March 2008
March 20th
Order of Business.
The Leader did not have an opportunity to respond to two issues I raised yesterday and I wish to reaffirm them today. The first was raised by Senator Mullen this morning, namely, the question of Tibet, and the House has an opportunity to speak with one voice on this issue. While No. 17, motion 8 on the Order Paper in the name of the Independent Senators does not refer directly to current events, it might provide the bones of an all-party motion, having been checked by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and could come back before the House at an early date. It is important that the House should speak on an issue of concern as the 50th anniversary of the annexation of Tibet will take place in 2009.
I also agree with the need to have consistency in foreign policy. Ireland recently recognised Kosovo, which is a country that has nothing like the territorial and national integrity of a place like Tibet. We must be truly consistent in our foreign policy actions.
The second issue pertained to the community development support programme on which the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs is making a decision that will come into effect at the end of May. The House should be given the opportunity to discuss the impact of that decision in respect of the community development support programme.
As for the ongoing programme of the House, it is clear that two major themes will dominate proceedings on Members’ return from the recess. The first is that of the Lisbon treaty while the second is that of the economy. In respect of the Lisbon treaty, I also welcome the impending visit of the President of the European Parliament and the promise of contributions from Members of the European Parliament who represent Ireland. This will be a useful exercise in its own right. It is especially important that those members of the European Parliament from Ireland who have an alternative view should participate in such a debate in the House. Members must have an open and rounded discussion regarding the benefits or otherwise of the Lisbon treaty.
On the question of the economy, Members would benefit from having a number of debates. In particular, I would like to hear the views of Opposition Members as to what they would do differently. Would they raise taxes or how would they order public spending in different ways?
Senator Paudie Coffey: Fine Gael turned the country around before when Senator Boyle was not around.
Senator Dan Boyle: There is an onus on everyone in the political system to say that things can be done differently and I do not hear those voices.
Senator Paudie Coffey: Senator Boyle is new to the table. He should not dictate to Members.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Senator Boyle should read the Health Service Executive report. There is a good example.
Senator Dan Boyle: In particular, a sense of perspective is needed. The economy is in continued growth although there is uncertainty in the world.
Senator Paudie Coffey: Fine Gael knows how to deal with difficult times. Senator Boyle need not worry.
Senator Joe O’Reilly: Hear, hear.
Senator Dan Boyle: No one wishes to see a return to the time when our debt-gross domestic product ratio was 140% of what was being collected in taxes in any given year. Many factors can be considered in respect of the economy’s future that will put us in a better position in an uncertain world and global economic climate. I would like the opportunity to discuss such matters in the House when Members return after Easter.
March 19th 2008
Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2008: Second Stage.
I welcome the presentation of the Bill to the House and my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Bill is an important policy initiative that clearly shows the presence of the Green Party in government. Consequently, the welcome given by other Senators is to be acknowledged.
It is clear the previous system of motor tax was grossly inequitable and did not take into account environmental factors. The Bill is a method to address the imbalance and to overcome many of the anomalies that will occur, as of necessity, when a new system replaces an old one. The concept of retrospection is notoriously difficult in any legislation, particularly so in respect of taxation. A cut-off point must be applied at some time. The Minister responded to the debate in the Lower House by adjusting the cut-off point for cars bought from 1 January onwards, an important concession. If Senators are speaking of people who bought environmentally friendly vehicles before then in the full knowledge that no incentive existed and that, in doing so, they were assisting the environmental health of the country, then the concept of retrospection could be also applied to people who bought environmentally unfriendly vehicles knowingly in that they could be asked to pay more tax for the damage they caused. This might be an especially difficult suggestion for Fine Gael, which seems to have in its possession——
Senator John Paul Phelan: I do not know why.
Senator Paudie Coffey: The Senator’s preconceptions are wrong.
Senator Dan Boyle: I am trying to be light-hearted.
Senator Paudie Coffey: The Senator should withdraw his remark.
Senator Dominic Hannigan: This is a serious issue.
Senator Dan Boyle: During last year’s general election, Fine Gael seemed to have in its possession half of the sports utility vehicle, SUV, fleet in the country.
Senator Paudie Coffey: Has the Senator proof? I do not know why he is guffawing.
Senator John Paul Phelan: This is outrageous.
Senator Dan Boyle: In my constituency, there were at least 15 vehicles.
Senator Paudie Coffey: When the Green Party grows, it might have a few more SUVs.
Senator Dan Boyle: That was one constituency. If it is multiplied by 43 constituencies, we would know the total sum of the net effect on the environment.
Senator John Paul Phelan: Are most of Deputy Boyle’s voters not SUV drivers?
Acting Chairman (Senator Paul Bradford): Senator Boyle without interruption.
Senator Dan Boyle: We have come a long way since the time when many public representatives thought a carbon footprint was a piece of copying paper stuck to a shoe. There is now a real debate on the nature of the environmental damage caused by the previous failed policies of all parties that have been in government and on the need to address those policies.
It is undoubtedly true that car ownership and usage in Ireland is high by international standards. By necessity, this is due to the poor state of public transport, a challenge for everyone in public life to address. It is also true that the cultural use of motor vehicles has crept up here in that we have adopted the modes of behaviour of the United States. This must be addressed in respect of what our taxation system measures and encourages people to do, or otherwise, in the area of transport.
Senator Hannigan has just mentioned a highly important statistic regarding the increase in the number of children who are brought to, and collected from, school every day by car. Those who are involved in door-to-door campaigning and who address the concerns of parents who feel obliged to take their children to school in this fashion come up with the ultimate conundrum. Although people want their children to walk or cycle to school, they are unable to so do because the roads are filled with those who take their children to school by car. While such contradictions exist in our society, the question of the proper and necessary use of the motor car should constitute an important national debate.
As for the proposed system that will be imposed, it has been mentioned that its cut-off points mean there are anomalies because of the manner in which cars will be identified by the motor manufacturers on their petrol use and because it will be done both on a revenue-neutral basis and on a fuel-neutral basis. Some cars can be and have been converted. In future, Members will be obliged to consider how to address such anomalies. However, other measures have been in place such as the 50% VRT exemption for hybrid cars and the excise duty exemption for particular fuels. Those incentives have encouraged people to use such vehicles and many of the incentives in question will continue.
The issue of where we stand in respect of overall transport policy constitutes a major challenge for the Government and the political system. The national development plan is running ahead of schedule and ahead of budget in respect of its roads element but is running behind schedule in respect of its public transport elements. This discrepancy cannot be allowed to continue. We must bridge that gap and address the pre-existing imbalance between public transport and road-based alternatives. I hope the programme for Government has identified particular benchmarks as to when and how this could happen.
Another element of the Bill pertains to funding for local government. This Bill is revenue neutral in its structure. Although it will not allow additional resources to accrue to local authorities, it is structured in such a way that it will not lead to fewer resources being available. Whether it continues to be a significant part of local government funding is a matter for another debate that will follow after the impending publication of the Green Paper on local government. Members may be presented with another item of legislation that will address this anomaly.
I have heard the arguments regarding the claimed excessive taxation on motor vehicles and the money actually spent, for instance, on roads. This is a simple equation. Senator Coffey noted that €5.5 billion is collected in various taxes related to motor vehicles and one can establish how much is spent on the national roads and local roads programmes. However, one should factor everything into the cost of motoring for a society. I refer to the 360 road deaths per year and the associated costs to the health and emergency services, as well as the cultural cost of motoring. I revert to the statistics already noted by Senator Hannigan. As we are transporting our children around in this fashion and spending more time in cars, we have other problems regarding obesity and fewer opportunities in respect of exercise. When one makes an economic argument about the cost of a car to a society, one should take into account all these factors because they are not being judged at present.
Much of the Bill’s contents were introduced owing to prior consultation with bodies such as the Society of the Irish Motor Industry. A consultation process that takes into account all the actors and the legislative process in both Houses of the Oireachtas will come up with the best possible Bill. However, the principle is important and I am glad it has been accepted because having moved on the idea of cars being taxed on the basis of their carbon content, one then can move on many other areas that will help to address the totality of climate change issues and greenhouse gases within society.
One must be aware, while depending on taxation of motor vehicles for local government funding, that the use of the motor car is not necessarily good for Ireland’s overall economic health. All our cars are imported as none is manufactured here. The value added to Ireland’s economy arising from the purchase of a car is limited. An ongoing and more wide-ranging debate is required on the value of motoring, how it is properly costed and how its tax returns measure to our society. This Bill constitutes an important beginning and I am thankful for the Minister’s initiative and the Green Party’s participation in Government for bringing it about.
Senator John Paul Phelan: I welcome the Minister’s presence in the Chamber for this debate. I wish to make a few points and will be as brief as possible. I refer to Senator Boyle’s comments in respect of the current motor taxation system and its grossly inequitable nature. However, on foot of the Minister’s proposals, there will be two motor taxation systems. While an argument could be made that the new system must be phased in over time, we are not getting rid of our grossly inequitable system but are making an attempt to phase it out. However, it will remain with us for a number of years to come. Senator Boyle also stated that Ireland has a high ownership rate of cars. However, compared with our international neighbours, we do not have a particularly high rate. Irish car ownership levels are approximately average when compared with our European counterparts.
March 19th 2008
Order of Business
As we are beginning to order business for after the Easter recess there are three items I wish to bring to the Leader’s attention that may be worthy of debate in this House.
There should be a detailed debate on the private rented housing sector on foot of the “Prime Time†programme last night. The State is the largest tenant in the country and spends more on rents through the rent allowance and rental subsidy schemes than any other group of tenants. We must ask why such money is being paid out for substandard accommodation and why it is being paid to the private rented sector in this way.
The next issue I wish to raise relates to recording events as they occur in Tibet, possibly through an all-party motion. The Chinese Government is engaging in oppression and is blaming these events on the spiritual leader of the Tibetan people, the Dalai Lama. Some 18 months ago Senator Norris and I attended the world parliamentarian congress on Tibet and met the Tibetan Prime Minister in exile. The Seanad should speak widely on an issue of concern of this nature as it would reflect the disquiet in Ireland that exists regarding events in Tibet.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: Hear, hear.
Senator Dan Boyle: The final issue I wish to bring to the Leader’s attention relates to a decision to be made on 31 May by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs on a restructuring of the community development support programme. Pending this decision, the Seanad should have an opportunity to ask why it is being made, the effect it will have and how resources are likely to be allocated after 31 May.
On these grounds each of the areas I have mentioned would, I feel, merit debate in this House.
March 13th
Finance Bill 2008 (Certified Money Bill): Committee and Remaining Stages.
While I note the recommendation is not being pressed, I wish to outline some of my thoughts on the Commission on Taxation. It was included in the programme for Government at the suggestion of the Green Party and I am happy that the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance has established the body. The terms of reference are not about what the commission can or cannot do. The commission has a specific remit to examine the taxation system. The terms of reference cover particular areas the commission will examine and report on. When published in 2009 I expect the report to be very wide-ranging.
I was concerned that the Senator’s recommendation proposed introducing certain things without taking others into account. I refer specifically to the carbon levy, which is one of the priorities for the commission. I find offensive the suggestion that such a levy would be introduced without due regard for the ability of people to pay and its social consequences. I have every certainty that what will be proposed by the commission and adopted by the Government will be appraised on those lines. The Labour Party needs to indicate whether it believes in environmental taxation and if so that it can only be introduced without socially negative consequences. Everyone involved in the political system should accept that, rather than trying to score cheap political points.
March 13th
Order of Business.
This is brain injury awareness week. Yesterday, Oireachtas Members had the advantage of a briefing from BrÃ, the Acquired Brain Injury Advocacy Association, which highlighted that this condition, whether brought on by trauma or following a stroke, is very much the poor relation in terms of both the health service and additional supports. It would be useful to have a debate on the preponderance of acquired brain injury and how those affected are treated.
I support Senator O’Toole’s call for a debate on the schools building programme, particularly in regard to its cost effectiveness. The lack of information affects everybody in public life and in the communities in question. Decisions are made on a piecemeal basis. Announcements, if they are made, refer only to the next step in the programme, which is often a nine-step programme, and never provide a full timetable for the completion of any school programme. Temporary measures are in place in too many schools throughout the State. Prefabricated classrooms are no longer purchased but are leased at a cost of €25,000 per year. I am aware of two schools in Cork that have been obliged to avail of these leasing arrangements for ten years, involving a cost to the State of more than €500,000 which could have been used to build a new school in the interim. It is in our interests to ensure there is a more open process and that the cost implications of the current system are more rigorously applied. If the Minister is prepared to accede to our request for a debate, it would be a valuable use of our time.
March 12th
Finance Bill 2008: Second Stage.
The Finance Bill gives legal effect to many of the budget provisions announced in December, with a few additional measures that subsequently have been approved by the Minister for Finance and the Cabinet. The Short Title of the Bill describes it as:
An Act to provide for the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration and regulation of taxation, of stamp duties and of duties relating to excise and otherwise to make further provision in connection with finance including the regulation of customs.
This does not make the legislation very understandable to citizens, and part of our job within the political system is to translate many of the legal technicalities in legislation such as this, to show how it will improve the economy and hopefully the lives of our citizens.
The Finance Bill this year is largely a repetition of the measures announced in the budget. Unlike other Finance Bills in recent years, it is not an entirely new exercise of additional measures. There were very few new measures announced, as opposed to what had already been unveiled in the budget. However, there are significant measures and the one I welcome most is the provision of tax relief for companies seeking to purchase plant and machinery that will result in energy efficiencies. This will help to meet our greenhouse gas targets and work on two levels. It will reduce the cost base of many of these industries while helping to promote the idea of a green economy within the Irish economy. It will promote those who are seeking to develop and sell this technology throughout the economy, which is a measure especially to be welcomed.
Unlike many others who tend to look at the bleakest prognoses for the economy, I believe we are not in a recession, as is, to all intents and purposes, the United States, and this will impact on us. We are not in a slump, in the sense of reduced economic indicators. At worst, the Irish economy is undergoing a slowdown in that the rate of economic growth is slower than what it has been in the past. The rate of economic growth in Ireland has been historically high. We need to make adjustments in that regard, but we need to acknowledge that this rate of economic growth is still consistent with a sustainable economy and is much better than competitor economies are doing, in Europe in particular.
Despite the international climate, the Irish economy is still in relatively good shape. At this time of readjustment we must look at how the economy is structured. Much of the added value of the past 15 years in particular has come from the construction sector. While that has given a short-term impetus, it was never a long-term solution towards wealth creation and sustained growth. Now we must come up with a different make-up to the economy, in terms of supporting indigenous industries, research and development and the provision of the tax relief in the Finance Bill supporting in particular green economic measures which will give a better balance to economic activity into the future.
The Finance Bill covers a number of areas which are to be welcome, after the budget announcements. In introducing any type of improvements in the financial regime sometimes new difficulties are encountered. A number of smaller measures are meant to help the lot of particular sectors in society. For instance, the tax relief for the decommission of fishing vessels helps those whose fishing was based in the open seas, the oceans, but does not offer relief for those involved in draft net fishing in our harbour areas. When we create dichotomies of this type, we must face challenges in dealing with such changes in the future.
There is a provision as regards the capital gains treatment of farming couples whose partnerships are being dissolved. An argument could be made, given the changing nature of Irish society, as to how this might apply to married couples in any line of business within the economy and how it may be addressed in the future. Senator Quinn referred to the need to better recognise the role of philanthropy and how it might be restricted by the overall cap on tax reliefs. To a certain extent, I agree with him. However, even with an improved approach to philanthropy in the future, we should discourage the idea that Irish citizens who do not even pay minimal tax in Ireland believe they can still contribute in terms of philanthropic donations. There has to be a correct mix in terms of the responsibility of being a citizen allied to the ability to recognise philanthropy, and I am not sure if we have attained that particular balance.
The tax system already contains the ability to make charitable donations to bodies that are recognised by the Revenue Commissioners, and there are similar reliefs for trade union membership. There is an anomaly, however, in terms of environmental campaigning that I should like to flag, and have addressed in next year’s budget. In view of the charities legislation which is being addressed in the House, organisations dealing with children such as the ISPCC or Barnardos are entitled to tax relief through people making individual donations. Thirty years ago, the then Minister for Finance, Richie Ryan, inserted a provision to allow organisations which deal in human rights to claim such exemptions as well, therefore, bodies such as Amnesty International are covered. However, it is anomalous that organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which are not involved in any profitable activity whatsoever, are not entitled to the same concessions under the tax system. I will be seeking changes in that regard.
There is a provision in the Agreed Programme for Government that wherever possible the higher rates of VAT on environmental goods and services will be reduced. I should like to see this done as soon as possible, because it will provide a further impetus towards the green economy. I sense there is a reluctance in this regard within the Department of Finance, and there is talk of the EU VAT directive. I am satisfied that the protocol in that directive which refers to reducing VAT rates for social purposes applies to environmental goods and services. It is a road that has been followed by other EU member states and I should like to see this as one of the centrepieces in next year’s budget and Finance Bill.
Overall, the Finance Bill ties together a very balanced budget dealing with an adjusting economy that, in European and international terms, is still performing better than most other similar economies. We can be satisfied that the economic management of the country continues to go well and that the economic future, as a result of that management, will proceed in a healthy manner.
March 12th
Order of Business.
I was going to bring up a point Senator Coghlan has just raised and call for a debate on the Competition Authority. The report of the authority was issued in recent weeks and there is an ongoing review of the Competition Act 2002. It would be a good service to the House if we were to have such a debate. There are questions about the remit of the Competition Authority, the fact it has grown from its original functions and has a budget much larger than it used have, and yet its productivity seems to have decreased in terms of the number of warrants it has issued and the number of witnesses it summons yearly. The issue Senator Coghlan brought up raises questions about the effectiveness of the Competition Authority and we could have a debate on how it might be better structured. It also fits in with requests made at Order of Business by other Senators on the number of regulators, the degree of regulation and the effect on competitiveness.
I also call for a debate on marine research. I do so in the context of the unfortunate fire last night at Haulbowline naval base where there was a research centre run by University College Cork doing excellent work. The importance of marine research and its future value to the economy needs to overcome setbacks such as this and a debate in this House will help the direction of that in the future. If such time could be made available, it would be a good use of the time of this House.
March 11th
Death of Former Member: Expressions of Sympathy
On behalf of the Green Party, Comhaontas Glas, I express sympathy on the passing of the former Senator and Deputy Kit Ahern. I was struck by two factors from reading media notices of her passing. The first one is the reputation she - having lived to the age of 92 - seemed to have maintained in the Kerry area well after she had exited public life. The second factor is a personal one. She finished elected public office at the election I first participated in as a voter; there is probably close to 50 years between us. For her to have maintained such a reputation among the people she served is a recommendation in its own right and anyone involved in public life should strive to attain that. Some people look for baubles from their activities in pubic life but her example is a better one to live by. On finishing elected public office, she maintained her involvement in public life. By her actions and words she made herself known in terms of her views on the nature of politics and how she believed she could contribute as an individual, despite not holding public office.
Another area should be further acknowledged before we conclude these expressions of sympathy. In a political system where women continue to be under-represented, she was active at a time when female Members in this and the other House numbered no more than single figures. To have operated in such an environment and to have ploughed a furrow for the slow and steady progress that has since been achieved should serve as an indicator of how much remains to be done in this area. Particular tribute must be paid to a parliamentarian who played a role in advocating the need for women to be more actively involved in public life. Her passing presents us with a challenge to ensure the level of female participation in politics is improved as quickly as possible.
March 6th
Cluster Munitions: Motion.
Senator Dan Boyle: I will begin by apologising to Senator Norris. A presumption was made on the basis that this is an all-party motion, that the issue is current in the media and that a window became available in the Seanad schedule - a rare commodity in itself. If this presumption led to a lack of proper consultation with the instigator of the motion, I apologise.
Senator David Norris: The date is fine. However, it was shifted from 3.30 p.m. to 1 p.m. with no notice to any of the people participating and no consultation with the Whips despite what I was told. What I was told was not true.
Senator Dan Boyle: Sometimes this happens because of the early passage of business and it cannot be avoided.
On the motion, which is an all-party motion, the existence of the arms industry is morally suspect in itself. There is often a moral relativism in debating subjects of this nature. One of the ironies about the war in Iraq since 2003 is the pretext for beginning the war, namely, the belief in the existence of weapons of mass destruction, as though weapons which wreak less destruction are more morally acceptable. Most people on the planet would accept the morality of weapons is something we should strive to limit and prohibit wherever possible. The international debate, in which Ireland has participated, has concentrated on banning cluster munitions, the most pernicious, indiscriminate and most violent of weapons. This is a timely debate because it has been preceded by a media debate to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs has contributed.
Several articles in The Irish Times, the first by my friend and colleague, the former MEP for Leinster, Nuala Ahern, was followed by one today by the Minister. There was no real disagreement between the two articles. In her article Nuala Ahern went to great pains to stress the role the Minister has played in this debate and recognised the importance his party has given it. Whatever level of disagreement that existed between the two articles was only strategic in nature.
I am glad to note from the Minister’s contribution that there will be further commitments to the introduction of legislation that will include a national ban on cluster bombs. This may seem like an act of moral relativism in that we do not produce cluster bombs but it is an important signal in helping to achieve international agreements of this nature.
If the forthcoming Dublin conference acts as the mechanism to bring about this agreement, Irish politics should be proud of the role the Minister and the Government have played and that should be applauded. As the Minister stated, it is a strong part of the programme for Government. As one who helped to negotiate the programme on behalf of the Green Party, I am pleased to see this provision has been included.
The Minister has highlighted the use of the Irish Aid programme to help the victims of cluster bombs as individuals and as members of their communities, which is laudable. However, dealing with the effects of the bombs after they have wreaked their havoc is not the best use of our aid programme. A possible success from the Dublin conference could be that the moneys from our aid programmes would be better directed.
On the argument whether legislation should be introduced before or after the Dublin conference, I accept what the Minister has said. It is standard practice that a convention is agreed upon, followed by legislation which has been accepted by several non-governmental organisations. One advantage to having legislation prior to a convention is that it might help inform agreement. It would put Ireland in a category with countries such as Austria, Belgium, Norway and Hungary.
Norway’s position is interesting in several respects. One area in which we must ensure we are not compromised concerns our national investment programme. In the 29th Dáil I introduced a Private Members’ Bill on ethical investment to require the National Pensions Reserve Fund to present to the Minister for Finance how ethical investment for the fund could be followed. It was not accepted at the time but the principles behind it need to be revisited. The United Nations’ ethical guidelines on investment will not be sufficient as they are only guidelines and do not have the force of international law. I am encouraged the Minister has suggested there will be a prohibition on certain types of investment. A debate is needed at Cabinet level to enunciate those ethical investment principles further. I encourage the Minister to use the example of Norway in such discussions.
Norway has been a partner with Ireland in this process. The Dublin conference will build on the Oslo Declaration. Not only has Norway enacted legislation in banning cluster bomb production in its country, it has separate legislation regarding ethical funding guidelines for its national pension fund. I hope the Minister, with his Norwegian counterpart, will see how a common approach can be established. There is no dissension in the House on this issue. We must ensure there are no compromises in this area. The issue must be dealt with effectively, especially after the work done already in this area by the Minister and the Government.
March 5th
Electoral Commission: Motion.
I move that Seanad Éireann supports the commitment in the Programme for Government to work to bring into being an Electoral Commission.
It is a pleasure to move this motion this evening in Green Party Private Members’ time. I welcome the fact that an amendment to the motion has not been tabled and take it as a general degree of interest among all the parties in this Chamber in working towards a necessary reform of our political system.
The programme for Government contains a number of measures designed to reform the political system. In a previous session in this Chamber we discussed the possibilities of Seanad reform and some weeks from now we will see the first phase of a process of local government reform with the publication of the Green Paper. The issue of an electoral commission is a third part of that package of reform measures and it is one that is treated emphatically in the programme for Government. Under the heading of “Electoral Reformâ€, the programme for Government states:
We will establish an independent Electoral Commission to take responsibility for electoral administration and oversight. This Commission will:
Implement modern efficient practices for the conduct of elections, becoming a standing Constituency Commission for the revision of constituency boundaries. We will, in its terms of reference, stress the importance of avoiding, where at all possible, the division of small counties or small parts of counties into separate constituencies.
Take charge of the compilation of a new national rolling electoral register.
Assume the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission in relation to electoral expenditure and examine the issue of financing of the political system.
The broad range of support for the idea of an electoral commission is based on the fact that it will not only help improve the business of politics in this country but make the nature of elections more efficient. What we are talking about in a stand alone, independent body is incorporating many of the functions that are dispersed through our current system. The Minister is here this evening representing the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, having specific responsibility for local government but also for the electoral process itself. Many of those functions are devolved to local authorities, not only in terms of the electoral register but also in providing the personnel needed to run an election, especially an election count. The time has come to bring all those functions into one body that will provide a consistency and a cohesiveness that has been lacking to date.
Electoral commissions operate effectively in other jurisdictions and I hope the Minister, in initiating the process of bringing about this reform and achieving levels of support from other parties in that process, will instigate an all-party process of consultation to ensure that the electoral commission promised in the programme for Government will come into being with the greatest possible levels of support. I emphasise that because the programme for Government has been often criticised in that events overtake matters and what comes out as a good intention turns into an aspiration and an unachievable goal. The programme for Government is emphatic in regard to an electoral commission. It does not state that we will investigate or consider an electoral commission. It states, “We will establish an independent Electoral Commission .....†and that must be on the basis of all-party consultation and support.
There have been difficulties in the past regarding the compilation of the electoral register. Questions arise about the degree of national co-ordination that exists in compiling that register, the level of effort and willingness each local authority can put into the compilation of its own local register and the consistency that applies throughout the country. A national body would address many of those concerns.
A constant situation arises in terms of electoral boundary commissions which are established as and when censuses are completed. They have been independent for the past number of decades but they are a separate organisation. In the remit of an electoral commission we may avoid some of the controversies that occur from time to time. It has been the practice in the previous electoral boundary commission reports that Ministers for the Environment do not interfere with its recommendations. They have been instituted, as suggested, and I believe that will be the case again but to put a Minister for the Environment into a situation where he or she has the ability to decide whether the recommendations are right or not is a political pressure that should not exist in the system and one that would be alleviated by the existence of an independent electoral commission.
We are all familiar with the Standards in Public Office Commission. It is a body that has improved the public perception of politics and helped those of us involved in political life to better account for ourselves. It is not dealing with all the areas with which it could deal and is probably not operating to the level of support, in terms of resources, that it needs. A stand alone electoral commission that would not only absorb the current functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission but enhance those functions would improve the quality of democracy in politics.
The running of an election in terms of its personnel, the location of the polling stations, the appointment of polling clerks and election count supervisors and deciding who participates in counts are functions that are partly national and partly devolved at a local level. We must have more consistency in that regard to ensure those areas are properly tackled.
It is in the last line of the section in the programme for Government on electoral reform on which most public and political debate will be needed. The programme for Government refers to not only assuming the functions of the Standards in Public Office Commission but also examining the financing of the political system, and different political parties have different approaches to that. The purpose of the motion is not to go solely into that area but I would argue that an independent, stand alone electoral commission will take much of the unnecessary political debate out of that and make it a topic of public interest if it is done by an independent body. I refer not only to the way money is collected in elections but the way it is spent.
Many of us believe the current regulations, while they have introduced some measure of fairness into a system that was not always fair, still do not properly account for the nature of expenditure in elections. After the release of statistics following the 2007 general election, I was portrayed as the third highest spender in my constituency which I know not to be a fact because the regulations account for the three weeks of the election campaign and not the many months of political activities that take place before that.
Another aspect which is not taken into account is that, while political benefits for those in public office, in terms of paid political staff, access to Oireachtas facilities and the like, are measured, the money that goes into individual campaigns from people who do not hold public office is not. Our systems of measurement are unbalanced. The mechanisms we use are not only unfair to those who take part in the election process but also to those expected to police these systems. If one speaks informally to those who work with the Standards in Public Office Commission one begins to understand they implement existing legislation to the best of their ability but they are increasingly frustrated that this legislation does not allow them to do the job they could be doing rather than the job they are doing.
I would like this debate to address how to make the existing system work better. The programme for Government is clear that the way to do it is through a stand-alone independent electoral commission. As this will necessitate a consultation process prior to new legislation and the formation of a body, all of us involved in public life have a responsibility to put interim steps in place. If we have a piecemeal system between national and local government how can we make it work more effectively until we have in place an independent electoral commission?
I am interested to hear how those in the Opposition benches, who I take it from their failure to table an amendment are largely supportive of what we suggest, make particular Senator Paul Coghlan: The opposition could be behind Senator Boyle’s back.
Senator Dan Boyle: We will address this in the debate also.
Senator Paul Coghlan: Senator Boyle is reading it properly. We did not put down an amendment.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Senator Boyle without interruption.
Senator Dan Boyle: I am interested to hear from all sections of the House what proposals they might make in this regard. It is important to recognise that the need for this exists not only in terms of efficiency. We need a body such as an independent stand-alone electoral commission to have and restore public confidence in politics.
I would like to think the Minister is open to suggestions. The Green Party is open to such suggestions and the programme for Government makes a firm commitment that this will come into being during the life of the Government. On these grounds, I am happy to move this motion. I look forward to the ongoing debate and the co-operation needed to bring into being something which I, my party and the Government believe is a necessary reform of our political system.
I thank all who contributed to the debate this evening. It has been a rare occasion of harmony descending on the Seanad Chamber in Private Member’s time. I cannot remember a Private Member’s motion in the lifetime of this Seanad where there was such a degree of consensus. On a personal level I am heartened by it as it will help the eventual progress of necessary legislation in this area.
The debate has been characterised by a number of useful points about what needs to be addressed. The Minister made significant commitments as to how he intends to proceed. He indicated the production of a scoping document is expected at the end of May. This will give us an indication of how an electoral commission can come into being and what kind of commission it is likely to be. When we have that type of detail we might have small ripples of political dissent because the idea of a commission depends on how wide-ranging or all-consuming it would be in its functions and how deep would be its remit. I am still hopeful that the trend of all the contributions this evening would indicate that a general support exists and will continue to exist until we have that necessary reform. All involved in the debate recognise that change is necessary.
Many of the points raised go beyond the formation of an electoral commission but they are worth commenting on because a future commission could deal with such issues, although it is probably our responsibility to deal with them before a commission comes into play. I sense a degree of consensus for spending limits in local government elections and they are easier to put in place than the convenient fiction we have for general elections of covering a three-week campaign in that the date of a local election is constitutionally known.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: It is fiction.
Senator Dan Boyle: We know that Bunreacht na hÉireann provides that there will be a local election every five years. We do not know, on the whim of a Taoiseach,-----
Senator Alan Kelly: Or the Green Party.
Senator Dan Boyle: ----- a vote of confidence in Dáil Éireann or whatever circumstances arise, when the Government may fall within the five year period. It is more difficult to set a six month or one year period before then for spending limits.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: Can Deputy Boyle give us a clue?
Senator Dan Boyle: I am in favour of extending it to general elections.
Proportionality is an important part of the remit of a future electoral commission. The Constitution says Dáil constituencies should have between three and seven seats. We have no seven seat constituencies, but have five seaters at most. Senator Doherty mentioned this in his contribution and might be interested that in the early years of the Free State a constituency in Donegal returned nine members. He would be satisfied if such a state of affairs returned. Senator Ellis mentioned the anomalous situation in County Leitrim, which does not have a large enough population to return a Dáil Deputy. Alone it would return one and a bit but that does not fall within the Constitution’s requirement of having at least three Members. There is an argument for examining the Constitution in terms of country boundaries not being breached but it is a wider debate.
There is an argument in the contributions of Senators Ellis, Burke and Doherty for the need to get a proper balance between rural and urban representation. The demographics of this country are heavily weighted towards the east coast. The population in the greater Dublin area, despite its size, is out of kilter with the rest of the country. We should ask whether population ratio alone is the best determinant of parliamentary representation. It is worth debating whether geographical representation and different sectors of society should be taken into account. If today’s debate has facilitated those ideas being aired, I am grateful to the Members for taking that opportunity.
The real benefit of an electoral commission is to address the issues of voter awareness and participation, however that is done. The value of tonight’s debate should be to establish new structures that will help future generations of voters and citizens to have confidence in the political system and I thank the Senators for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
March 5th
Social Welfare and Pensions Bill 2008: Second Stage
I noted with interest the contribution of Senator McFadden who articulated a long-held Green Party position on refundable tax credits. The Commission on Taxation is due to meet and to report by the end of September 2009. That in itself will be another contribution towards important debate in this area.
What we need to do in the whole area of social welfare policy is to get away from talk of the actual amounts of the payments involved and into a more detailed examination of the categorisation of the payments and whether the existence of certain types of payments and their categories are impediments to people progressing in life. Welfare traps exist because of the way in which the welfare system is structured.
It takes a degree of clarity and, that much abused term in political debate, courage, to tackle some of these inconsistencies because to achieve a long-term benefit there might be a short-term disadvantage. I am aware the Minister and his predecessor have tried to deal with the inconsistencies and contradictions that sometimes arise in trying to bring about change, particularly in the area of payments to lone parents. That debate has been well informed and has engaged with representative groups of lone parents.
I am confident that the changes that will eventually come about will recognise the need to acknowledge the income-maintenance needs of families who exist in that situation and the need for people not to be perpetually in situations which become welfare traps. Given that most lone parents are women with children, the balance we need to achieve is that women are given the opportunity to improve themselves through education and to contribute as needs be to the workforce. There is also a balance to be struck in terms of meeting child care needs and the role of a stay-at-home parent or a parent who can stay at home as often as possible. This is the contradiction that most of the studies are trying to bridge.
In regard to the reforms that might come about in the yeas ahead, I give credit to the Department of Social and Family Affairs for the way in which it has improved its customer relations. That is probably not acknowledged enough. Down through the years, in periods of unemployment, I recall visiting unemployment exchanges and trying to account for personal welfare needs. I was struck by the interface that took place, the public relations element and how lacking it was. We have come a huge distance since then in terms of how information is provided to people and how they are dealt with at a more human level, which many of us would admit did not happen in the past. This should be acknowledged.
The type of reforms and balance we need to achieve in terms of customer service is centred on how people access the service. There has been controversy in the past, and this is ongoing with regard to how information technology can be used best to benefit all in our social welfare system, as well as how it might be at times intimidating for older members of our society. While I am not sure if it is an area for which we can legislate, I would like some type of acknowledgement from the Minister and the Department as to how this area is being tackled. If we want to have a welfare system for the 21st century, it must involve our citizens in helping to shape that. In any case, this has yet to happen. We are still dealing theoretically with many of the modern ways of producing a social welfare service. My hope is that this Bill which, as I said, is treading water, will be a small step towards achieving that type of change.
I welcome the passage of the Bill through the House and its prior passage through the Dáil. It is the third item of automatic legislation that stems from budget 2008, the other two being the Finance Bill and the Social Welfare Bill, which takes care of provisions put in place from 1 January onwards. This legislation will deal with future increases in social welfare expenditure from 1 April onwards. It confirms that the Government is meeting its commitments in the programme for Government and under the social partnership programme to those in our society who are living without. I hope these commitments will be met over the lifetime of the Government, including the increase in the State pension to €300 per week. On those grounds the Bill is welcome and is a statement of the Government’s intent on striking a balance in the area of social provision and in emphasising the importance of social policy in general.
There are two areas where, of necessity, the Bill is treading on water because of ongoing work. It had been hoped that the national carers’ strategy, as indicated in the programme for Government, might have been ready by the end of 2007 and could have helped to inform this Bill. Due to the administrative constraints of a number of Departments involved, that was not possible. While it has been established, it is an ongoing process. There have been a number of meetings of the consultative committee and I am confident that later in the year, in informing the 2009 Bill, we will have those recommendations on which to work.
There is only a small reference to carers, that is, the welcome increase in the respite care grant. Everyone in the House would acknowledge the importance of the national carers’ strategy and in ensuring a range of measures will be in place for next year’s Bill which will meet an ongoing commitment that most of us in political life have towards carers. It is a commitment that values their work, which is of particular relevance to the Irish situation where the existence of people in the home and the community is an opportunity to offer levels and standards of care that cannot exist in State-funded and State-directed systems found in other countries but which, to date, we have not funded or properly acknowledged. That is one of the issues on which the national carers’ strategy will come to a conclusion.
While there are detailed pension provisions in the Bill, much ongoing work is needed. Consultations on the Green Paper on pensions will come to a conclusion in mid-2008. Many of us look forward to that because there are important decisions to be made in regard to the balance between a State provision, the encouragement of private pension provision and whether, as in the past, it should be done through tax mechanisms, or whether there are other ways of encouraging people to have a State pension which is adequate, and may be added to in terms of private pension provision.
Section 24 provides for the disregard, for the purposes of rent and mortgage interest supplement, of any amount of carer’s benefit in excess of the basic rate of supplementary welfare allowance - in line with current arrangements for carer’s allowance. It also provides for changes in the rules for the calculation of the income disregard. The legislation is being amended to state that the disregard applies to all income and to clarify that additional income includes earnings, family income supplement and all maintenance.
Section 25 provides for miscellaneous amendments to the Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2007. These changes mainly arise from the recommendations of the report of the Pension Board to the Minister for Social and Family Affairs on trusteeship. The report was published in November 2006. The recommendations in this report are aimed at enhancing both the governance of occupational pension schemes and the protection of the pension rights of scheme members. These changes will facilitate the implementation of recommendations in this report.
Section 26 provides for the definition of the principal Act for the purposes of Part 3. Section 27 proposes to bring registered third party administrators of pension schemes under the remit of the Pensions Act. Third party administrators are currently unregulated for scheme administration work carried out on behalf of the trustees of pension schemes. The Pensions Act is being amended to bring such third party administrators within the remit of the Act and covers certain core functions that they perform on behalf of trustees. Pension scheme administrators will now be required to register with the Pensions Board before they can carry out these core functions and the Pensions Board will have responsibility to audit administration service standards and to remove registration or apply sanctions if required standards are not met.
Section 28 provides for enhancements to the existing provisions for the training of trustees of pension schemes as recommended in the Pensions Board report. While trustees are required at present to disclose in their annual report whether they have access to trustee training, continuous and quality training is not compulsory and research has indicated that ongoing quality training is not the norm. The proposed amendments will put an obligation on employers to arrange trustee training for each individual trustee within six months of his or her appointment and at least every two years thereafter and will put an obligation on trustees to undertake this training.
Section 29 and Schedule 2 provide for a number of miscellaneous amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 which are mainly technical in nature.
The Bill provides for a small number of amendments to other Acts as follows: Sections 30 and 31 provide for consequential amendments to the Family Law Act 1995 and the Family Law Divorce Act 1996 to mirror the amendments made above to the Pensions Act 1990 on the matter of the definition of a defined contribution scheme.
March 5th
Passport Bill 2007: Second Stage.
In general I welcome the Bill because it is necessary to reform many aspects of legislation on passports. It is an important document for all our citizens and we must ensure it serves its purpose for them in terms of its security and general usefulness. I continue to have concerns on some aspects of the Bill, which I will elucidate as I speak. A passport is probably of greater importance to Irish citizens than to people in other countries. We have a history of emigration and statistics about the number of passport holders in the United States show we are largely at variance with other nationalities in our practice of holding a passport and travelling outside our national territory in our adult lives. That helps give Irish people a more rounded view of the world and we should encourage this as much as possible and ensure any administrative constraints on the use of passports are minimised.
My concerns relate to the provisions on biometric data. The need for biometric data and its acceptance in other jurisdictions is a reality in modern passports. The security of the data and how it will stay in State control and never be accessed or used by third parties is not spelled out in the Bill and might need to be dealt with in future regulations. Enough has not been said on that in this debate. I would like the Minister and officials in responding to this ongoing debate to describe how such security measures can be taken.
My second concerns is slightly at variance with Senator Mullen’s contribution. For a change, it says something positive about our legislative process that we are responding more immediately to judicial decisions. He may disagree with the particular decision in this case-----
Senator Rónán Mullen: Not necessarily. That was not my point.
Senator Dan Boyle: It is the principle rather than the content of the decision. There should be a greater onus on Parliament to enact legislation on foot of discrepancies that have been identified through judicial decisions. We have not done that as well as we should have in the past.
My problem with this Bill is with the specific references about gender assignation. There is a far greater difficulty with the factual information about some of our citizens who are not being taken into account in the Bill. I put forward this argument during the debate on the Civil Registration Act 2004 when I was a Member of the Dáil. It relates to the identity details of adopted people. Passports and birth certificates contain the name of the person concerned as well as their date of birth. However, owing to administrative convenience and an existing mindset that people who are adopted should not be given too much information lest it triggers a need to find out more about their natural parents, the place of birth of adopted people is always listed as Dublin. On the adoptive certificate, it is listed as Dublin NC2, which is a fictitious post code which ensures people cannot even start from the right place if they happen to be from Dublin.
Not only do we have discrimination between adopted people and all other Irish citizens, there is also discrimination between people who are adopted through foreign born adoptions and Irish adopted children. Foreign born adopted children obviously would have their place of birth registered as part of their foreign adoption. We must move away from the mindset that adopted people should have as little information about themselves as possible. The Civil Registration Act 2004 reinforces that bias. Unfortunately, this Bill builds on that bias and if any attempt can be made to amend it, that area needs to be tackled. A number of adoption Bills have reinforced that mindset, but adoption legislation has been promised in the programme for Government. However, one sad aspect of this Bill is that we will be retrenching that particular bias in this legislation when we issue passports in future.
I ask the Minister of State to take this up with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and with the appropriate officials in his Department to ensure that when Irish citizens who are adopted present their documents to leave this State, the information on those documents should be truthful. We are doing a disservice to them and to the nature of the document itself by containing such information.
I welcome the Bill in general as I recognise the need for reforms in this area. I have a concern with the need for security on biometric information gathered for the issuing of passports. I particularly have a concern with ending discrimination against adopted people in our society. Until we end that, the hackneyed phrase of second class citizen will apply especially in this circumstance. I ask other Members to take that into consideration.
March 4th
Order of Business.
I thank Senators for their contributions. Senators Fitzgerald, O’Toole, Alex White, Harris, Hannigan, Healy Eames, Regan, Mullen and John Paul Phelan referred to the letter written by Deputy John Cregan which appeared in today’s edition of the The Irish Times. I agree with Senator O’Toole that Deputy Cregan has a right to make whatever statement he likes. The question of whether he made his statement as Chairman of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources, which he cited in the letter, is a matter for the joint committee. If the four Senators, including Senator O’Toole, who are members of the joint committee raise the matter in the committee, further information may be forthcoming.
Senators Fitzgerald and Healy Eames asked about funding for education. The programme for Government promised a significant increase in funding for education. While the increase was not as large as had been hoped in the Government’s first budget, we are beginning to see the effects of additional funding in the schools building programme. A request will be issued to determine whether the Minister, who appeared before the House in recent weeks, is willing to make herself available for a further debate in the near future.
Senator O’Toole raised the question of the construction industry and its request to reduce costs. I suggest the social partnership talks, with which the Senator will be familiar - he may also know some of its participants - is a better forum for addressing the issue. I hope an agreement on future pay increases will soon be reached by the social partners.
Senators Alex White, de Búrca, Norris and Coghlan raised the issue of the Refugee Appeals Tribunal. I share the Senators’ reservations regarding this body. It is important the tribunal has the confidence of members of the public and the Houses of the Oireachtas. The immigration Bill, which will soon come before the House, proposes a set of measures in this area. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is always willing to make himself available to the House. Senators on all sides will have an opportunity to express their concerns about this matter when we discuss the provisions concerning refugees.
Every so often, it is necessary to make a call on whether the Stages of a Bill should be taken in the quickest possible time. Ideally, all Bills should be given maximum time for consideration. Second Stage of the Passports Bill has been ordered for tomorrow and it is proposed to take Committee Stage on Thursday. The House will have a better sense tomorrow of whether further Second Stage discussion will be necessary. I will make the Bills Office aware of Senators’ views on the importance of having sufficient time between Second Stage and Committee Stage to give Bills proper consideration.
Senator de Búrca raised the issue of radon gas and highlighted the case of a house where radon gas levels were found to be 25 times higher than acceptable limits. The south and west are most affected by this problem. Measures were introduced to increase take-up of testing for radon gas in households. If the Minister is available to answer questions or to make statements on the issue, it would assist the work of the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and ease the concerns of many householders.
Senators Bradford and Phelan referred to genetically modified foodstuffs. As it happens, I attended a meeting in Hillsborough yesterday on the environment and social policy. The agriculture committee at Stormont held a similar discussion at the same time and unfortunately I could not be in both places at one time. This issue is being addressed by the Government here, the Assembly and the Executive. Four Ministries - the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Health and Children - are involved in this complex issue. Discussions are ongoing on what will be Ireland’s international position on GM foods and how the commitment in the programme for Government can be best addressed. It will be useful to debate the issue in the House when further information becomes available. As Senators will be aware, the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has debated genetically modified foodstuffs.
Senators Leyden, Norris, Hanafin, Ó Murchú, Doherty, Hannigan and Mullen raised current events in the Middle East. All Senators accept that the firing of missiles from Gaza into Israel is unacceptable and that the legitimate actions of a State in defending itself must be proportionate. In light of statements made by the United Nations Secretary General and the European Union, current actions do not appear to reflect the principle of proportionality. The concern of the House will be made known to the Minister and if an opportunity to discuss the issue arises, it will be taken. Unfortunately, it is likely that the events of recent days will continue.
On the school of pharmacy, to which Senator Norris referred, I will raise the issue with the Minister. It would be an industrial dispute if pharmacists were to decide to close their premises. In that case it would not be a matter of the Government’s making. It is hoped the scenario the Senator raised can be avoided.
Senator Harris and other speakers referred in general terms to the work of the tribunals. While I do not wish to discuss the work of the Mahon tribunal because the Cathaoirleach has ruled on the matter, I suggest that tomorrow night’s debate on establishing an electoral commission presents an opportunity to discuss how political ethics can be addressed by means other than tribunals.
Senators Quinn and Ross raised the issue of over-regulation and noted the number of regulations and regulators. There is scope for a debate, whether on the work of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority or on the annual reports of the relevant bodies as and when they become available. I will discuss with the Leader whether we can have such a debate in the near future.
Senators Buttimer and McFadden raised men’s health and mental health. The Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Jimmy Devins, came before the House recently for a general debate on the issue of mental health, which was probably not sufficiently broad to address all the concerns Senators have raised about this issue. We will request a further debate on the topic.
Senator Doherty requested a debate on Northern Ireland. Senators have proposed several options for a debate, including on North-South bodies or to mark the anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. The House should take the opportunity to mark the establishment of the North-South bodies and the Agreement. I will ask whether this is possible.
Senator Doherty also raised the need for Senators to air their views on certain issues facing the west. The Western Development Commission is about to be reappointed. That might be a mechanism to ask questions about matters of regional development in the west.
Senator Phelan asked a similar question on regional development in the south east. I am unsure if Senators would be willing to debate regional development for the country or have separate debates.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Yes, that is what we want.
Senator Paudie Coffey: That is the way to go.
Senator Dan Boyle: We can request that too.
The Taoiseach has agreed to appear before the House, but when he is likely to be available is still being worked out. It is hoped that it will be in the near future.
With regard to Part V, the planning and development legislation, Senator Coghlan wanted particular elucidation on my behalf. The situation is quite simple.
Senator Paul Coghlan: That is always appreciated
