires? Thereafter, will board members be obliged to seek renewal or otherwise? Who will
appoint the new board if the takeover takes place? What will be the board’s duties and functions? Will they be as comprehensive as the current set of functions? How will the new Aer
Lingus and its board be integrated into the proposed new entity if a statement has been made to
the effect that Aer Lingus will remain a separate entity in its entirety? My main concern is what
will happen after the five years have passed. What say will the board then have on the future
of the company?
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: I thank the Deputy for raising these important matters to which
I will respond. As he has pointed out, some additional details have emerged of the proposal
by International Consolidated Airlines Group, IAG, to make an offer for Aer Lingus since it
was first announced in December 2014. Some of them emerged during the meetings of the
Oireachtas Joint Committee on Transport and Communications to which the Deputy has referred. However, it is important to note that this remains a proposal to make an offer and that
no formal offer has yet been made. There is still only a limited amount of detail of the terms
of the potential offer. While a formal offer has not been made, Aer Lingus is in a takeover
period and the strict Irish Takeover Panel rules on public communications still apply. Clearly,
the future of Aer Lingus is an important matter in which there is a great deal of public interest.
18/02/2015Z00200
363
Dáil Éireann
I have outlined the Government’s policy on the proposed bid many times. I also addressed a
Topical Issue tabled by the Deputy on a related matter on 4 February. The Joint Committee on
Transport and Communications heard the views of a wide range of stakeholders on the matter,
most recently from the chairman and chief executive officer-designate of Aer Lingus, as well
as from IAG. The Government has made clear the various issues that will be examined before
decisions are made on the future of Aer Lingus.
As for the board of the company, about which the Deputy has asked me specific questions,
I can only outline the position as it stands. The State’s combined shareholding of 25.1% of the
issued share capital in Aer Lingus entitles the Minister, acting through the Minister for Finance
in his capacity as shareholder, to nominate up to three persons as Minister’s nominees on the
board of the company. The State has two such nominees on the board. Mr. William Slattery
was appointed on 12 July 2013 and Mr. Frank O’Connor on 14 March 2014, both for three-year
terms. The board has ten other executive and non-executive directors. The mechanism for the
appointment of the Minister’s nominees on the board of Aer Lingus is set out in Article 93 of the
memorandum and articles of association of the company. The Minister for Transport, Tourism
and Sport, acting through the Minister for Finance in his capacity as shareholder, writes to the
chairman to nominate formally the person concerned. The board then ratifies the appointment
of the Minister’s nominee as a director of the company. Under Article 93, should the State’s
shareholding fall to between 5% and 25.1%, the number of Minister’s nominees on the board
would fall to two. Were the shareholding to fall to between 1% and 5%, the number would be
one, which relates to some of the questions put to me by the Deputy. Were the State’s shareholding to fall below 1%, it would not have an automatic right to nominate any director under
the current arrangements. Like all company directors, the duties of the Minister’s nominees as
directors derive from the Companies Acts and all such directors are obliged to pursue the best
interests of the company, not those of individual shareholders.
Article 93(g) of the company’s articles provides for the Minister to enter into an agreement
and arrangements with the Minister’s nominees. This letter of mandate requests the Minister’s
nominees to seek to ensure those decisions of the company which have significant implications
for wider Government policies are considered at board level. As I indicated, the State’s right to
nominate up to three directors is based on its current shareholding. Should the State dispose of
its shareholding in its entirety to IAG or any other entity, it would no longer have such rights.
It is simply not possible for me to state what arrangements would apply for the appointment,
role and tenure of any future Aer Lingus board in a scenario in which the State no longer had
a shareholding in the company. I reiterate that no decision has yet been taken on the Government’s position on the proposal made by IAG. As I have reiterated previously, in the event
of a decision being taken to dispose of the State’s shareholding, it would be necessary for the
House to approve the principles of any such disposal in accordance with the provisions of the
Aer Lingus Act 2004.
Deputy Joe Costello: I thank the Minister for the clarification. He has observed that this is
only in the form of a proposal as yet and that no firm formal offer is on the table. Nevertheless,
if a deal was done with IAG, it appears that this would mean that it would no longer be possible
for the Minister to make appointments, that the three nominees the State is entitled to appoint
simply would fall as members. This raises questions about the guarantees. If cast-iron guarantees have been given with regard to a number of undertakings up to five years, who would
be able to oversee this on the part of the State? This raises a serious question as to what legal
commitments can be made. If there is nobody on the board of directors to put the State’s view
18/02/2015Z00300
364
18 February 2015
of the matter, it will have moved entirely out of the hands of the State, which will have no recourse in ensuring the guarantees given are fulfilled. A question is raised as to whether there is
anybody on the board of directors who has the State’s interests at heart. This is not to say there
is no one on the board of directors who does not have the best interests of the company at heart.
My understanding is that six of the current board members are perceived to be independent,
but it would mean that there would be no one with a foot under the table to speak for the State.
The State would have conditionally delivered its 25.1% stake on so-called cast-iron guarantees.
There is a serious matter to be addressed by IAG in this respect if it intends to take away the
three directors the State has the opportunity and entitlement to appoint at present.
Second, it is my understanding that at present there are only two State directors, whereas
there is an entitlement to appoint three. Does the Minister have any proposals to appoint a third
director? Mr. David Begg was in the past a director. Will someone of that stature be appointed
to the Aer Lingus board in these interesting times?
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: No decision has been made on the bid for Aer Lingus. It is a
proposed bid that the Government is considering. The matters raised by Deputy Costello are
the issues the Government has to consider. The Deputy asked how any guarantee would be
overseen and implemented. IAG has indicated it would need to have legal standing, be objective, and could be verified. It has put forward a case for this. The Government will have to
consider all these matters. The core issue for me in any decision will be more than just the price
of a share. We have to look at the impact on access and the ability of our country to grow in the
medium to long term. As for the future of the Aer Lingus board, I cannot forecast what IAG
might do were it to acquire the company. The ability to appoint a director to a board is directly
related to how much one owns of the company. Accordingly, the number of directors the State
can appoint to the Aer Lingus board is directly related to the size of the shareholding the State
has in the company. That is why we can appoint up to three directors. We currently have two
appointees on the board of directors. Mr David Begg resigned from the board several weeks
ago. That is a matter to which I am giving consideration.
18/02/2015AA00200
18/02/2015AA00250
National Centre for Medical Genetics
Deputy Billy Kelleher: The National Centre for Medical Genetics was established in 1994
and is the only publicly funded genetics service in Ireland. There have been two external reviews of the service, most recently an external review undertaken by Professors Donnai and
Newman which reported in May 2014 - a report that is still unpublished - which made 19 recommendations. From this the HSE and Crumlin hospital released a plan which had 56 recommendations. Of these 40 were agreed with clinical staff, 11 actions need to be clarified.
18/02/2015AA00300
Five action points, however, have led to significant disagreement between the clinical staff
and the HSE hospital administrators. It was proposed to change of name of centre which was
not recommended by any external report. The genetics staff been told that the name-change
will cost €10,000 and moneys for it will be deducted from the genetics budget. The other proposals are a review of scope of service, a review of the use of family-based clinical records, no
action point for additional full-time locum consultant posts and a proposal to merge genetics
labs with the hospital’s genetics labs.
Staff are supported by patient groups which maintain the staff are being treated unfairly for
highlighting shortcomings in genetic services over the years. There has been a lack of pub365
Dáil Éireann
lic information on what is happening with no adequate consultation with patient groups and
service-users around the current changes and future planning. A steering group to progress the
development of a national genetic and genomic medicine network has been established but patient groups were not consulted about the patient representative appointed to the steering group.
Nor has the Genetic and Rare Disorders Organisation seen the May 2014 report, despite being
part of the process.
Crumlin hospital’s chief executive sent a letter to staff in which he stated:
It will no longer be appropriate to refer to the service as the National Centre for Medical
Genetics. I appreciate this will represent a difficult change for many but it is necessary if
the governance is to be clear and unambiguous.
Senior staff wrote to the Minister for Health, Deputy Varadkar, last November outlining
their concerns, especially the proposal to change the status of the centre. They pointed out that
60% of patients seen by the centre are adults and almost half are seen outside Crumlin hospital.
There are questions as how these patients will be dealt with when the centre becomes a department of the children’s hospital in Crumlin. The change means other genetic centres could be
developed in a fragmented way with no integration of family records nationally.
There are also concerns because the genetic service was already a grossly underfunded and
understaffed one. As the senior staff told the Minister:
A dismantling of this integrated service runs a huge clinical risk and it incurs unnecessary financial costs as other hospitals will have to resource an independent genetic IT
system and genetic charts. This excess workload on an already understaffed unit will also
increase risk of clinical errors.
I have been told by someone with knowledge of the situation that it appears that genetics
staff, instead of being supported through this change, are in fact feeling under extreme pressure as they fear contravention of best clinical guidelines for their patients and clients. There
are also other issues arising as the 2015 HSE service plan did not contain any mention of the
national rare disease plan for Ireland 2014-18. Will the Minister indicate what funding will be
provided for this plan in 2015?
We are also given to understand that self-referrals will also now not be allowed. This means
they will now have to go through a general practitioner, incurring an extra cost for individuals
and their families. Relative to UK guidelines, Ireland should have 14 genetic consultants and
47 genetic counsellors. Currently, there are four consultants - one has indicated they may leave
as a result of the current situation - and only nine counsellors. Ireland is quite far down the list
when it comes to good practice with regards to staffing levels as outlined in the National Centre
for Medical Genetics five-year report 2007-11. Will the Minister commit to protecting this service? Will he do it in a way that protects its autonomy, integrity, efficiency and best practice?
Minister for Health (Deputy Leo Varadkar): I thank the Deputy for raising this issue and
for giving me an opportunity to address the House on the matter.
18/02/2015AA00400
The National Centre for Medical Genetics is the service for medical genetics at Our Lady’s
Children’s Hospital, Crumlin. It provides services for patients and families affected by or are at
risk of a genetic disorder. It has three integrated units, namely a genetics service, a cytogenetic
laboratory and a molecular genetics laboratory. The University College Dublin department of
366
18 February 2015
medical genetics is based in the centre too. Approximately half of the work done in the centre
relates to children.
There have been two recent reviews of the service. One was a review commissioned by the
HSE, undertaken by Professor Dian Donnai, professor of medical genetics at the University of
Manchester, and Professor Bill Newman, professor of translational genomic medicine at the
same university.
A separate internal review was also commissioned by Crumlin hospital. Following this
internal review, Crumlin hospital made a decision to discontinue the separate identification of
the service as the National Centre for Medical Genetics. This was done in the interest of clarity
on governance arrangements. It is important we are clear the genetics service is and has always
been under the governance of the hospital. It was never a separate entity in its own right. Staff
are employees of the hospital and the service has always been accountable to the hospital’s
chief executive officer and under the governance of the hospital’s board in the same manner as
other clinical departments. This change does not affect the service itself and the HSE confirms
there has been no reduction in the scope of the service.
The Donnai report, submitted to the HSE in May 2014, made 20 recommendations. The
majority of these focused on the internal team working and clinical governance issues. The
HSE advises that staff at the centre have accepted these internal recommendations. The report
also recommended that a steering group should be established to develop a national genetic
and genomic medicine network that reflects best international practice. This group will meet
for the first time on 3 March next. Its first focus is to develop a plan for the national network.
When complete, the plan will be submitted to the HSE for approval and will be considered in
the context of the Estimates process for next year.
Genetics and genomic medicine have developed rapidly over the past five years and continue to do so. We must ensure these services develop in a planned way with best international
practice. The work now being embarked on by the steering group is the first step in achieving
this.
Deputy Billy Kelleher: If the reports were published and the recommendations acted upon,
at least we would have a start to ensuring that we have a proper genetic service in this country.
The important issue is that genetics and genomic medicine have developed rapidly over the last
five years and will continue to do so. We need to have a foundation laid as medical science and
technologies advance in the whole area of genetics. We need to resource that to ensure there is
confidence, particularly in the area of rare diseases, and that patients and service users will have
access to the best genetic centre possible. That is something we need to move very quickly on.
18/02/2015BB00100
There is a feeling among the staff that the concerns of clinicians and staff are not being listened to, that the centre is being ignored and not being adequately resourced, that it is being undermined by the fact that the reports and recommendations have not been acted upon, and that
it is being starved of funding. Could the Minister at some stage commit to the genetic centre
and to ensuring that it has adequate resources based on international best practice in comparable
other countries where they have made far more resources available? That would be a welcome
start and would, in some way, give confidence to clinicians and staff that we are serious about
funding a genetic centre and about using the advances in medical science and technologies to
ensure people can have a better quality of life in this country.
367
Dáil Éireann
Deputy Leo Varadkar: I am no expert in this area and have not been particularly involved
with it in any personal way but there are a few points that I would make. I think it is inappropriate for any section or department within a hospital to declare itself a national centre. If there
are national centres, they should be designated either by the HSE or the Department of Health,
or by some other body. It is inappropriate in general that any department or subsection of any
body should declare itself to be a national centre. I hope Deputy Kelleher would agree with me
on that.
18/02/2015BB00200
Regarding the rare diseases plan, it is not specifically mentioned in the 2015 service plan
but it is mentioned in one of the operational plans which flows from the service plan. I will be
very keen to see the office established this year if that is possible. Of course, that is ultimately
a decision for the director general of the HSE.
When it comes to all matters, frankly, I think GP referral is appropriate. If people self-refer
to specialists we will have huge numbers of people referring themselves inappropriately, thereby creating waiting lists to see people who do not need to be seen. The whole point of going to
a GP first is that the GP operates as a gatekeeper and ensures that only appropriate people are
referred to specialist centres. That is the way it works across the public health service and it is
a good system in my view.
Clearly, there is a dispute here between some of the staff in Crumlin on the one hand and
the CEO and the board of Crumlin on the other. I do not think disputes within a workplace or
institution should be resolved in Parliament. That is not our role. It is important that, if there
is a dispute in a workplace or hospital, it is resolved using the appropriate mechanisms within
that hospital.
18/02/2015BB00300
Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Second Stage (Resumed)
Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”
Deputy Brian Stanley: The Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 looks like
it is doing a certain amount of tidying up. It is tidying up some loose ends and endeavouring
to comply with EU directives. That seems to be the main purpose of the Bill. No doubt the
legislation is necessary to address certain anomalies in current laws and address the matters
outlined. However, there are other more important pieces of legislation that should be included.
18/02/2015BB00400
Part of the Bill concerns the role of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and there
are clearly issues regarding the EPA’s role that might have warranted more attention. I am
thinking in particular of the ongoing problems with waste management and the disposal of
waste. There are unresolved issues that remain regarding the large fire out in south Dublin last
year - that plant - and I highlight that as one instance. There are issues regarding waste management and the storage of waste that we need to deal with.
I also hope the Minister’s Department will deal urgently with a number of other proposed
pieces of legislation under this brief. I note there is nobody here from the Department of the
Environment, Community and Local Government. The Minister of State who is here is not
from that Department. Maybe there is good reason for that, but the Minister brought the Bill
before the Dáil and we have little enough opportunity to question Ministers or to highlight the
key issues that we see as needing to be resolved. The Minister of State has been sent in here
368
18 February 2015
and it is probably not his fault, but the least the Government could do is send in one of the two
Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government. I know
there is one financial dimension to this, and the Minister of State who is in the Chamber is in
the Department of Finance. I recognise that he does have a role for one part of this Bill but it is
mainly an environmental miscellaneous provisions Bill. That is what the Bill is called. There
is one specific issue with which the Minister of State will be dealing later on.
The change in the electoral law needs to be addressed urgently. There is proposed legislation there; I brought forward a Bill two weeks ago in respect of lowering the voting age and
the Government passed it on Second Stage. While I welcome that, I do not want the Bill just
parked. We need to be a bit more imaginative. The Scots have shown the way forward and have
given 16 year olds the vote, and the world has not shaken because of it. It is a positive measure
and we need to move ahead with those as well.
There are a number of other recommended changes to electoral legislation that came out of
the Constitutional Convention, which should be brought forward. There is also an issue - the
officials might take note of this for the absent Minister - regarding the planning Bills in the
pipeline, the stated purpose of which is to implement some of the findings of the Mahon report
coming out of the Mahon tribunal. We welcome that, but want to highlight the importance of
doing it. I ask the Minister if it is proposed, as recommended by the Mahon report, to establish
a new office of an independent planning regulator? That is the key point of Mahon and it should
be legislated for. Most people, if not all, in this House want to see the planning system tidied
up. We do not need to rehearse what went before us here and we certainly want to put a stop to
that. Hopefully we can have that independent office, but the Minister responsible might give
me an answer regarding the recommendations of the Mahon report.
Part 3, section 17 provides that the agency will now have an integral role in air quality and
monitoring air pollution as well as in prevention, control and enforcement. The main issue here
is around bituminous coal or smoky coal. There are on-the-spot fines and fixed penalty notices.
That is perhaps a more effective and efficient way of doing it. I wish to highlight one issue,
namely reports of smoky or bituminous coal being sold as well as other fuels that do not come
into the smokeless category, particularly in larger urban areas. It is important there is an effective method to deal with that.
I have a concern in regard to peat or turf. The smoky coal ban is being rolled out across the
State and it now applies to towns with a population of over 15,000. We do not want to be seen
to penalise small-time fuel suppliers in rural areas who cut and save a small amount of turf and
sell it to neighbours or people in the immediate locality. Smoky coal, or bituminous coal, is
causing huge problems in terms of pollution and there are reports of it being brought in from
other jurisdictions. However, a small amount of peat or turf being cut and saved and sold on a
small-scale is not causing a major problem in regard to pollution.
I refer to section 20 relating to two new fixed payment notice offensives under the European Union (Paints, Varnishes, Vehicle Refinishing Products and Activities) Regulations 2012.
There is provision for a new fixed payment notice of €1,000. I am not an expert on paint products, although I used to know a bit more about them at one time when working beside a panel
beater. At this point, the products in this State may not be completely converted over to more
environmentally-friendly types. I am concerned that we give people a bit of space. Obviously,
stocks should be allowed to run out.
369
Dáil Éireann
I am also concerned about small-scale operations and panel beating shops. We live in a
country of 6.5 million people but in a State of just under 4.7 million people. By and large, paint
shops, or panel beating shops as they were commonly known until a number of years ago, operate on a small scale. This is not the middle of Berlin or the middle of London. When one goes
outside the M50, one is talking about small-scale operations. Even in medium-sized towns, one
is typically talking about one, two or three people working in panel beating shop or a paint shop,
doing car finishing and repairing crashed cars. It is important we do not come down too hard
on those people. I can think of a few operating in my area. They seem to make a real effort to
run a good operation, to comply with the planning laws and so on. We need to be careful the
provisions of the Bill do not hammer those people into the ground.
We hear the normal complaints from small businesses about all the regulations, the VAT
requirements, the Revenue requirements, the local authority rates, the planning conditions, the
development levies with which they must comply and, therefore, we need to be careful in the
case of panel beaters and people repairing the bodies of cars. That sector is, by its nature, small,
and it is very small down the country. The operations in my area have one, two or three people
working in them. The largest one of which I can think has three people working in it and they
are from the one family.
I refer to section 24 which replaces An Bord Pleanála with the EPA as the appeals body for
decisions made by local authorities on the licensing of certain small-scale activities under the
Act. That may make perfect sense in that the EPA will have expertise available to it which An
Bord Pleanála will not have. However, whatever procedure is put in place, let us try to make
it as straightforward as possible. Let us not make it an over-bureaucratic and a long drawn-out
process. We must have common sense in this regard. Along with everything else, when trying
to get a project up and running, people must deal with regulations, and rightly so. However, it is
important that with that change-over from An Bord Pleanála to the EPA as the appeals body, the
appeals mechanism is kept as simple and straightforward as possible and as quick as possible so
there is no undue delay. As a result of some of the delays with An Bord Pleanála, cases go on
for months and projects drag on from one year to the next. We must try to avoid that at all costs.
In regard to Part 4 extending the fee base of the EPA, the Minister is obviously giving the
EPA an opportunity to charge what he describes as an appropriate fee given the work, research,
investigations, inspections and so on it must do. It is important the fee is appropriate, is not
excessive and proportionate to whatever matter the EPA is examining. It is important it does
not become a cash cow. There is a cost which is carried by the taxpayer. Somebody must pay
which is always the case. We recognise that but we do not want to see this becoming a revenue
stream. The EPA must be funded as it carries out a very important role. However, fees must be
applied in a cautious and measured way.
Another significant provision in the Bill relates to road tax and the non-use of vehicles. We
certainly welcome what is being done and the extension of the period of notification from ten
days to 21 days. Ten days is too tight and I think the Government has acknowledged that. That
is a very positive move which will be welcomed. It is a more reasonable and a more workable
proposition than ten days.
I would like to use the opportunity to highlight the issue of road tax. The Minister will be
aware of an issue in regard to the taxation of HGVs. The road network must be maintained and
road taxes must be collected. The change from ten days to 21 days will help road hauliers if it
applies to HGVs. Hauliers have a problem in regard to vehicles when they are off the road and
370
18 February 2015
not in use. However, there is a big issue in regard to the differential between this country and
Britain and the North of Ireland in terms of costs. We have been lobbied on this over the past
number of months, as has the Government. The concern we have is that some operators have
already relocated to England, the North of Ireland or to other countries. Nobody wants to see
those companies relocate, set up depots or set up part of the business in other countries. County
Wexford, in particular, has been badly affected by this.
There is also a problem in the midlands, including in County Laois where I live. Hauliers
are hauling goods - it is a free market so nobody can stop this - out of County Laois, for example, with trucks based in other countries.
3 o’clock
They could be based in Britain or anywhere in continental Europe and they are running
loads out to the Continent. If local hauliers could compete, they would be able to get that work.
I know the Minister of State is taking note of this and I thank him for that. Not alone are we
losing the road tax, but we are also losing the PRSI, VAT and revenue on the fuel. There is a
range of costs, including, of course, the jobs we are losing. If 20 or 30 jobs are relocated to
Newry, it is not too bad as it is up the road and at least it is some benefit to the island of Ireland,
but if they go off the island, to Bristol or Liverpool, we are really in trouble. Will the Government keep this issue in mind and try to do something with it? We asked in the last budget for
something to be done with it. That did not happen. The haulage industry is operating on very
tight margins. I know hauliers who are doing the same runs they were doing 20 years ago but
they are doing them for lower rates. That is how cut-throat it has become. It has become very
difficult to operate. They simply cannot compete with companies that are based in other jurisdictions. One regularly sees Eddie Stobart, the Scottish firm, on the motorways. They are able
to compete. They are able to come in, pick up loads and take them out, and run loads in and out
of the midlands or the west or anywhere along the eastern seaboard. They can do it at a price
that the hauliers in this State simply cannot. The rates for the work have been pushed further
and further down. We must take note of that. I ask the Government to keep it under review. It
constantly says it is for jobs. That is fair enough. We are for jobs as well. We can create jobs at
a very quick rate, but if we are haemorrhaging jobs at the same rate, we are in a standstill situation. We do not want to see jobs lost off the island of Ireland. We want to keep those haulage
jobs here and give the haulage industry a level playing field to operate on.
In the amendment to the waste management Act, Part 6, section 23, fixed payment notices
are being introduced again. I can see the benefits of that. I would like to see that expanded to
take into account illegal dumping. Clearly the penalties for that are insufficient. Extensive illegal dumping is taking place. There is the small-scale stuff where people just throw stuff out
the windows of cars and vehicles. All was revealed in the last month or two, when the frost
kills back the growth on the sides of the road, and they are littered. The countryside is in a
shocking state in places. Around every town and village there are people driving out. They
are not always driving bad vehicles - some are driving very good 141- and 142- registered vehicles - and dumping rubbish in the countryside. They are not always people who are on the
breadline. Some people who are on the breadline are more conscientious about these things.
Unfortunately there are people who are unscrupulous and they are destroying the countryside.
We need to deal with it in environmental legislation. What is there at the moment is not up to
the mark. The Government will have to take action on this. Tidy Towns committees have been
in existence as long as I have. I remember hearing about them as a child. There was a Tidy
Towns committee in the town I grew up in, doing work and everything else. There are people
371
Dáil Éireann
in rural areas gathering rubbish, pulling it out of hedgerows and gateways every morning.
It is destroying the countryside, it is damaging the environment, and it is damaging tourism
as well. People come here from continental Europe and take a spin through the countryside,
only to see black bags shoved into every gateway and paper cups from Supermacs, McDonald’s
and wherever else littered along the sides of motorways. I regularly see people out along the
sides of motorways with litter-pickers, walking along with a big truck behind them, picking up
the rubbish that people throw out through the windows. They are obviously doing it at night
when no one can see them. They just fling out these things when they are finished with them.
There is a role for education in this. It baffles me that schools are doing green flags and everything like that, and yet people have it in their heads that when they are finished eating and
drinking in a car, they just fling the rubbish out through the window and think somebody else
has to pick it up after them. In a carpark recently, I saw four separate piles which, when I looked
closer, were in the shape of a parking space, with a white line on either side. Obviously people
in the back and front of the car had been having a takeaway. They wound down the windows
and dropped the rubbish out of each side. One could see the four containers and the empty
snackboxes left in the carpark. They drove away and left the four piles after them.
Laois County Council - the taxpayer, the public - must pay a man to go out the next morning to pick up this, day after day. It is one of the things we need to look at as a society, to get
our act together on this and make a serious attempt to change the culture.
There are some issues that we will be looking to change and we will be putting forward
amendments when the Bill moves to Committee Stage. The Minister of State, wearing his Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government hat, might take on the issue
of road tax, particularly in respect of trying to keep jobs here. We must be cautious how we
move forward in relation to some of the matters I raised. I look forward to Committee Stage,
on which we will be tabling amendments.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I call Deputies Michael Fitzmaurice, Tom Fleming and Mattie McGrath. There have 30 minutes. How are the Deputies sharing time?
18/02/2015DD00200
18/02/2015DD00300
Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice: We will take ten minutes each.
When I look at this Bill, I wonder where we are going as a country. Every single page of it
has some reference to EU legislation. Do we own our own country? Are we in control of our
own destination or is the EU telling us, day in, day out, from when we go to bed to whatever we
do in life, where we are going? Are we gone that bad as a country? Have we lost our patronage,
so that we have to take everything from them and put it in?
I see ownership of Killarney National Park is being transferred to the Department of Arts,
Heritage and the Gaeltacht. Look at the Department’s behaviour through the years regarding
the turf issue and various things that occurred in different parts of the country. For example, in
Limerick the National Parks and Wildlife Service tried to ram it down people’s throats that there
was a turlough in a place near Limerick even though it was gone for 20 years. It tried to ram it
down people’s throats about bogs. It brought out its own science and now, 18 years later, it has
been proved that the science is up to 40% wrong, when independent consultants were brought
in. Is this the way to go forward in getting a national park looked after or getting it under the
auspices of the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht? The record of the National
Parks and Wildlife Service is despicable and deplorable, if one goes through what has gone on
372
18 February 2015
in each part of the country.
I look at this document and all I see is penalties. The one thing that strikes me is that we all
encourage entrepreneurship. We all encourage youngsters to get out there and do things. There
is a sad reality in this. If a youngster beside the Minister of State in Cork, or beside any of us in
any part of the country, cuts a tree and decides to bag it to be a young entrepreneur, if they get
a few bags of turf in their father’s, mother’s, uncle’s or aunt’s shed, and go down the road to try
to sell it, they need a licence. That is the reality of what we are doing with this. If they have
not got a licence, we have the on-the-spot fine. This is a great country in which we will cripple
people and discourage them from working or becoming entrepreneurs.
It will be necessary to make amendments to the Bill on Committee Stage. While I fully
agree that a licence is needed to sell fuels, youngsters selling bags of timber or turf should not
have to look over their shoulders fearing they will be given a fixed charge penalty - this is a
lovely new phrase - of €500.
People have to get all their paperwork from the Environmental Protection Agency. In 2009
and 2010, the EPA produced reports on Glenamaddy Lake in County Galway. The State pumps
200 tonnes of raw sewage into the lake every day but does not face fixed charge penalties from
the EPA, whereas someone with €100 of timber will receive a fine.
Every part of the Bill creates costs for people by requiring them to get different types of
licences. What are we doing as a nation? We are telling people that if they go right, left, up or
down, they will be charged more to be in business and survive. Why are we doing this? It is
because our magic masters in the great European Union have told us to do it. We can continue
down this road or we can consider where we are going as a nation and ask whether these rules
and regulations are costing jobs. Are the do-gooders both here and in Europe who tell us what
to do causing more emigration? Do the 35,000 civil servants in Europe believe they must do
something every day to justify their existence and produce bits of papers with more and more
regulations? The Bill features references to EU regulation throughout.
When will some Minister ask whether this is good or bad? As a nation, are we able to be
patriotic by standing up for ourselves and believing in ourselves or will we take this from our
so-called masters in Europe, day in and day out? I do not class them as our masters.
18/02/2015EE00200
Deputy Dara Murphy: That is what we are doing today in the national Parliament.
Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice: We are quoting all this European Union legislation because
Ministers love EU law. That is the problem and it is about time Irish people stood up and questioned all this stuff that is coming from Europe.
18/02/2015EE00300
18/02/2015EE00400
Deputy Dara Murphy: This is Dáil Éireann and the Deputy can question away.
Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice: I ask the Minister of State to ensure the Bill is amended on
Committee Stage to ensure more youngsters are not forced to take the boat to another country.
We must encourage people to get out and going at a young age, rather than fining them €200,
€300 or €500 for not having a licence.
18/02/2015EE00500
The small fry are always hit in this country. We are good at generating tax revenue from petrol and making statements that we do not tolerate fuel laundering. Like a needle in a haystack,
we are still trying to find out where it all went wrong. The sad reality is that ordinary people
373
Dáil Éireann
are being left to pick up the can. They must pay for a new engine without receiving any help
from the insurance companies.
Let us start questioning Europe because not everything sent over here is right. As a nation,
we must start asking questions and doing what is right for our people. If we keep quoting from
this or that directive or regulation, we will leave the country with nothing. Like birds in their
nests with their beaks open, we will end up waiting for Europe to feed us all the time. I and
many others do not want that because we are proud to be Irish.
Deputy Tom Fleming: I welcome the provisions of the Bill regarding the transfer of functions from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. These include the functions which, under the Bourn
Vincent Memorial Park Act 1932 as it stood immediately after enactment, were exercisable by
the Commissioner of Public Works, and most of the functions which were exercisable by the
Minister for Finance under the 1932 Act.
18/02/2015EE00600
I wish the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Gaeltacht, Deputy Heather Humphreys, well in
her stewardship of Killarney National Park. I am sure she will continue the excellent work
carried out by her predecessor, the Minister of State, Deputy Jimmy Deenihan, on behalf of the
national park. I am also sure she will take a personal interest in this matter given that Killarney National Park is the largest national park in the country and the jewel in the crown of the
national park network.
The nucleus of Killarney National Park is the 4,300 ha of the Bourn Vincent Memorial Park
which was presented to the State in 1932 by Senator Arthur Vincent and his parents-in-law, Mr.
and Mrs. William Bowers Bourn, in memory of Senator Vincent’s late wife, Maud. The generosity of the Vincent family ensured that the most beautiful lakeland, parkland and woodland
in Killarney could be preserved in the hands of the State and will continue to be accessible to
future generations.
The focal point for visitors to Killarney National Park is Muckross House and gardens.
The house, which is a late 19th century mansion with all manner of furnishings and artefacts
from that period, is a major visitor attraction. It is jointly managed by the park authorities and
the trustees of the house who have formed a dedicated and proactive committee that provides
ancillary facilities to complement all the physical features of the national park. These include
historical, cultural, musical and folklore archives, a model farm and farmhouse. Each house
depicts the various categories of farm family dwellings. The park also features a traditional
schoolhouse and blacksmith’s forge. Live demonstrations are given of all the traditional farm
activities in the era of horse driven machinery as well as butter making and bread baking. Ongoing developments by the trustees greatly enhance the visitor experience and give an insight
into 19th century and early 20th century Ireland. This is highly educational for the younger
generation, including young people who visit Muckross House with their families or on educational tours with schools.
I ask the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, to convey to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht my acknowledgement of the work done by the trustees and request that
she maintain the co-operative and friendly relationship that has always existed between the
Department and trustees of Muckross House.
Muckross House is one of the prime visitor locations in the country. In 2013, the visitor
374
18 February 2015
book recorded 118,789 visitors and figures for 2014 should be significantly higher. The restaurant is thriving but there is a huge number of unrecorded visitors to the national park and
Muckross complex. The number of visitors to the complex is much more substantial than
118,000 and it could probably be trebled.
The newly refurbished Killarney House and Gardens is a major project and its location
brings the national park closer to the town. It borders the centre of the town. A total of €17
million has been invested over the past few years and this has provided for the reinstatement
of 35 acres of gardens to their original pristine state. This will be an iconic feature at the heart
of the prime tourism town in the country. Will the Minister of State convey to the Minister for
the Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht the immediate need for staff to be appointed? Significant
public relations work and advertising needs to be undertaken prior to the opening because this
is a major acquisition in the context of the entire tourism product in County Kerry.
The current staff in the national park are under extreme pressure because of the maintenance
and general upkeep that is required throughout. There is need for more manpower to undertake
the physical work involved and to ensure part-time staff are available to work as guides and so
on during the summer. The tourism industry is expanding, and the Wild Atlantic Way will also
be a feature of the county’s tourism product, as visitors do the Atlantic drive and then travel
inland. Kerry Regional Airport is also flourishing and, therefore, there is good access to the
county by air and rail, although there is a need to upgrade the road access through Adare and
Macroom, in particular. The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport is making his own efforts in that regard.
I ask the Minister to co-operate with requests from jarveys regarding the use of the road
inside the perimeter walls of Killarney House. It is parallel to Mission Road, which runs from
the Killarney Plaza Hotel to the cathedral. There is a need for access to the park via Chestnut
Drive and that facility should be made available. Mission road is busy with heavy traffic and
it is not easy for the jarveys to travel along it. This would be a practical measure, which could
be undertaken with minimum disruption to the environment by ensuring the access is provided
within the perimeter wall. It would also be desirable to lower the wall, as this would be positive from an aesthetic and visibility point of view. It would improve the ambience and bring the
national park closer to the heart of the town.
There is a need for an annual maintenance fund for the repair and surface dressing of a network of roads throughout the park, as they have drastically deteriorated in recent years. Minor
works have been carried out but substantial funding is needed to bring the roads up to a good
standard. That probably means a three year plan is necessary with sums expended annually.
I ask that the work on the walk around the lakes be expedited. The co-operation of the Department will be important in securing a walkway and a cycleway around the lakes. I ask that
every assistance be given for that.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: I thank my two colleagues, Deputies Fitzmaurice and Fleming,
for sharing time.
18/02/2015FF00200
The Bill will give effect to a waste policy commitment in the programme for Government.
Many proposals in the programme have not been effected and they will not be either before the
Government leaves office but, as previous speakers said, the Government parties seem to be
trying to stifle small business. I accept legislation and regulation is required but it should not
375
Dáil Éireann
stymie initiative. Entrepreneurs such as Bill Cullen, Sean Quinn and many others started off
in their own field in their own area as young people trying to make a living. They used their
initiative, their brain and their business acumen. Most young people have business acumen but
everything is tied up with regulation.
I do not blame the Minister of State for all of it or for the implementation of successive
directives from Europe. Deputy Fitzmaurice might not agree but when we transpose EU directives, we have an uncanny habit of adding nine or ten regulations to the diktats from Europe.
This has happened in many sectors. I am a small businessman and I have witnessed the way
regulation has been imposed. I would have been unable to start my business, which I founded
in 1982, today. It is too costly and prohibitive to do so. There is too much red tape and regulation after regulation with an enforcement army implementing everything no matter what industry one goes into.
The National Employment Rights Authority, NERA, took a court case against a filling station in Durrow, County Laois for employing people under the prescribed legal age. The judge
threw out the case saying it was much better for the young people to be working part time and
gaining an understanding of commerce while earning a few euro in pocket money to help their
hard pressed parents and learning the ethos of work rather than for them to be sitting at home
in front of a computer or on a Wii. I am delighted he did this. I do not blame the NERA officials because they must implement the legislation passed in the House but much of it is purely
regressive and downright stupid. I wonder whether the people who draft these regulations ever
consult small business people or people living in various parts of the country before they make
changes.
The Bills provides for the reinstatement of fixed payment notices for certain offences under solid fuel regulations and their extension to a range of other existing offences. It is all
about having a cash cow and generating money to keep the system going but this is driving
people out of business. It is anti-work, anti-business and, in many cases, it is anti-rural Ireland.
Many business owners started up as ordinary fuel merchants who bought timber from farmers,
chopped it up and sold it door to door. This is hard, dangerous work and I accept it has to be
regulated and safety must be ensured at all times. However, the Government wants to ban this
and ensure all fuel must be bought from oil companies. Deputy Fitmaurice is correct that the
Government cannot touch the people who are laundering oil or those who are stretching petrol,
which results in unfortunate families having their cars blown out of it, but it can get the little
people all the time. They are easy prey and there is too much of that.
We are trying to recover from the downturn but the EPA, an organisation I admire, will not
prosecute local authorities. I had occasion to pick up the telephone to EPA officials. I recall
former Deputy, Luke ‘Ming’ Flanagan, who is now an MEP, outlining to the House how he
tried to raise an issue in Castlerea with the agency. He was passed on to the county council
with comments that Deputies Flanagan and McGrath were on their case. We were not on their
case but we were seeking fair play. Fairness should mean fairness for everyone. Why should
they prosecute ordinary customers and small business people when they will not prosecute the
county councils? They will not do that, as I have seen. They come a couple of times a year to
my village. I met a landowner one day who has an outlet pipe from the local sewerage system
belting into his land, approximately 200 m south of the bridge which is the main thoroughfare.
They come and take the sample at the bridge. He asked them if they would go down 200 yd.
and they would get a totally different sample, but they would not do that. They are selective,
but when they come out to a farmer, they go where they like.
376
18 February 2015
It is an unfair system and is becoming more unfair through the imposition of these kinds of
ridiculous charges. This is wrong. We have fishing and game clubs that do a power of work
for our environment and for the restocking of rivers and game, yet they too are being policed
out of business. I do not know how far this will go. Take for example the issue of scrap and
scrapyards. I tried, unsuccessfully, to bring in the Scrap and Precious Metal Dealers Bill and
was promised by the former Minister, Deputy Shatter, that it would be introduced. I am aware
the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government introduced some regulations, but they are toothless.
A man in Tipperary who owns three scrap yards, Mr. Michael Bailey, cannot move a battery
from an end of life vehicle from one of his yards to another without a licence. He has come to
me about this issue. One night, a couple of months ago, a gang arrived and fed and neutralised
his Alsatian dogs then cut their way into his premises and took the batteries from every vehicle,
chopping the cables and leads and doing untold damage. They then brought the batteries to a
scrapyard in Limerick. There were no prosecutions of that gang for moving batteries without
regulation. This type of activity is going on across the board. We have highwaymen outside of
the law acting in this manner, yet we prosecute ordinary people. Mr. Bailey went to the gardaí
in Tipperary town and fair play to them they traced the gang and recouped the batteries. Did
the EPA prosecute them or the county council for moving batteries without a licence? They did
not, which shows how farcical the situation is. Yet they prosecute the ordinary man.
A similar situation occurred in the case of another man, Seamus Clarke who has a tyre
business in Tipperary. His stuff was stolen and found, but nobody was prosecuted. Similarly,
in Tipperary recently we could not continue our coursing meet because all the hares had been
killed by roving gangs, marauding gangs with all kinds of dogs, including lurchers and terriers.
These gangs held their own races, outside of the law. We had a coursing meeting planned which
we hoped would be a success, to be attended by thousands with everything regulated properly,
but we could not have it because for the first time in 80 years there were no hares.
Groups of people operate outside the law. When we pass their houses in the evening, they
have bonfires burning, but if you or I burn a few papers outside we are prosecuted. The law
seems to be applied to ordinary, small people, but it ignores the gangs I have mentioned, whether money launderers, diesel launderers or others. It is about time we copped on and stopped
persecuting ordinary people. We talk about the boom and the Government keeps citing figures
suggesting we are in recovery. That is true for Dublin, as far as the Naas Road, but not outside
of that.
The Bill includes fixed penalties of €2,000, or €5,000 if a case goes to court. This is a scandalous option to face any small entrepreneur. What about court costs if a case goes to court?
What about people who cannot afford barristers or solicitors to represent them? They may lose
their case, having tried to defend themselves, and end up with a pile of costs. The officials who
prosecute them are unaware of the costs. They get paid, get their wages and put in their bill for
expenses. What is going on is outrageous.
The Minister and his officials should be aware of the situation. If they are not, those who
drafted the legislation should. If they are not, they should put on their working boots and overalls and go out and see these businesses in rural Ireland. They should meet the entrepreneurs
who are trying to bring about recovery in this country and who are trying to pass on the initiative instilled in them to their children. They should not tie people up in knots so that nobody
can do anything. Who is going to run businesses, pay taxes and rates and everything else if
377
Dáil Éireann
these people are being persecuted and driven out of business by regulation after regulation and
directive after directive?
These regulations and directives are being inserted in this Bill by the Government, as happened with the previous Government, and will be added to the statutory instruments already in
place. A person would want to be a solicitor to understand the legislation and small business
owners would need to employ a solicitor to explain them. It is about time the system copped on.
We cannot keep adding regulation after regulation or keep introducing nonsensical, impractical
and unworkable laws that turn ordinary people into criminals. Regulation for the NCT, road
safety and you name it has gone over the top - gone bonkers - and people end up facing the
judicial system.
We were promised a judicial council Bill and I asked the Taoiseach about it today. This
would allow people to make complaints if they do not get a hearing. Ordinary people are trying
to run small businesses, to pay their tax, their VAT and their rates, but they have no place to go
and have not been enabled to defend themselves. They cannot afford to pay for legal representatives and often end up in prison as a result. I know of a man in Tipperary who did. Batteries
and everything else can be stolen from a yard and sold to another scrapyard without an invoice,
yet a man can be prosecuted for moving one battery from one of his yards to another.
I am all for protection against pollution. The scrapyard owner I know must ensure there is
not a drop of oil in the engines of the cars in his yard- not a thimbleful. At the same time, we
see people have bonfires, spill diesel and oil and do enormous damage to the environment, but
they are not prosecuted at all. Somehow or other, the system picks on the easy target, ordinary
people in rural and urban Ireland who are trying to make a bob. If we are going to tie them up
in knots with regulations like those in this Bill, nobody will run businesses or be self-employed.
They will all want good jobs in the public or State service. Where will we end up then?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Deputy Fergus O’Dowd is sharing his time with Deputy
Peter Fitzpatrick.
18/02/2015GG00200
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: The Deputies opposite have missed the point of this legislation.
The truth is the opposite of what they are saying. The truth is it is far cheaper for somebody
if----18/02/2015GG00300
Deputy Mattie McGrath: The Deputy is the one who brought in Irish Water, but then
changed his mind and went against it.
18/02/2015GG00400
18/02/2015GG00500
18/02/2015GG00600
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: I did not interrupt the Deputy.
Deputy Mattie McGrath: I will not listen to that.
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: Why is this legislation important or why is it of particular benefit to small rural communities? Why will it benefit small towns and villages more than large
cities and towns? The simple answer is that this legislation will empower the Environmental
Protection Agency to issue on-the-spot fines for particular offences, such as polluting the air we
breathe. The sale of bituminous or smoky coal is an offence in areas where it is prohibited. Its
sale is a serious and ongoing problem. The particles emitted into the atmosphere from this coal
are termed PM10 and PM2.5 particulate matter. The emission of these particles has a significant health impact, which is why we ban the sale of this coal in large towns and cities. These
particles can go deep into our lungs and cause serious, life-threatening illnesses. In Ireland, the
18/02/2015GG00700
378
18 February 2015
main source of these particles is the domestic use of solid fuels and vehicular traffic.
The results of tests that were conducted on air quality throughout the country for 2013 show
there has been a significant decrease in cities and large urban areas of this particulate matter.
In other words, the air is better and purer than it was. However, this decrease is not evident in
smaller towns, where domestic solid fuel emissions are more significant than traffic emissions.
Many towns do not benefit from the health effects resulting from a ban on smoky coal and often
do not have access to cleaner fuel alternatives such as natural gas.
Ireland has a significant target to reduce the level of these pollutants in our atmosphere.
Achieving the target is a challenge and will require an integrated approach across a number of
sectors, including transport and industrial emissions. The clear message on page 62 of the EPA
report is that certain communities have a significant problem with air quality, in the context of
WHO emission levels. This is not to say the air is unhealthy, but the standards or levels the
WHO will apply to air quality here are exceeded in some of the smaller towns my colleagues
on the opposite side of the House have mentioned. For once, therefore, Deputy McGrath has
been talking through his hat, because air quality in rural Ireland is worse than it should be. I
welcome the Department’s intention to consider an extension of the ban on bituminous coal to
other parts of the country. It should be extended not only to some towns and villages but the
island as a whole. The need to extend the ban on smoky coal, North and South, is unanswerable. The health impacts of a countrywide ban are clear. It would benefit the health of ordinary
people. I note that the Department has commissioned a survey, North and South, of the impact
of a countrywide ban. The most significant impact would be on people’s health. There are,
however, many issues that we will have to address if and when we do it, including fuel poverty. Non-bituminous coal can be more expensive initially, but we should be able to prevent a
significant increase in cost to poorer people in society through the social welfare system. The
imposition of a countrywide ban would result in a clamp-down on the sale, distribution and
transport of smoky fuel.
I welcome the provision in the Bill which provides for on-the-spot fines for certain offences
committed under the legislation. While a person could challenge a fine in court, doing so, in
terms of solicitors’ fees and so on, would be very expensive. In terms of Garda and court time
and administration overheads, it is far simpler and much less expensive and makes sense to
have an on-the-spot fine system. A person who believes he or she has been incorrectly issued
with a fine can bring a case to the courts, in respect of which he or she will incur costs. It is
important that we keep people out of court. An on-the-spot fine for an offence committed under
the Bill - the offences are significant - makes sense.
My colleagues on the other side of the House are, again, wrong in that this legislation will
not put legitimate businesspeople out of work; rather, it will ensure those who break the law by
selling coal which does not meet the requirements under the Bill and will have a detrimental
affect on the health of the persons who use it and the surrounding communities will be put out
of business.
18/02/2015HH00200
18/02/2015HH00300
18/02/2015HH00400
18/02/2015HH00500
Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice: Will people be required to obtain a licence to sell timber?
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: The clamp-down on the illegal sale of smoky coal----Deputy Michael Fitzmaurice: Timber is a clean fuel.
Deputy Fergus O’Dowd: -----will boost sales for legitimate businesses paying the solid
379
Dáil Éireann
fuel carbon tax. They are the home truths with which we must grapple and understand and this
legislation will help to fight that battle for us.
This legislation introduces many other measures. I am concerned about the provision on
breaches of the waste management Acts. In terms of departmental policy on waste management, we must ensure we recover as much as we can by way of recycling and the re-use of
waste. Irish people have been recycling waste for many years and we are increasingly exporting more of our domestic and other waste. That is wrong. It does not make sense to me that
recyclable waste is sitting in the ports of our cities and large towns awaiting export for use
elsewhere. This is an issue we ought to address urgently.
My colleagues opposite made reference to illegal diesel, diesel laundering and so on, which
is a huge issue but not necessarily one covered under this legislation. The Bill provides for
mandatory fines for using certain pollutants. The biggest pollutant in my constituency, as Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick and I know, is toxic chemicals used to launder illegal diesel along the Border. Despite the protestations and bleats from Sinn Féin on the issue, it is a significant pollutant
that pollutes the water into which it flows, about which there is no doubt. I challenge Deputy
Gerry Adams to drink that water at source where it is being polluted. Obviously, he will not do
so because if he were to do so, he would not be around for very long.
We must address the pollution of our environment and society. We must, in particular, deal
with the serious significant adverse impact of illegal diesel laundering in Border areas. This
legislation is good and positive. It contains many constructive measures. I note, however, that
there has been no regulatory impact analysis of it. Perhaps the Minister of State, Deputy Dara
Murphy, might set out in his reply or on Committee Stage the impact of the legislation in the
context of some of the issues raised. This is important and constructive legislation which I support.
Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick: I have written to the Minister for the Environment, Community
and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, outlining my concerns about waste from diesel
laundering that is being dumped in Lough Ross in County Armagh and entering the Fane river
which is the source of drinking water for Dundalk and its hinterland. Approximately 1,200
incidents of such dumping have been dealt with by the local authorities since 2008, 596 cases
of which have taken place in County Louth. It has cost the State approximately €4.8 million to
dispose of this waste. There is no doubt that this is a major problem in County Louth.
18/02/2015HH00600
We know anecdotally that a large proportion of this waste comes from across the Border, but
we cannot prove the link. Following discussions between the Garda and Customs officials and
Monaghan County Council which has also been seriously affected, the Minister has confirmed
that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government will fund a pilot
sampling programme to test the dumped waste and, I hope, link the dump sites with particular
laundering processes and identify the origin of the waste diesel. The pilot programme will
be carried out by a specialist contractor who will visit the sites, sample the water, deliver the
samples to the State Laboratory and compile a report based on the analysis. This is great news
for County Louth and surrounding areas.
There is already good co-operation between An Garda Síochána, the PSNI and other enforcement agencies on both sides of the Border. However, given that it is likely that the origin
of the waste material is Northern Ireland and given the major environmental impact south of
the Border and the huge cost to the State in that regard, it is vital that an effort be made to build
380
18 February 2015
on these relationships. The Minister has assured me that he will highlight the problems being
faced in Border counties at the next meeting of the North-South Ministerial Council.
Louth County Council carries out regular water sampling. Drinking water sample results
for 2014 are compliant with drinking water regulations. However, with so much diesel sludge
being dumped without thought or concern for local people, there is a grave danger that drinking water could be contaminated. It is unacceptable that the countryside is being damaged in a
way that has become acceptable. Tackling the problem of diesel laundering is challenging and
costly, but I am committed to continuing to work to address the issue. Diesel launderers are
using the countryside of County Louth as a dumping ground and this must stop.
Following the enactment of legislation and the introduction of various environmental protection measures, including the introduction of the ban on smoky coal and a solid fuel carbon
tax, there has been a major improvement in Ireland’s environmental record. Many of these
measures flow from Ireland’s obligations as an EU member state. This Bill brings together a
number of legislative amendments to update-reinstate the fixed payment notice charge provisions for certain offences, including under the 2012 fuel regulations and the Waste Management
Act 1996, and extends the period within which a declaration of non-use may be made in respect
of a new motor vehicle and on the transfer of ownership of a vehicle. It also extends the scope
of activity for which the Environmental Protection Agency may charge a fee under the Environmental Protection Agency Act 1992 and corrects a number of typographical errors in the Dog
Breeding Establishments Act 2010.
The Bill will give effect to a number of waste policy commitments contained in the programme for Government and implement the advice of the Office of the Attorney General on the
use of fixed payment notices for environmental offences. The EPA’s national waste report 2011
states that Ireland is meeting most of its EU obligations and targets in respect of wastewater
management. However, some areas need to be improved. With the exception of targets under
the end of life vehicle directive, Ireland is achieving its common EU obligations across a broad
range of waste legislation. This includes packaging, electrical waste and electronic equipment
and batteries. Some targets remain at risk, including end of life vehicles, batteries, and biodegradable municipal waste from landfill.
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Dara Murphy): I
thank Deputies for their contributions. I look forward to further discussion on Committee Stage
and Report Stage. As engaged as Opposition Deputies were during the debate, they are not in
the Chamber to listen to my answers. While critical of the non-attendance of certain Ministers,
they head off in a manner that is, to put it mildly, typical.
18/02/2015JJ00200
The 21 days for the non-use of vehicles applies to all vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles. This was a specific question. A mix of sentiment was expressed about Killarney National
Park. I note the support of Deputy Tom Fleming from Kerry. Many contributions suggest
Deputies have not read the provisions of the Bill. I hope they engage in constructive manner on
Committee and Report Stages.
The day-to-day management of Killarney National Park is carried out by the National Parks
and Wildlife Service, which will not change. The only change is a legal or technical change in
ownership, which transfers from the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht. There were significant discussion
about regulations that apply to smoky coal. Deputy Fergus O’Dowd was correct in his analysis
381
Dáil Éireann
that there is no impact on other fuels such as wood and peat, notwithstanding the contributions
we have heard. The concerns about illegal dumping will be addressed in further detail on Committee Stage as will many of the other points relevant, which will be comprehensively dealt
with as the Bill progresses.
In my capacity as the Minister of State with responsibility for European affairs, I see the
Houses of the Oireachtas as the correct place to debate Irish law. We play an equal role in the
discussion and agreement of directives and regulation as an equal partner within the EU. This
is an important point. We are all aware of the importance of reducing the administrative burden
of over-regulation on all citizens of Europe. There is insignificant movement in that space, particularly from First Vice President Timmermans in reducing the administrative burden on the
citizens of the European Union.
Great strides have been made in recent years in advancing the legislative framework to
protect the environment. The Bill will help to underpin and consolidate progress by providing
licensing and enforcement authorities with commonsense practical tools to allow them to fulfil
their statutory obligations effectively and efficiently. It also removes a number of minor ambiguities and enactments, providing greater clarity to authorities and the public alike. I thank
Deputies for their contributions and look forward to the next Stages.
Question put and agreed to.
18/02/2015JJ00400
Environment (MIscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014: Referral to Select Committee
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Dara Murphy):
I move:
18/02/2015JJ00500
That the Bill be referred to the Select Sub-Committee on the Environment, Community
and Local Government pursuant to Standing Order 82A(3)(a) (6)(a).
Question put and agreed to.
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Order for Second Stage
18/02/2015JJ00700
Bill entitled an Act to amend the Teaching Council Act 2001; to amend the Education Act
1998 and to provide for related matters.
Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): I move: “That Second Stage
be taken now.”
18/02/2015JJ00900
Question put and agreed to.
382
18 February 2015
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage
18/02/2015JJ01100
Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): I move: “That the Bill be
now read a Second Time.”
18/02/2015JJ01200
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on the Second Stage of the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015. I will provide a detailed explanation of the provisions
of the Bill but first I want to highlight the background and main aims of this legislation. The
Bill has two main aims. First, it will underpin the central role of the Teaching Council in the
forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements for registered teachers. Second, it will put in place
a meaningful fitness to teach process, to be operated by the Teaching Council. The existing
Garda vetting arrangements for the schools sector operate on a non-statutory basis and have
been in place for new employees since 2006. Under these existing vetting arrangements, the
Teaching Council is the registered organisation that liaises with the Garda central vetting unit
for the vetting of teachers. It acts as a conduit for about 3,500 individual recognised schools
and education and training boards, ETBs, that employ registered teachers. The Teaching Council plays a vital part in the State’s overall child protection infrastructure for schools. It is the
body that has the capacity to ensure that any person that is not suitable to teach will not be
registered as a teacher.
The Bill will underpin and strengthen this capacity and, in doing so, will ensure, in tandem
with the provisions of the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012, that the vetting of all registered
teachers on an ongoing basis will be provided for and carried out on a statutory basis. The Bill,
which is intended to be aligned with the National Vetting Bureau Act, will also make it more
efficient for schools to meet the vetting requirements of the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012
when it is commenced. The provisions in the Bill will help improve the workability of the vetting arrangements for schools and ETBs. It will enable them to receive vetting disclosures in
a streamlined, secure and timely manner through the Teaching Council’s electronic register of
teachers.
4 o’clock
The number of teachers vetted under the non-statutory arrangements continues to steadily
increase, with about 54,000 of the 90,000 teachers on the Teaching Council register now vetted.
The remaining 36,000 who have not yet been vetted are typically permanent teachers who have
been in the same school since prior to the introduction of vetting in 2006. I think we can all
agree how important it is to ensure that such teachers are vetted under the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements. The statutory arrangements will include a check for both criminal
offences and also any relevant soft information and, when this Bill is enacted, there will a clear
statutory basis for the Teaching Council to require such teachers to undergo vetting and for it to
deal with any adverse vetting disclosure that might be received. The Teaching Council and I are
mindful of the need to ensure that all registered teachers are vetted. I have asked the council to
prioritise this work in the year after enactment of the legislation. Importantly, this Bill provides
that renewal of a teacher’s registration will be linked to compliance with the Bill’s vetting requirements. It also ensures that there will be a robust statutory basis for the Teaching Council
to consider in the case of any teacher who is the subject of an adverse vetting disclosure as to
whether the teacher’s registration should be renewed.
The Bill will prepare the ground for the commencement, for the first time, of fitness to
practice procedures for the teaching profession. This is a key part of any professional regula383
Dáil Éireann
tory system. The enhanced measures now being put in place will help to ensure that high quality standards of teaching can be upheld by the council through the operation of fair, robust and
effective fitness to teach processes. The Bill makes provision for a number of changes to the
fitness to teach provisions of the Teaching Council Act, before their commencement, so that the
Teaching Council can undertake this important regulatory role in an effective manner and to
update the fitness to teach provisions to take account of the new statutory vetting arrangements.
The purpose of the council’s fitness to teach role is to uphold standards and protect children.
Robust procedures which are transparent and fair will underpin the council’s work. When
these provisions are commenced, any person, including members of the public, employers,
other teachers or the Teaching Council itself will be able to make a complaint about a registered
teacher. Issues of sufficient gravity will result in an inquiry. The council will have the capacity to remove a teacher from the register where it deems the person unfit to teach, including
where this is for child protection reasons. The Bill will improve the capacity of the Teaching
Council to deal with complaints which indicate a risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult by
empowering it to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of the teacher concerned as part of a fitness
to teach inquiry.
It is important to bear in mind that the fitness to teach function will also serve to identify
areas where teachers can take action to address underperformance or conduct issues. These
processes will not displace the existing disciplinary procedures available to employers at school
level. Such procedures will normally be completed before the Teaching Council conducts an
inquiry and in many cases it would be expected that the matter is resolved at school level. I
intend to commence the fitness to teach provisions at the earliest opportunity after the enactment of the Bill.
The Bill contains 23 sections which aim to provide a clear statutory basis for the role of the
Teaching Council, which I will now outline in more detail. Section 1 defines the principal Act
as meaning the Teaching Council Act 2001. Section 2 inserts into the principal Act interpretations for a number of terms used in the Bill.
Section 3 amends the functions of the council to provide that, in addition to the functions
specified in the principle Act, it will be a function of the Teaching Council to obtain or receive
vetting disclosures for the purposes set out in the Bill for the purpose of its role as a relevant
organisation as defined in the National Vetting Bureau Act 2012 or for the purpose of its role
as a relevant organisation representing another relevant organisation under the National Vetting
Bureau Act 2012. This provision makes clear that the council may seek vetting disclosures
for the purposes of the registration and fitness to teach provisions of the Bill and ensures that
its role as a conduit for schools and ETBs in the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements is
given statutory underpinning. Section 3 also amends the functions to provide that the council
shall, in the performance of its functions under that Act, have regard to the need to protect children and vulnerable adults.
In light of recent institutional changes, section 4 amends section 8 of the principle Act to
update the bodies providing primary and post primary initial teacher education which nominate
persons for appointment to the council. Section 5 provides that the information to be entered
in the register in respect of a registered teacher as prescribed by the council shall, in addition to
existing information, include whether the registration is subject to any conditions set at initial
registration or at renewal of registration; and the information disclosed by the most recent vetting disclosure in the possession of the council in respect of the person. This amendment will
enable the Teaching Council to provide a streamlined mechanism to enable a school employer
384
18 February 2015
to access the vetting disclosure electronically in respect of a teacher it intends to employ. This
approach facilitates a centralised and accessible mechanism for schools and ETB employers
to receive disclosures for teachers via the register and in compliance with the National Vetting
Bureau Act 2012. It is important to note that records held electronically by the Teaching Council will not be accessible other than to an employer for the purposes of obtaining a disclosure
under the National Vetting Bureau Act and in such circumstances only with the consent and
knowledge of the teacher in question and in compliance with data protection legislation. Section 5 also clarifies that the existing provisions of the Act which relate to publishing the register,
making it available for inspection and providing for a copy of an entry or extract to be made
available on request are subject to any enactment or rule of law which would prohibit the disclosure of such information.
Section 6 updates section 30 of the 2001 Act. The existing Section 30 provides that a
person employed as a teacher in a recognised school shall not be remunerated out of moneys
provided by the Oireachtas where the person is not a registered teacher or where the person is
removed or suspended from the register. Section 6 substitutes the existing section 30 of the Act
and updates the existing wording to cross reference an amendment made to the Education Act
1998 under the Education (Amendment) Act 2012 to make provision for the employment, in
certain exceptional and limited circumstances, of persons who are not registered teachers; and
amendments being made under this Bill to sections 44 and 47 of the principal Act, which I will
outline later on.
Section 7 amends section 31 of the 2001 Act to make it mandatory for the Teaching Council
to obtain and consider a vetting disclosure before initially putting a teacher on the register. This
is already the practice of the Teaching Council on an administrative basis since Garda vetting
was introduced in September 2006. The Bill makes statutory provision for vetting disclosures
from the bureau to be assessed for all new applicants for registration. It provides for the council
to consider a vetting disclosure in order to determine if a person is a fit and proper person to be
admitted to the register and that the council shall refuse registration where the person has not
consented to vetting or where the council, in accordance with this section, is not satisfied that
the person is a fit and proper person to be registered. It also provides for a revised text in regard
to the powers of the Teaching Council to make regulations in respect of initial registration. This
section also makes some technical amendments to the existing provisions which provide for the
council to refuse to register a person where the person stands removed or suspended from the
register and for the council to register a person with conditions.
Section 8 makes provision for transitional arrangements to deal with applications for registration that were received prior to the coming into operation of section 7. Section 9 places a
requirement on a person to provide his or her consent to vetting at initial registration or where
he or she is requested by the council to do so for the purposes of renewal of his or her registration. Section 10 provides that where a teacher’s initial registration is subject to conditions that
have been applied by the High Court following an appeal, the teacher shall be removed from
the register where he or she fails to comply with any of those conditions.
Section 11 amends section 33 of the principal Act to provide for revised text in regard to
the powers of the Teaching Council to make regulations for the purpose of renewal of registration which shall, inter alia, provide for the form and manner of an application for renewal
of registration and the documentary and other evidence that the council may seek to enable it
to satisfy itself that a person is a fit and proper person to have his or her registration renewed.
This section also makes provision for retrospective vetting and re-vetting arrangements for
385
Dáil Éireann
registered teachers in the context of renewal of their registration. It is aimed at ensuring that
all registered teachers who have never been vetted are vetted and that provision is made for
periodic re-vetting of registered teachers on an ongoing basis. It is not intended that all 90,000
registered teachers will be vetted on each annual renewal of registration.
The section allows the council to plan and undertake such vetting in a structured and
phased manner and sets out what the council will have regard to when considering whether to
seek a vetting disclosure in respect of a teacher for renewal of his or her registration. In that
regard the section will enable the council to prioritise the vetting of those teachers who were
never vetted under the non-statutory arrangements, to subsequently address those who have
been vetted under the existing non-statutory arrangements but who have not been vetted under
the new statutory vetting arrangements and to provide thereafter for periodic re-vetting of all
registered teachers to be undertaken on an ongoing basis.
It also makes provision for the Teaching Council to notify a teacher in good time where it
intends to seek a vetting disclosure as part of renewal.
The section outlines when the Teaching Council shall refuse to renew a person’s registration such as where a teacher has failed to comply with a vetting request within the required
timeframe and it has not been in a position to determine if he or she is a fit and proper person
to have his or her registration renewed. The section also provides that a teacher may, within 21
days, apply to the High Court for an annulment of a decision by the Teaching Council to refuse
to renew his or her registration or renew it subject to conditions. The amendment will bring the
renewal stage of the registration process into line with other stages of registration where such
an appeals mechanism is already in place such as initial registration stage or removal from the
register following an inquiry under the fitness to teach procedures.
Section 12 is a technical amendment to provide that where, prior to section 11 coming
into operation, the period for compliance with a condition imposed during initial registration
exceeded the period of the initial registration and the person’s registration is subsequently renewed, such renewed registration will be subject to the original condition for any remaining
outstanding period for compliance.
Section 13 amends section 34 of the 2001 Act which prescribes a notice period of one month
following the expiry of a teacher’s registration to be provided for a teacher who fails to apply
for renewal and for that teacher to be removed from the register at the end of that month unless
he or she has applied for renewal and paid the relevant renewal fee to the Teaching Council
within that one month period. Section 13 of the Bill amends section 34 of the Act to provide
that, in the case of a teacher who is required to comply with a vetting requirement at renewal
of registration stage, the notice period provision will apply only where he or she has complied
with these vetting requirements. The existing section 34 also requires that where an application has been made for a fitness to teach inquiry under Part 5 of the Act and the relevant person
fails to apply for renewal of registration, he or she shall not be removed from the register until
such time as that inquiry is completed. This provision, with a number of others, is also being
amended to be consistent with changes being made to the wording of Part 5. These include
changing the word “application” to “complaint” and “applicant” to “complainant” and making
specific reference to the various provisions of Part 5 under which a fitness to teach process can
reach conclusion. Similarly, section 14 simply amends the wording of section 35 to be consistent with other changes being made to wording and to make specific reference to the various
provisions of Part 5 under which a fitness to teach process can reach a conclusion.
386
18 February 2015
Section 15 of the Bill amends section 42 of the 2001 Act which sets out the procedures
for dealing with complaints against teachers and the role and processes to be followed by the
director and the investigating committee in respect of such complaints. Section 15 of the Bill
is necessarily detailed so as to set out clearly the powers and procedures applicable at the preliminary stages in the fitness to teach process, including in relation to the treatment of vetting
disclosures. It amends section 42 of the Act to outline a range of matters which may be the
subject of a complaint against a teacher such as contravention of education legislation, professional misconduct, poor professional performance, conduct contrary to the code of professional
conduct for teachers, erroneous or fraudulent registration, medical unfitness, or convictions
for an offence triable on indictment. Under this section, the Teaching Council may make a
complaint in relation to a registered teacher on the grounds that the information disclosed in
a vetting disclosure which has been received by the council in its conduit role for schools and
ETBs is of such a nature as to reasonably give rise to a bona fide concern that the teacher may
harm or attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to
be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm or incite another person to harm
any child or vulnerable person.
Section 15 of the Bill also provides that, where the investigating committee decides to hold
an inquiry and the nature of the complaint raises a bona fide concern of harm, the committee
shall request the Teaching Council to apply to the National Vetting Bureau for a vetting disclosure in respect of the teacher for the purposes of considering the conduct alleged in the complaint. Where the investigating committee receives a vetting disclosure, the teacher concerned
shall be provided with a copy of the disclosure and invited to make submissions. Provision is
also made for the employer, where the employer is known to the Teaching Council, to be informed as soon as possible where, on foot of a complaint, there is a bona fide concern that the
teacher may harm or attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm or incite another
person to harm any child or vulnerable person.
The section also outlines the areas of complaint which can be considered following the coming into operation of this Part of the Bill, notwithstanding that the conduct in question occurred
prior to its coming into operation. It also makes clear what information and documents the
investigating committee may require or request from relevant parties, including the complainant, teacher, school or schools where the teacher is or was employed and-or other parties. The
section introduces a threshold to be reached before the investigating committee will refer a case
to the next stage of the process. That threshold is reached before further action can take place
and the investigating committee must be of the opinion that there is a prima facie case. This
will ensure only those cases which merit a disciplinary inquiry and hearing will be progressed
to that stage.
Section 15 also includes a definition of “document” to ensure digital documents or photographs, for example, can be sought by the investigating committee.
Section 16 of the Bill amends section 43 of the 2001 Act which deals with inquiries of the
disciplinary committee following referral of a complaint by the investigating committee. Section 16 of the Bill amends section 43 of the Act to outline the steps to be taken by the disciplinary committee and its panels, including the matters to be specified in inquiry reports. These
matters are the nature of the complaint, the evidence laid before the panel, the panel’s findings,
the relevance of the findings to fitness to teach where the complaint related to a conviction and
any other matter the panel considers appropriate. Where the inquiry is conducted into a com387
Dáil Éireann
plaint made by the Teaching Council on foot of information in a vetting disclosure it received
pursuant to its conduit role for a school or ETB employer and the panel, having regard to the
protection of children and vulnerable persons, is satisfied that there is a risk that the person may
harm or attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, cause any child or vulnerable person to
be harmed, put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm or incite another person to harm
any child or vulnerable person, such panel’s report must specify the nature of the information
disclosed in the vetting disclosure, the evidence laid before the panel and its assessment of and
conclusion in respect of the risk involved. The Bill also makes provision for the panel to dismiss a complaint where it makes no finding against the teacher.
Section 17 of the Bill amends section 44 of the 2001 Act to add a new sanction to the range
of sanctions already provided for and which include removal or suspension from the register or
retention subject to conditions. The new sanction is framed in the following terms: to advise,
admonish, or censure the registered teacher in writing. Section 17 outlines that an adverse decision of the disciplinary committee, other than a decision to advise, admonish or censure in writing, may be appealed to the High Court. It also provides for references to the Supreme Court
to be replaced with references to the Court of Appeal and that, where following an appeal to the
High Court, a teacher is suspended or removed from the register and leave is granted to appeal
to the Court of Appeal, the relevant court, shall, where the teacher is employed as a teacher in a
recognised school, make a direction as to whether the teacher shall continue to be paid pursuant
to his or her contract of employment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
Section 18 of the Bill amends section 45 of the Act to provide that, where a registered
teacher fails to comply with a condition imposed by the High Court on appeal, he or she shall
be removed from the register.
Section 19 of the Bill amends section 47 of the Act to provide that the High Court, where
it is has ordered that a teacher’s registration be suspended, shall also, where the teacher is employed in a recognised school, make a direction on whether the teacher shall continue to be paid
pursuant to his or her contract of employment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.
Section 20 of the Bill amends Schedule 3 to the 2001 Act to ensure consistency with the
wording of section 42 and provide for the same definition of “document”.
Section 21 of the Bill provides for section 24(7)(b) of the Education Act 1998, as amended
by section 6 of the Education (Amendment) Act 2012, to be amended to clarify the type of information on the registration status of teachers the Teaching Council is required under section
24 of the 1998 Act to provide for the Minister or an education and training board, including
where a teacher has been removed from the register following a fitness to teach process.
Section 22 of the Bill provides for the repeal of section 41 of the Act, reflecting some restructuring of the fitness to teach provisions to bring them more into line with more recent
statutes.
Section 23 provides for the Short Title, the collective citation of the Teaching Council Acts
and the Education Acts and standard provisions relating to commencement.
During the passage of the Bill I intend to introduce an amendment to provide for fitness to
teach hearings to be held in public as the default position, while providing for exceptions, where
necessary, to protect the rights of individuals. My officials will consult the Teaching Council on
the factors to be considered in such cases. This will ensure the new fitness to teach framework
388
18 February 2015
will mirror best practice in disciplinary hearings for other professional bodies. The changes
being brought forward will make a very significant contribution to safeguarding children in our
schools and to upholding the high standards of teaching that students and society expect and
deserve. I commend the Bill to the House.
Deputy Charlie McConalogue: Broadly, we will support the passage of the Bill and welcome its introduction into the House. Fianna Fáil has been calling on the Minister to address
the inadequate Garda vetting of new and existing teachers in our schools for a long time and we
welcome the mandatory vetting procedures provided for in the legislation. We also call on the
Minister to follow through on the provisions by ensuring Garda vetting for new and existing
teachers is treated as a priority, expedited and properly resourced. The Teaching Council and
Teachers Union of Ireland, TUI, have certain reservations about the fitness to practice elements
of the Bill. Fianna Fáil is committed to addressing these concerns where possible through
amendments and proper debate of the Bill. These concerns were addressed when changes were
made to the fitness to practice hearings of other professions in the last few years.
18/02/2015MM00200
The Bill has two main aims. It underpins the role of the Teaching Council in the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements for registered teachers and it amends the Teaching Council
Act 2001 and Education Act 1998 by strengthening the statutory provisions relating to the
Teaching Council’s fitness to teach function. The Teaching Council is made up of two thirds
teachers and their union representatives. Under this legislation, the council will have the capacity to remove a teacher from its register where it deems the person unfit to teach, including
where this is for child protection reasons. The Council will also be charged with investigating
underperformance or conduct issues on foot of complaints from students, parents and teachers,
among others.
Currently, the Teaching Council’s role is to determine whether an individual is deemed
suitable to be registered as a teacher. The Bill provides that Garda vetting will be a mandatory part of the registration process for future candidates. It also gives the council the power
to retrospectively require the vetting of registered teachers and periodic re-vetting of registered
teachers. In deciding upon the vetting of currently registered teachers, the council will consider
whether or not to vet the teacher if it has received a vetting disclosure under the non-statutory
arrangements and with regard to the time elapsed since any prior Garda vetting. This means
registered teachers who have never been Garda vetted as well as those who have not been vetted
in a long time are prone to being vetted by the council. Figures from the Teaching Council last
October showed that approximately 40% of its 90,000 registered teachers had yet to be Garda
vetted. Statutory vetting arrangements will, in addition to the existing check for criminal offences, also include a check for any relevant soft information. This is referred to as specified
information that leads to a bona fide belief that a person poses a threat to children or vulnerable
persons.
The Bill makes some amendments which intend to strengthen and clarify the fitness to
teach provisions of the Teaching Council Act before their commencement. It sets out a number
of matters about which a complaint may be made and expands the list of parties from which
evidence can be required as part of a fitness to teach inquiry. It clarifies that conduct which
raises child protection concerns and which occurred prior to the enactment of this Bill can be
examined in a fitness to teach inquiry provided the conduct concerned would have constituted
a criminal offence when it occurred. It improves the capacity of the Teaching Council to deal
with complaints which indicate a risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult by empowering
it to seek a vetting disclosure in respect of the teacher concerned as part of a fitness to teach
389
Dáil Éireann
inquiry. The Bill makes it easier to remove teachers from posts with the requirement for a full
finding of unfitness to teach by allowing a new sanction of “advice, admonishment or censure”
of teachers. Fitness hearings are scheduled to take place later this year under the auspices of
the council.
Any person, including the council, can make a complaint to the investigating committee
on the grounds of a teacher’s failure to comply with teaching regulations, or professional misconduct and poor professional conduct including engaging in conduct contrary to the code
of professional conduct. A complaint can also be made if a teacher’s registration is based on
erroneous information or disclosures, if he or she is medically unfit to teach or if he or she is
convicted in the State or outside the State for an offence leading to trial on indictment if it occurred in the State.
Fianna Fáil has been calling for the implementation of mandatory Garda vetting of new
teachers and the retrospective vetting of existing teachers for some time. Therefore, we welcome the fact that the Bill broadens the complaints for professional misconduct which can be
brought to the council for investigation. However, we would like assurances from the Minister
that adequate protections, appeals and redress procedures are put in place to ensure complaints
that are made against teachers cannot be turned into a witch-hunt against certain teachers. It is
the Minister’s intention to seek amendments at a further Stage of the Bill, to include a provision
that hearings of the investigation committee into complaints made against teachers will be held
in public as the default position. The announcement has drawn a negative reaction from teacher
unions and teaching staff. The council has advised the Minister that the decision on whether
hearings should be made in public or in private should be made on a case-by-case basis, rather
than being held in public as the default position. It justified this advice on the basis that Ireland
is a small place and the fact that a teacher is up before a panel will be widely known with the
potential for an impact on their reputation even if no finding is made against them. The TUI
has said it would be extremely unfair if teachers were brought before public hearings, except in
cases of serious misconduct. It seems a more reasonable position that the decision over whether
hearings should be held in public or private should be taken, with a full knowledge of the facts
on the ground, on a case-by-case basis by the council, rather than as a default position.
Some 40% of teaching staff have not been Garda vetted. Delays in the implementation of
the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012 have created a loophole in the system, which is effectively allowing teachers to work in schools without being fully
cleared by the authorities. While the mandatory Garda vetting provided for in this Bill is to be
welcomed as a necessary, basic step to protect students, these measures must be enforced in full
and without exception. It is worrying that the Minister has not set out a timeframe today within
which all teachers are to be vetted. Resources must be allocated to the Garda vetting unit to
reduce the backlog and ensure that all teachers are cleared. It is unacceptable that more than
36,000 teachers have gone unchecked to date. This is a failure of the Government which must
be remedied promptly.
There is a need to highlight the exceptional job that is done by the overwhelming majority
of teachers, and I know the Minister would agree. For example, the chief inspector’s report
2013 endorsed the excellent job being done by Irish teachers, with 87% of parents happy with
teaching standards in Irish schools. Against the odds, teaching standards have been upheld in
the context of recent cutbacks in primary and second-level schools, including the reduction in
teacher numbers and a moratorium on middle management posts. Many of the weaknesses
or slippages in standards that have been identified correspond directly to areas affected by the
390
18 February 2015
education cuts, including access to career guidance services and the leadership capacity of
schools. Unfortunately, the Minister has not done enough to support teachers and management
in schools in their efforts to keep up the quality teaching standards. Even yesterday’s proposed
changes to small school teacher numbers do not go far enough and it is little more than tokenism for the many schools which have already suffered cuts over the past two or three years and
whose teacher numbers will not be restored as a result.
While these changes are a small improvement, nothing less than a full reversal of the damaging measures imposed by the former Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Quinn, is required. While the new policy announced yesterday acknowledges the scale of the cuts to which
small schools have been subjected, it is no more than optics in that it does not reflect the reality
on the ground. Population increases have resulted in an increase in enrolment figures and it is
incumbent on the Minister to ensure schools are equipped to cater for these growing pupil numbers. In her statement yesterday she did not reflect this or make any move to address it. Despite
these new retention thresholds, schools which have increased their student numbers from 52
to 55 will not be entitled to a third teacher, while a school where pupil numbers have dropped
from 56 to 53 will retain a teacher. This is unfair and inequitable and should be reviewed. In
this instance both schools should be entitled to a third teacher. Similarly, a school that has gone
from 82 to 85 pupils this year will not be allocated a fourth teacher whereas a school that has
seen a drop from 86 to 83 students will retain its fourth teacher.
While we welcome the Bill, which has many technical aspects, it needs to be reflected in
real actions which will improve the lot and situation of teachers on the ground and better equip
them to play their role. Oversight is a key part of the responsibilities of the Minister and the
Department. It is crucial that we have appropriate vetting procedures in place and that we move
promptly to a situation where all teachers are vetted. It is also appropriate and necessary that
there is correct oversight of fitness to practise and quality. It is also important to ensure there
are sufficient teachers to provide a quality education service. The Government has made it very
difficult for teachers in the 50% of primary schools that have fewer than five teachers to provide
the service they would like to. That has led to real pinch points and higher class sizes in many
of those schools.
I urge the Minister to go the full way. She has finally acknowledged that the Government’s
policy is putting real pressure on the schools in her small row back yesterday. Nothing less
than a full row back is required to provide for the appropriate number of teachers for schools
with growing numbers of pupils. The Minister knows better than anyone that there is a bulge in
the population moving through schools. The number of schools with increasing pupil numbers
and in need of additional teachers outweigh those losing pupils and which face losing teachers.
The Minister’s move yesterday would help address this situation in the 30 schools due to lose
a teacher next September. That will not in any way affect those who have already lost teachers or those who should have gained teachers if the Minister had not increased the threshold of
students.
I urge the Minister alongside the Bill, considering her announcement yesterday, to go the
full hog. I welcome her announcement that she will publish the value for money report after
the Government has sat on it for over two years. I note that finally the Minister seems to have
concluded she will not go ahead with the recommendations contained therein. That comes after
much damage has been done to the school system by measures the Government has introduced
in the past three years and which she indicated will not be reversed between now and the next
general election. I look forward to a comprehensive debate on that report when it is published
391
Dáil Éireann
next week. I also look forward to the debate on the next Stages of this Bill and its passage
through the House.
Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I apologise to the Minister for missing the beginning of her
contribution, but I will get a copy of her speech. We welcome the opportunity to discuss the Bill
which we will support. There is a major amendment to be tabled on Committee Stage, which
the Minister has outlined, on public hearings being the default position. We have not seen the
wording of the amendment but we support all the other provisions of the Bill and look forward
to the publication of the amendment and to debating its merits. We have some concerns about
it.
18/02/2015NN00200
The Minister and Deputy Charlie McConalogue have outlined the two main purposes of the
Bill, to provide a statutory basis for the teaching council in the vetting of registered teachers and
to act as a conduit for schools that need to obtain those vetting disclosures, and to strengthen
the statutory provisions relating to the Teaching Council’s fitness to teach function. It is a
technical Bill. The research paper provided by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service is
excellent. It goes through each section of the Bill outlining what it proposes in detail and the
consequences for the previous legislation. It is well worth reading for any Member who has an
interest in this. It also outlines issues that might arise from the proposals.
We fully support the vetting of teachers. The latest figures are from November 2014 when
there were over 90,000 teachers registered with the Teaching Council and almost 54,000 of
them have been vetted. Approximately 40% remain unvetted. Many of those are teachers
who had been teaching for many years before the vetting laws and procedures came into place.
There would have been no need for vetting procedures. The provision in the Bill to ensure that
teachers who have not been vetted may now be vetted on an ongoing basis is welcome. We
should strive to achieve a position where everyone who teaches in schools is vetted.
This Bill deals specifically with teachers and will not cover other members of school staff
such as special needs assistants, SNAs. I know from responses to parliamentary questions we
have put down about the number of SNAs who have Garda vetting that the Department does not
hold that information. We should try to rectify this. I know it cannot be done in the confines
of this Bill, but we should have that type of information particularly when dealing with people
who have access to children in classrooms.
Section 15 of the Bill amends section 42 of the principal Act to provide:
“(1) A person (including the Council) may make a complaint to the Investigating Committee in relation to a registered teacher, and the Committee may consider the complaint,
where that complaint concerns any of the following matters . . . “
It lists these matters, one of which is:
(g) that he or she has been convicted in the State of an offence triable on indictment or
convicted outside the State of an offence consisting of acts or omissions that, if done or
made in the State, would constitute an offence triable on indictment.
There are several people with my political ideology and background who were involved in
conflict in the past 30 years. I refer to them as political prisoners. Under this legislation somebody may make a complaint to the investigating committee if that person is a teacher and has
been convicted of a political offence. We need to ensure people who have served their time,
392
18 February 2015
having been involved in political conflict, find themselves open to investigation on the basis of
a complaint by a member of the public. I am not saying they should not be open to investigation
but that people cannot make complaints on the basis of somebody’s past political affiliations
and activities.
On the issue of soft information, Sinn Féin fully supports its use, particularly in respect of
vetting procedures for those who are dealing with children and vulnerable adults. The briefing material provided by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service notes that section 5 of
the Bill deals with the register and the information that will be contained therein. The briefing
note provides a list of all the information to be included such as the name and address of the
correspondence, the date of birth, qualifications and so forth. The last item will be the information disclosed by the most recent vetting disclosure in the council’s possession in respect of
that person. I imagine this item would include any soft information that had been provided as
part of the vetting disclosure. However, on publication of the register, it states the Teaching
Council may withhold some information to ensure and protect the privacy of persons entered
on the register. I ask the Minister to confirm, when she wraps up this debate or perhaps even
on Committee Stage, that such soft information would be the type of information the Teaching
Council could withhold when it publishes the register. I believe it also is important to protect
the privacy of teachers and to ensure that any information that is brought forward but which
does not constitute a criminal offence is not included in the register.
While I have covered most issues, the final point I wish to raise concerns the amendment the
Minister intends to bring forward. There has been much media speculation on whether there
should be public or private hearings. I acknowledge that public hearings are held in Scotland
and Wales and that one reason the Minister has cited is to bring it into line with best practices in
other areas, such as in the Medical Council, for instance, which has public hearings. Reservations have been expressed by some teaching unions with a view to ensuring that due process is
given to teachers who are being investigated and this must be taken on board. I acknowledge,
having touched base with the Sinn Féin Minister for Education in the Six Counties, that they
currently are considering legislation that would make public hearings the default position there
as well. While I am not fundamentally opposed to it, one must be careful that where it is being
used - if it is being used - it should be in exceptional circumstances. I understand the Teaching Council has proposed the establishment of a sub-committee to examine which cases could
or should be made public. I do not know whether this will be incorporated into the Minister’s
amendment, which is why I stated at the outset that while Sinn Féin broadly supports the Bill,
it must await publication of this amendment to ascertain whether there will be public hearings
on a wide scale or whether it will be done on a case-by-case basis. I would prefer the latter because it is important that due process be given to teachers. While it may be something of a cliché, this is a small State and if it enters the public domain that a teacher has been investigated,
even if such a teacher is vindicated, he or she unfortunately sometimes still will be victimised
because he or she was under investigation in the first place. This may be the case even though
the allegations have been found to have been unfounded and the teacher has been deemed fit
and proper to teach. A balancing act must be performed in that regard and I look forward to the
publication of the aforementioned amendment.
I reiterate that Sinn Féin broadly will be supporting the legislation and looks forward to it
being debated on Committee Stage, where Members can delve into each individual section in
greater detail. Sinn Féin may table one or two amendments, particularly in respect of the issue
to which I referred in section 15 regarding ex-political prisoners. While what is proposed in
393
Dáil Éireann
theory is good, the purpose will be to ensure that in practice, it does not discriminate against
some members of the teaching profession.
An Ceann Comhairle: I understand Deputy Finian McGrath is sharing time with Deputies
Maureen O’Sullivan, Ruth Coppinger and Michael Fitzmaurice.
18/02/2015OO00200
Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to
speak about the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015. I welcome both the Bill and this
particular debate, as it is an opportunity to plan ahead, reform the education system and ensure
that Ireland has educational standards of top quality and, through this Bill, top-class professional quality teachers. One should never forget this point in respect of the broader issue of
education. There are many high quality and top-class professional teachers in the Irish National
Teachers Organisation, the Teachers Union of Ireland and the Association of Secondary Teachers Ireland. They are valuable people to the State and, in particular, they also are a valuable
asset to broader society. Many make huge contributions in education, as well as in the arts,
sports and broader community matters. It is important to acknowledge this point, particularly
in respect of this Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill. One must also focus on quality standards and the true professionalism of teachers. I will use this opportunity to commend many
of those teachers, particularly those class teachers who work in disadvantaged schools. Many
of them face huge problems in respect of education and social and economic disadvantage yet
are doing a magnificent job, many times against the odds. It is up to all Members of the House,
not simply the Government, to support these teachers because they can make an impact on the
development of children, particularly from the age of four to the age of 13 when they leave the
primary cycle. This also is a matter on which Members must focus. In addition, they should not
be afraid to look at the faults and weaknesses of some of the practices that go on in the schools
and the educational service. It also is important to commend and thank the many principals
who work in such disadvantaged schools because on top of being principals and prime educators, they also operate as social workers and work in many other administrative areas. Their job
is extremely difficult, particularly in modern society, and many pressures are placed on them by
both the Department and wider society. They are and wish to be accountable to people but one
must also ensure they are supported. I raise these two issues in respect of the aforementioned
Bill and will develop the link further later.
18/02/2015OO00300
I also commend and thank all those teachers who work with children with special needs
in both primary and second level education. That is why I was particularly disappointed a
few days ago when I learned that the Minister’s plans to reform the allocation of resources for
special educational needs had been shelved for this year, despite concerns about the unfairness
associated with the current system. In recent days, the Minister has stated she did not plan to
change the system next September as originally had been proposed. Many people were looking
forward to the implementation of those changes for the new children coming into the system
next September. I believe the reason given was that the National Council for Special Education advised that sufficient time should be allowed for further consultation with the educational
stakeholders. While I am disappointed by this, I also suggest that if further involvement with
stakeholders is envisaged, the Minister should include parents, as well as parents of children
with special needs, who are feeling very excluded. I do not wish to see more families going
down to the law courts to secure their rights, services and resources.
The position at present is that the Minister’s own Department has specifically pointed out
that children in wealthier areas get more special education teaching resources than do children
in disadvantaged areas. The Department of Education and Skills itself drew up a report that
394
18 February 2015
found that children in more affluent parts of the city were receiving more special education
teaching resource hours than were children in poor disadvantaged areas. The reason for this
discrepancy in provision in respect of middle income or middle-class schools is that psychological assessments were paid for privately by parents and then those assessments were fed into
the public education system. These assessments are used to determine the resource hours and
staffing allocated to a school. My point is that parents who can afford between €400 and €600
to have an education assessment carried out in private are at a major advantage over those parents who cannot. In the case of any Government, country or society, all children should have
equal access to educational resources irrespective of their parents’ wealth.
The Bill caters for two main overarching aims, namely, to underpin the central role of the
Teaching Council in the statutory Garda vetting arrangements for teachers, as set out in the
National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Act 2012, as well as to amend and
strengthen the statutory provisions of the Teaching Council Act 2001 relating to the Teaching
Council’s fitness to teach function. It is important that teachers are vetted under the forthcoming statutory vetting arrangements which will include a check for criminal offences, as well as
any relevant soft information, an important new element of the vetting procedures. I support
these sensible provisions. Historically, people with major dysfunctional issues with children
emerged in the education system and were an abuse threat to children. We must be focused in
ensuring children in primary schools are protected from abuse. It is also important to ensure
those teachers working with children with special needs are strongly vetted, as such children
might not have the ability to report sexual or other types of abuse. When the Bill is enacted,
there will be a clear statutory basis for the Teaching Council to require such teachers to undergo
vetting and to deal with any adverse vetting information that might be received. Removing a
teacher from the Teaching Council register is the best way of achieving child protection across
all recognised schools. I welcome this aspect of the legislation. As well as underpinning the
role of the Teaching Council, the Bill also provides the statutory basis for retrospective or periodic revetting of all registered teachers during the renewal of a registration. It also sets out
several grounds on which a complaint may be made such as professional misconduct, poor
professional performance and medical unfitness.
The majority of teachers are highly committed. It is important to encourage young people
to enter teaching because it is a wonderful career. Speaking from experience, I know that there
are many quality teachers who develop, evolve and nurture children in their schooling, creating
great citizens for the future. The Minister must listen to the teachers on the front line if they
have a quibble or an issue; it is not about just attending the Easter conferences. I welcome the
positive aspects of the legislation.
Deputy Maureen O’Sullivan: I had some exchanges with the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, on the issue of the Teaching Council. With many of my teaching colleagues,
I have been very critical of the idea of a Teaching Council, particularly the way in which it was
set up. The first engagement we had with the Teaching Council in June 2009 was when we
receiving letters threatening us that if we did not join, we would not be paid our salary for teaching. This was long before the council had any legal right to do this. The bullying approach in
the early days certainly did not get it off to a good start with teachers.
18/02/2015PP00200
There were other issues of concern which certainly had teachers very sceptical. They were
issues on which the Teaching Council showed itself as being far from efficient. A point I
brought up with the Minister’s predecessor, Deputy Ruairí Quinn, concerned the loan of €6
million the council had received to set itself up in the first place and if it would be repaid, as it
395
Dáil Éireann
had a healthy income from the yearly subscriptions teachers had to pay to it.
As a profession, teachers are very much maligned by various sections of society which
only see the long holidays and shorter hours. Teachers are now even more maligned because
of the stance they took on the junior certificate reforms. That comes from their loyalty to their
students, what they think is best for them and their belief that the current fair, transparent and
open correction of junior certificate examination papers is good for their students. Very often
we do not hear about the commitment, dedication and sheer hard work of teachers at both
primary and second level inside and outside the classroom. My experience in my own school
and of the many teachers I know is of the time and energy given inside and outside the school
in extracurricular activities such as sports, drama, concerts, debating, competitions such as the
Young Scientist, the many field trips taken and history tours. Many of us found the clause in the
Croke Park agreement on additional hours per week quite offensive, especially for those who
were doing it on a voluntary basis.
I acknowledge teachers’ flexibility and adaptability in embracing the many changes and new
initiatives introduced during the years. There is still a demand for careers in teaching, as seen in
the numbers of applications to the Central Applications Office every year. There is also a high
level of career satisfaction among teachers, unlike in other countries which are having difficulties in maintaining the status of the profession. This is notwithstanding the much lower salary
on which incoming teachers start as opposed to in other times.
There was a major battle with the Teaching Council over the original registration fee of €90.
It had to be paid, regardless of whether one was a full-time or a part-time teacher or even just
going for an interview. This figure has come down to €65.
I have also been critical of the Teaching Council’s inability to collate accurate information
on teachers, its lack of accessibility to teachers and the way it interacts with teachers at times.
There have been negative engagements between the council and teachers. A particular case I
am pursuing involves a teacher taken off the register by the council which claims it had made
efforts to contact him in this regard. However, he can prove otherwise, apart from one occasion. The first he knew he had been taken off the register was when he discovered he had been
deprived of eight days’ salary. The council originally claimed that it had made efforts to contact
him by e-mail and text message, but it now acknowledges it had the wrong telephone number.
Surely, with a major staff complement, it could have made a personal telephone call to identify
why there was a problem with his registration. There could have been any reason such as an
illness or a bereavement.
I am also sceptical about the Bill’s proposal that the Teaching Council be able to determine
fitness to teach. Notwithstanding the work of the current director whom I have met and whose
hard work and dynamism I recognise, the council still has to prove to teachers that the sum of
€65 is worth paying. I have been struck by some quotes from teachers about the council - “useless regulatory body”, “jobs for the boys and jobs for the unions”, “absolutely no impact on the
teaching profession” and “expensive, pointless, self-serving bureaucracy”.
There are 37 people on the Teaching Council, of whom 22 are registered teachers, six from
the unions and 16 are elected. In the 2012 council elections, in one area 7,497 ballot papers
were issued but only 613 returned. In another over 10,000 papers were issued but only 800
returned, while in another 9,939 papers were issued but only 751 returned. This shows that the
council has an awful lot more work to do to prove its worth and the benefits to teachers and
396
18 February 2015
before teachers will take it seriously. The majority are not taking it seriously.
I acknowledge the Bill’s intentions. Everyone wants to protect students and ensure they
have the best teachers with no issues regarding teachers’ standards, personalities or work. I was
struck, however, by the Bill’s vagueness in certain provisions that were almost like the Salem
witch trials. For example, the council shall not register a person who applies for registration
unless it has sought and received a vetting disclosure. It also states, “the Council shall refuse to
register a person where it is not satisfied that he or she is a fit and proper person to be admitted”
and “any other requirements to be met for renewal of registration which may include requirements relating to completion of programmes of continuing education and training”. Teachers
are consistently and continually involved in training programmes, many at their own expense
and in their own time. I do not believe this is acknowledged in the Bill.
In spite of all my reservations about the entity that is the Teaching Council, I do hope what
is being proposed in the legislation is in the best interests of students and their teachers.
5 o’clock
I do not think the Bill is going to add to a person being a good teacher. There are also questions around whether there are enough resources for Garda vetting to be carried out.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger: As a former secondary teacher, I, too, share a huge amount of the
reservations about the Teaching Council. It was set up in 2001 as a professional standards body
for teaching and to promote and regulate the profession. What has it actually done to defend
teachers? What has it actually done to take on some of the key questions facing teachers? I
argue it has done very little.
18/02/2015QQ00200
The view of teachers on the ground, as the previous speaker said, is that it is a quango.
Teachers do not understand why they had to pay €90 up until last year to click a button on a
computer to renew their teaching certificates. Certainly, the first time a teacher registers, anyone can understand that she or he must pay a fee for the processing and checking of all of the
requirements, but to pay €90 to the Teaching Council every year was completely wrong. Suddenly, after many complaints, the council was able to reduce the fee to €60 last year, so why
were they not able to do that in previous years?
The biggest crisis in teaching right now - I ask if the Minister agrees - is not poorly performing teachers. It is that one in four secondary teachers in this country does not have a
permanent job or full teaching hours, and half of them have to work in Lidl and McDonald’s
at the weekend. This has been told to the Minister and the Teaching Council for several years.
Compare the figures for Ireland where, in second level schools, only 73% of teachers have a
permanent position, with those for Norway, where it is 90%. For under-30s it is much worse, as
52% have a contract of a year or less, which is more than half of secondary teachers under 30.
When Deputy Ruairí Quinn was Minister, it was reported in the Irish Examiner at the teachers’
conferences, that a number of teachers were going to Lidl, filling stations and McDonald’s to
supplement their incomes to survive. What is being done about this? Certainly nothing by the
Teaching Council. There is not a mention of it to be seen on its website. Now here it is, seemingly more concerned with sacking teachers than actually defending teaching.
The Bill is not known about. I rang a number of teachers today and checked the union
websites. There is no discussion or mention of it. People do not know about it. I would like
to deal with some of the issues that it raises. Fitness to practice hearings are to be made public
397
Dáil Éireann
and there is to be an expansion of the grounds for a teacher to be hauled in front of one of these
investigating committees. Will the Minister justify and explain why something like that has to
be done in public? Is it to feed the tabloid media and an anti-teacher sentiment that is clearly
evident? Is it to distract attention from the serious cuts that have taken place in education and
the pressures teachers are under? I think it is.
Why is it beneficial that somebody who is medically unfit to teach would be hauled up in
front of a public investigation? I do not think something like that is beneficial to somebody in
that position. If somebody is clearly medically unfit to teach, that can be dealt with by a body. I
do not think the media have to be there outside to cover it. In the United Kingdom, for example,
there was a doctor suffering from depression and it was deemed he would be a suicide risk if he
was called in front of one of these public hearings. He asked voluntarily to withdraw his own
name from the medical register, and the medical council refused. They said, “no, we must carry
things out in public.” Why is that beneficial? Are there any public hearings of bankers? For
most employees in this country, there are internal investigative procedures, for example in the
banking sector, the insurance sector and so on. It only seems really to apply to doctors, nurses
and now teachers, who are already under a lot of stress and strain.
This has nothing to do with child welfare. Nobody is saying anyone who is a danger to children should be teaching or should not be in front of an investigative committee. I ask, though,
how effective is vetting? Is it likely that we are going to find a whole load of paedophiles or
people who are a danger to children through the vetting procedures we currently have? No, it is
not. It is not a key problem in teaching. There is no evidence that it is a major problem.
What this seems to be about is making public show trials of teachers. The tabloid media
and many in the Government would like to convince the public that there is a serious crisis of
under-performing teachers, but in fact, looking at the literacy and numeracy qualifications that
have been attained in recent years despite the gutting of education and all of the cuts, the loss
of SNAs, teachers, resource teaching and English back-up teachers the standards have actually
increased. That is because teachers have taken on board a whole lot of evidence from other
countries. There has been a lot more team teaching and more focus on key things that I saw
when I was teaching in a disadvantaged, DEIS area. Huge strides were made and there was
constant updating of teaching methods.
There are enough things, including drive-by inspections in force. What other profession has
drive-by inspections? At any moment, an inspector can come in. The teacher might be having a
bad day, might have a cold, might be dealing with discipline issues in the school etc. An inspector comes in on top of that. Now the Minister wants to have show trials and public hearings and
the grounds for this, I challenge, have nothing to do with child welfare. The grounds which the
Minister is adding with this legislation are poor professional performance, which is not a child
welfare issue, and conduct contrary to the code of professional conduct. Obviously, the issue
is not if someone has a conviction in the State or has committed an indictable offence as that
person is going to be disciplined and may lose his or her job.
This seems to feeding into an anti-teacher sentiment which the Government wishes to increase right now, as it is taking on the ASTI and the TUI, which through major strikes are
defending their right not to give State accreditation to their own students. It seems to be quite
convenient that the Minister is bringing this legislation forward at this time. What is she doing
about the more than one in four secondary teachers who have to work in other jobs to try to keep
a roof over their heads? She is doing absolutely nothing. She is not increasing their wages. As
398
18 February 2015
for the newly qualified teachers, NQTs, I would love to see what the Teaching Council has done
to keep casualisation out of teaching and to defend the profession. I am very disappointed and
hope the unions involved with the Teaching Council rear up about this.
Acting Chairman (Deputy Catherine Byrne): The next speaker is Deputy Michael
Fitzmaurice who is not in the Chamber. I will go to the next speaker on the list. The Government grouping is: Deputies Fergus O’Dowd, Mary Mitchell O’Connor, Jim Daly and John Paul
Phelan. As Deputy Fergus O’Dowd is not present, I call Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor.
18/02/2015QQ00300
18/02/2015QQ00400
Deputy John Paul Phelan: We will split the time between us.
Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor: I congratulate and say, “Well done,” to the Minister on
lowering pupil-teacher ratios for small schools, which is a great initiative. We know that there
is wonderful work being done in smaller schools and I am glad that the Minister has responded
on that issue.
18/02/2015QQ00500
The Teaching Council director Tomás Ó Ruairc said the council was responsible for the
story book of teaching. It is responsible for setting up the framework for the profession. They
do not do the doing: the teachers do the teaching and therefore it is up to teachers to fill out the
details of the book in each of the chapters.
The Teaching Council was established in March 2006 to promote teaching as a profession
at primary and post-primary levels, to promote the professional development of teachers and
to regulate standards in our profession. Its major achievements to date include setting up the
register, the ongoing review of teacher training programmes and piloting “droichead”, a new
model for formal induction of new teachers conducted by more experienced colleagues. Last
October, the council also launched its consultation on continuing professional development,
CPD. Draft guidelines are due to be published in March 2016 with the aim of supporting and
developing an embedded culture of research in the profession. I commend the Teaching Council for its work and welcome the changes the Bill will bring.
Good teachers must have excellent communication skills, a great classroom presence, a love
for children and a love for teaching and learning. Learning is not just a passive activity on the
part of children but it is about engaging children, motivating children and awakening in children a love of learning. I know from my experience as the principal of a primary school that a
mediocre teacher just tells, a good teacher explains, a superior teacher demonstrates and a really
great teacher inspires. W. B. Yeats, speaking in the Seanad, said that education was not the filling of a pail but the lighting of a fire. Children must learn how to think and not what to think.
In the past, talk and chalk was an acceptable form of teaching - children in their seats, silence prevailing. I quote the poem, “The Village Schoolmaster”:
And still they gaz’d and still the wonder grew,
That one small head could carry all he knew.
That was the school principal, or the school headmaster.
Teacher learning is vitally important and continuous career development is a prerequisite for
the inspiring teacher. We must ensure the right people qualify and, ultimately, have a long and
fulfilling career in the education sector and that students receive a quality education. Teachers must be learned, creative, motivators and counsellors and the Bill helps to ensure the right
399
Dáil Éireann
teacher qualifies, remains qualified and is passionate about his or her job.
This Bill sets out a number of ways in which a complaint can be made about professional
misconduct, poor professional performance or medical unfitness. Weak teachers need to be
weeded out, just as in every other profession. It is of the utmost importance that our children
are taught in a safe, professional and nurturing environment.
To quote Tomás Ó Ruairc, “The greatest critic of an underperforming teacher is the teacher
next door, because they’re the one picking up the pieces.” This has been my experience as a
principal. Teaching is a very demanding job and children deserve the very best. Children get
one chance of a quality education and the performance of the adult in that pupil-teacher relationship is so important. It is important the children before that teacher receive the very best
education and that the child reaches his or her potential, whatever that might be.
This Bill also introduces the statutory vetting of registered teachers, which I welcome. Previously, a teacher had to be vetted every time he or she moved school, which was daft and created chaos in the vetting system for the Garda and boards of management employing teachers.
The Bill takes welcomes steps and I look forward to seeing them being enacted.
Deputy Jim Daly: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Bill. I
will take up some of the points made by the previous contributor, Deputy Mary Mary Mitchell
O’Connor. It is important to highlight the importance of teaching and learning. There is a huge
relationship between the two. All of us will our children to learn to the very best of their ability. However, there are good teachers and underperforming teachers. Make no mistake about
it - learning will be affected by the quality of the teaching.
18/02/2015RR00200
I was a teacher for a number of years. I have been a full-time politician for ten years so I am
longer in politics than I was teaching. Before that, I was a publican. The greatest satisfaction I
got from being a publican was that there is a way to measure one’s input and output and getting
a return on it. One can check the till in one’s pub to see how one has done. If one puts on music,
one might do a little better. The same applies to politics in that I can work that bit harder to get
those few extra votes. Every five years, or sometimes more often, one gets the opportunity to
put oneself to the test.
In teaching, there is a very monotone existence. I found it very frustrating - perhaps it is
my genetic make-up - because it was very hard to quantify one’s efforts. If I worked very hard
one year but did nothing the following one, the cheque - it is not about money - was exactly the
same as were the rewards on every level. I found that quenched the desire in me to perform as
best I could. I am a very competitive person by nature - I am sure some of my colleagues might
attest to this - but in teaching, it is difficult to give it one’s all because it is very hard to measure
the inputs and the outputs and, by extension, measuring how much satisfaction one gets from
the job is always difficult.
There is a reality which must be faced. This Bill goes some way towards doing that, although it does not go as far as I would like. However, it begins an interesting debate on the
whole area of education and teacher dismissal. In any walk of life, there must be an active dismissal process. However, it is not only about dismissal; it is equally important there is a reward
structure. In my experience as a primary school teacher, regrettably, neither are in existence. It
might be slightly different at other levels but certainly at primary school level, it is very unusual
to see anybody being dismissed or being rewarded for the extra input they put in. We are all
400
18 February 2015
human so over time, the natural reaction is to ask oneself is why should I bother because the
person alongside me is not making an effort? We all start to down-skill a little. I am not saying
that is universal, but it would certainly be human nature.
The current disciplinary procedure is abysmal. One relies on the boards of management,
and they have long been a hobbyhorse of mine. Boards of management do not have the wherewithal to deal with disciplinary issues. It is a very difficult area and it is beset with challenges if
one wishes to challenge a teacher and, ultimately, if one was to try to dismiss the teacher. The
figures back up what I am saying because they are dismal. It is a very complex area. We must
embrace that sort of change and acknowledge the failings in the system. Again, I stress the need
for the ability to dismiss teachers but also to reward good teachers, who are a wonderful feature
of our education system and who we need to encourage.
I make no bones about it but there is a very hesitant attitude towards reform of any kind
in education. It is very difficult to get people to change. Recently, I spoke at the launch of a
Teagasc advisory course. I was reared on a farm in Drinagh in west Cork and farming today is
utterly unrecognisable from the farming I remember as a young fellow. However, when I quiz
my young children in the evening about what they did at school that day, what they tell me is
recognisable from the time I was at school 30 years ago. There is a reluctance to engage and
we see it across the board, whether in terms of junior certificate reform or the National Council
for Special Education proposals for a new model of allocating resources for special needs education. Straightaway, a minority of people, with vested interests and a little mix of an agenda
and ignorance, start to stir the pot and put it out that it is a cut or a reduction. I regret that is the
case but as long as it is and as long we do not face up to it, unfortunately, the education system
we have will be the poorer for it.
Deputy John Paul Phelan: I join Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor in welcoming yesterday’s announcement by the Minister in regard to smaller schools and changes to the pupilteacher ratio for smaller schools which hope to keep teachers on staff. It is a welcome announcement which I want to acknowledge.
18/02/2015RR00300
I welcome most of the provisions in the Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill and the underpinning of the statutory vetting arrangements, the subject of a large part of the Bill. I was
undertaking some research about the Teaching Council before I came into the Chamber and was
surprised to learn that there were still so many people involved in teaching who had not yet been
fully vetted, despite, in some cases, having taught for many years.
As previous speakers said, the role of teachers in society is very important. I would not say
I have a vested interest, but I was briefly an unqualified maths teacher, for the most horrific six
months of my life, and I hope I will not have to return to it anytime soon. It did, however, give
me an insight into the challenges facing teachers in their day-to-day work. Previous speakers
mentioned the invaluable contribution teachers made to the lives of young people. Outside the
immediate family, they have the capacity and are in a position to influence young people more
than any other category of individuals. We can all remember from our own school days teachers who had a positive and lasting impression on our lives. I was thinking that when I entered
third level education, I mostly studied economics, having only taken up the subject in fifth year
purely down to the fact that I had had an inspirational teacher who, although a socialist and
holding a slightly different political outlook, had had an impact on me and my interest in that
subject. The sad reality is that for many young people today, in certain family situations, teachers have an even bigger role to play in providing stability in their lives. That is why teaching
401
Dáil Éireann
is such an important profession.
It is welcome that the Bill sets out a number of grounds on which complaints may be made
such as poor professional performance, an issue mentioned by previous speakers. Most of those
involved in the teaching profession, as in most other professions, are eminently suited to the job
but some are not. The Bill, with its fitness to teach provisions, is a step in the right direction.
I understand that, like any such organisation, the Teaching Council costs money, but the
most common issue about the council on which I interface with teachers concerns the level
of fees charged. Teachers who qualified outside the State, in particular, can face fees of up to
€200, with perhaps an additional fee of €100 for each post-primary subject taught. They could,
therefore, face fees of €400 or €500, as well as an annual charge. That is a significant amount
of money, particularly for newly qualified teachers and especially for those who had to obtain
their qualifications outside the jurisdiction, thereby incurring associated costs. Such fees are,
effectively, a barrier to entry in some instances. One can make the argument that those who
work full time as teachers can earn a living from it and that such fees, in the overall scheme
of things, are not significant. However, for newly qualified teachers, particularly those who
qualified outside the jurisdiction, who may be trying to pay off educational loans, it can be an
unwelcome extra burden.
I also raise the issue of the change from the one-year H.Dip. course to a two-year masters
qualification. It has merit, but it must be noted that this is another significant extra cost for those
who wish to qualify as teachers. In one sense, it could be looked on as a further barrier to entry
into the teaching profession.
I welcome the principal provisions of the Bill. I welcome the fitness to teach provisions and
the increased capacity of the Teaching Council to vet, such that Garda vetting can become an
integral part of the teacher registration process and that all teachers will be fully vetted in the
performance of their functions.
Deputy Michael Moynihan: I thank the Acting Chairman for giving me the opportunity so
late to contribute to the debate. I had to attend a number of other meetings today and was not
sure whether I would get an opportunity to contribute to this debate.
18/02/2015SS00200
The legislation is both fundamental and very important, but there are a number of issues
about which I want to raise genuine concerns, including the holding of fitness to practise hearings in public. We must be very careful in this regard. I know many people involved in the
teaching profession which has served the country very well. If one looks at any assessment
made from the 1950s onwards, there have been issues, but there is no point in throwing the baby
out with the bath water. We must be very careful in having public floggings. While there are
grievances which must be dealt with appropriately, we should be mindful that not every complaint is authentic or one that must be discussed in public. In other professions in which such
hearings are held in public, when an allegation is made, it sticks, regardless of whether people
are found innocent or guilty. We, therefore, need to proceed with caution because teachers
across the country are very concerned about the way things are going.
Junior certificate reform is a major issue which must be dealt with in a serious way. We
must be mindful of the vast economic well-being to which the education system has led in the
last while.
I raise the issue of further education. I am aware of the great services being provided, par402
18 February 2015
ticularly in Mallow, which serve much of my constituency. They provide a second chance for
persons who had to leave education because of family circumstances, finances or whatever else
and who benefit enormously from them. The thinking is that this function should be offloaded
from the Department of Education and Skills, the old vocational education committees and the
education boards and given to SOLAS. It is vitally important that we maintain educational
links in the reforms proposed. There are many colleges that are doing massive work in communities in encouraging people back to take courses. I am aware of people who have been
greatly empowered in taking these courses, particularly women from a difficult socioeconomic
background. That is one of the great strengths in terms of the money spent on courses across the
spectrum. We must be very careful that we do not end up in a situation where, for the sake of
reform or streamlining, the educational element will be removed. We must, therefore, proceed
with caution.
Like previous speakers, I welcome the common-sense approach adopted by the Minister
yesterday to the issue of small rural schools. It was a disgrace that the initial idea made it
through the Cabinet in the first instance. It was a deplorable proposal which showed a degree of
blindness and was clearly driven by a Dublin-centred agenda. The Minister has taken the correct decision, which will be good for rural communities, but more action is needed in this area.
To return to my main point, for far too long a tiny percentage of teachers have not been
pulling their weight. However, teachers have described the proposal to deal with teachers about
whom issues are raised as akin to a public flogging. The Minister must be very careful in this
regard. The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, referred to
paralysis in the Civil Service and the tendency among civil servants to take the safe option.
This will become an issue in the teaching profession. Previous speakers referred to innovative
teachers. I had many teachers who pushed the boundaries in what pupils could achieve. It is vital that we empower such teachers and avoid a scenario where they will have to look over their
shoulders as they wonder whether they will be hauled before the Teaching Council for failing
to dot an “i” or cross a “t”. I ask the Minister to reconsider her proposal in this regard because
I have serious concerns about it.
I also have an issue with reform for reform’s sake in the adult education sector. It is vital
that the educational aspect of the sector be maintained and not be lumped in with training.
Adult education should continue to be the responsibility of the education and training boards. I
ask the Minister to address this issue.
It is wrong that the Minister has established a system for carrying out what one could describe as public floggings. It is difficult enough to attract people to the teaching profession
and teachers view her proposal with scepticism. Many fine teachers in primary and secondary
schools show great commitment to education. Last night pre-school teachers protested outside
the gates. They also do great work in educating the next generation and empowering young
people to develop their talents and use them to serve society. We do not need another sector of
society looking over its shoulder. We have become too politically correct in establishing systems to ensure every “i” is dotted and every “t” crossed. This approach lends itself to paralysis
in the system. We need to have people who are willing to be innovative in their sphere.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak about the Bill.
Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): I thank all of the Deputies
who contributed to the debate, in particular, the Opposition spokespersons for their support for
18/02/2015TT00200
403
Dáil Éireann
the legislation. Deputy Jonathan O’Brien thanked the Oireachtas Library and Research Service
for the very good summary of the Bill it had provided. I, too, thank the service for its work on
the Bill. We do not always acknowledge its work in assisting our discussions on legislation.
I agree with speakers on all sides who pointed out that the vast majority of teachers did
a very good job. For a long time, however, there has been a general view inside and outside
the teaching profession that a process that enjoys public confidence should be in place to deal
with cases in which questions arise about whether a teacher is providing an adequate education
for young people. For this reason I introduced a section on fitness to teach. Deputy Jim Daly
summed up the issue well when he pointed out that children only got one chance at education.
While Deputy Michael Moynihan noted that some adults returned to education, it is extremely
important that children have the best possible teachers. Deputy John Paul Phelan also referred
to the influence of very good teachers.
No one questions the need to have a system in place to allow for the removal of teachers
who are not performing. The holding in public of fitness to teach hearings will be the default
position. This issue generated considerable discussion, although it is not addressed in the Bill,
as published. I will table an amendment to provide for public hearings. This will give Deputies
an opportunity to tease out the issue on Committee Stage. As Deputy Jonathan O’Brien noted,
such hearings are held in public in other jurisdictions, including Scotland and Wales, and in
other professions. Public hearings are held, by and large, to ensure there is public confidence in
the hearings system. This will be the default position, which means that the Teaching Council
may decide that it would not be appropriate for a hearing to be held in public for reasons of confidentiality or to protect a person’s reputation. I intend to table an amendment to provide that
public hearings will be the default position. I will do so because public hearings will instil public confidence in the system and protect professionals in giving people access to information.
As I stated in my previous contribution, a threshold must be reached before an investigation
committee refers a case to the next stage in the process. The committee must be of the opinion
that there is a prima facie case to warrant further action. This will ensure only cases that merit
a disciplinary inquiry and hearing will be progressed to that stage. The committee will establish whether a complaint is frivolous or justifies a hearing and if it considers that a complaint is
without substance, it may decide not to refer it for a disciplinary inquiry or hearing. This will
provide protection in cases in which a hearing is not appropriate. We will tease out on Committee Stage the concerns expressed about public hearings.
Concerns were expressed about the number of vetting applications that had been completed.
To clarify the issue, the number of teachers on the register is steadily increasing. Approximately 54,000 of 90,000 teachers are on the register, which amounts to almost 60%, rather than
40%, of the total. The Bill has been designed to place the vetting process on a statutory footing
and will result in teachers being vetted. As Deputy Mary Mitchell O’Connor stated, one of the
advantages of the process is that a teacher will not have to be vetted every time he or she moves
school because the Teaching Council will hold the vetting documentation. This is a positive
development.
Deputy Ruth Coppinger who is no longer present referred to security of tenure for teachers.
I received a report from an expert group led by Mr. Peter Ward, SC, which specifically examined the issue of improving tenure for teachers and giving them tenure at an earlier stage than
was the case. The report also addressed the need for teachers to have certainty that they would
have a minimum number of teaching hours. I received Mr. Ward’s report a couple of months
404
18 February 2015
ago and I am working on the implementation of its recommendations. It specifically addresses
the issue raised by the Deputy.
Deputy Jonathan O’Brien referred to cases involving teachers who had been convicted of
offences, etc. It is only where the complaints relate to fitness to teach that they will be considered under this legislation. In other words, unless there is a fitness to teach issue in terms of
their conviction, it will not be relevant to the Bill.
The Deputy also raised the issue of the vetting of SNAs but the vetting of people other than
teachers is covered by the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Bill 2012
and will not be dealt with under this legislation. However, it is intended that this issue will be
addressed.
I have covered the issues that were raised relating to the Bill. I acknowledge Members have
raised other education issues, as always happens whenever an education Bill is taken, but I will
only respond to the issues relating to this Bill.
We will tease out on Committee Stage the issue around public hearings. The Bill will make
a significant contribution to safeguarding children in schools and upholding the high standards
of teaching that students and society expect and deserve. I thank all the Deputies who contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
18/02/2015UU00300
18/02/2015UU00400
Teaching Council (Amendment) Bill 2015: Referral to Select Committee
Minister for Education and Skills (Deputy Jan O’Sullivan): I move:
That the Bill be referred to the Select sub-Committee on Education and Skills pursuant
to Standing Order 82A(3)(a) and (6)(a) and 126(1) of the Standing Orders relative to Public
Business.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.45 p.m. and resumed at 7.30 p.m.
18/02/2015VV00100
Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015: Second Stage (Resumed) [Private Members]
Question again proposed: “That the Bill be now read a Second Time.”
Deputy Seamus Healy: I am sharing my time with Deputies Pringle, Halligan and Finian
McGrath.
18/02/2015VV00300
I wish to acknowledge the commitment and determination of Jake’s mam, Roseann Brennan, her husband, the wider family and the campaign team they have led. When they lost little
Jake in June last year, they set about ensuring that no other family would find itself in such
405
Dáil Éireann
tragic circumstances in the future. The loss of Jake has been a catalyst for a campaign for safety
measures to protect young children, the elderly and the infirm. The campaign is set against the
background of increased road deaths in 2013 and 2014. This issue is above politics. There is
no doubt that the introduction of a 20 km speed limit in housing estates will save lives and this
is what the Bill calls for. It does not call for a pilot or discretionary scheme, whether at the
discretion of the Government or local authorities, but calls for a mandatory 20 km speed limit
in housing estates. We must not play politics with this life and death issue. It would be disingenuous and dishonest to do so and would be cruel on the Brennan family.
When the Minister addressed the Dáil on this issue last night, he gave the distinct impression that he and the Government support the Bill and that it will be processed through the Dáil.
I ask him to be specific in that regard in his response tonight and to clarify the situation for us.
I ask for a “Yes” or “No” answer in response to my questions. Does the Government support
the introduction of a mandatory 20 km speed limit in housing estates? Will it ensure the quick
passage of the Bill through the Oireachtas and will it enforce a mandatory 20 km speed limit in
these estates? I urge the Minister to address these questions specifically in his response tonight.
I support the Bill.
Deputy Thomas Pringle: I fully support the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015. I pay
tribute to Roseann Brennan and her family on the campaign they have led in regard to getting
this legislation before the House and to getting the Government to accept it. Nobody can compensate Roseann Brennan for the tragic loss of her son Jake last year, but if his death can have
some meaning, it would be through the passage of this legislation through the House. Perhaps
other families would be saved the heartache and the loss the Brennan family has suffered. That
is the tenet of the Bill and the hope behind getting the Bill passed.
18/02/2015VV00400
I know the implementation of lower speed limits may not in itself change attitudes and behaviour, but it is a way to send out a signal from this House and from society as a whole that
we need a change in culture and driver behaviour. This change is the most important aspect of
the Bill. If we decide a 20 km speed limit is mandatory within housing estates and that this is
how we expect people to drive, we can lead the cultural change. We have seen the success of
previous culture changes, for example in the drink driving and seat belt campaigns. It is now
almost socially unacceptable even to consider drinking and driving. We need to achieve a similar culture change with this legislation.
I note the Minister said last night that he had prepared the heads of a road traffic Bill which
includes provision for a 20 km speed limit. This limit needs to be mandatory. It should be possible to find a way within the legislation to ensure this provision will target housing estates and
residential areas. I know there are issues in regard to residential areas that have a through road
through them. In my experience, housing estates do not have road numbers or a designation in
terms of the road Acts. Therefore, it should be possible to provide for a mandatory speed limit
that applies to unnumbered roads and this would achieve the objective of this Bill. I urge the
Minister to ensure this Bill goes through Committee Stage. He should not wait for his Bill to
be published but should move this Bill forward and have it enacted so we can deliver for Jake’s
family.
Deputy John Halligan: Having read through the Bill and having heard the family and read
all they have said, the Bill seems reasonable, sensible and practical. It is, therefore, beyond me
that anyone would not want a speed limit in housing estates. I cannot understand why people
would want to speed through housing estates when they know many of the families living in
18/02/2015VV00500
406
18 February 2015
them have young children.
People seem to shudder at the use of the word “mandatory”. I believe that under legislation,
the current lowest maximum speed limit is 30 km, and that to change that limit would require
us to introduce legislation. It is imperative we put pressure on local authorities on this issue,
because they have power to make roads and housing estates safer through traffic calming measures. Perhaps speed ramps are not the ideal solution, but it has never made sense to me that
they are not used in most housing estates. We should look at other methods used on the Continent to slow traffic in housing estates but which leave access for emergency services.
The argument put forward by local authorities in regard to introducing these measures is
that they do not have the finance for them. In Waterford city for example, there are so many
housing estates that they argue they do not have the finance for traffic calming measures. This
leaves us with the option of a mandatory speed limit that would be an offence to break. This is
the simple alternative and is reasonable, practical and sensible. It makes no sense that people
would want to speed through estates and is common sense that a 20 km speed limit or less
would be acceptable to reasonable people.
Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Chair for the opportunity to speak on this important
legislation. I strongly support the legislation as it is sensible and good for public safety. We all
know the background to this Bill. We know that young Jake Brennan, aged 6, was killed last
June. I welcome his family, his father Christopher, mother Roseann and all their friends and
family from Kilkenny and offer them my deepest sympathy. They found themselves in a difficult situation, losing someone at such a young age. It is appalling to have to go through such
a situation as a parent.
18/02/2015VV00600
It is grief enough to have to go through that trauma, but another sad day to have to come
to Dublin to sit outside the gates of Dáil Éireann to highlight the situation. However, the good
news is that every Member of the Dáil supports this legislation. Many young children are killed
on our streets and in estates on a regular basis. In recent years, some 262 young children under
14 have been killed and some 1,115 have been seriously injured. This is a message for all of us.
Some 57% of these child injuries happened in housing estates. Those of us who live in housing
estates are aware of the reality of cars regularly speeding through roads where there are small
children between four and ten years of age playing. This is an issue we must deal with. During
my time as a councillor the issue of speed ramps in estates to slow down cars was raised many
times. In many estates there was often a huge row between those who wanted the ramps and
those who did not. There was a bit snobbery attached to the whole issue. Some people did not
want speed ramps in their estates. Those involved in road safety, including the Garda Síochána
and staff of Temple Street hospital, all say that these measures play a huge role in reducing the
number of children killed on our roads.
I urge all Deputies to support this Bill. I understand the Minister is not opposing the legislation, which is the right thing to do. I urge him to implement the main provisions of this legislation, which is about public safety and, in particular, the safety of children.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The next speaker is Deputy John O’Mahony who is sharing
with Deputies Áine Collins, Pat Deering, Helen McEntee, Michelle Mulherin, Peter Fitzpatrick,
Patrick O’Donovan and Eamonn Maloney. The Deputies have four minutes each.
18/02/2015WW00200
Deputy John O’Mahony: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this
18/02/2015WW00300
407
Dáil Éireann
Private Members’ Bill. I commend Deputy Ellis on bringing it forward. I also welcome the
Minister’s acceptance of the thrust of the Bill and the fact that he will address it in the context
of the Road Traffic Bill 2015, which will shortly come before the transport committee, of which
I am Chairman and Deputy Ellis is a member. This matter will be discussed in detail by the
committee and I can assure Members it will receive top priority.
This Bill is a consensus approach to legislative matters, with general agreement from all
sides of the House, which is welcome. That does not happen often enough. The outcome will
be much faster and more positive as a result of that consensus. I wish to be associated with the
expressions of sympathy to Jake Brennan’s parents and family, particularly Roseann whose aim
is to ensure that other families do not have to suffer the tragedy her family has had to endure. I
commend the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, for reacting quickly and in such a sensitive and practical way to ensure a positive outcome.
It has been demonstrated many times that speed is a major cause of deaths in our housing
estates and on our streets and roads. If this measure saves only one life it will be very much
worthwhile. Great strides have been made in recent years, particularly the last ten years, in
achieving a reduction in the number of fatalities on our roads. However, it is worrying to note
that the number of such deaths, particularly cyclists and pedestrians, has been increasing in the
past couple of years. In 2013, 31 pedestrians and five cyclists were killed on our roads and
streets. The number of deaths rose in 2014 to 42 pedestrians and 12 cyclists. This confirms
the need for legislation like this, that our roads remain dangerous and that speed and a lack of
visibility are major factors in the number of deaths on our roads. It is worth noting that a pedestrian hit by a car being driven at 50 km/h has only a 50-50 chance of survival whereas nine
out of ten persons hit by a car driving at 30 km/h will survive. I presume that all persons hit by
a car driving at 20 km/h would survive. This is further evidence in support of this Bill.
There are many other dynamics to the road safety issue. We recently learned that many fines
for speeding detected by GoSafe vans were thrown out. This issue also needs to be addressed.
I look forward to this Bill coming before the committee and to a positive outcome in that
regard.
Deputy Áine Collins: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill and thank Deputy
Ellis for bringing it before the House. The Minister accepts the general principles of the Bill,
which in the main proposes a reduced speed limit in residential areas. In these instances,
a speed limit of 20 km/h will apply. My understanding is that there are technicalities to be
worked out before the provisions of this Bill can be satisfactorily implemented. The implementation process will still be subject to local authority by-laws that govern residential areas
and housing estates. While this is welcome and urgent legislation, the process of enacting bylaws can be cumbersome. To give quick effect to the practical implementation of this Bill the
Minister might consider some simplification of the by-law process within the local authorities.
18/02/2015WW00400
I want to express my deepest sympathy to Jake Brennan’s family and applaud them for their
courage in bringing this matter to attention. It is hoped the speed limit will be reduced in the
near future. As stated by Deputy Finian McGrath there have been many tragedies involving
children in housing estates, where the installation of speed ramps is a big issue. While I accept
that reducing the speed limit deals with one aspect of road safety, unfortunately, unfinished
housing estates are also contributing to dangerous and life threatening situations. In my constituency of Cork North-West there are unfinished estates in Kanturk, Charleville, Bóthar Buí,
408
18 February 2015
Milford, Lismire and so on. This gives rise to huge safety issues.
Last week, an issue arose in my own estate in Rathcoole. The public lighting had been
turned off because the Airtricity bill had not been paid by the liquidator. Following representations Cork County Council tracked down the liquidator and, fortunately, the new owner swiftly
reacted and paid the bill and the lighting was turned on again, but not without huge concern
to families, particularly young children in the estate. The risk of injury is increased in these
estates because of unfinished footpaths and roads. There are also issues around dumping and
who owns the estates. In many cases, because contractors have gone out of business, these estates are now being managed by liquidators. This can be a very time consuming process. Also,
because of the situation in relation to liquidators and bonds on estates, the taking over of estates
by a council can be a cumbersome process. Under current laws, a council cannot undertake
any repairs on an estate until such time as it has been properly and legally handed over or the
bonds have been drawn down or brought to a particular stage. There is a need for regulations
to be put in place immediately to compel a liquidator or financial institution to inform the local
authority of any changes of ownership or responsibility. This problem feeds into this legislation
as it would appear that the new regulations would not only apply to housing estates not taken
in charge by local authorities. Again, there are speeding issues in these areas because currently
nobody has taken them in charge. As the local authorities cannot take charge of these estates
issues such as speeding and the installation of speed ramps cannot be addressed.
This Bill deals with one aspect of child and adult safety and should be supported for this
reason. However, the whole question of safety in housing estates, such as ensuring public lighting remains on, also needs to be looked at by various Departments.
Deputy Pat Deering: I congratulate Deputy Ellis on bringing forth this Private Members’
Bill. It is important that we discuss this issue. I sympathise with the Brennan family on their
tragic loss. Regardless of what debate we have tonight it will not bring back their son. I
compliment Jake’s parents on keeping his memory alive through their vigorous and dignified
campaign. I also compliment the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, on his proactive approach in this
matter, having held numerous meetings with the Brennan family since Jake’s death. The Minister has done a great deal of work in this area thus far.
18/02/2015WW00500
While I am generally speaking supportive of the 20 km/h proposal, I see speeding in housing estates as a much broader issue. I believe it will be difficult to monitor the speed limits.
Simply erecting 20 km/h speed limit signs will not prevent other incidents occurring. It will not
be possible to have gardaí patrolling housing estates to ensure cars in estates are being driven at
the 20 km/h speed limit. Speed limits are only part of the broader issue. There are also many
housing estates in Carlow. Like other Deputies I have been lobbied by residents on the issue of
special traffic calming measures such as speed ramps and so on to try to alleviate the problem
of speeding. The only way forward is for a funding stream specifically for local authorities to
implement traffic calming measures in housing estates. This is similar to funding streams for
other road projects throughout the country. We can also make local authorities responsible for
every housing estate in the area. We are well aware of the housing estates in which there is an
issue and making the local authorities responsible and allocating a specific funding every year
for every county is the only way forward. It is important that €2 million was allocated by the
Minister. It is a step in the right direction. It is a positive step but we need a lot more. It costs
€3,200 for a speed ramp. There are different views about speed ramps and whether they are the
appropriate way. In a housing estate with 100 residents, 50 people will be totally against speed
ramps. There are other ways of looking at traffic control measures, such as zigzag designs, but
409
Dáil Éireann
every possibility must be exhausted before deciding on the final issue and the best way forward.
As well as traffic calming measures, the culture must be changed in housing estates. We
see housing estates being used as Mondello Park by joyriders who want to take advantage of
a straight run in an area to test out a new car that they may have bought for a small amount of
money. We have seen a sea change in culture with regard to seat belts in cars and, in more recent times, with drink-driving. Our culture needs to be totally changed and there should be an
advertising campaign in that regard. The Brennan family could play a huge part in it.
Residents associations have a huge part to play. They know exactly the problem cases
and the problem cars are often those who come into estates. Nine times out of ten, the people
joyriding are not from those estates. People know who they are and it is important that people
stand up and be counted.
This is a worthwhile debate and is a first step. There needs to be more engagement with local authorities and different community groups to come up with the best way forward to ensure
we have safety. I agree with the comments of Deputy Seamus Healy, who said that we must not
play politics with the issue. This is all about children’s safety.
Deputy Helen McEntee: I welcome the opportunity to speak on the legislation and I thank
the Opposition for introducing the Bill, which I support. I extend my sincere sympathy to the
Brennan family, Chris and Roseann Brennan and the extended family. Jake is the reason we
are discussing this and great credit must be given to them and the many supporters around the
country who campaigned in Jake’s memory.
18/02/2015XX00200
The debate opens up the issue of speed limits and road safety in general. We must talk about
this to make our roads safer. This applies not just to housing estates but outside schools, in villages and everywhere on our roads. In the past few years, we have seen dramatic improvements
in road safety for a number of reasons. A wide number of measures have been introduced and
implemented to reduce the risk for pedestrians and those driving vehicles on roads. People
have become more aware and conscious of the dangers of driving. This is linked to the safety
campaigns carried out by the NRA, the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and other
associated bodies. These involve graphic images on our television screens and it resonates with
people. However, safety cannot be ensured by any one of these measures alone. It cannot be
ensured solely by rules and regulations or legislation passed in the Dáil. We are all responsible
behind the wheel of the car and we must follow the rules to the best of our ability. Accidents
happen, which can be traumatising for the people involved, and it is up to legislators to reduce
the risk as much as possible.
Having said that, there is always room for improvement. Sometimes, improvement and
change is brought about only when an accident happens and when someone dies or is seriously
injured. In 2005, five young girls lost their lives in the Kentstown bus crash coming home from
school on a school bus. My dad, Shane McEntee, had just been elected and met all the families.
It was a traumatising time for all of them and still is. The country was angry that something like
that could have happened. After that, stricter regulations were introduced in respect of roads
and the condition and safety of our vehicles. School buses at the time did not have seatbelts,
which is hard to believe, but they do now. The improvements and changes happened because of
the tragic accident. The proposed legislation has come about in similar circumstances and we
must learn from what has happened. We must do everything in our power to ensure this does
not happen to another family.
410
18 February 2015
Following the Kentstown bus crash, it was suggested we should have a road safety officer
in Meath. It is crazy to think we did not have one then but we have one now. He is probably
one of the busiest people in Meath. My office receives phone calls on a daily basis about road
safety, including zebra crossings at schools or in busy villages, barriers outside schools where
children are coming onto the road, footpaths and rumble strips coming into villages, speed
ramps and requests to change the speed limit, which are made on a continual basis. I wholeheartedly agree that in residential and built-up areas, with high volumes of houses, pedestrians
and children, the 20 km/h speed limit, or a 30 km/h speed limit in less built-up areas, will save
lives. Changes need to be made to give peace of mind to parents when their children play outside, on greens or in other areas.
Once these measures are implemented, we must have proper surveillance of the new speed
limits. We can rely on the Garda Síochána only so much and people in the communities and in
residents associations must make people aware if the limits are not being followed. We have
responsibility for road safety as pedestrians, cyclists and motorists. I welcome the debate on a
topic that all should always be debated. It is something on which we can always improve.
Deputy Peter Fitzpatrick: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this important topic. I
would like to put on record my great admiration for the Jake’s Legacy campaign and to acknowledge, as stated by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, the amazing energy, commitment and bravery shown by Roseann and her family in the face
of such a tragic event. It is also pleasing to note Deputies from all sides of the House are united
by a desire to make our roads safer for everyone, including children, walkers, cyclists and other
road users. Compulsory speed restrictions of 30 km/h should be in place in residential areas,
especially in housing estates. I am regularly contacted by constituents who voice their concerns
about the speed at which cars travel in built-up residential areas. One such area in Dundalk is
Lennonstown Manor, and I acknowledge the great work carried out by local residents, particularly Kathy Duffy, who tirelessly campaigned for a reduction in speed limits in her estate and
adjoining estates.
18/02/2015XX00300
The problem, however, is not confined to Dundalk, it also exists in housing estates in
Blackrock, Ardee, Dunleer, Tallanstown, Carlingford and Drogheda. Many estates in the areas
have the daily problem of traffic whizzing through, especially in the morning. Motorists use
the estates as shortcuts to avoid congestion. The traffic and speed at which it travels is causing
great distress to families in the areas, especially those with young children. Many parents will
not allow their children out to play because of traffic and the speed at which cars travel. I do
not want a situation where children are prevented from playing in the local green areas for fear
of the traffic. I commend the Minister on pursuing the issue and welcome the fact that he has
made available €2 million to support local authorities in implementing 30 km/h speed limits
in housing estates and residential areas. This will make a huge difference to the many young
families in Dundalk, Drogheda, Ardee, Dunleer, Blackrock and other areas in County Louth.
The task of implementing the speed limits should be the responsibility of the local authority, which is best placed to do so. Only 2% of speed limits in housing estates and built-up
residential areas are in place outside of Dublin. Special speed limits are sometimes applied to
designated roads and zones, mainly on roads outside built-up areas or around schools. Special
speed limits are generally for 30 km/h or 60 km/h. Local authorities in Ireland have the power
to introduce by-laws and to set special speed limits. I look forward to seeing the money made
available by the Minister utilised without delay by the local authorities in implementing the
speed reduction measures. The safety of children is first and foremost in any discussion on this
411
Dáil Éireann
topic. As a father and grandfather, I know the pain and anxiety faced by parents when the safety
of children is put at risk.
8 o’clock
I support the efforts of the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, to develop further this Bill and I look
forward to seeing it implemented without delay. I acknowledge the great work being done by
the Jake’s Legacy campaign, and Roseanne Brennan in particular, to make our roads safer for
children.
Deputy Patrick O’Donovan: I am glad this Bill is being accepted by the Minister on Second Stage. The proposer of the Bill and I are members of the Joint Committee on Transport
and Communications. Given the importance of this subject, I hope the committee will have
an opportunity to invite the relevant stakeholders to discuss the issues arising. The committee
has engaged extensively on the issue of road safety with various stakeholders, including the
new chairperson of the Road Safety Authority, local authority and departmental officials and
gardaí. This issue is not going away. Few of us know first hand what it is like to lose a child.
There is an obligation on us to be honest about how we are going to progress the legislation. I
would like it to be further developed. We should also examine the roles that local authorities,
in particular, can play. In my area, I can think of a number of housing estates in which traffic
calming infrastructure should have been provided when they were first built. Local authorities
are now trying to retrofit traffic calming measures with great difficulty because of the costs associated with them. The decisions that local authorities should make when granting permission
for new estates should also be factored into the legislation, with a view to making changes that
will make a difference to the lives of people now living in housing estates as well as yet those
to come.
18/02/2015YY00200
There are three elements in road safety, namely, engineering, enforcement and education.
This debate is an important part of the education aspect and credit is due to the people who
brought forward the legislation. This issue has been discussed all over the country in the past
few days by virtue of the tragedy that has brought us to where we are. If no other good comes
from it, at least people are discussing the issues.
Engineering is vital. That includes setting realistic speed limits. There are roads in my
area with speed limits of 80 km/h even though grass is growing in the middle of them. That is
equally as dangerous. I am aware the Department and local authorities will say that is not the
desired speed limit but we need a proper debate on speed limits. Parts of the national secondary
route between Killarney and Kenmare are too narrow for two cars to pass but the speed limit is
100 km/h. Those are the issues that aggravate people in respect of speed limits, whether in rural
locations like mine or in housing estates in our towns and villages. Local authorities have an
important role to play but we have an equally important role. If we believe we can use our town
and county development plans or regional planning guidelines to ensure this will not happen
again, we should be incorporating the necessary measures in the planning legislation. I do not
care who proposes a Bill if it saves a single life or prevents a single life-changing injury. Accident statistics focus primarily on fatalities but if one visits the rehabilitation hospital in Dún
Laoghaire one will observe the life changing impact of what happens on the roads in housing
estates and rural areas. We must also take account of those whose injuries mean their lives and
the lives of their families will never be the same.
I hope this Bill can be developed further by the Joint Committee on Transport and Com412
18 February 2015
munications. With the consent of Deputies Ellis and McDonald, the committee might examine
the issue with the relevant stakeholders, including the Garda, the Department and the local authorities. There is a desire in all of our communities for this issue to be addressed in a firm way.
Deputy Eamonn Maloney: I am happy to support this Bill. If it saves even one life, it will
have been a good day’s work. I join other speakers in extending my sympathy to the Brennan
family and those who support their campaign in memory of Jake. It is every parent’s nightmare
to bury a child. Most of us would have seen this happen in our neighbourhoods if not in our
own families. It is a painful business and, as legislators, our function is to curb the madness of
people who drive at speeds in excess of the norm under our legislation.
18/02/2015YY00300
I previously discussed this issue with the Minister last year in the Joint Committee on Transport and Communications. We make laws for the best of intentions but a car is a potential
killer. This is why we are here this evening. Most people who get behind the wheel experience
a change in their attitudes, and personalities in some cases. This is reflected in the speed and
aggression one witnesses on our streets. If we went for a walk around St. Stephen’s Green, we
would see driving habits that should not be permissible in any normal civil society. We cannot merely introduce laws and then say the problem is solved once they are enacted. There is
no greater illustration of how many motorists in this jurisdiction ignore existing laws than the
breaches of the maximum speed limit. It has reached epidemic proportions. It is not just an urban problem; in some cases it is worse outside the cities. The only way of changing what some
people call a culture but which I regard as a bad habit is by introducing legislation to impose a
lifetime ban on drivers who breach the maximum speed limit. We should not put up with the
nonsense of allowing drivers to get their licences back after four years in cases where people
have died as a result of traffic accidents. That is absurd. If we are serious about this issue,
those who speed should pay a price. The problem is getting worse and it is up to us to solve it.
If people are prepared to break the law, the Minister can stop them. A lifetime ban for drivers
who break speeding laws will change their bad habits and we will have done a good day’s work
out of respect for the memory of this child who died.
Deputy Dessie Ellis: Roseann and Chris, who watched their little boy die just eight months
ago, are an inspiration to all of us. They have taken their sorrow, anguish and love and turned
it into an unstoppable campaign for safety for children. They have taken what would have left
even those of very strong will paralysed by grief and sought to make out of it a lesson for our
society and a change in the interests of little boys and girls just like Jake. I am inspired by them
and their family as is everyone who meets them. They are not here for compliments, however,
or to be plámásed. This is not a cathartic exercise for them. It is about achieving the change
that will protect children and their right to live and play in safety in their neighbourhoods.
18/02/2015YY00400
I am not here to have my name on a Bill either. The Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015,
or Jake’s law, was not written for fun, plaudits or kind words from the Government benches.
It was written to be law and to make a reality what Rosie, Chris and all involved in the Jake’s
Legacy campaign have sought to achieve. Today, the Minister met with Rosie again and made
clear that he had no intention of putting Jake’s law on the Statute Book. Last night, the Minister
told the House that he would not oppose the Bill and that he agreed with it in principle, but what
he meant was that he was happy to let the Bill gather dust after tonight. This is lip-service, not
support. The Minister may feel he has successfully shirked his responsibility in this regard, but
he is wrong. We will not let this be the end of it. He must surely know by now that it is not the
end for the Jake’s Legacy campaign.
413
Dáil Éireann
The evidence is clear. Far too many estates have 50 km/h speed limits in operation. Research from the UK and Australia shows that a pedestrian struck at 50 km/h has 35% to 45%
chance of dying from the resulting injuries. That research is based on figures from across all
age groups. The risk is higher for children. At even 30 km/h, there is an almost 5% chance of
death. These figures do not account for debilitating and life-limiting injuries or even the trauma
of a non-fatal collision at these speeds. We know from Rita Malone and her son Oran that nonfatal accidents involving children are highly traumatic. No parent should have to comfort his
or her child and be asked “Am I going to die?” because someone refused to drive slowly on a
street lined with houses in a self-contained estate.
A 20 km/h speed limit would make the fatal accidents in housing estates incredibly unlikely.
It would also mean that the blame would not be laid at the door of the family affected. Some
people who hear of a child being hit on the road in front of his or her house say the child should
have been inside or should not have crossed between cars, but the person to blame is the person
who drove at speed where children were playing and could not react appropriately to deal with
the unexpected. That is if one can call it unexpected that children will be playing in a housing
estate. As Rosie told some of us earlier today, these are children we are talking about and children make mistakes. While that is part of growing up, every child should be able to walk away
from those mistakes. Adults behind the wheel of a car, do not have that luxury. As Deputy
John Paul Phelan rightly said last night, driving is probably one of the most dangerous things
we do on a daily basis and it demands the height of responsibility which, unfortunately, means
strict laws and their enforcement. A 20 km/h speed limit means that if a child is hit and flung 17
m down the road, as little Jake was by a car that had only pulled out onto the road a few doors
up, there is no doubt and there is no wriggle room. The responsibility is clear. When we sit
behind the wheel of a car, we must accept this responsibility and act with due care. While that
is already the law, we must back up that law with clarity. Due care where children play is not
50 km/h or even 30 km/h; it is as slow as one can drive.
I am very disappointed that the Minister is not in favour of the Bill. He does not have the
courage to admit it and it is not clear to me why. I want to know why and so does the family. No
Bill is perfect on the first printing. Very often, the Government submits dozens of amendments
to its own Bills on Committee Stage. That is fine. I want this Bill to succeed in bringing in a 20
km/h speed limit and I do not care if the Bill has to be changed a bit or a lot to do so as long as
the principle remains. The Minister has claimed he supports the Bill in principle. Part of that
is the principle that the Government must act where local authorities have failed for whatever
reason. Many in the Chamber listened to or read the Minister’s speech from last night and did
not seem clear on his position. Some Government Deputies commented to me personally that
they were glad the Bill was being supported and Fianna Fáil Deputies seemed to be under the
same impression. It is one thing for the Minister to speak out of both sides of his mouth to
me, but it is another thing entirely to play both sides of the pitch when speaking to families affected by the tragedies we are trying to stop. They do not deserve it. If the Minister supports
the Bill in principle or otherwise, he should support it clearly and commit to bringing it through
Committee Stage as soon as possible. It is not about not opposing it, but about supporting it
in principle. Forgetting about it tomorrow is worth nothing. If the Minister supports 20 km/h
speed limits, he should start the ball rolling tonight with this vote.
Deputy Martin Ferris: I offer my condolences to Rosie and Chris on the tragic loss of their
son, Jake. I congratulate them for the work they have done for road safety since his tragic death.
It is less than a year since Jake lost his life in Kilkenny but Rosie and Chris have campaigned
18/02/2015ZZ00200
414
18 February 2015
tirelessly for a 20 km/h speed limit in housing estates, more education on the dangers of speed
and to encourage drivers to exercise extreme caution in areas where children might be playing.
In response to their campaign, the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Paschal
Donohoe, has called on local authorities to review speed limits in residential areas and housing
estates and to improve road safety for cyclists and pedestrians alike. However, he knows well
that if a 20 km/h speed limit is not mandatory, it will not be worth the paper on which it is written. The Minister has the power to make it mandatory and I challenge him tonight to come out
and say he will do so because then it will have teeth. Not opposing the Bill is a very different
matter from supporting it. The Minister should be ashamed that he gave the impression to this
family that the Government for once was going to do the right thing when it is now rowing back.
Good governments make good laws to change behaviours and then change attitudes and that
is a good result for everyone. The ways things are now, if a child pedestrian is killed on the road
in a housing estate, the assumption not only in the public mind but in the minds of gardaí is that
the child was at fault and ran out from behind a parked car while the driver could do nothing to
prevent a collision. However, the driver can do something. He or she can drive slowly enough
to ensure that while injury might result from a collision, the chance of death is greatly reduced.
We are talking about making 20 km/h the default speed limit which means a need for signage
or a lack of money cannot be cited as an excuse for inaction. We must make it unacceptable to
drive fast where children are playing or it is otherwise unsafe. The most important aim of the
Bill is the saving of lives. Figures from Britain and Australia show that the odds against dying
on the road increase dramatically as vehicle speeds are slowed. Without doubt, 20 km/h is a
very slow speed, but it must be remembered that it is only to be enforced in areas where there
is housing. Most drivers do not exceed this limit as it is when they are driving down the small
roads of most housing estates that may also have ramps. We are talking about the areas where
children may live and play in close quarters and drivers must take care.
The Minister has the ability tonight to accept the Bill and make this speed limit mandatory.
To do otherwise will be to fail that family and that kid.
Deputy Denis Naughten: I commend the Brennan family on their courage. Sadly, I too
know first hand what it is like to lose a loved one on our roads, the impact it has on a family and
the sense of numbness that is felt. The courageous step they have taken to bring this campaign
to the floor of the House must be recognised. Every Member on both sides of the House supports Jake’s law, but there is a hesitancy to implement it. Maybe this hesitancy is due to the
cost implications of erecting the signage across the country to enforce it. As an alternative, I
suggest the introduction of a statutory default residential speed limit which would not require
signage. It could be defined as applying to areas within the current built-up speed limit areas
which are residential cul-de-sacs or residential estates where there is no through road. The Minister could even consider applying it to streets in which there are residences on both sides of the
road, streets with vehicles parked on them and where vehicular entrances are no more than 25 m
apart. This would tighten up the definition of a residential area. While the €2 million allocated
for signage is welcome, it could instead be earmarked for erecting time-based speed limits to
reduce traffic speeds around our schools at opening and closing times, a measure which has
been introduced by Offaly County Council in by-laws and which could help to save lives in the
vicinity of schools around the country.
18/02/2015ZZ00300
Deputy Jonathan O’Brien: I congratulate Deputies Ellis and McDonald on producing the
legislation and tabling it last night and tonight for consideration on Second Stage. Like every
other Deputy, I pay tribute to the Brennan family and the campaign they have undertaken since
415
18/02/2015AAA00200
Dáil Éireann
the tragic loss of their son. While we have all paid tribute to them, the ultimate tribute would be
to pass the legislation. Nothing less will satisfy the family and the Members who have spoken
in favour of it.
Although I had a speech prepared, I threw it out the window after reading the Minister’s
speech. The impression given during the lead up to the debate was that the Government would
support the legislation. I am sure the family was under this impression, as were I and many
sections of the media, because that was how it was portrayed. In no part of his speech did the
Minister state that he supported the proposals in the legislation, apart from saying he supported
the introduction of a speed limit of 20 km/h in principle. He then went on to outline all the
difficulties in introducing a mandatory speed limit. He referred to James’s Street in his constituency, which is lined on both sides with residential properties. He spoke about the difficulty
of defining a residential area and said he and his officials had spent all day yesterday going
over this in their minds and racking their brains to try to come up with a way of introducing a
mandatory speed limit of 20 km/h. He determined that the local authorities are best placed to
address the issue. The Minister went on to speak about some of the initiatives he has brought
forward as Minister. He talked about the October 2014 circular sent to all the local authorities
to inform them of a recent survey which was done on foot of a meeting with Jake’s Legacy.
He spoke about the review which is being undertaken by local authorities on speed limits and
safety measures in housing estates.
Although I was not privy to the meeting the Minister had with the family and some Members, it is becoming clear that he is not in favour of a mandatory speed limit of 20 km/h in residential areas. If this is the case, how can the Minister say he supports the legislation? In reality,
the Minister is not opposing the legislation, and will let it go to Committee Stage. Although I
have been in the House only a few years, I know how it operates. Opposition Bills go to Committee Stage where they remain, and before we know it, there is a change of Government and
those Bills go by the wayside. It is not often that a Bill is brought before the House, by the
Government or the Opposition, which is about saving lives, would not cost millions of euro to
introduce and has unanimous support across the House.
The only objection the Minister has raised is that he has a difficulty defining a residential
area and that it would be very difficult to introduce a mandatory speed limit on that basis. The
Minister said “the proposal to make the speed limit mandatory and have it imposed centrally
creates a challenge”. This is the challenge that has been given to the Minister with responsibility for this area and it must be met head on and overcome. I do not believe the challenge cannot
be overcome and that we cannot find a solution. It is a challenge not for the Minister alone; we
must all take it up. If the Bill goes to Committee Stage, which it will given that the Minister
will not oppose it, let us take Committee Stage as soon as possible and tease out and overcome
the challenge the Minister outlined in his contribution last night. Let us try to formulate the
definitions and move from a situation in which the Minister agrees in principle to one in which
he will enact the legislation to introduce a speed limit of 20 km/h in residential areas.
The Minister and his officials do not have to do it alone. They have unanimous support in
the Chamber to do what they believe to be right thing in principle. Every member of the transport committee will do everything in their power to ensure the legislation is enacted and we can
make our roads safer. This is the best tribute we can pay to Jake’s Legacy and the best thing
we can do as legislators to ensure no other family has to go through the grief and anguish the
Brennan family, and many others, have gone through. This is about doing the right thing in very
difficult circumstances and we must achieve it because if we cannot overcome obstacles such as
416
18 February 2015
this, what are we doing as legislators? If we cannot find workable solutions to the challenges of
road safety, health and education, and enact legislation to impose them, what is our role in here?
Deputy Seán Crowe: I do not know how a person who has knocked down or killed a child
on the road deals with it. It is beyond my comprehension to begin to imagine or understand
how a family can move on from seeing their child being killed or seriously injured on the road.
Like others, I pay tribute to the family of Jake Brennan, who are here tonight and who have
campaigned so bravely on the issue. Road safety must be a priority for any Government. Last
year we saw the first year on year increase in the number of road deaths in Ireland since 2005.
A total of 197 people lost their lives in 2014, a 4% rise on 2013. The figure is going the wrong
way. Instead of going down, it is going up. There was a doubling in the number of fatalities
among children, with 16 children losing their lives in 2014.
18/02/2015AAA00300
Drivers need to be more responsible. I include myself in that statement. They need to show
more care on our roads but especially within housing estates where children play. We need
more measures to protect children in housing estates, including in some cases speed ramps, and
public education to encourage drivers to exercise extreme caution in areas where children might
be at play but also to instil a greater awareness among drivers and road users.
The consensus here tonight is that a lone mandatory speed limit is paramount and the message is to slow down, reduce speed, especially in densely populated residential areas where
children may be playing and an accident can easily occur. The speed limit in residential areas is
50 km/h. That is unacceptable to everyone, on every side in this debate. There is never a need
to travel at that speed in a residential area. As an elected representative I see it all the time. If
speed limits were drastically reduced and a child was unfortunately fatally hit by a car in an
estate it would be clear that the person must have been speeding in order to cause that damage.
That is part of what the Brennan family and the campaign is trying to do. This would make it
easier to hold offenders responsible in the case of tragedies such as Jake’s death.
That is only one small part of what is necessary but a very important part. We need to be
more inclusive in establishing fora for residents and public representatives to engage with local
authorities on road safety issues and come up with working proposals around safety measures.
That process needs to be encouraged. The under funding and under resourcing of the Garda
and how gardaí are deployed needs to be examined as part of this discussion. That has played
a significant part in the recent increase in road deaths. Gardaí are needed in housing estates to
catch the consistent offenders. This happens in many communities but there is a reluctance or
inability to respond to that. Road maintenance is also a major issue as many local authorities
have experienced significant cuts in grants. I have seen in communities in my area how subzero temperatures almost disintegrated road ramps allowing lunatics to speed or do whatever
they like. The Government stated yesterday that it would not oppose the Bill but today it told
the family that it will not support it or bring it forward. That is a pity. Leaving the speed limits to the discretion of local authorities does not work and the Government needs to act before
more children die on our roads.
Deputy Gerry Adams: Ba mhaith liom mo chomhbhrón a dhéanamh le Rosie agus Chris
Brennan, a dteaghlach agus a gcairde atá ag obair leo ar an bhfeachtas in ainm Jake ar son ár
bpáistí. Mar is eol dúinn, fuair Jake bás nuair nach raibh sé ach sé bliana d’aois. Gasúr óg ab
ea é. The purpose of the vigil, where we have watched and joined Rosie and her family, has
been to try to convince the Government to pass legislation on this very important issue. Reducing the current speed limit of 50 km/h to 20 km/h as a maximum speed limit for cars entering
18/02/2015BBB00200
417
Dáil Éireann
residential housing areas is a modest proposal. It is also sensible.
Two young nephews of mine were killed in a car accident. They were older than Jake and
the circumstances were different but after years of conflict in which other family members were
killed and some were injured there was an unfairness and dreadfulness about the loss of these
two young boys. I know that Rosie and Chris and their clan will never get over the loss of Jake
any more than my sister Margaret and her husband Micky have got over the loss of Micheál and
Liam. We have the power to do something about this. We cannot bring back these children but
we can prevent or minimise the possibility of other children being killed in these circumstances.
This State lags behind its European neighbours when it comes to issues of traffic laws and
road safety. Many of these states have brought in lower limits for “home zones” such as housing estates. None of us would ever think of driving fast or driving over 20 km/h going through
a playground. I have not heard one argument here that makes sense in opposition to this Bill.
Deputy Donohoe is a decent Minister. That is my sense of him in the limited dealings I have
had with him, to judge by his demeanour in this Oireachtas. He says he is not opposing the Bill
but Rosie told me that at a meeting which the Minister had with her and Chris he said he would
not implement this legislation. The Irish Independent – not my favourite newspaper – ran a
headline, “Jake’s law set to become a reality after government say they won’t oppose bill”.
There is an expectation that this modest proposition will be carried through. I ask the Minister
to do what he is mandated to do, to support this legislation, be a problem solver. There is a
problem, a sizeable one when it robs a family of a youngster. A total of 262 children aged 14
years and under lost their lives between 1997 and 2012, and over 1,000 were seriously injured
in road accidents that could have been avoided. I ask the Minister to review his position and to
support this legislation.
Deputy Sandra McLellan: I commend Rosie and Chris and all those supporting this campaign who have been working tirelessly to lower speed limits and prevent future fatalities for
other families. Since the launch of their campaign last summer they have managed to bring the
issue of speed limits into the public eye. Their energy, commitment and efforts to effect change
and prevent a repetition of their own tragedy for other families is admirable.
18/02/2015BBB00300
The hugely successful campaign, which has almost 18,000 “likes” on Facebook, has called
for several measures to protect children in housing estates. This included the focus of our Bill,
a 20 km/h speed limit in residential areas. It also proposed the provision of speed bumps and
ramps in these areas. Education programmes to encourage drivers to exercise extreme caution
in areas where children might be at play have also been promoted.
While Ministers have made commitments to work on the issues raised by the campaign
there have been no firm commitments to reform the law so far, although an acknowledgement
of the need for a review of speed limits in residential areas and housing estates to improve road
safety for cyclists and pedestrians was made. The Department has recognised the importance
of reducing speeds in housing estates but decided not to support this objective with lower speed
limits. All the research shows that lower speeds in pedestrian collisions give a better chance of
non-fatal and minor injuries. A 20 km/h speed limit in housing estates, if enforced, could make
a difference in many cases stopping accidents from happening and preventing serious injury
or death. Evidence also shows that reducing speed limits leads to a small reduction in overall
speeds even when not enforced. Many people are law-abiding and if the speed limit is reduced
to 20 km/h, they will drive at that speed. Research by the National Highway Traffic Safety Ad418
18 February 2015
ministration of the United States found that the public responds positively to regulations aimed
at public safety, especially children. This clearly also is the case in Ireland, where increased
public awareness, enforcement and regulation has led to a dramatic drop in road fatalities over
the past 20 years. I believe this Bill will further prevent future fatalities. It is vital that this
Bill is not merely not opposed but is supported. If it is left to the discretion of local authorities, whose budgets are tight, the 20 km/h limit will never happen. It is the responsibility of the
Minister to make this happen.
Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Ann Phelan): I thank the Deputies present tonight. This has been a worthwhile discussion and I thank all Members who have participated in this debate. I also wish to
express my deepest sympathies with the family of Jake Brennan, who was from my constituency of Carlow-Kilkenny. I too know of the difficulty a family and parents face when they lose
a child in such tragic circumstances.
18/02/2015CCC00200
In introducing this Bill, the Sinn Féin Deputies have raised an important issue. Of all the
matters Members debate in this Chamber, nothing can be more basic than life-or-death issues and that is what road safety is about. In a time when deaths on the roads have increased
again after a long decline, it is vital to examine thoroughly what can be done to reverse this
trend. All are agreed on the goal, namely, reducing death and injury on the roads. There also
is no disagreement or doubt about the importance of speed as an issue. Speeding makes collisions more likely and when they happen, speed makes them more deadly. Speeding always
is unacceptable but there are particular dangers in residential areas, as each Deputy has noted.
This Bill proposes a new default speed limit of 20 km/h in residential areas and a new special
speed limit of 20 km/h that local authorities would apply in residential areas not covered by
the default limit. In the longer term, home zones, as envisaged by the speed limit review carried out by the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, may well be one solution to this
problem. However, they are very much a medium-term answer, involving as they do the design
of complete neighbourhoods, rather than solutions to the problems of existing neighbourhoods.
What is needed is to find ways of making safe the neighbourhoods we have, with their existing
designs and road configurations.
As the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, indicated in his opening speech, following discussions
with Roseann Brennan and the Jake’s Legacy campaign, his Department last October issued a
circular to local authorities on the control of vehicle speeds in housing estates. He has encouraged local authorities with advice and funding to opt for a 30 km/h limit in such areas. This is
the lowest option available to them at present. At the same time, while the idea of a 20 km/h
limit has merits, there are reservations on the question of making it obligatory. Different areas
will have different needs and I believe it will be better to make available the 20 km/h limit to local authorities and allow them to retain the freedom to decide where it best applies. Sometimes,
one finds that a local solution to a local issue is possibly the best. I also believe not enough
research is available yet in this area. If a policy change like this is to be made, there should
be a sound evidential base on which one can proceed. The speed limit review of 2013, while
comprehensive, does not really offer guidance on this particular point. A little more time is
needed to examine this matter further, ideally through a pilot scheme, before making a definite
decision on the best way to proceed. This will provide the opportunity to study the practicalities and implications of providing for a 20 km/h speed limit in appropriate circumstances. The
Minister, Deputy Donohoe, therefore proposes to address the issue of speed limits in residential
areas in the forthcoming road traffic Bill 2015. The general scheme of this Bill was approved
419
Dáil Éireann
recently for formal drafting by the Government and shortly will be sent to the Oireachtas Joint
Committee on Transport and Communications for pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe including
a measure on speeding in that Bill will allow time for proper consideration of these issues.
In summary, the Government accepts the principle of introducing a 20 km/h speed limit and
will provide, in legislation, for local authorities to apply this limit, where appropriate.
Deputy Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin: I am happy to speak on this Bill and hopefully to help
Roseann Brennan and her family bring their campaign further along the journey to success. I
have met Roseann and Chris today and have noted their family and supporters outside the Dáil
over the past number of days. I must commend the tireless lobbying they have undertaken to
help ensure that other lives, young and not so young, are not lost as Jake’s young life was so
tragically taken. In June 2014, Jake Brennan was six years old. He was knocked down outside
his home. I understand the car that hit Jake had started its journey a short distance down the
same street. Despite this, the momentum already built up caused Jake to be thrown into the air,
which his mother witnessed. As a parent myself, I can only imagine the horror and pain this
caused her, Chris and the whole family; a pain that might ease a little with time but that never
goes away.
18/02/2015CCC00300
Since that life-changing day, Jake’s family has managed to channel their grief and sorrow. They have campaigned on road safety issues in order that other families do not have to
go through the suffering they did. The campaign has focused on the introduction of a 20 km/h
speed limit in housing estates, additional ramps, as well as educational programs. All Members
have seen the Brennans, and have supported them in their respective ways, on their three-night
vigil outside the Dáil, which will finish this evening. I understand that Roseann has had meetings with the relevant Ministers and some progress perhaps has been made. I state “perhaps”
quite purposely, for while it appears the Government will not oppose this Bill, this does not
mean it is committed to supporting it. If it truly supports the Bill, it must give it that support
openly and commit to a timescale for enacting it. I implore the Minister to do this right here
and now before this debate concludes.
The Sinn Féin Private Members’ Bill before the House is now popularly and rightly known
as Jake’s law - and it will be. It aims to define a residential road and a housing estate, to allow
local authorities to determine areas outside the definitions of the Bill for 20 km/h restrictions
as they believe appropriate and to provide for a nationwide mandatory 20 km/h speed limit in
housing estates. I appreciate this is a low speed but this must be the case in such built-up areas
where children are at play. Much of the benefit of this Bill should come from drivers engaging
positively with the legislation by adjusting their own driving and thereby reducing the numbers
of injuries and fatalities in housing estates and on the wider road network. Further, this is not
necessarily a question of enforcement. I understand that evidence suggests that reduced speed
limits, even when not enforced, lead to a reduction in overall speed.
Ireland has seen a dramatic drop in road fatalities over the past decade but worryingly, the
numbers killed and injured have increased in the past two years. Therefore, one cannot become
complacent. Although the roads might never be totally safe, we can and must do more to further
reduce the level of injury and deaths caused on them. While members of An Garda Síochána
recently have been making early morning visits and arrests on the one hand, there has been
an increase in road fatalities on the other hand that many, including serving members of An
Garda Síochána with some of whom I have spoken, have put down to an under-resourced and
understaffed force. We must not forget there are many other measures that must be also taken.
420
18 February 2015
Almost half of those killed on the roads last year were not wearing seat belts. We also saw the
alarming and very sad doubling of fatalities among children, of whom eight were pedestrians.
An analysis of the national paediatric mortality database showed most pedestrian deaths in children occurred between the ages of one and four. Up to 45 child pedestrians were killed between
2006 and 2011.
There are measures all drivers can take. I appeal to all drivers to avoid speeding, to ensure
they never ever use a hand-held mobile telephone while driving and always to wear a seat belt.
Not to put the Minister in an uncomfortable position, but there can be no other logical conclusion to the efforts employed by the Brennan family and their many supporters across the
country. The focused debate we have had over these past two nights has heard voices unite
across the Chamber in open recognition of the merit and appropriateness of this Bill’s measures.
Is gá ár mbóithre a dhéanamh níos sábháilte le cinntiú nach mbainfear daoine agus páistí uainn
agus iad i mbláth na hóige. larraim ar na Teachtaí ar fad tacú linn agus tacú le Roseann an
feachtas a chur chun tosaigh arís.
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: Given that the Minister of State, Deputy Ann Phelan, made
the response this evening, I am happy to afford the Minister, Deputy Donohoe, a minute now
if he wishes to avail of it to confirm he will actively support this legislation and its passage
through Committee Stage and onward to the Statute Book.
18/02/2015DDD00200
Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport (Deputy Paschal Donohoe): I just want to
take the opportunity to reiterate what I said last night. It was outlined by Deputy Jonathan
O’Brien. While he did not agree with what I said, he did go through in some detail what I said
last night, for which I thank him. Last night, I was very clear to the House that I do support
the introduction of a lower speed limit of 20 km/h. Based on all the experience that I and my
Department have had in making our roads safer, those who are best placed to actually implement those laws are local authorities. I actually outlined the reasons for that too. Last night,
Deputy Brian Stanley said this must be done through councillors, blanket speed limits are not
logical, speed limits must fit the road and residential areas must be defined locally. Those were
the words of a Sinn Féin Deputy on this matter last night.
18/02/2015DDD00300
I am happy to repeat that I believe the option of a lower speed limit can play a role in making our roads safer. I also believe, however, that those best placed to implement that law are
local authorities.
18/02/2015DDD00400
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I thank the Minister. His minute is up.
Deputy Paschal Donohoe: Deputy McDonald was good enough to afford me the time. I
outlined very clearly what my stance is on this matter here last night. I have done so continuously on a matter which I know is very important. Like every other Member, I want to do all I
can to make our roads safer. However, I have to put in place laws that I am confident will work
and can build on the successful experience we have had to date in making our roads safer. I
thank Deputy McDonald for the opportunity to state that tonight.
18/02/2015DDD00500
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I was happy to afford the Minister the opportunity to outline his position. I am, however, disappointed he parroted the same rhetoric yet again. He did
that against the backdrop of an absolute unanimous view in this Chamber that it makes good
common sense to have a mandatory speed limit of 20 km/h in housing estates, whether public or
private. It is good common sense because in all housing estates many of the residents are young
421
18/02/2015DDD00600
Dáil Éireann
families. That means children will be out playing chasing, cycling their bikes, hurling a sliotar
or playing a game of football. In the absence of a mandatory low speed limit of 20 km/h, those
children are endangered. It is not rocket science. Anybody with an ounce of wit who has even
visited such a housing estate, much less lived in one, could tell that as a solid fact. I put it to the
Minister, the Minister of State and their colleagues that if they maintain this passive approach
to this legislation, they will be endangering the safety of children. It is that simple.
The Minister of State spoke about local solutions to local issues. The experience is that
local authorities, despite having the discretion to lower speed limits on housing estates, have
not done so bar in a very limited number of cases. That is over a period of 11 years which the
Minister’s colleague confirmed in a review he carried out. The Minister knows the discretionary option has not worked.
The Minister of State spoke about having a sound evidential basis for reducing the speed
limit. What about the evidence in the Visitors Gallery? The Brennan family who are in the
Gallery buried their six year old child. The reason that happened was a mixture of the most awful misfortune and human miscalculation but also because of the absence of appropriate speed
limits in the estate in which they live. It was not some act of God. It is not acceptable for us,
on the one hand, to express our condolences to the Brennan family and then, on the other, to say
we recognise in principle something should happen but we are not prepared to do it. That is not
an acceptable position for the Brennan family. A speed limit of 20 km/h is very low. It has been
deliberately chosen at that level because drivers should be only crawling into and snailing their
way out of residential housing estates. Common sense tells us that should be the case.
The Minister says, on the one hand, that he will not oppose this legislation but, on the other,
he has made it very clear this evening that he will not give it his active support. Where does
that leave us? Where does that leave Government backbenchers who sincerely and honourably
set out their stall, recognising speed limits need to change? More importantly, where does it
leave Jake Brennan’s family and the other families in question? Last night, I spoke about Rita
Malone and her eight year old son Oran from County Clare. Oran, fortunately, survived his accident but was badly injured. The event was absolutely traumatic for his family.
9 o’clock
Rita, Rosie and the family, as well as other families, will tell the Minister that when an incident is investigated, the working assumption is that the child was at fault. One of the most
compelling reasons for a mandatory reduction of the speed limit in residential housing estates
is that if there is an accident that causes a catastrophic injury to a child, or worse - death - the
starting point in the investigation and the first question to be asked will be how was it possible
if the driver was obeying the proper speed limit of 20 km/h. Does the Minister see how it would
change entirely the investigation and the outcome? Does he see how it would shape behaviour
and attitudes and how it would keep children safe?
I really do not know why the Minister has dug his heels in on this issue. I am not sure that
it is, but it might be about money or the price of signage. I can tell the Minster of what I am
sure and what his own researched has proved, that the discretionary approach is failing badly.
It failed Jake Brennan and his family. It has failed other families and, in the absence of the
Minister enthusiastically supporting the legislation through Committee Stage and beyond, will
fail others. I do not want any of us to have to stand here and ask ourselves, the Minister or the
Minister of State why we have had another such scenario. We have an opportunity to correct
422
18 February 2015
a deficiency in the law. Why, in the name of goodness, will the Minister not seize it? If he
imagines for one second, as I said to him last night, that this issue is going to go away, that the
Jake legacy campaign or that the demand for Jake’s law is going to go away, he is very badly
mistaken. There is massive public and popular support for this initiative. The reason is - the
same reason there should be unanimity in the Dáil chamber - it makes sense and because it is
necessary. None of us ever again wants to look into the eyes of a parent who has lost a child
in a housing estate in these circumstances, knowing in our hearts that we did not do everything
possible to minimise or avoid the possibility of that tragedy happening.
Question put and agreed to.
18/02/2015EEE00300
Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2015: Referral to Select Committee
Deputy Mary Lou McDonald: I move:
18/02/2015EEE00400
That the Bill be referred to the Select sub-Committee on Transport, Tourism and Sport
pursuant to Standing Orders 82A(3)(a) and (6)(a) and 118 of the Standing Orders relative
to Public Business.
Question put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 9.05 p.m. until 9.30 a.m on Thursday, 19 February 2015.
423