June 25th 2008
Order of Business
Senator Fitzgerald, opening the Order of Business, suggested an amendment to a debate on the economy, which repeats the call from yesterday’s Order of Business. As is usual with such calls, it is difficult to get a Minister available at short notice, but yesterday’s call has been taken into account. Efforts are being made to make available the Minister for Finance and there is every confidence that such a debate will take place before the House rises for the summer, which will happen in the next two weeks.
Many other speakers discussed the content of such a debate, including Senators O’Toole, Kelly, Donohoe, Ross, Callely, Ó Murchú, Healy Eames, Butler and Hanafin. It is hoped when the Minister for Finance does come to the House that the context of the debate is well placed. Yesterday’s report from the ESRI has engendered an initial debate the especial subject of which has been public confidence.
Senator Fitzgerald in her opening contribution today spoke of the local factors which might be involved in the current economic downturn. It is still largely the case that most of the factors are international. Any other performing international economy is in a similar situation. The ESRI report does discuss public confidence, which is sometimes influenced by the tone and tenor of debates in this Chamber and others like it. However, public confidence is influenced also by factors mentioned by other speakers. I refer especially to the contribution of Senator Ross and his comments on the level of personal indebtedness in the economy, which is one of the highest in the world. There would be an open call for a debate in the House on the role of the banking industry in trying to establish consumer confidence which has been badly affected by the type of policies that many of those financial institutions have put in place.
Senator O’Toole questioned the likelihood of a strike at the Bank of Ireland. While this House cannot intervene directly in such labour disputes, its Members hope the measures the Senator outlined will be followed so that a strike can be averted at one of the largest financial institutions in the country.
Senator Kelly highlighted the need for new skills in areas such as administration. As did Senator Healy-Eames, he referred to the regrettable announcement that has been made by the Hibernian insurance company. I suggest that the report that was published recently by the future skills group and Forfás forms a good basis for the debate in this House on the issues the Senators have mentioned.
Senators Kelly, Ross and Hannigan spoke about broadband services. Senator Ross referred to a report in The Irish Times yesterday. Having spoken to the Minister, I understand the report in question was largely accurate. I do not doubt the Minister will make time available to speak on the matter in the Seanad, although I am not sure whether that can be done before this House rises for the summer. The Minister is committed to increasing the availability of broadband services. Yesterday’s newspaper report reminded us that the Minister is working to a particular deadline to ensure we have maximum broadband coverage in this country. There is a need for a fully informed debate on this issue. The Private Members’ Bill that has been proposed by Senator Ross will help to bring that about. We need to consider what exactly we mean when we talk about broadband. We have to set out what we believe to be an acceptable speed in the context of the provision of broadband. We should specify the geographical locations where the people of this country can access broadband services.
Senators Kelly, Ormonde, O’Donovan, Callely, Ó Murchú and Regan referred to the introduction in this country of regulations on foot of EU directives. Such a level of interest in the issue of regulation makes it clear there is a need for a debate on it in this House. We need to consider the extent to which EU directives which have a practical use are being accepted by the public. We also need to reflect on the degree to which such directives are being policed. Are we being too zealous in implementing regulations? Do we choose to implement certain regulations but not others? Do we know whether the various regulations are being implemented in other EU member states? Many of the concerns which have been raised can be debated properly if we arrange a debate.
Senator Donohoe commented on the new regime of levies and charges on the M50. Such matters can be discussed in the context of the debate on the economy that we will have in the weeks to come. Some of the problems associated with the M50 were caused by a badly flawed original contract. The moneys to be paid by the State, which were mentioned by the Senator, are equivalent to the moneys which the State would have continued to pay under the original contract. They are now to be paid in a different form. The new system will help traffic flow while ensuring the Exchequer’s original investment is repaid. The Senator’s points are well made.
Senator Donohoe also spoke about the homelessness strategy, the contents of which were recently made available. There is scope for a good debate in this House on the strategy. The Senator referred to the new rental regulations, which I do not think are part of the same debate. I will bring his view that the regulations need to be strengthened to the attention of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
Senator Daly talked about Cork City Council’s decision to introduce a moratorium on mobile phone masts. I am aware the Senator takes a great personal interest in such matters. He referred to a report produced by the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources which set out the guidelines which should apply in these cases. I will inform the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources of the Senator’s interest in this matter. I will find out whether there is a possibility of a separate debate on the issue.
Senator O’Donovan raised the issue of planning in rural Ireland, which is highlighted in the House regularly. The Leader of the House has promised that such a debate will be organised soon.
Senator Coffey spoke about the effects of changes in the poultry industry on the Waterford area. He pointed out that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also represents a constituency in which the industry is strong. I am sure the Minister, Deputy Smith, shares Senator Coffey’s concerns and is prepared to address such issues in the House.
Senator Bacik referred to the many shootings which have occurred in a certain district of Dublin. Like the Senator, I stay in the Coombe area of the city where last night’s unfortunate incident took place. The shooting resulted in the closure of that part of Dublin while gardaà were initiating their investigations. I am sure the Leader of the House will make time available for a debate on the matter.
Senator Bacik pre-empted the debate on the Intoxicating Liquor Bill 2008, which will take place in this House over the next few weeks. Like her, I welcome the Minister’s decision not to proceed with certain provisions in relation to early-opening bars, which have a distinct culture and do not contribute to this country’s overall problem with alcohol.
Senator Healy Eames spoke about Health Service Executive staffing in the context of an incident in the Galway area. HSE issues are regularly raised on the Order of Business. We have had several debates on such matters. The Minister for Health and Children has come to the Seanad on several occasions. The HSE receives an equivalent amount of resources in terms of man hours. We need to understand the management difficulties that are causing problems at national and local levels. The Senator is right to raise the issue.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Front-line services are being cut.
Senator Frances Fitzgerald: There have been service cutbacks.
Senator Dan Boyle: Senator Butler spoke about the potential that exists in the construction industry in light of the recent economic downturn. New construction levels have slowed down considerably. I strongly agree that the attention of the construction industry should turn to the retrofitting of houses to make them more energy-efficient.
Senator Hannigan welcomed the publication of the heads of the civil partnership Bill. I am confident the Seanad and the other House will be prepared to proceed with the legislation as quickly as possible. It will be a significant and important Bill. I accept it will not address all issues fully. It is an important stepping stone.
Senator Hanafin spoke about the need for the Government to emphasise, in the context of the debate on the economy, the need to allocate existing resources in a proportionate manner. Everyone on the Government benches will be happy to do so, especially as the 2008 economy will be 99.6% the size of the 2007 economy. Special attention will have to be paid to those in our society who are less well off. To be fair to the Taoiseach, the three budgets he introduced when he was Minister for Finance were verified by the Combat Poverty Agency as the most socially equitable budgets of the past decade.
Senator Paudie Coffey: We will see what the next budget contains.
Senator Dan Boyle: I have no reason to believe the current Minister for Finance will deviate from that path.
Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: Several people have been replaced.
Senator Dan Boyle: Yes.
June 24th 2008
Electricity Regulation (Amendment) (EirGrid) Bill 2008: Second Stage.
The Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources in his opening contribution stated this Bill was an important part of Government energy policy and an important priority within the Government’s set of priorities, and that the existence of the programme for Government shows its commitment towards energy in general.
The Bill is an important one. Some of its general principles have been examined by Senator O’Toole. Its essential principle was agreed in a previous Act which provided for a stand-alone distribution company as opposed to a generation company. Some of the fears expressed by Senator O’Toole continue to be real. I agree that the electricity distribution system is a vital piece of infrastructure. I do not believe there will be any political demand, in the short to medium term, for the privatisation of this country’s electricity grid system. Any movement in that regard should be met with great reluctance.
The Bill outlines how the electricity grid can be added to. Some such projects are under way. The development of the North-South interconnector has not been without controversy. The development of an east-west interconnector is being considered. It is possible that an interconnector between Ireland and continental Europe will be developed in the near future. I would like to address each of those three projects.
It makes eminent sense, in the context of the all-island electricity market, that we develop a North-South interconnector. The infrastructure that will accompany the interconnector has been the subject of a great deal of controversy. The Minister acted wisely when he initiated a survey. The survey may not provide the answers that would please the public in the areas concerned. We should constantly strive to ensure there is public confidence in the system. It is no secret that Green Party public representatives in counties like Louth and Monaghan have expressed their reservations publicly. The Minister and the Department face a difficult task in squaring that circle. I am sure the final result will be the development of an interconnector that provides the electricity needed by everyone on this island and an electricity market from which we all can benefit.
We should also look forward to the development of an east-west interconnector. Senator O’Toole’s suggestion that Ireland’s use of a certain amount of electricity from the British market, a certain percentage of which is generated from nuclear sources, means that we use a certain amount of nuclear-generated electricity each year is based on a mathematical assumption. An alternative way of looking at that equation is used in this country’s electricity generation market. Some people sign up to Airtricity services on the basis that they will receive electricity from renewable sources, even though they are aware that the electricity in question comes through an electricity grid that does not distinguish between renewable and other sources of energy.
Matters will become more problematic if a third interconnector is developed, this time between Ireland and continental Europe. It is likely that such a connector would be between Ireland and France, which has an electricity system that is 80% derived from nuclear sources. In such circumstances, we would have to ask ourselves questions of the type Senator O’Toole has raised during this debate. It is much more difficult to distinguish between electricity generated from nuclear and other sources in a country like France in which nuclear power is such a predominant policy choice.
I would like to comment on some other issues relating to the electricity grid. The Minister is still trying to deal with a challenge in that regard, although the ESB’s 20-year investment programme might help him to overcome it. I refer to the ability of new participants in the electricity generation sector, especially those producing electricity from renewable sources, to become active participants in accessing the existing grid. Those who are involved in the renewable sector, or want to get involved in that sector, find it difficult to connect the power they produce to the grid. One of the benefits of the quick enactment of this Bill will be the development of a new way of addressing these problems. The past reluctance to facilitate new arrivals on the market seems to be dissipating. Such reluctance, which stemmed from a form of engineering conservatism, should not be part of our energy future. Many people in the system continue to take a conservative approach to new ideas. They feel that systems that worked in the past should continue to be used in the present. They think that any attempt to accept innovation will cause problems in the future.
If we are to develop a post-oil economy, we will have to adopt diverse approaches to technology. Political responses to new technology need to be encouraging and accommodating. While the Minister has been proactive in that regard, much needs to be done to address the deep-seated prejudices that exist in certain organisations. Such bodies need to adapt to meet the new realities. I hope this Bill represents an attempt to address such issues. It has my support, and that of my colleagues in this House, on those grounds.
The final issue I wish to discuss is the ability of EirGrid to meet its infrastructural needs through its own and other resources. It is obvious that decisions about the future of public expenditure are being taken at this time. The Government has prioritised certain infrastructural projects. There are many enabling mechanisms in this legislation that will allow EirGrid, as a stand-alone organisation, to address its own financial needs in the financial markets. That should be encouraged on one level because infrastructure is needed and the company’s financial load needs to be organised properly. I am concerned that part of Senator O’Toole’s argument will prove to be true if EirGrid does not need to meet a certain proportion of the cost of the infrastructure that is to be developed in the energy sector in the years to come. If the company has the ability to meet the financial commitments associated with the establishment of new infrastructure without assistance from the Government, it will be able to put more distance between itself and the Government and thereby have the ability to control that infrastructure in the future. I ask the Minister to respond to that suggestion at the end of the debate.
June 19th
Offences against the State (Amendment) Act 1998: Motion.
As with other speakers there is regret at the necessity for legislation of this type because its existence presumes a victory on the part of those who engage in terrorism and seek to use it as a political weapon. The Government has chosen to renew the legislation annually since the original passage of the Act. There is consensus in the House that this should be the case. A wider debate needs to take place on the circumstances that would obviate the need for the future existence of the legislation. It is clear that the terrorist threat that has existed in this jurisdiction is reduced although it continues to be potent. We should have a wider debate on why we should have the legislation on the Statute Book.
It is interesting to note that in the neighbouring jurisdiction there is a debate on legislation to deal with international terrorism and its effect on civil liberties. It is ironic that the focus of the debate there is on periods of detention and methods of using evidence that are far more draconian than those included in the Act. While we have suffered greatly at the hands of terrorism, we should be grateful that in terms of its limits on civil liberty the legislation is far less draconian than it could be. The very mechanism that allows it to be introduced annually on the basis of a report to Government and a Government decision on whether it should be continued is a safeguard that we do not find in other jurisdictions.
Will the Minister of State indicate in his response whether the Government is considering the scenarios that might develop when we no longer need an Offences Against the State Act? I fear that the bogey of terrorism we have experienced on this island over a 40-year period and that exists internationally through other threats is a convenient excuse for those who want to have the strictest possible laws and who want to feel good about themselves by so doing rather than dealing with the nature of the problems. I refer, for example, to why terrorism exists in the first place and how it can be diminished in society. The fear is that if we continue to have such legislation there will be a rolling justification for some type of terrorism activity and for some people involved in terrorism to justify the continued existence of the legislation. Those of us who believe in a safe, democratic society founded on civil liberties yearn for the day when legislation of this type is removed from the Statute Book.
June 19th
Order of Business
I propose a slight amendment to the Order of Business, “That leave be granted to introduce No. 13 prior to the taking of No. 1.†I ask the Leader to respond to that proposal.
I wish to raise the issue of a conference held in Portlaoise last week by a financial consultancy aimed at those who participate in sports clubs, particularly in urban areas. The focus of the conference was to encourage people involved in the GAA, soccer and rugby clubs to relocate their facilities in the middle of urban areas to suburban and locations well removed from the centre of towns and cities. The holding of this conference is a disturbing development. The House should debate this strategy as it not only will have an environmental impact in terms of people involved in sport, but young people in particular will have to travel longer distances to play sports when recreation and amenity areas and sports grounds are the lungs of our towns and cities. If people are promoting this concept of which clubs are, unfortunately in growing numbers, starting to avail in order to look after their own long-term welfare, there is a responsibility on all of us to say this is a bad development. Appropriate supports need to be put in place for the sports clubs and disincentives introduced to discourage them from following this strategy.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: They need supports too.
Senator Dan Boyle: Supports are what it is all about.
In response to Senator Regan’s point and the question of attaining the climate change targets, he is right in what he said. The programme for Government refers to a 3% decrease on average in that regard. My opinion is that for the first half of the life of this Government we will be running to stand still and that perhaps we will not achieve any of the 3% target decrease.
Senator Eugene Regan: That amounts to buying time.
Senator Dan Boyle: It is the accumulation of measures that exist now and that will come on stream that will help us to achieve the target in the long run.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Government has been standing still for too long.
Senator Dan Boyle: It would help if we did not have contradictory positions by some in the Opposition parties.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Senator should talk to his Government colleagues.
Senator Dan Boyle: We hear some of that on the Order of Business here every day. We have declining tax revenues, yet some people say that certain taxes should be reduced. We cannot have it both ways.
June 5th
Lisbon Reform Treaty Report: Statements.
On the Order of Business today I tried to articulate one of the reasons I am advocating a “Yes†vote in this referendum. My argument was that I had made arguments for rejecting previous treaties which were not accepted in previous referendum campaigns and one of the responsibilities of democracy is to accept the verdict of the people, move on and see how debates subsequently change. That is one of the more disappointing aspects of some of the campaigning on the “No†side.
I am a person who believes that in terms of the constitutional integrity of our referendum process, we need a coherent and consistent argument on both sides whenever there is a referendum. I certainly would not go along with any of the personal antagonism or denigration that often accompanies these debates. We should be glad that there are people who are putting themselves forward and putting forward arguments that deserve consideration, but some of those arguments are ones that have been made before - they are arguments that I have made - and the people have decided accordingly. We must argue on the basis of the treaty itself and what is likely to come about as a result of its changes.
One of the persuading factors for me, and one of the reasons I voted “No†legitimately in the past, was that there continues to be a democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union and all of the treaties that have been approved subsequent to our own accession have helped worsen that democratic deficit. I can honestly state that this is the first treaty, which in itself has flaws, that goes in a different direction. It seeks to address the democratic deficit. It brings in measures such as the citizens’ initiative, enhanced powers for the European Parliament and a role for national parliaments, which is the matter of this debate. Those grounds are one of the strongest arguments for voting “Yes†on this occasion and I hope we, as parliamentarians, accept that as a valid argument.
The report has been submitted by the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny which does valuable work on behalf of the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is far from easy work. Approximately 2,000 legal instruments emanate from the European Union every year. In accepting this new-found responsibility and in recognition of the democratic principles that would follow from an acceptance of the Lisbon treaty, we should ask how we, as a parliament, can address this work in the most satisfactory way. The EU scrutiny committee has made arguments about how that can be done. There are other avenues open to us. I do not need to remind Senators that the last report on Seanad reform envisaged such a role for this House. In light of the ratification of this treaty, if the people so decide, this is a debate to which we can return as we progress the idea of Seanad reform and give ourselves a workload that justifies our presence in the parliamentary system. We can play a valuable role as a bridge between the Irish Parliament and the European Parliament and EU institutions, a role that, as of now, only the Joint Committee on European Scrutiny fills. We should look for more than that.
We are coming into a week where there is much uncertainty about what will happen. On the Order of Business Senators referred to the shortening of odds. I can relate my experience of the previous general election where I had the dubious privilege of being the shortest price favourite not to be elected. This has no implication for what is likely to happen on Thursday or Friday when the votes are counted. There is uncertainty in a large group of voters who have yet to make up their minds. People are wavering between a “Yes†and “No†vote because of the uncertainty of much of the campaigning.
I will repeat what I stated on the Order of Business, that all Members, irrespective of the position they take on the treaty, should emphasise the importance of the maximum possible turnout and voter participation. That is the essence of what we are as a democracy.
