February 28th
Local Government Services (Corporate Bodies) (Confirmation of Orders) Bill 2008: Second Stage.
welcome that not only are we debating this Bill today but also that this is the first Bill to be initiated in the 23rd Seanad. The record of the 21st Seanad and 22nd Seanad in initiating legislation was very good. As members of this Seanad we should be seeking similar access towards progressing legislation.
This is a technical Bill and the contributions to the debate so far have been brief, indicating the depth of the legislation. It does not contain many issues of note but is important in terms of having the issues properly and legally clarified. That said, it also offers Senators an opportunity to talk briefly about the general situation regarding local government. At very least, we are on the threshold of a wide-ranging debate on this issue. The Green Paper on local government reform will be published in a matter of weeks. This will initiate a process confirmed in the programme of Government and it will be followed by a White Paper and relevant legislation. Unlike previous speakers, I am confident that will result in wide ranging reform and will address matters that were comprehensively answered in other chambers, particularly restrictions on spending for local government elections. I look forward to a comprehensive local government Bill at the end of this year or in early 2009, which will confirm these amendments. It is important that reform extends beyond the bodies covered by this legislation and the technical changes as to how they operate and what they are called and introduces 85 years after the foundation of the State a real system of local government.
We have had a system of local administration and while Ireland is a small country, there has been an imbalance between how decisions are made by the Government and local government agencies. This must be corrected to introduce vibrancy into our democratic procedures. This will help the nature of our society and it will have an economic impact. Local government needs to be local. Not only has that imbalance existed throughout the years, there has been a worrying trend in the past 20 years, which has been confirmed by Governments of various compositions and all political parties, of not only properly centralising powers and taking them from local authorities but also putting them into a less accountable tier under which a plethora of agencies has been established, which lack accountability and whose make up is questionable in the context of membership and nominations. When the local government process begins in earnest with the publication of the Green Paper, I would like that issue addressed.
When I was elected to Cork Corporation in 1991, many of these agencies were being set up and their establishment was assisted through EU funding. I recall having conversations with other councillors who were afraid of people involving themselves in these community structures on the basis of a lack of accountability and the establishment of a parallel political system. Those elected to local authorities are subject to an imbalance in decision-making between national and local government and between executive and reserve functions. Since the early 1990s, councillors have had very few decision-making powers, particularly in allocating resources within their communities. The agencies covered by this legislation are in place to advise but they exist in the shadows. These bodies are seldom mentioned in the House nor are they the subject of further examination, accountability or discussion. Perhaps, as part of the reform process, annual reports should be laid before the House, even though they form a weighty pile in our offices. However, the job of knowing what these agencies do, asking questions of them and examining their effectiveness is not being done by either House or through the committee system. Very often, the only opportunity we have to refer to these bodies is through legislation such as this.
February 27th
Visit of Northern Ireland Delegation.
It is rare to hear the House speak in one voice on such an issue, especially one that could be used for narrow party political purposes. While some attempt has been made to remind the Government of its responsibilities in this area, it is fair to say all contributions have supported the retention of both Coast Guard stations. That is how it should be because logic does not seem to have had a significant part in this decision. We had the 2002 report and we had an agenda that was fostered elsewhere.
Senator Ó Dómhnaill referred to the last page of the Minister of State’s contribution. I too note the references to the Department of Finance and the efficiency review that all Departments are now required to undertake. I suspect this is a more likely rationale for what is being proposed and what certain people in the Department would like to happen. The decision to have one station where two existed previously represents not merely a reverse decentralisation proposal but a rationalisation. It is proposed that people operating in Malin Head and Valentia Island be reallocated to a new location where property prices are higher than in either counties Donegal or Kerry and where the quality of life in terms of access to schools and trying to get from A to B is commensurately worse than in those areas. This makes no sense in the context of a commitment to Government policies that seek to improve the quality of life of all citizens on this island.
I caution against an accountant’s approach in looking at the assets of a Department and how they should be deployed. I have other reasons for asking that the Coast Guard stations at Valentia Island and Malin Head be maintained. I represent an area that is coastal in its own right even though it is an urban area. As a Munster man, I have an affinity with the Kerry operation. Furthermore, my father is a Donegal man, a merchant sailor and an islander. I like to think I have some affinity for the maritime history that brought about the construction of lighthouses and Coast Guard stations throughout the State. Their locations were chosen precisely according to where they needed to be located. These were the locations where maritime traffic took place and where those with an expertise in maritime life lived and continue to live. The proposal that this history, expertise and valuable maritime heritage can somehow be uprooted and relocated in a place like Drogheda is beyond any consideration of what we are as an island nation.
I appeal to the Minister of State and the departmental officials to commit to an active reconsideration of this decision. It represents not merely a reversal of the 2002 Deloitte & Touche report but a reversal of the active programme of investment in the Irish Coast Guard that took place from the start of the decade onwards. When I had the privilege of representing the constituency of Cork South-Central, Oysterhaven was part of that constituency. It has since moved to Cork South-West and a new, modern station has been constructed, although it does not perform exactly the same function as the stations at Malin Head and Valentia Island. Since then, however, other Coast Guard stations such as Crosshaven, which remains in Cork South-Central, have been kicked from pillar to post in their efforts to secure badly needed resources in terms of upgraded facilities and a new location. I would prefer if ministerial and departmental efforts went into maintaining a programme of work which was proving successful. As well as maintaining the Coast Guard stations in places such as Malin Head and Valentia Island, we must also upgrade the Irish Coast Guard service itself. Dozens of Coast Guard stations require upgrading and to provide for that would represent an economic saving in the long term.
We must acknowledge our maritime heritage and the economic value of being an island nation and the associated dependence on the sea. I spoke recently to the harbour master in Cork Harbour who explained to me a concept that he and other harbour masters are trying to promote, that of the highways of the seas. He told me that fish are being landed by Spanish ships in Bantry, taken by container truck from Bantry to Rosslare, put on a ferry to Pembroke and put on the road to Southampton before finally being put on a ferry to France and driven to Spain. One can only imagine the carbon footprint. This is illustrative of the illogical nature of our transport and maritime policies. It is indicative of a small mindedness and a failure to look to the future in attempting to solve the problems of the present. Until we stop thinking and acting like this, I fear for future maritime policy.
All this is before we come to the issues of rural development that have been the focus of debate today. It is unquestionably important that facilities such as those at Malin Head and Valentia Island are maintained because there is a need for critical mass in the communities in which they are located. They serve as focal points and places of employment and provide the expertise in terms of justifying all the other elements of social infrastructure in Malin Head and Valentia Island. Our policies should encourage their maintenance and ensure the people who work there can remain in the communities. The primary argument for their retention is economic. In this instance, however, there is no evidence of a genuine maritime policy or if there is such a policy, it operates in an entirely illogical way.
I return to the subject of rural development policy because it is an issue in which I am greatly interested as a consequence of my own family history. Although I am from Cork, I am more familiar with Malin Head than with Valentia Island. I know the landscape and the communities who live there. In economic terms, as other speakers observed, a decision of this type has an immeasurably greater impact for the relevant communities than, for example, large-scale factory closures in urban areas. As political representatives, and as a Government, we cannot and should not allow such decisions to be made.
The only hope I have is that by the end of this debate, the single mindedness with which all the contributions have been articulated in this Chamber will be heeded and the necessary reversal of the decision taken. If not, I fear it will be the start of a process where similarly stupid mistakes will be made. If this House is to have any impact and relevance, I hope the voices that have been raised today will achieve that change.
While this is a short Bill, it is important for us to take the opportunity to highlight that accountability is a central role of ours, as a Parliament, and we are collectively failing in this regard. If, in dealing with the legislation, we can address that issue and devise proposals to overcome that failure, we will have done part of our job as parliamentarians. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate and I welcome the use of the Seanad to initiate the Bill. I look forward to this being the first of many Bills relating to local government reform about which both Houses will be exercised, at least for the next 18 months.
February 21st
Special Educational Needs: Statements
Senator Dan Boyle: In politics the human issues are always the most difficult to deal with and to govern on. It is easy in Opposition to oppose. It becomes more difficult in Government to come up with appropriate decisions.
Recent Irish political history involving all Governments and political persuasions in the make-up of those Governments has seen a raft of measures on issues that were inappropriately handled, from the haemophiliacs in the early 1980s and the hepatitis C cases in the mid-1990s to the residential redress scheme for abuse in institutions and the situation relating to children with autism. When a situation is made needlessly worse by a bureaucratic approach to what is essentially a human issue it is the political process itself that is failing.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Well done. It is the Senator’s Government. Go for it.
Acting Chairman: Senator Boyle, without interruption.
Senator Dan Boyle: In saying that, we have a collective responsibility in addressing it.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Go for it.
Senator Liam Twomey: That is what the Senator should do.
Senator Dan Boyle: It ill behoves the Opposition to point fingers and name-call on an issue such as this. It is difficult enough to deal with the issue without having a common approach on it. I would go even further and say that what has been a departmental-led approach in all these issues to resort to the courts system to delay what were necessary social improvements in many of these areas has not been a good approach in terms of the way we should have been managing our country.
There is a job of work to be done by the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the cost of judicial actions taken by Departments on behalf of the State in the past 20 years in regard to all these issues and the way those resources could have been better used to speed up advances in these areas.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Hear, hear.
Senator Dan Boyle: Most of the public disquiet about the recent case arose because while the Government did not ask the Ó Cuanacháins to pay the State’s legal costs as well, which a court decision would have allowed it to do, the fact that the Ó Cuanacháins’ side of those costs alone cost approximately €2 million says something about the cost of judicial action in the first instance.
On the need for people to seek judicial address that has not been properly provided through legislation, prior to the coming into Government of my party, the last Dáil and Seanad passed three pieces of legislation on disability — the Disability Bill, the Education of People with Special Educational Needs Bill and the Citizens Information Bill. Taken together, that tranche of legislation was meant to address many of the ongoing issues.
It has been mentioned in the House on the Order of Business and in contributions to this debate that one element of that, the Education of Persons with Special Educational Needs Act, requires several of its provisions to come into being by the making of ministerial orders. In terms of progressing this issue, that is something on which we should speak with one voice. If the legislative will has been given already by the Dáil and the Seanad, there should be no further reason to delay the making of those provisions, and I would encourage the Minister to do so.
I encourage the Minister and all our Cabinet colleagues — two of my party colleagues are now members of the Cabinet — to avoid in every circumstance, regardless of the advice being offered by civil servants in their Departments, the use of judicial action in terms of people seeking what should be natural rights that are not properly defined either in our Constitution or in our laws. That may be unavoidable on occasions but too often in the past it appears to have been used as a weapon of first resort.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: With no placements they had no choice.
Acting Chairman: Senator Boyle, without interruption.
Senator Dan Boyle: I am not criticising it.
Acting Chairman: Senator Boyle, without interruption.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I know but this is a debate and the Senator is raising an important issue.
Senator Dan Boyle: My own familiarity with the use of judicial action against departmental or Government inaction came about early in my political career when I met Marie O’Donoghue, whose son Paul took the initial case that was subsequently followed on in the Sinnott case in regard to lifelong learning for people with an intellectual disability. While we are concentrating narrowly in terms of autism on special schooling at primary level, the debate must be held in its widest context. What is the purpose of education? Education exists for the State to provide for every citizen the opportunity to allow such citizens reach their potential and in too many respects our system, while there have been additional resources, is failing in that respect.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: That is right. That is what we are trying to defend.
Senator Dan Boyle: That is not a fault solely of Government. It has to do——
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: They should provide the resources.
Senator Dan Boyle: They are the State’s resources.
Acting Chairman: Senator Healy-Eames, address your remarks through the Chair. You are continuing these interruptions and in fairness to Senator Boyle, he did not interrupt anyone.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: On a point of order, we have two and a half hours for such an important debate. It is a pity this debate is not conducted differently so that we could have more interchange on such critical points.
Acting Chairman: That is not a point of order. The Fine Gael spokesperson can raise that.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: I want the Acting Chairman to take on board this feedback.
Acting Chairman: I call Senator Boyle and ask Senator Healy Eames to resume her seat.
Senator Dan Boyle: I would like to think that the whole point of my contribution is to highlight that we have not been having this debate properly. It has been conducted in the normal discourse of politics, namely, finger pointing and name calling. It is not addressing the wider ramifications of the issue or the long-term needs. I pointed out a series of measures by which other political parties and other governments of different compositions have addressed similar issues in an inadequate way. It is the way our political system is structured that raises these problems, not the Government or the parties in Government at any given time.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: The Government holds the purse strings.
Senator Dan Boyle: The Government has a responsibility that I feel is being fulfilled to a certain extent but, as an individual person, I think it needs to be improved upon. That process is not helped, either in terms of the issue or the people who live with it, by the use of the issue as a political football. That is the central point of my contribution.
February 21st
Order of Business
The statements on a national waste strategy are proceeding through the House and we will return to them next week. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will be in the House to take this debate. The opportunity of the Minister’s presence should be used to make a definitive statement on waste management policy.
Last evening, an application was made to An Bord Pleanála through the strategic infrastructure plan by Indaver to place a second incinerator in Ringaskiddy, County Cork. In doing so, the company has shown the utmost contempt for the local community. Many statements were made since the formation of this Government and within the programme for Government itself. We have ongoing processes for reviews of waste management practices and these will report later this year. Pending legislation will introduce an incineration levy which will make incineration less economically viable.
For companies to use existing legislation in such an underhand way undermines the efforts to put in place a sensible and sane waste management policy. I look forward to this opportunity and to the encouragement of the Leader of the House for the making of such a definitive policy statement when we resume this debate next Wednesday.
Senator Paul Bradford: I agree with the comments made by Senator Boyle on a need for further debate on a waste management strategy. The problem is that we have never had a national waste management strategy. Perhaps we have booklets, documents and departmental guidelines. However, individual local authorities have their own plans and strategies and these can contradict with those of other local authorities. The local authority previously represented by Senators Boyle and Buttimer, Cork City Council, virtually refused to co-operate with my local authority, Cork County Council, with regard to a waste management strategy for the entire county of Cork. If we cannot get it right for one county, our aspirations for a national waste management strategy will end up in the refuse bin, if one excuses the pun. I look forward to the debate. We have had debates ad nauseam, sadly with no progress or action.
I request a debate as soon as possible on the world trade talks and their possible negative impact on Irish agriculture, in particular the future of the Irish beef industry. For many months, this House was unanimous in its views on the importation of Brazilian beef. The progress on this issue led us to believe the Irish beef industry would be in a position to thrive. However, facts and figures emerging from Brussels indicate the proposals by Commissioner Mandelson, which he is trying to sneak through, will result in the end virtually of the Irish beef industry and will put 60,000 beef farmers out of business.
This would be a calamity for the Irish economy and for Irish agriculture. It appears Commissioner Mandelson is on a solo run. We must intervene and use this House and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have an urgent debate and take charge of the position from an Irish perspective. We cannot allow one Commissioner on a solo run to ruin the Irish beef industry. It is on the verge of happening within weeks unless the Government and the Oireachtas take action. Is it possible for the Leader to arrange a debate on this issue for next week? It was discussed briefly at the Joint Committee on European Affairs this week and this morning at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is imperative the debate takes place in the immediate future. The Oireachtas and the Government must send a strong signal to Commissioner Peter Mandelson, “Hands off the Irish beef industry; you will not be allowed dismantle itâ€.
February 20th
Economic Outlook: Motion.
sense a huge dichotomy between the motion presented to us this evening by Fine Gael and the opening contributions of its members. On the surface I cannot disagree with the wording of the motion as I want to see an acceleration of the reform of sectors of our economy. I want the role of the Oireachtas to be respected. I want to ensure vital infrastructure is delivered and the funding required in all levels of the education system and for research and development and IT development is provided.
Senator Twomey’s opening contribution was nothing short of a rant. It is nonsense to argue that everything that is economically negative is the fault of the Government. The argument is particularly hard to take from the Fine Gael Party, which covers itself in a veneer of economic competence but has, in opposition, proposed some of the most insane economic policies to feature in political debate. For example, during the general election campaign before last, it proposed compensation for taxi drivers and Eircom shareholders. The joint platform agreed between the Fine Gael and Labour parties prior to the previous general election was predicated on levels of economic growth that were not achievable given the knowledge available at the time. If those parties had found themselves in Government, they would have spent most of their time in office renouncing the programme for Government they presented to the population at the general election. That is an economic fact.
am the spokesperson for the party which produced the most prudent economic platform at the previous general election, one which anticipated that the rate of economic growth would slow down. However, electoral politics dictated that Fine Gael and the Labour Party were just as likely to work on the basis of bogus economic figures as any other party. The former party’s attempt to present current economic conditions in the most negative terms possible must be challenged.
Senator Liam Twomey: The figures used by Fine Gael were provided by the Department of Finance and accepted by the Government.
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow Senator Boyle to continue without interruption.
Senator Dan Boyle: I am referring to the rate of economic growth used by the Fine Gael Party, not whether two sides of the balance sheet added up.
Senator Liam Twomey: The Senator knows exactly what I am talking about. He should not manipulate the figures to suit himself.
Senator Dan Boyle: The Fine Gael Party produced an exaggerated rate of economic growth, which it was not possible to achieve, either then or now. We are not in a national or international recession, nor is the economy stagnation. The worst thing to happen to the economy, still one of the best performers in Europe, is that the rate of economic growth has slowed.
Valid criticisms can be made of the way in which resources are apportioned in our economy and the transfer of decision making responsibility from the Government to external agencies. The health service is an obvious example of the latter trend. Questions should be asked about the decisions by agencies to cut various services despite receiving increased allocations every year. The argument made by Fine Gael amounts to nothing more than name calling and hand waving.
Senator Paschal Donohoe: It is not name calling. Who is ranting now?
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Boyle has not made a single proposal. He has done nothing but rant.
Senator Dan Boyle: I am a few decibels short of my ranting voice.
Senator Paschal Donohoe: His contribution so far has been derisory.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask Senators not to engage in debate across the floor.
Senator Dan Boyle: If my words are so offensive to the Senators opposite, the truth must hurt.
Senator Paschal Donohoe: We will not take this.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Senator Boyle changed his colours and was found out a long time ago.
Senator Dan Boyle: Since 1982, the Fine Gael Party has been found wanting in seeking the confidence of the electorate.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Green Party took office to try to save itself.
Senator Dan Boyle: The reason it has been found wanting is that it has not been honest economically.
In the current international economic climate we are still projecting an annual economic growth rate of 2.7% this year, which is well above the European average and double that of most of our competitors. I am confident we will not have a repeat of our experience of the 1980s because the economic growth achieved in the past decade has placed us in a better position to withstand——
Senator Paschal Donohoe: Why does the European Commission not agree?
Senator Dan Boyle: Did the Senator not hear Senator MacSharry’s contribution? The EU said exactly what I said.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Did it refer to zero growth?
Senator Dan Boyle: The EU referred to lower rates of growth. The Fine Gael Party can complain when it is in Government and achieves economic growth every year. If one does not have economic growth, one does not have the additional resources to meet needs.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator should read the report.
Senator Dan Boyle: I read it avidly. Senator Buttimer might do the same when he understands economics.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator should not be patronising. That is a typical remark and he is wrong.
An Cathaoirleach: One speaker has possession and other Senators will have an opportunity to speak. I ask Senators to allow Senator Boyle to continue without interruption, please.
Senator Dan Boyle: My confidence is based on the fact that the structure of the economy has changed and our relationships with trading partners are much different. For instance, when we joined the European Economic Community we conducted 50% of our trade with the United Kingdom, our main trading partner. This figure has reduced to 14% and our main trading partner is now the United States, with which we conduct 15% of our trade. Our trading relations are more diverse, not only in terms of the number of countries with which we trade but also in terms of the types of goods and services in which we trade. It is also more secure as a result of adequate investment over the years.
This change is not the sole responsibility of any Government or political party. Structural decisions made over the years on education and taxation policy have boosted economic growth. The Single European Act created the Single Market in Europe and encouraged many multinational companies to establish in Ireland. The benefit of some of these factors is beginning to dissipate and the manufacturing sector is experiencing difficulties as companies move to locations with a lower cost base. Problems also arise regarding energy use in the economy.
In his contribution, which I described, perhaps in unparliamentary language, as a rant, Senator Twomey referred to the Green Party, of which I am the finance spokesperson. Our proposals to restructure the taxation system will not add one cent to the tax burden and will be to our advantage in creating a more competitive, resilient economy in future.
February 20th
Northern Ireland Issues: Statements.
Last weekend I had the pleasure of visiting Belfast on the occasion of the annual conference of the Green Party in Northern Ireland. The Green Party in Northern Ireland is a regional council of the Green Party on this island. We are one of only two political parties that operate on an all-island basis. Not only are we represented in both Houses of the Oireachtas but we are also represented in the legislative Assembly in the North.
The visit was an opportunity for me to get a feel for life in Northern Ireland and express a note of regret that it was one of all too infrequent visits I make to that part of this island. I felt the post-conflict Belfast is more comfortable with itself and a place where the normalisation process, while not complete, is ongoing and has also assisted to define a sense of confidence that has been lacking in the past because of the nature of the conflict which, while we refer to it as occurring on that side of the island, also spilled over into sections of this part of the island. We must acknowledge that when addressing the issue of collusion and the various committees that have attempted to make sense of the issue and bring finality to it.
I arrived in Belfast on Friday to visit my colleagues in Stormont. It was my first visit to the facility and I found it to be an impressive building. I visited both Chambers of what had been the Parliament of Northern Ireland. While I was young when Stormont was first discontinued in 1972 I must profess to an ignorance of the Northern Ireland Senate. While most people would be aware that one of the effects of the conflict in Northern Ireland was the murder while in office of a Member of this House, Senator Billy Fox, I was not aware of similar murders of two members of the Northern Ireland Senate, Senators Jack Barnwell and Paddy Wilson, which are acknowledged by way of a plaque. That was part of the catalogue of horrific events with which we have had to live on this island for the past decades which I hope the processes and procedures that followed the Good Friday Agreement are starting to put to rights. One of the overhanging issues is the lack of finality, the lack of information that those who suffered tragic events such as senseless killings have had to endure. Collusion is a large shadow over that.
Earlier contributions have acknowledged that collusion was a two sided street. This State and agencies representing the State must answer questions and provide information. If the ongoing debate on collusion reveals this information, it will assist the process. After the Barron report, which concentrated on a number of events, the report of the Oireachtas sub-committee and the MacEntee report we must decide on the mechanism needed to bring finality to these issues.
In South Africa the truth commission was the mechanism used. Victims’ rights groups on this island have advocated this as a possible mechanism to be considered. I personally support it but recognise the difficulties involved. Because we are in a post-conflict situation, and mechanisms were set up by the Good Friday Agreement, the degree of justice that can be attained will be compromised. That is the nature of the agreement reached by all sectors. If justice is not fully served by the conviction and imprisonment of those involved in horrendous acts, we should expect that the information pertaining to those acts be given full exposure. That was the value of the truth commission in South Africa. There was no expectation of a court or prison process following the information becoming available. How we will come to finality on the issue of collusion, how we get this information to the public and how the victims and family members of these circumstances can feel at peace has been left too vague and inconclusive. Although it is good to air the debate I regret that, following the debate in Dáil Éireann, we lack a mechanism in the form of a motion to progress it. In having this debate we must think towards an end to the process rather than its continuation. I have put forward my support for a truth commission and I believe it would have widespread support but I acknowledge the difficulties involved. If such a process were established, the type of information that would emerge, the degree of hurt and wounds that would be reopened would be difficult for us to handle on all parts of this island. Most of the political reluctance exists because of the question about whether we really need this and whether we can handle it. If we are to move on and put behind us a prolonged history of political violence, it is a thorn to be grasped. We must put up for scrutiny the hidden part of our history. Until we do so there will be far too many unanswered questions and far too many unfulfilled people in terms of how and why they lost their loved ones. I hope the political system can devise the means for that to happen soon, in co-operation with all political forces on this island.
February 20th
Control of Exports Bill 2007 [Seanad Bill amended by the Dáil]: Report and Final Stages.
I welcome the inclusion of this amendment, its passage in Dáil Éireann and it being reported to Seanad Éireann. This amendment was recommended by the Green Party and I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to include it in the Bill. It is important that we have internal compliance procedures for licence holders and it is important that those procedures be mandatory. It is also important that licences include a level of post-export examination as regards the destination of the goods and technology as this will help ensure they are not used for military purposes and that they are not a factor in human rights abuses abroad. This amendment represents an improvement to the Bill and for that reason should be welcomed by the House in the manner it has been welcomed by those who campaigned for the inclusion of such an aspect to the Bill.
Senator John Carty: Will the Minister of State give a commitment that the annual report will be taken seriously, rather than left on a shelf gathering dust?
Senator Dan Boyle: I accept the Minister of State’s explanation for the need for this amendment as the Bill has taken some time to go through both Houses of the Oireachtas and the elections to both Houses was part of that process. I welcome the fact that an annual report is part of the procedures of this Bill and, along with Senator Carty, I feel it is important that the reporting mechanism for such a Bill should be to have it debated, where possible, preferably in this House, where there might be more latitude to examine its provisions and comment critically on how the report can be improved in subsequent years.
I too will welcome the final passage of this Bill into enactment when it is signed by Uachtarán na hÉireann as it represents an important development in legislation in this area. This applies particularly to the area of licensing and the introduction of a series of controls on an industry that few members of the public in Ireland wish to see develop. On those grounds, the legislation should help prevent the unnecessary development of such an industry.
Nevertheless, it is only part of a policy approach aimed at ensuring the arms industry does not develop a strong base here. We need to consider introducing legislation or ethical investment guidelines to govern the use of State moneys, specifically the National Pensions Reserve Fund. We need to ensure the State does not unwittingly encourage the development of the arms industry, either domestically or internationally. the legislation will be a cornerstone for our enterprise policies for international trade and I wish the Minister of State every success in implementing it.
February 14th 2008
National Waste Strategy: Statements
For too long, the debate on waste in Ireland has been about the end of pipe solutions, that is, how one disposes of the waste that is created. In Ireland, we invariably have chosen the landfill option and rarely took into account properly the reason so much waste is produced in the first instance. The per capita amount of waste produced in Ireland often is twice that produced by many of our European counterparts. Each Irish citizen produces the equivalent of 1.25 tonnes per year. That would frighten many people if they were standing next to it. Other countries have started successfully to reduce the amount of waste that has been created. We must ask ourselves the reason we have not done the same. We are now reaching the point at which after decades and generations of poor waste management, our countryside is littered with landfills, some of which have long exceeded their natural lifespans. Many are being closed and alternatives for them must be sought.
The question of mass burn incineration has been raised in this debate. I continue to believe that mass burn incineration is the wrong response. I listened with interest to Senator Norris’s contribution, who quoted the views of P. J. Rudden. As a consultant the latter has been the person most responsible for promoting incineration in Ireland and his company was the main author of regional waste management strategies that suggested the development of a necklace of incinerators around the country. It is clear this proposal was wrong and unnecessary. Incineration is a technology that demands to be fed. If one builds an infrastructure that requires the burning of X amount of materials, a consequential requirement arises to produce X amount of materials. This is utterly incompatible with a strategy in which one seeks to reduce waste at every opportunity. In philosophical terms, incineration is the wrong answer. Moreover, incineration is a combustion-based technology. As the combustion process adds to the major global environmental problem we face, namely, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, it is a highly stupid solution. Until we cease to propose this option as a high point of any waste management strategy, we will not solve the central issue.
The programme for Government makes a number of commitments in this regard. A commitment in respect of the EU landfill directive states that by 2010 we must seek to have only 10% of waste going to landfill, with the other 90% being diverted either to recycling or other waste management technologies. The programme for Government goes further in stating that the preferred technologies are biological and mechanical methods of disposal. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is working assiduously to promote this use of technology. The other commitment in the programme for Government states that incineration will not be given an economic advantage, either by way of “put and pay†clauses, which are a controversial element of the contract that Dublin City Council has signed in respect of Poolbeg, or by not matching any increase in landfill levies with the introduction of a similar level of levy for incineration. The Minister is producing legislation in this regard that will bring into play that principle.
Although certain cases still are within the planning process and the courts, I remain optimistic that alternatives and other waste management options will emerge that will help us to avoid mass burn incineration. Members must give particular consideration to the subject of hazardous waste. As Senator Buttimer is aware, the proposal for a national hazardous waste incinerator in Ringaskiddy has been controversial. Ringaskiddy has been always a bad choice for a number of reasons. While it is a centre for the pharmaceutical industry, one must bear in mind that locating a national hazardous waste facility in a particular area means that waste must be transported thereto from the rest of the country. Advocates of incineration contend that Ringaskiddy, having been heavily industrialised, can accommodate more hazardous waste. I have always rejected this argument. It is rarely understood that there are already five incinerators in the Ringaskiddy area, two at the Novartis plant and three at the SmithKline Beecham plant. If I, as an individual, were to accept the principle of incineration, it would be on the basis of having small-scale plant-based incinerators subject to integrated pollution prevention control licensing by the Environmental Protection Agency. On the basis of the industrial processes of the companies concerned, we would have a fair idea of what would be incinerated and what would be emitted.
It should be suggested as part of the current review of the national hazardous waste strategy that incinerators, if we are to have them, should be small-scale and linked to the installations producing the waste. We need to reject, by way of policy, the view that mass-burn incineration is a solution. I am confident that Government policy is going in this direction.
Ireland is often accused of being a bad neighbour for exporting most of its hazardous waste abroad. This argument is similar to that on incineration in general in that it is a matter of economies of scale. If we are to have sufficient infrastructure in Ireland to deal with hazardous waste in an economically viable manner, we must produce more of it or import it from abroad. There is still a logic to exportation and I am glad the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has secured ongoing permission from the European Commission to allow some export of our hazardous waste. That said, we still require some hazardous waste facility in Ireland.
Regardless of what waste management method is chosen, there must be a degree of contained landfill. One can dispose of waste directly in landfill or one can use a mechanical and biological process or incineration. However, in the latter cases, a residue must still be sent to landfill. We must face up to the fact that we need a contained hazardous waste landfill as distinct from a hazardous waste incinerator. We must take care of as much of our hazardous waste as possible in Ireland and ensure we produce as little as possible, thereby guaranteeing there is less to dispose of.
Perversely, one item of good news that has emerged from our failure to deal with hazardous waste in the past is that it has created an incentive for companies to change their production practices. We have engaged in an act of waste minimisation over the past ten to 15 years that would not have occurred had the easy disposal option existed, as was proposed and as is still being proposed in some quarters. We need to strike a balance by reducing the waste we produce while ensuring it is very difficult to dispose of. Whatever other elements we require, such as a hazardous waste landfill or some exportation of materials we cannot handle owing to the expense or the requirement to produce more waste to justify processing it ourselves, it is a simple equation. I regret we have not been able to state it properly in political terms in the past. I am convinced, however, that through the work of the Minister and the programme for Government, the equation will be balanced in the short term.
February 13th
Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill 2007: Second Stage.
There has been a general welcome for the Bill, as there should be, and it is about time for it because it is informed by international law such as the conventions of the UN and of the Council of Europe. We have been tardy in recognising the existence and scale of the problem and the need for appropriate legislation to deal with it but, thankfully, the Legislature is dealing with this. The Bill was improved during its passage through the Dáil and it is hoped the debate in the Seanad will involve further consideration of areas that need to be examined to deal with the dangerous crime of human trafficking.
While the trafficking of people for sexual purposes has been most prevalent in Ireland, there also have been sad examples of people being imported in inhumane conditions into the State. Sadly, deaths have occurred as a result of such trafficking incidents, which makes a Bill of this nature all the more important. I am grateful for the general acceptance of the principles behind the Bill and the common acceptance of the need to ensure the Bill will operate to the highest possible standards.
Two areas should be considered when trying to improve the Bill further and may be criticisms to which Members will return in a later debate on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. In recent years, most items of legislation have shared a common feature, regardless of the composition of the Government of the day, namely, the need to give power through secondary legislation to the Minister and his or her successor to produce regulations as to how the Bill might operate. Members should ensure this power is used as little as possible. When it is used they should ensure such regulations are brought forward to this House by way of a statutory instrument to facilitate proper further consideration and the approval of the House is obtained in such matters. Such a principle should be adopted in respect of legislation such as the Bill before the House.
The second area already has been alluded to. Despite the provisions on anonymity in this Bill, those who are victims of human trafficking, particularly in the sexual area, may be open to discrimination in other areas. It is commonly accepted that prosecutions under laws on public propriety and sexual offences will not be applied as a result of this measure and that a rule of thumb will be applied by the law authorities. I again refer to the future debate on the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill. There is a danger that people who have been trafficked into this country and who have suffered appalling abuse will be subjected to possible removal from the country, having been identified. Members should not be prepared to stand over such occurrences. While this matter cannot be rectified directly in this Bill, it is referred to in subsequent legislation and I hope Members can return to this issue.
Several organisations already have been mentioned in this House in respect of their campaigning role and in ensuring that all public representatives are aware of the need to introduce effective legislation on this issue. I add my voice in support of such organisations. I also will be parochial in naming an organisation that has not been mentioned yet, the Sexual Violence Centre in Cork. Through its stop sex trafficking campaign, it formed part of a coalition of bodies that made public representatives aware of the issues associated with this Bill and of the need to place on the Statute Book the best possible legislation. One also must acknowledge the role played by the Irish section of Amnesty International. It submitted a great deal of material to Members in respect of this Bill to inform them of the international aspect of human trafficking in general, its existence and the role Ireland has as a moral country participating in international negotiations in this field.
I look forward to the Minister addressing the areas I have raised on the conclusion of the Second Stage debate next week. Between Second and Committee Stages, this House should have an opportunity to enhance further the Act that will eventually be put in place, in a similar manner to the opportunity already afforded to Dáil Éireann. I am confident, given the record and reputation of the Seanad, that Members will be able to do so with their usual ability. The Minister should take into account such views.
