|
Chuaigh an Cathaoirleach i gceannas ar 10:30
Machnamh agus Paidir.
Reflection and Prayer.
Business of Seanad
An Cathaoirleach:   I have received notice from Senator Neale Richmond that, on the motion for the Commencement of the House today, he proposes to raise the following matter: The need for the Minister for Justice and Equality to urgently review the system for processing applications to the national vetting bureau as the current system is clearly overwhelmed, leading to inordinate delays in processing.
I have also received notice from Senator John Dolan of the following matter: The need for the Minister of State with special responsibility for disability issues to confirm that work is under way across all Departments and public bodies to ensure implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its optional protocol will commence immediately on their ratification, to confirm that ratification will take place before the end of December 2016 and that budget 2017 will include resources to progress implementation.
I have also received notice from Senator Victor Boyhan of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to update the House on the expected timeframe for the roll-out of the new National Rehabilitation Hospital, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin.
I have also received notice from Senator Terry Leyden of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to give assurances to the people of Roscommon that the primary care centre in Monksland will remain under the control of HSE West and will not be moved under any circumstance to the control of the HSE community health organisation CHO8 which serves counties Laois, Offaly, Longford, Westmeath, Louth and Meath and that this is not another attack on the integrity of County Roscommon.
I have also received notice from Senator Colm Burke of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to introduce an independent appeals process under the fair deal scheme to allow a right of appeal to nursing home providers who are unhappy with the fee proposed by the National Treatment Purchase Fund.
I have also received notice from Senator Máire Devine of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Health to respond to the grave concerns about the proposed cut of 50% in the number of night nursing staff at Cloverhill Prison.
I have also received notice from Senator Kieran O’Donnell of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Social Protection to outline the plans and timeframe for the introduction of a jobseeker's benefit scheme for the self-employed.
I have also received notice from Senator Kevin Humphreys of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government to inform the Seanad of the progress made in the delivery of 500 modular housing units to alleviate the housing crisis.
I have also received notice from Senator Paul Coghlan of the following matter: The need for the Minister for Arts, Heritage, Regional, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs to outline her intentions and plans for Killarney House and when it will open to the public; what it is intended it will interpret, contain and display; if it will commemorate the previous owners, namely, the Browne family, Earls of Kenmare, who were so involved in the development of Killarney town through the ages and the McShain family, and if it will function as the main visitor centre for Killarney National Park.
I regard the matters raised by the Senators as suitable for discussion. I have selected the matters raised by Senators Neale Richmond, John Dolan, Victor Boyhan and Terry Leyden and they will be taken now. Senators Colm Burke, Máire Devine, Kieran O'Donnell, Kevin Humphreys and Paul Coghlan may give notice on another day of the matters they wish to raise.
Commencement Matters
Garda Vetting Applications
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy Finian McGrath, and wish him success and luck in his new portfolio.
Senator Neale Richmond: I join the Cathaoirleach in welcoming the Minister of State on his first appearance in the House. I also congratulate the Minister of State on his appointment and thank him for coming to the House to discuss what is becoming an increasingly frustrating issue for many voluntary schools, groups and commercial entities. This frustration is accentuated by the fact that this is a busy time of year for those who work with children, with the school holidays generating increased activity.
Vetting is a cornerstone of any child welfare strategy and essential to ensure best practice when recruiting individuals to work with children and vulnerable persons. The protection and safeguarding of the nation's children is, rightly, at the forefront of the vetting process. However, the current delays are having a major impact on those on whom we rely to work safely with children. It is almost two months since the new e-vetting system went live with much fanfare, but the feedback my office has been receiving from child care facilities, kids' sports camps, schools and clubs, is, unfortunately, that there are still inordinate delays.
The previous statistic that the turnaround time was only four weeks was grossly misleading and I wonder if the new target time of just five working days is another red herring. While it may have taken less than four weeks for gardaí under the previous system to log and enter vetting applications, delays of up to three months were still being encountered in the formal vetting stage undertaken by an outside body. One constituent who contacted me explained that in working with children for ten years the quickest time in which he had ever had an application completed was ten weeks.
While the delays are bad enough, they are compounded by the wall of silence and bureaucracy applicants and service providers meet in trying to establish what the status of their applications is, with delays of indefinite periods constantly chipping away at the viability of their operations. The lengthy timeframe is simply unsustainable, especially for commercial entities working in the sector, many of which rely on part-time or seasonal staff.
For these companies, replacing staff is an absolute nightmare, as they know that after hiring someone it can be months before he or she can actually start working. This, in turn, costs contracts, leads to disappointment and completely undermines the sector. The delays stop companies from getting off the ground, prevent people from starting work and limit the options open to parents and others in terms of the services available to children.
Will the Minister of State provide a comprehensive report on how the new vetting system is working? What are realistic and the actual waiting times? Have the delays really been eradicated? I am not convinced that they have and want to know what is causing them. Is it the due diligence process and, if so, can it be improved? Is it the number of applications which previously stood at 30,000 a month and, if so, can more resources be allocated? Is it seasonal changes to the volume of applications and, if so, can they be addressed in the months in which additional resources are needed? As in the case of the passport system, is there scope to introduce a fast-track system for companies or voluntary bodies which, for a fee, are able to have an application fully processed within ten working days in response to exceptional need?
Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality (Deputy Finian McGrath): I thank the Senator for his welcome. As he stated, this is my first time to address the House and I wish all new Senators the best of luck for the future. My approach on all issues, particularly disabilities, will be to work closely with all Senators. If they need help or support, they should not hesitate to knock on my door and I will facilitate them to the best of my ability.
I am responding on behalf of the Tánaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality who is grateful to the House for giving her the opportunity to clarify matters so far as this issue is concerned. The Senator will be pleased to note that there is no undue delay in the processing of applications for persons who require Garda vetting. The Tánaiste has been informed by the Garda authorities that the current average processing time for vetting applications is actually four weeks.
The Senator will be aware that the national vetting bureau provides employment vetting for organisations registered with the Garda for this purpose and which employ persons in a full-time, part-time, voluntary or training capacity in positions where they have substantial unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults. Garda vetting applications are processed as they are received in the national vetting bureau and all organisations registered for Garda vetting are aware of the processing timeframes and have been advised to factor this into their recruitment and selection process. To put the scale of the operation being conducted by the national vetting bureau into some perspective, in 2015 the bureau, or the Garda central vetting unit as it was then known, processed 335,427 applications for vetting. This year, up to 31 May, it has processed 129,651 applications, of which 80% were processed within the four week timeframe to which I have alluded.
Approximately 18,000 organisations are in receipt of vetting services from the national vetting bureau, covering a wide range of health, educational, sports and recreational sectors. The bureau provides ongoing support and advice for the organisations concerned in managing their vetting requirements. There will, of course, always be some individual cases where additional inquiries may be necessary and this may result in processing times in excess of the average. That is one of the points raised by the Senator. The primary consideration of the bureau is to seek to ensure the safety of children and vulnerable adults. That is the key issue. Accordingly, the vetting process demands rigorous procedures to safeguard its integrity and maintain the highest level of confidence by the public and organisations availing of the service.
Any vetting process will take a certain minimum amount of time to complete and, taking into account the importance of measures to protect children and vulnerable adults, while providing an effective and efficient service, the current processing period is not considered unreasonable. An Garda Síochána is also committed to ensuring the service provided is delivered in as modern and efficient a manner as possible, which takes advantage of developments in technology. In this context, An Garda Síochána launched an e-vetting system on 29 April which will facilitate the processing of applications in an online format, thus removing the current time consuming process of manual applications. E-vetting will further streamline the vetting process and contribute to sustaining reduced processing times for vetting applications. The e-vetting system has been designed to be compatible with the requirements of the National Vetting Bureau (Children and Vulnerable Persons) Acts 2012 to 2016 and, in this regard, was launched in tandem with the commencement of the Acts.
Senator Neale Richmond: I thank the Minister of State for his reply which is slightly disappointing for obvious reasons. Part of the point I raised has been missed. I queried the all-in timeframe of the process, not just the amount of time an application rests with the Garda or the body to which the vetting process has been outsourced. It concerns the period from the time a body submits an application for vetting to when there is final clarification. All of the evidence presented to my office by Montessori schools and children's sports camps shows that it is not a four-week process, that the timeframe involved has not been reduced and that there is still an inordinate delay. From an employment point of view, when one loses a number of staff members who give two or three weeks' notice, knowing that it will take at least four weeks to have a replacement vetted is one thing, but when the delay extends from four to six, eight or ten weeks, it makes many organisations completely unviable and thus completely restricts what is open to parents and guardians in terms of the services they can provide for their children.
Deputy Finian McGrath: Of course, I take the issues raised on board and will report back to the Minister. I agree with the Senator on child services. As far as I am concerned, a delay of three months is unacceptable. The Senator mentioned delays of up to ten weeks. He also queried the all-in timeframe, which is unacceptable. We need to deal with it. The point made in the answer I gave on behalf of the Minister is that approximately 80% of applications are processed within a reasonable timeframe, but in the 20% of cases about which the Senator speaking we must ensure we make the process more efficient. We must act on this issue. The Senator mentioned commercial activities, sensitivities and the viability of operations. Of course, we must take these issues on board. I will relay all of the Senator's serious concerns back to the Minister to see whether we can make the process more efficient and progressive to help those who urgently need to get on with their jobs and employ new staff.
UN Conventions Ratification
Senator John Dolan: I am delighted to join the Cathaoirleach in welcoming the Minister of State. I am particularly pleased that for the first time we have a Minister of State at the Cabinet table looking at the issue of inclusion for people with disabilities, which is a whole-of-government issue. It is a unique role and, in a sense, the Minister of State has in some way become the conscience of the Cabinet on the issue to ensure effective implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which is the linchpin. Ireland signed the convention in March 2007, which means that we have had almost ten years to prepare for its ratification and introduce the legislative measures required. At the recent European disability forum conference the Minister of State stated - it has been said over and over - that Ireland's approach had always been not to ratify international treaties until it was ready to implement them. My simple and logical response, therefore, is that once the convention is ratified, everything has to move and all the buttons must be green. However, the legislation still needs to be put in place. The other practical measures to be included in the upcoming budget and resources also need to be put in place.
I present the Minister of State with an opportunity to confirm that work is under way in Departments and public services to ensure implementation, that ratification will take place before the end of 2016 and that budget 2017 will include resources to progress implementation.
On the legislative side, I have mentioned the roadmap which has been published. In conjunction with it, however, practical measures must be put in place in the upcoming budget. There are a raft of such measures in the provision of health services, housing, personal assistants, disability services, transport and many more.
People with disabilities can characterise the recession years in two key ways. First, there were repeated commitments that services for them and other supports would be protected and prioritised. Second, as time passed, there was a gross understatement or under-acknowledgement of the depth and scope of the cuts that continued to impact on them and their families in their participation in everyday life. If a credible start is not made at this stage, people with disabilities may well draw the conclusion that they were hoodwinked during the past decade. The Oireachtas has not kept faith with them. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities is simply a methodology to give effect to the emancipation of 600,000 people. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ireland can implement the convention well in the time ahead. We have the resolve, ambition and confidence to do so. It is the right and proper thing to do for people with disabilities and, equally, for the economic, moral and social development of the country.
Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Senator for his best wishes and congratulate him on being elected to the Seanad. I have known him for many years and I am aware of the magnificent work he has done with the Disability Federation of Ireland. It is very important that people with disabilities have a voice in the Seanad. I wish the Senator well. I thank him for raising this very important topic which is also of importance to me. I am delighted to have the opportunity to address Ireland's ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities and provide an update on the work under way to meet our ratification targets. The roadmap to ratification published by the previous Government last October detailed all of the remaining legislative barriers to ratification and the work that would be undertaken to overcome them. It also set out a clear timeframe for ratification. I can confirm that we are on track to achieve our target of ratification of both the convention and the optional protocol by the end of the year, something I am working very hard to achieve. Much has been achieved already in overcoming the obstacles to ratification outlined in the roadmap, with the enactment of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2015 and the implementation of the amendments to the Mental Health Act 2001 which removed the authority to administer electroconvulsive therapy or medicine after a three-month period to an involuntary patient with capacity who was unwilling to consent to the treatment.
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill 2015 was passed by the Seanad on 26 January this year. When enacted, the Bill will reform section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 1993 to facilitate the full participation in family life of persons with intellectual disabilities and the full expression of their human rights. Achieving the necessary balance between these rights and ensuring appropriate protection is crucial.
Work is also under way on the drawing up of a disability/equality (miscellaneous provisions) Bill to progress the outstanding miscellaneous legislative amendments necessary to proceed to ratification. The Bill will address issues such as meeting the convention's requirements in the provision of reasonable accommodation and deprivation of liberty, as well as removing archaic references in existing legislation to mental health. We recently presented the general scheme of the Bill to the Oireachtas for pre-legislative scrutiny.
To address the Senator's point about resources for implementation, let me be clear: we need more resources for disability services which have taken a hit in the past seven or eight years. The Government and I will do our best to deliver on this commitment. My priorities are clear. Underlining the Government's commitment to supporting the disability sector, last week I announced the provision of an additional €31 million for disability services in 2016. This includes €3 million for new initiatives, including an additional provision for services to meet the needs of school leavers with disabilities and the anticipated cost of a number of emergency residential placements this year. These were the priority issues that had to be dealt with immediately when I took office. Ratification of the convention is a separate issue that is not contingent on the provision of resources and does not require additional funding. When we ratify the convention by the end of the year, we will be making a solemn commitment to the international community that our body of domestic legislation is fully in line with the convention and fully meets the standards required under it. Issues related to the allocation of resources will always be the subject of debate and matters for the individual Departments involved. Service standards and the provision of funding are subject to what is described in the convention as "progressive realisation" and the budgetary decisions of the Government of the day. It is my job to push for these budgetary decisions to be made and services to be provided.
The programme for Government sets out a range of commitments to improve the lives of people with disabilities. The Government supports - I will be monitoring the position on the 2017 Estimates, on which I have already started work - an increase in disability benefit, disability allowance, carer's benefit, carer's allowance and blind person's pension. I am committed to implementing these policies. Legislation is being drafted to introduce a new mobility scheme which I will have ready in the next couple of weeks. The Government also supports further increases in housing adaption grants.
Work will continue to move people with disabilities living in congregated settings to appropriate accommodation where they can live independently. I take the opportunity to announce that additional funding of €20 million will be made available to facilitate their removal from congregated settings. I will supply later a list of the institutions that will benefit from the allocation of €20 million which will enable people with intellectual or physical disabilities living in institutions to move to appropriate accommodation. In other words, we will take them out of institutions and place them in smaller community homes with a maximum of four people and the necessary support staff and services. The €20 million will be spent in the coming weeks.
I thank the Senator for raising this issue. I would like to change the mindset. When we talk about people with disabilities we are talking about our daughters, brothers, sisters or neighbours. We are talking about citizens of the State and protecting their rights. I am determined to ensure the UN convention will be ratified by Christmas.
An Cathaoirleach: That was a full response.
Senator John Dolan: I am relieved and delighted that work is under way, not just in the Department of Justice and Equality, in particular, but also in other Departments, on the legal aspects to ensure ratification will take place by the end of the year. The Minister of State mentioned extra funding for congregated settings. That is important and should be noted, but I did not hear a response to the third question I asked about an assurance that resources would be made available in the budget for next year. The reply is shy in referencing the coming year. It is critical once we get over the hurdle of ratifying the convention that there not be another delay that would mean we would have to start thinking about resources. It must be done now.
On ratification, I do not accept the Minister of State's point that there are no implications for the provision of resources. A huge job of work must be done to improve the ordinary lives of people with disabilities. Getting them out of institutions is one thing but making sure the community is fit for them to live good lives and participate is another.
An Cathaoirleach: We are well over the time limit. Does the Minister of State want to respond briefly?
Deputy Finian McGrath: I take Senator John Dolan's point about not having to wait for ten years. During the talks on the programme for Government this was something I inserted and we must act on it. Having to hang around for ten years is not acceptable. Let us try to act now.
Reference was made to providing assurances that the issue would be dealt with in the forthcoming budget. I am giving assurances to the Senator that we will seek the resources we need to fund new services. Moreover, it is my position that we will have to have resources to repair the damage done in the past nine or ten years. I accept that point and I am giving a commitment to deal with the issue. I have sat down with my staff and in the coming two or three weeks will be demanding extra resources to implement many of the measures to which the Senator referred. The answer to his question is "Yes", but I am not going to make any big false promise in the House. However, I can give a strong commitment that I will do my best to ensure the provision of and a focus on services for people with disabilities.
I put it to my colleagues that it is not only a question for me as the Minister of State who deals with people with disabilities. I am keen to broaden the debate. Every Minister should have a role in dealing with the issue to support the rights of people with disabilities to access services. For example, I have set myself a target. The employment target for people with disabilities is 3%, but I have set myself a target of reaching a figure of 6% in the next three years. There are thousands of young people with a physical or an intellectual disability. I met a group of them yesterday at the Irish Wheelchair Association. I met another three weeks ago in the Central Remedial Clinic. They are hugely talented young people who are looking for a real job. I am putting it to every Minister that it is not simply a question for me as the person responsible for dealing with people with disabilities. We all have a responsibility in that regard. I would also appreciate the support of my Seanad colleagues for that vision. We need to change the mindset in Irish society.
Senator Terry Leyden: Well done.
Neuro-Rehabilitation Services
Senator Victor Boyhan: I welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment.
I refer to the National Rehabilitation Hospital on Rochestown Avenue in Dún Laoghaire. I do not intend to give a history lesson, but the people involved and those with a knowledge of the hospital will know of the numerous fancy and elaborate schemes to rebuild it which all fell and came to nothing. Eventually Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council was asked, in conjunction with the property owners, to rezone a substantial amount of land for medical use and a new scheme was drafted. We now have An Bord Pleanála fast-tracking the plan and it has finally granted permission for a substantial redevelopment of the site, which is to be welcomed.
Before I go any further, I acknowledge the extraordinary work done by the hospital board of management, staff and practitioners. The hospital deals with patients with brain injuries, who have suffered a stroke, have neurological conditions and other serious health issues. It should be an absolute priority for the Department of Health to have a state-of-the-art, fit-for-purpose, design and build national rehabilitation hospital on the island of Ireland. I am calling on the Minister of State to keep the pressure on and reassure us that the project is on-track, despite the setbacks. That is important for the staff, patients and families who are tapping into the services provided, which are excellent. The staff are working in very difficult circumstances and conditions.
My principal concern is the ownership of the site. The Minister of State may not be aware that the lands became subject to an agreement with the religious order in question under the redress scheme. There is concern that this process has not been completed, affecting the full transfer of the lands to meet the conditions of the agreement entered into by the HSE and the landowners. While the project is progressing, contracts are being drawn up and tendering processes pursued, we want to avoid a situation where there will be an issue about the ownership of the site. Clearly, the State cannot fund a facility on lands the title to which and ownership of which are not clear. I call on the Minister of State to use his good offices to expedite the matter and take up the issue with and obtain assurances from the religious order in question. Ultimately, State money is going into the project. It would at the last minute be a terrible shame if there as to be an obstacle. I am not privy to the finer details, although I have an idea of what was going on. Whatever commitments were given and whatever conditions were made, let them be carried out to the letter of the agreement in order that we can get the project under way.
Deputy Finian McGrath: I thank the Senator for his warm welcome and congratulate him on his election to Seanad Éireann. Like me, he was around for a number of years trying to get in. It took me ten years to get here. I wish him well and the best of luck.
I thank the Senator for raising the issue of the development of the National Rehabilitation Hospital and welcome the opportunity to outline the current position on this major capital investment development. The National Rehabilitation Hospital provides a comprehensive range of specialist services for adult and paediatric patients who, as a result of an accident or an injury, have acquired a physical disability and require specialist medical attention. Effective rehabilitation draws on a broad range of disciplines to meet the particular needs of individuals. I agree with the comments of the Senator on the excellent staff working in the hospital. The objective is to assist patients in returning to life in the community with confidence. Approximately 1,000 people are treated on an inpatient basis at the hospital each year. Approximately 5,000 are treated on an outpatient basis. Many patients have a lifelong association with the hospital. Therefore, the completion of the new National Rehabilitation Hospital is the priority project in the rehabilitation medicine sector.
An Bord Pleanála has awarded planning permission for a 120 replacement bed ward block which will include support therapies for paediatrics and acquired brain injury units, as well as a hydrotherapy unit and a sports hall. The design has been finalised and the preparation of tender documentation is under way. Procurement of construction contractors has commenced and within the next week a notice will be advertised in the Official Journal of the European Union requesting expressions of interest from suitable contractors. The National Rehabilitation Hospital should be in a position to appoint a contractor at year end, with construction proper commencing in early 2017. On this basis, the new facility could be completed in 2018. A small enabling works contract will commence in the third quarter of this year and be completed by the end of the year. The hospital is accredited externally by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities. The commission sets standards of quality by which an organisation providing rehabilitation services is assessed and measured in the delivery and development of medical rehabilitation services. The Government is committed to the development of the facilities at the National Rehabilitation Hospital. I look forward to the work commencing in the near future and the completion of the new National Rehabilitation Hospital.
I take the point made by the Senator about the ownership of the site and the conditions of the agreement. That is something about which we have to be careful. The Senator also referred to lack of clarity on the title to the lands. I give him a commitment that I will follow up on the aspects of the question he has raised because we cannot have anything that will block the development of this major project.
Senator Victor Boyhan: I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive response. I reiterate the importance of having clarity on the title to the lands. It is important that the details of any agreement entered into on the site or block of land be examined in great detail.
There is little detail available of the financing of the project which the Government is co-funding. I intend to come back to the Minister of State on this issue. We need reassurance that we are on target. That is a matter for another day when I can raise it with the Minister of State. Of critical importance is what was agreed to under the redress scheme.
Deputy Finian McGrath: I will follow up on the issue of the title to the land. The Senator might come back to me on the financial aspects. I presume everything is on target in that regard, especially given the extra health allocation provided this year. Furthermore, there will be increased resources for health and disability services in 2017. Again, we will keep an eye on the matter. I agree with the Senator in that regard.
Primary Care Centres
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Canney. I believe this is the first time he has been in the House. I wish him every success in his portfolio.
Senator Terry Leyden: I, too, welcome the Minister of State and congratulate him on his appointment. In his first term as a Member of Dáil Éireann he is also a Minister of State, which is a fair achievement, with a fellow Tuam man, the Minister of State, Deputy Finian McGrath. Tuam has certainly been put on the map.
There has been speculation that the primary care centre in Monksland in south County Roscommon could be moved from the Galway, Mayo and Roscommon community health organisation, CHO, area 2 to area 8 which covers Laois, Offaly, Longford, Westmeath, Louth and Meath, which counties are in a different province. There is no political mandate for the HSE for County Roscommon in CHO area 8. Roscommon councillors Paddy Kilduff, Tony Ward and Laurence Fallon are involved in HSE West. A decision to include County Roscommon in CHO area 8 would cause a democratic deficit and take away the voice of the people of County Roscommon in dealing with their health affairs.
The HSE has advised that it is reviewing how community services can best be delivered locally in an integrated way to communities. The people of south County Roscommon have their primary care needs looked after in the purpose-build HSE West primary care centre. Including it in another administrative district may make sense to faceless bureaucrats who want to tear County Roscommon apart at every opportunity, but it would not be in the best interests of the people of south County Roscommon. The save Roscommon campaign continues to seek to stop the changes proposed by the boundary review commission. This does not make sense to the people of south County Roscommon who want a health service to be provided in their locality.
I also seek the Minister of State's support in ensuring County Roscommon is not divided. It is a form of apartheid to take a progressive region away from Roscommon and include it in County Westmeath. It is an outrageous proposal and I hope the Minister of State, through his involvement in government, will ensure it will not happen. The ethos of the primary care system is that health care be provided locally. The primary care system comprises all health and social services delivered in the community outside hospitals. It includes GPs, public health nurses and a range of other services provided at a single point of contact with the health system. There has been significant investment in the centre at Monksland where services from throughout County Roscommon have been centralised. While it may be speculation, sometimes it becomes reality. With all other Oireachtas Members from the Roscommon-Galway constituency, I was approached about the issue and it is only right that I should raise it in the House and seek a response from the Government.
Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Seán Canney): I thank the Senator for his kind words and welcome to the Chamber. I also thank him for raising this issue. I am taking the debate on behalf of the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, who is elsewhere on Government business.
The development of an enhanced primary care system and guaranteeing the future sustainability of GP practices in rural and disadvantaged urban areas are priorities under the programme for Government and an important element of the health reform process. Our ultimate goal is to ensure people receive the care they need as close to home as possible and that they have access to a greater range of health and social care services in their communities.
Following the decision in 2013 to organise the country’s acute hospitals in a number of hospital groups, the HSE was requested to review the structures then in place for the delivery of non-acute services. A thorough review was commenced in 2013 and completed in 2014. It examined international experience in the implementation of integrated health and social care services, with a particular focus on achieving successful integration. It also involved consultation with providers and users of health services, as well as public services, including the local authority, education and justice systems. It rigorously evaluated options, taking into account the requirement for appropriate care pathways between primary care and acute services, the planned hospital groups and local authority boundaries. It also focused on what would benefit the provision of integrated care for the general population and support the implementation of Government policy on the care of older people, people with disabilities and those in need of mental health services. It has concluded that achieving integrated care means that services must be planned and delivered with patients' needs and wishes as the organising principle and that integrated care can make a real difference to the quality of care and hence patient outcomes. After a careful evaluation of options, the recommended approach was to restructure the 17 integrated service areas into nine community health care organisations, CHOs.
Since 2014, the HSE has been proceeding with a detailed implementation plan which positions primary care at the centre of delivering services and will see the establishment of around 90 primary care networks of health and social care professionals, each serving a common population of approximately 50,000 people. It is very important to stress that, from the point of view of people using the wide range of services provided by the HSE at community level, the management structures which overlay them should be of little or no consequence. The objective is to ensure services are responsive to people’s needs and enable them to receive a joined-up service that results in the most favourable health outcomes for patients.
The HSE has indicated that the Monksland primary care centre is currently located in CHO area 2 which covers counties Mayo, Galway and Roscommon and that no decision has been made to transfer the centre to CHO area 8. I understand four GPs are based in the centre and that other services based there include public health nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, speech and language therapy, social work, psychology and mental health services. Other services use the centre for clinics. This is very much in line with the policy of the Government whereby we want people to be able to access services to meet the majority of their health care needs in the community, as far as possible in one location. I trust this clarifies the matter for the Senator.
Senator Terry Leyden: I welcome the Minister of State's statement that the HSE has indicated that the Monksland primary care centre is currently located in CHO area 2 and that no decision has been made to transfer it to CHO area 8. The Government should take more control. Ministers should decide on major transfers. I would have much more faith in dealing with the Minister of State, the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris, the Taoiseach or any member of the Government than in dealing with the HSE. I hope the Government will take back control of health services from the HSE and become more hands-on in all decisions made.
An Cathaoirleach: The west is awakening. The Senator is happy enough.
Deputy Seán Canney: I thank the Senator for his question and will convey his comments to the Minister, Deputy Simon Harris.
Sitting suspended at 11.20 a.m. and resumed at 11.30 a.m.
Order of Business
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Order of Business is No. 1, statements on mental health, to be taken at 12.45 p.m. and adjourned not later than 2.30 p.m., with the contributions of all Senators not to exceed six minutes each; No. 2, statements on EU-UK relations, to be taken at 2.30 p.m. and conclude not later than 4 p.m., with the contributions of all Senators not to exceed six minutes each and the Minister to be given five minutes in which to reply to the debate; and No. 10, non-Government motion No. 3, motion re Waste Management (Collection Permit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016, to be taken at 4 p.m. and with the debate not to exceed two hours.
Senator Catherine Ardagh: I wish the boys in green the very best of luck against Italy this evening. The entire nation will be cheering them on and we are all hoping for success.
We are all familiar with the phrase "your health is your wealth". It is important that those in need of medical assistance receive it in an appropriate and convenient environment. It is in that context that I refer to primary care centres. In 2012 the then Minister for Health, now Senator James Reilly, announced 35 primary care centres throughout the country. The progress made, as outlined in a written reply in December 2015, in providing the primary care centres the Government had promised just three years earlier could be described as poor at the very best. One of the primary care centres which in 2012 the then Minister had committed to building was to be located in Crumlin-Drimnagh in my constituency. The reply received on that primary care centre was, "Planning not completed in timeframe for PPP". This explanation was shocking, that the Government would commit to building a primary care centre and allow a situation where the planning would not be completed in the timeframe for a public private partnership. That is unacceptable and the residents of Crumlin and Kimmage are not alone. A primary care centre was also promised in Knocklyon and Rathfarnham and, again, the explanation for the fact that the project had not progressed was, "Planning not completed in timeframe for PPP". When communities are promised something as important as a primary care centre, it should be honoured, or the basis in not proceeding should be much better than the fact that planning was not completed in a certain timeframe. It should not be the case that such announcements are made as a public relations stunt for the relevant Minister or Department and then forgotten about. I call on the Minister for Health to review the commitments made in 2012, provide for an honest appraisal of the progress made, say what progress he expects to be made in the coming years and which of the primary care centres announced in 2012 will be progressed.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I am disappointed that we continue to engage in debates by way of statements. Surely there must be some other work that we could be doing. The House has long been accused of engaging in hot air. We do not move anything forward much in making statements. Legislation has been lying there since the previous Seanad which we could probably examine. Yesterday morning I heard on the radio once again the prisoner class - the perpetual prisoners who pass through the revolving doors - talk about how they would not pay fines because they knew that they would be sent to Portlaoise or Mountjoy Prison and be able to get a taxi home after having lunch, having been sentenced to three months in prison.
We might, therefore, dedicate a little time with the relevant Minister to debate how we might find a solution to this outrageous problem. It is sickening for those who have had their houses broken into or been assaulted by the people concerned who are refusing to pay fines because they know that they will get three months in jail and be out in one hour. Surely we must be able to do something productive about this problem.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Ba mhaith liom chomh maith gach ádh a ghuí ar fhoireann na hÉireann agus iad ag imirt in aghaidh na hIodáile anocht. Tá údar misnigh agus dóchais againn agus tá súil againn go ndéanfaidh na leaids an-jab agus go n-éireoidh go geal leo san imirt anocht.
I draw the attention of the Leader to the motion we put on the Order Paper recently about the committee on Seanad political reform. We had hoped it would be moved on very quickly. We saw a Dáil committee being set up almost immediately to consider reform of the way in which the Dáil functioned. We have been calling for this to happen in the Seanad and for the 42 newly elected Seanadóirí to be part of that process. We understand, obviously, that other groupings have asked for different debates on Seanad reform, but the fact that we want a committee to be set up which would include not more than 20 other Members of the Seanad and the Cathaoirleach to consider this issue is extremely important. It is important that we be seen to take leadership on the issue of Seanad reform. It was never intended to be a committee that would go on ad nauseam. We envisage a finite timescale of a few weeks in order that reviews of Standing Orders could be undertaken. It is quite clear to me from speaking to everybody, all Senators, old and new, that there is a sense that we really need to review Standing Orders as quickly as possible to do whatever we can within our remit through the Committee on Procedure and Privileges, etc. I will not, therefore, propose an amendment to the Order of Business at this point, but I may do so tomorrow if we do not receive some clarification as to when the motion might be debated and moved forward.
I also call for a debate on the fishing industry in Ireland. I note that my colleague, Liadh Ní Riada, MEP, has met the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Michael Creed, on the issue of super trawlers. She has raised the possibility of banning them from our waters because of the impact they are having on the domestic industry and the fact that there is a sense that there is very little regulation and that they do not seem to be inspected as much as those in the indigenous industry. There was also an Oireachtas joint committee report on sustaining rural and coastal communities which made some fantastic recommendations on fisheries and the maintenance of rural communities. It had cross-party agreement and is something we could bring forward and discuss again. The issue of fisheries agus cúrsaí iascaireachta ar fud an chósta would, therefore, be the subject of a very important debate for us to have as soon as possible.
Senator Alice-Mary Higgins: Yesterday the Select Committee on Arrangements for Budgetary Scrutiny met the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. It was interesting that there was a discussion on the commitment in the programme for Government to equality and gender-proofing of the budgetary process. In the commitment to new politics about which we have been hearing one of the key matters is reform of the way in which budgets are compiled, as well as the budgetary process, of which the commitment to equality-proofing and gender-proofing is part. I again ask the Leader to make sure this House will have a role to play in contributing to that new process and the shaping of a stronger commitment to equality and gender-proofing within the budgetary process. I am keen to know how he might see this House contributing to that process. I also ask him to recommend that the National Women's Council of Ireland which, of course, has key expertise in gender-proofing be involved in this regard. We have seen in the health sector which has been discussed in this House this week that pilot health schemes have shown positive outcomes for men and women when a gender analysis is brought to bear. Again, these measures would be very useful in the budgetary process.
I also urge the House to consider the role it might play in strengthening the application of the public duty on equality and human rights, something all Departments are required to implement, again as part of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission's founding legislation. I would like to see if it could be attached to the legislation. We have new legislation going through the House and it would be useful to see how it has been considered in terms of the public duty on equality and human rights. I echo what my colleague Senator Gerard P. Craughwell said about the idea that while statements were positive, we needed to move to deal with legislation.
We will be debating UK-EU relations later this week. I commend "our fans" who have done a lot to promote Irish-EU relations in the past few weeks and wish our team well in the match this evening.
Senator Denis Landy: The two issues I wish to address are of environmental concern and require legislation. I would welcome legislation to deal with both.
The first issue I wish to address is that of Japanese knotweed. It is a dire problem which has been encountered in Europe since the 1800s. It is an issue the Cathaoirleach raised in the House last year. The plant grows at a rate of 8 in. per day. Across Britain it has destroyed houses, causing 200,000 people to move out of their homes and making their houses worthless. In this country, in Kenmare Community Hospital, it cost €100,000 to have it eradicated. The cost of clearing it from the grounds of the London Olympics ran to an astonishing £70 million. In this country it poses a serious threat to the construction industry which is only getting back on its feet. It cannot be burned or eliminated by being cut. It needs a particular intervention, which we are not seeing. For the first time I have seen on the back of the product Roundup, a weedkiller, an application to tackle it. However, we need a national policy to deal with it. We need the Minister to come into the House to discuss the matter and legislate because, as matters stands, it is only due to the goodwill of people working in local authorities, hedge-cutters, etc., that the position is not worse. We also need an awareness and education campaign in order that people can recognise it and will know how to deal with it.
The second issue I want to raise is that of ash dieback, a disease which has only been present in this country since 2006. It is an aggressive disease which is easily spread by airborne spores. A survey in 2013 found that there were 46 cases in Ireland. By the end of 2015 there had been 200 discoveries. The disease is prevalent in two counties, probably the best hurling counties in the country, namely, Tipperary and Kilkenny. Funnily enough, it is also prevalent in County Leitrim, even though hurling is not played there. On a more serious note, the disease could spread across the country and without any intervention will destroy the hurley-making business. I was surprised to discover that 350,000 hurleys were made per year in Ireland, at an average cost of €30 per hurley. That makes it a €10 million industry. We, therefore, need to tackle the spread of the plant. Teagasc has done some work on the issue and held a number of awareness campaigns and public meetings, but the problem is that the Department's reconstitution scheme, as it is called, only protects forestry and foresters. There is no facility to assist the smaller guy who might have planted a small number of ash trees. Therefore, the problem is prone to spread across the country. Yesterday the Vice President of the United States, Mr. Joe Biden, began his visit to this country and, as is the norm, was presented with an ash hurley by the Taoiseach. This week in Limerick, in an intermediate hurling game, six of the players on the field used plastic hurleys. Therefore, if we do not do something about the problem, the next time a Head of State or a vice president comes to the country, it is a plastic hurley he or she will be given instead of one made of ash.
Senator Colm Burke: I raise the issue of obesity, a matter which has been the subject of much discussion. Someone approached me recently with a concern about vending machines in hospitals. In one case the machine was located within a short distance of a children's unit. Available in it were chocolates, sweets, etc. The message on obesity that we hope to send, in health care facilities in particular, is a positive one. The hospital's excuse for having a vending machine was that it generated money for it. Will the Leader ask the Minister for Health to ensure the HSE will conduct an audit of the number of vending machines in hospitals, the income they generate and assess how that income can be replaced? I am not saying we should rule out having vending machines completely, but they should at least contain food that is healthy and good for patients and visitors. It is of serious concern that, on the one hand, we are spending money in trying to educate people about obesity, while, on the other, there are vending machines that do not contain healthy food for those who need proper care and attention. I ask that this matter be given priority, now that there is a little more money available for the health sector. Hospitals should not have to depend on income from this source. If they insist on having machines, a directive should be issued to the effect that any money earned from them be paid to the HSE directly rather than retained by them.
Senator Robbie Gallagher: I join colleagues in wishing our soccer team all the best tonight. It would also be remiss of us not to congratulate our friends north of the Border on their magnificent achievement in qualifying for the last 16. We wish them well. It would be fantastic to have the two teams in the quarter finals. I hope we will have two in them this time tomorrow. We look forward to the day when only one team will represent the island. The quicker that happens, the better. What has happened shows what we could achieve if we only had had one team in the competition.
I wish to say a few words about the overusage of antibiotics. Will the Leader use his good offices and invite the Minister for Health to address the House on the issue? Antibiotics were the medical miracle of the 20th century and used as an essential part of everyday health care treatment. Unfortunately, they have been overused in recent times, being overprescribed at GP and hospital level, often under pressure from patients. It has happened to such an extent that many bugs have become resistant to them. This issue must be addressed. It has been flagged by the World Health Organization which has set alarm bells ringing. We need an awareness or information campaign for the public.
Senator Paul Coghlan: I am loath to refer to my good friend and colleague Senator Ned O'Sullivan's seagulls, but I witnessed something on the way from Leinster House last night that must be mentioned.
Senator David Norris: Will the Senator speak up? I am sorry, but I have a difficulty in hearing him.
Senator Paul Coghlan: I am sorry.
Senator David Norris: I thank the Senator.
Senator Paul Coghlan: As I left Leinster House last night, I witnessed something opposite the corner of Molesworth Street and South Frederick Street and again on the left at the corner of St. Stephen's Green and Dawson Street. Seagulls seem to have a voracious appetite and can wreak havoc with their beaks.
Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: Like some Senators.
Senator Paul Coghlan: Unlike other birds, they do not seem to understand it is bed time. It was late.
(Interruptions).
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: Does the Senator want legislation to be introduced?
Senator Paul Coghlan: Not yet, but I want advice to be given for business owners who are putting out bundles of plastic bags which the birds are destroying with their beaks. I witnessed it at both locations last night and the birds would hardly move out of one's way. They perch on ledges ready to swoop and litter is being strewn all over the place. We are discussing bin charges and waste management, but what is happening in our capital city is terrible. Senator David Norris must also be witnessing it. Perhaps a repulsive spray could be found if business owners are to continue putting out plastic bags or perhaps they should be encouraged to use wheelie bins, as litter from plastic bags is being left all over the place. What I witnessed last night was disgraceful, given that tourists were walking around the place after 11 p.m.
Senator David Norris: I have no doubt that this item will be covered on "Oireachtas Report". I do not usually watch it, but last night as I could not sleep, I did and there was no coverage whatever of Seanad Éireann. It was not mentioned and might as well not have existed. Will the Leader write to the television people to tell them that, however vapid they might consider our proceedings or regardless of whether they felt in their own judgment that there was nothing of interest, there remains an obligation on them to reflect what happens in the Oireachtas? The proceedings of Seanad Éireann should always be reflected and it is a serious matter when they are not.
It is a pity when we hear nothing but statements, as it indicates a lack of intellectual activity, but the House should not blame itself. The reason is there was an election, followed by a hiatus. For nearly six months, there was no effective Government and Departments took the opportunity to do nothing. No legislation has been generated by them. It is not, therefore, the fault of the Parliament. It is regrettable and the matter should be examined. Departments should be encouraged to continue to prepare legislation. Next week I will introduce a Bill on the direct provision system. Senator Michael McDowell has published a Bill on reform of the Seanad and here may be other Bills in the Independent pipeline. At least Members on this side of the House are doing their duty. I hope these Bills will be treated with respect when they are brought before the House.
Senator Catherine Noone: I support the comments of my colleague Senator Colm Burke on the issue of obesity. It is similar to the eradication of vending machines in schools, particularly those that contain junk food. The idea that they are to be found in hospitals goes against the grain. The health service is struggling to provide good health care within relatively small budgets in many instances, but our approach to health promotion is ridiculous in many ways. We must consider the foundation years and take care of people when they are vulnerable. Children in schools could be looked after in using vending machines that dispense apples or the like. This would help them to realise at a young age that food is fuel and will keep them healthy. Vending machines that dispense chocolate bars, crisps and Coca Cola should not be introduced. Everyone loves to have these foods occasionally, but if they are eaten regularly, they create a significant problem. Senator Colm Burke was right. There is a problem with our general approach to the funding of hospitals. It is a major issue and I support the Senator in his call.
I raise the issue of alcohol consumption, harm and costs. Today, a new report by the Health Research Board highlights a large number of statistics that I have before me but which I will not go through on the Order of Business. The impact of alcohol-related issues on our health is serious, although I sound like a killjoy in discussing all of these issues on the Order of Business. The report highlights the fact that the rate of alcoholic liver disease trebled between 1995 and 2013. It makes various points about the impact on our health, of which I will mention a couple.
The number of patients discharged from hospital whose condition was fully attributable to alcohol increased by 82% between 1995 and 2013, from 9,420 to 17,120. Between 2001 and 2010 one in ten breast cancer cases was attributable to alcohol. Perhaps the impact of alcohol on the economy might get people to concentrate on the issue a little more. In 2013 alcohol related discharges accounted for 160,210 bed days in public hospitals. Alcohol related issues cost the taxpayer €1.5 billion per annum. I could speak about this issue for an entire day. Will the Leader request the Minister for Health to come to the House as soon as possible to progress the Public Health (Alcohol) Bill 2015? Minimum pricing would help because there is a clear correlation between the price of alcohol and the amount people drink. Addressing the issue of price would be a step in the right direction.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Irrespective of the outcome of this afternoon's debate on the Sinn Féin Private Members' motion, a significant issue arises with regard to brown bins. Under the law, households located in urban conglomerations with a population of more than 1,500 have been required to separate waste since July 2015. As such, all households in such locations have been required for the past year to have brown bins for food and organic waste such as garden cuttings. However, tens of thousands of homes have not been provided with brown bins and cannot, therefore, comply with the law. When asked about this, the waste collection companies frequently state they do not have the capacity to provide brown bins. When they are informed that they are required to provide them, they ask householders to contact their local authority. Householders then discover that their local authority is not enforcing the regulations, which means that they cannot comply with the law. In one week from now many more households in many more towns with a population of more than 500 people will find that they are not in compliance with the law on brown waste. Notwithstanding the deal Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have done to kick this issue down the road for another year, will the Leader ensure the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government will come to the House to explain how he proposes to address the non-compliance of a large number of householders with the waste regulations and the inability, from next week onwards, of tens of thousands more to comply with the law and make a contribution to our European and internationally agreed environmental targets? If, as appears likely, the Government side proposes to vote against the Sinn Féin Private Members' motion, will the Leader set out what the Government proposes to do to address this serious issue? Will it ensure the necessary infrastructure, including bins, is put in place as soon as possible or will it amend the statutory instruments from last year and this year to address the issue?
Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur fá choinne díospóireacht a bheith againn. I request a debate on the location of the national children's hospital, an issue that has been raised previously in the House. While An Bord Pleanála has made its determination and granted planning permission for the hospital, neither House has debated the location of the new hospital which will require a public investment of €1 billion. The D'Alton report of 2012 suggested the cost of building the facility on the St. James's Hospital site would be 25% higher than building it on a greenfield site. These public expenditure issues need to be debated at the Joint Committee on Health. I suggest the Seanad also debate the location selected for the hospital. Many commentators and experts, including children's organisations and medical experts, have outlined their concerns about this issue and their voices should be heard because not only have they not been heard but they have also been diminished. The reason given by the Health Service Executive and the Department for locating the national children's hospital at St. James's Hospital is that it will deliver better clinical outcomes, but there is no scientific evidence to back up this claim. Major questions have been asked about this substantial investment of taxpayers' money. The alternative sites available would provide for comparable or better clinical outcomes and should be explored. I call on the Leader who is familiar with this issue from his previous role as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, to facilitate a lengthy debate on the issue in the Seanad and invite the Minister for Health before the House to answer questions.
Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh, agus tráthnóna maith duit. Ní raibh mé ag dúil le bheith in airde chomh luath seo. Tá cúrsaí sláinte luaite ag a lán daoine le linn na díospóireachta seo ar maidin. Is léir gur ábhar thar a bheith tábhachtach agus thar a bheith leathan atá i gceist i gcomhthéacs na cúrsaí gur féidir linn ardú anseo. I raised this issue yesterday when I had a brief window to do so during statements on health services. Given the severity of the issue, however, it is worthy of a much more substantial discussion. Many Senators have raised issues connected with the health service this morning. To be fair to the Minister and the Ministers of State at the Department of Health, they do not appear to be reluctant to come to the House. We should utilise this willingness to the fullest.
Senator Catherine Ardagh referred to the phrase, "your health is your wealth". My teacher at Meánscoil Feirste, Brendan Ó Fiach, had the saying written as Gaeilge - is fearr an tsláinte ná na táinte - on the blackboard of our classroom. It is very true, as was evident in some of the contributions we heard. The Leader will be aware that the Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety in the North, Michelle O'Neill, MLA, recently lifted the MSM blood ban prohibiting gay men from donating blood. Many Senators will have heard the Irish Blood Transfusion Service appeal for blood donations over the summer when donations tend to decline. Given the many issues raised relating to what is, as everyone appreciates, a very broad field, one of the core issues at the heart of the health service is its ability to help people and save lives. This means enfranchising people by enabling them to give the gift of life through blood donations. Will the Leader ask the Minister for Health to come before the House to discuss this issue? The North-South Ministerial Council is due to meet soon. Given the evidence based decision taken by the Health Minister in the North, I hope the Minister for Health here will be able to make a similar decision as we move towards equality and better health care provision in the State.
An Cathaoirleach: I ask the Leader to respond.
Senator Jerry Buttimer: The Cathaoirleach caught me on the hop.
I thank Senators for raising various issues and apologise to Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill for missing his remarks on mortgages and insolvency. I would be pleased to have a debate on those issues.
Senator Ardagh raised a health issue. It was announced recently that 14 new primary care centres would be built using investment secured through a loan from the European Investment Bank. Under the previous Government, 90 primary care centres came into operation and a further 82 are to be opened. We all agree on the need to expand primary care services because they are the most important element of the health system. The Senator will not find anyone willing to argue with her on the issue. She may wish to table a Commencement matter on the sites to which she referred. I will also raise the issue with the Minister for Health on her behalf. She is correct that primary care services are very important. We must shift the emphasis towards primary care services in regard to funding and resources and how the population view the issue.
A number of other Senators also raised health issues and I will refer individually to those raised by Senators Colm Burke, Catherine Noone and Robbie Gallagher.
Senators Gerard P. Craughwell, Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and David Norris raised the issue of Seanad reform. This side of the House will not place any obstacle in the way of legislation to reform the electoral system or how the House does its business. I have had discussions with Senators on this issue and while we may disagree on the path to be taken to achieve reform, we should not erect roadblocks in its way.
I hope we can discuss Sinn Féin's motion at the meeting later, but I have no difficulty in discussing the issue of Seanad reform. I have made the point that we should establish a business committee, similar to the one in place in the Dáil, to run the business of the House efficiently and effectively. In that way Members would have their say and we could conduct our business in a better fashion. It is not an issue on this side. Sinn Féin's motion would put an added and unfair onus on the Cathaoirleach who is independent of us all. As constituted, it does not allow for this. A committee of 20 Members would be too cumbersome, given that one third of the Members of the Seanad are new. The Committee on Procedure and Privileges is the vehicle and forum in which we can drive change and make amendments to Standing Orders. It provides for cross-representation of all the Members of the House, which is the way we should do things. We should not stipulate timelines that will not and cannot be met. The Manning report is one to which we have all subscribed and Senator Michael McDowell has introduced his Bill. I am happy to allow for it to be taken at a time when we can have a discussion that would bring about change. That is part of the reason Sinn Féin's motion is not the way forward. In saying that, this side of the House is willing to engage and be active on the issue of Seanad reform and how we do business. It is one on which we will all work.
In response to Senator Alice-Mary Higgins I will be happy to raise the issue of poverty and gender proofing of legislation with the Minister of State at the Department of Justice and Equality, Deputy David Stanton. I hope he will attend the House for a debate on the issue.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh referred to fisheries, an issue about which I have already spoken to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine who is happy to come to the House sometime in July for a broad discussion on agriculture. We can include fisheries in that discussion.
On legislation, if Members had listened to this morning's debate, they would know that our very first act in the House, apart from the election of the Cathaoirleach, was restoring Bills to the Order Paper. There is a deficit of legislation in the other House. When we talk about new politics, one of its by-products is, as mentioned by Senator Gerard P. Craughwell, a lot of hot air, for want of a better expression. Whether it is positive or negative is a different matter. How we do our business and arrive at legislation is a matter that needs to be looked at by everybody, including the commentariat. One of the positives of pre-legislative scrutiny is that we engage in an in-depth analysis of legislation which, unfortunately, slows the process down. To be fair to Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, he was a very fine contributor at the justice committee in the last Dáil, but there is no kudos to be gained in being involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny process. It is, however, the way to go, as I know from the position I held on the Joint Committee on Health and Children. As a House of the Oireachtas, we must acknowledge that the volume of legislation dealt with may be less than before.
Senator Denis Landy mentioned Japanese knotweed and ash dieback disease. I am happy to invite the relevant Minister to come to the House to debate both matters, but I am not sure whether they come within the remit of the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government or the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources.
Senators Colm Burke and Catherine Noone raised the important issue of obesity. In that context, they referred to the availability of vending machines. The health and well-being division of the HSE had an expert group on vending and calorie posting carry out work on the matter. The results are important in that they show that 37% of us are overweight, while 23% are obese. As a nation, we are in danger of seeing premature deaths as a result of obesity, as well as working hours being lost. Linked with this, the findings show that there is a risk that young people, children in particular, will be obese from a younger age and that they may never leave this category. The former Minister for Health Senator James Reilly introduced a policy on vending and calorie posting which is important in the context of the discussion Senators Colm Burke and Catherine Noone requested and which we should have. The Department and now the HSE are promoting the message that as this is about choice, we should make ours a healthy one. This extends to vending machines located in hospitals. The Senators were right to raise the issue.
Senator Robbie Gallagher referred to the overusage of antibiotics. I agree with him that we need to debate the issue.
Senator Paul Coghlan mentioned seagulls. I do not know who the appropriate Minister would be to invite for such a discussion. It would cover matters to do with health, the environment, tourism and economy, but I will be happy to include all of these elements in one discussion.
Senator David Norris referred to "Oireachtas Report". At the risk of causing a row, if we do not give the programme items to report, it may not necessarily report what happens in the House. I agree with the Senator that it should report what happens in all of the Oireachtas, including in committees, the Dáil Chamber and the Seanad. Yesterday we had a fine debate on health services and statements were also made. It was reported in some of the newspapers this morning that yesterday there was a minute's silence in the Dáil in memory of the late Jo Cox, but they failed to mention that the same had happened in the Seanad. That shows the need to have a discussion with the press office in the Oireachtas. The Senator made a fair point in that regard.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn made an interesting and valid point about brown bins. I suggest he raise the matter with the Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government during our debate tonight or else table a Commencement matter on the topic. He is right that it is an important matter.
Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill referred to the national children's hospital. We have been having this discussion since before Bertie Ahern's time. An independent review group was established and it outlined clearly its choice of location. In the last Dáil I was Chairman of the Joint Committee on Health and Children, of which other Members of this House were members. As a committee, we visited the hospital group and met the board of the national children's hospital. It was a very positive visit. The relevant issues have been debated and further issues have been raised. Independent planning was engaged in by An Bord Pleanála which refused to grant permission for construction on one site but has granted permission on the current site chosen. It behoves us, in Ireland's first digital hospital, to make sure the venture is a success. I am sure the Minister is happy to come to the House to debate the matter, but the Senator may not be happy with his response. The matter of the national children's hospital has been long debated. A policy decision was arrived at independently and a final location has been selected.
Senator Nall Ó Donnghaile raised the issue of blood donations. There has been a change in the policy on blood donations in the North, which is welcome. I hope the Minister for Health in the South will follow suit and make a positive change here. We have been involved with the Irish Blood Transfusion Service and the matter has been discussed by the health committee. It is important that be a change to ensure equality.
I join all other Senators in wishing the Irish soccer team good luck tonight. It is important that we get a result, not just for the team but also for the well-being of the nation. I also pay tribute to the fans who have been a source of pride for us all.
Order of Business agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 12.20 p.m. and resumed at 12.45 p.m.
Mental Health: Statements
Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Helen McEntee): I am pleased to have been appointed to this position. Mental health and, more importantly, promoting positive mental health are close to my heart, as they are to the hearts of many in this House. It is also an area in which there is so much more we could do to help each other, work with each other and try to remove the stigma that is still attached to mental health issues. I refer not just to politicians but also to society as a whole. While we have made great progress during the past decade, we still have a long way to go to remove the stigma attached to mental health issues.
There has been much discussion recently about the funding of mental health services, some of which has been constructive but some of which has not. I will outline a number of facts. The national service plan mental health budget for 2016 is €826 million. Since 2012 the budget has been increased by €115 million. This year there will be an increase of €41 million, or 5.2%, on the outturn for last year. The numbers of child and adolescent community mental health teams and acute inpatient beds have increased substantially, while waiting lists for child and adolescent mental health services, CAMHS, have decreased and initiatives are under way to reduce them further. We have to understand there is also a great deal of work to be done in these areas.
In broad terms, we have facilitated the move away from institutional to community care, providing service users with more accessible treatment in better environments. We have closed many of the older psychiatric hospital inpatient units, providing new, improved facilities such as The Phoenix Care Centre, the new acute unit in Cork University Hospital and those due to open shortly in Galway and Drogheda. Preliminary site work has also commenced on the new state-of-the-art national forensic hospital to replace the Central Mental Hospital in Dundrum. We have helped to foster a greater awareness of mental health promotion in society through campaigns such as Little Things, while the suicide prevention strategy, Connecting For Life, has helped to increase awareness of suicide in society. While much good work has taken place in recent years, I am under no illusion that more work and further effort are required. For example, we need to continue the development of counselling services across primary and secondary care services. We need more community mental health teams, together with improved 24/7 response and liaison services. Most important, we need to ensure no group, regardless of age, ethnicity, sexuality or circumstances, is left behind or overlooked. Changes initiated as a result of new funding allocated by the previous Government have paved the way for real and lasting change for service users. We need to build on that change.
The national mental health strategy, A Vision for Change, is ten years old this year. Within the next 100 days I will initiate an evidence-based expert review of progress in the implementation of this policy and the improvement of mental health services. The review will take account of international best practice in mental health services and inform how we will develop policy.
Perhaps the main challenge to the mental health service is presented by the recruitment and retention of staff. Many well trained, highly motivated individuals are taking up employment outside the public service, either in the private sector or abroad. I touched on this issue yesterday with a number of Senators. I am conscious of the difficulty in recruiting and retaining nurses in the mental health service. For that reason, I am happy to inform Senators that the HSE is reintroducing a one-year post-registration programme in psychiatric nursing for nurses who are registered in either the general, intellectual disability or children's divisions of the register maintained by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland. A total of 30 places have been made available on the programme which is due to commence in the autumn in association with UCD. While this is a positive move, there is a great deal of work to be done in the further recruitment of staff within the HSE, for which I intend to push.
We live in an evolving world. While we can communicate with people more quickly, in many ways, perhaps, we are becoming more isolated owing to the pace of our daily lives and the pressures we are under. Our pace of life is getting faster. This puts people under pressure and they are in need of assistance. The need to reform and update mental health policy and services is clear. We need to plan for this, but we also need to address changes which are happening now. Education is key and most important at an early stage. Mental health issues often manifest at a much younger age than we like to think or even discuss, but that is the reality today. The pressures young people face today compared to when any of us was in school are completely different. Every second of a young person’s life is online and while it is visible for everybody to see, it is also visible for everybody to criticise - what they look like, how they dress, who their friends are, who they hang out with, where they go to school and how they do in examinations. There is a different dimension to young people’s lives that was not there a few years ago and we need to start dealing with it.
In the next 100 days I will establish a youth mental health task force, on which I am actively working. It will consider how best to assist young people in developing resilience and coping skills to support their emotional well-being at an early stage and to build awareness of how to access high-quality effective services when they need them. It will include a number of non-political, non-governmental members with significant expertise in youth mental health services and be supported by a significant cross-departmental effort to establish a new, co-ordinated way of working across government to promote youth mental health and well-being. This will be a critical aspect of our work. The mental well-being of young people is not simply a health issue and should not relate specifically to the Department of Health. It is not simply an education issue either. It is an economic, social and community issue that requires the public, private and voluntary sectors and all of us to co-ordinate and pull together in order that our combined efforts will achieve more than the sum of their parts and that every young person will have the full support of the community in which he or she lives to reach his or her full potential.
I again refer to the marriage equality referendum last year. It was not mental health legislation, but it had a massively positive impact on the mental health of many people. We need to identify the everyday issues that affect young people’s well-being and, as a community and society, equip them with the tools they need to deal with them effectively.
I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to contribute. I am here to listen to what Members have to say. I will take on board what they say and work them with them into the future.
Senator Gerry Horkan: I congratulate the Minister of State on her appointment and wish her the best in her important role.
On behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I would like to outline our message on mental health. Mental health issues continue to silently inflict immense damage on our society. The undercurrent of depression, anxiety and addiction is a profoundly ingrained problem for society and no family is untouched by mental health issues. Beyond the striking statistics for suicide rates, the affliction of depression exacts a heavy toll on the day-to-day lives of many people. We have successfully confronted dangerous challenges such as this. The spike in the number of road fatalities that endangered a generation of motorists was tackled head on with the establishment of the Road Safety Authority, RSA, through increased investment, the penalty points system and so on and significant numbers of lives have been saved annually. We need a similar concerted national approach to tackle the devastating impact of mental health issues. In an Ard-Fheis speech a number of years ago Deputy Micheál Martin referred to the setting up of a mental health authority. If the Government were to set up such an authority with the same funding and emphasis as, for example, the RSA, it could prove similarly effective.
As a republican party, Fianna Fáil believes mental health policy is, ultimately, a question of citizenship. We believe people with mental health problems must be brought in from the periphery to the centre and encouraged and enabled to give full expression to their citizenship through employment, social engagement and the opportunity to contribute to their communities. As citizens, people with such problems have the right to equality of access and the full range of modern, cost-effective and therapeutically impactful treatments and not to be bound to the classic services of the past. Access to services must not be dependent on where people live or their earnings. The citizenship approach dovetails well with the recovery model of mental health care, whereby recovery is built on a partnership approach between the person and his or her mental health care team. The recovery model moves away from the paternalistic psychiatrist model of the past towards a more multidisciplinary co-operative approach. It recognises that treatment is not merely about the alleviation of symptoms but also about working with the person to ensure he or she can live a productive and meaningful life, despite the vulnerabilities that may continue. He or she should be equipped with the skills, self-understanding and resources he or she needs to help to prevent a relapse.
Flowing from this is the vision that mental health promotion is a whole of society concern, given the prevalence of mental health problems and their impact on individuals, their families, communities and employment. Mental health policy should be aimed primarily at preventive measures, early action when problems begin to surface and early intervention with children and their families.
This approach must extend beyond the health system and be integrated with all aspects of life, including education, planning, employment and communities. The ultimate aim is to create a mentally healthy society.
Fianna Fáil's vision for mental health and well being is built on five key principles. First, public policy ought to ensure people with mental health problems are included in society and enabled and assisted in playing their part therein. Second, the recovery model of mental health care is the most appropriate in terms of individuals' well being and enhancing and defending citizenship. Third, mental health should be taken as seriously as physical health in the deployment of resources, health and safety measures and public planning. Fourth, the emphasis should be on early intervention and early action, as the Minister of State mentioned. Fifth, mental health policy must be mainstreamed across society in order to promote mental well-being and reduce the risk of mental ill health.
We need to enhance the National Office for Suicide Prevention, NOSP, increase the number of suicide prevention resource officers, expand their role and link them directly with the NOSP. We must ensure all general practitioners, GPs, are adequately resourced to provide comprehensive help for individuals at risk of dying by suicide. A system of GP practice must be put in place whereby the prescribing of anti-depressant medication must be reviewed on a monthly basis until the GP is satisfied that the taking of medication is the best course of action. We must establish out-of-hours emergency social worker teams across the State.
Regarding Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services, CAMHS, the principle of early intervention is critical, as properly addressing mental health problems in early childhood and the adolescent years leads to better educational outcomes, avoids severe mental health issues later, improves quality of life and is more cost effective than later treatment. We need to end the practice of placing children in adult inpatient units and should focus on holistic and accessible services that minimise the use of inpatient beds. The provision of counselling and a seamless integration with schools and education policy must also be central to plans. Within schools, all teachers should receive mental health training so as to equip them to identify, support and refer children with mental health problems. We must restore guidance counsellors to secondary schools; every school should have a named CAMHS worker and all children should have access to counselling services through their schools. We would anticipate a universal health check being carried out when children receive their booster vaccinations in sixth class or first year in secondary school. This check would include a mental health assessment to identify developing or existing mental health problems, thus allowing for early and efficient treatment.
We all know that this is a major issue. It affects every family in the country, every neighbourhood, every community and every workplace. We must ensure we will do everything possible to improve the service provided. I wish the Minister of State well in her role.
Senator Kieran O'Donnell: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and wish her well in her brief.
I wish to speak about the issue of suicide, particularly in the context of the position in my constituency of Limerick City. Studies have shown that, between 2011 and 2013, it had the highest suicide rate in Ireland. At more than 21 deaths per 100,000 of population, the rate was almost twice the national average. The most recent statistics from the Central Statistics Office show that there has been a decrease to 16 deaths per 100,000 of population, but the rate is not decreasing among men. In 2015, 2014 and 2010 the figure in Limerick was nearly 29 men per 100,000 of population. In 2015 the figure for females was 3.5, although in 2014 it was very high, at 17.3. It was nil in 2010.
I want these issues to be addressed. We are attending too many funerals of people who die by suicide. It is a national emergency. More people die by suicide than in car accidents, yet there is considerable reporting, justifiably so, of deaths on the roads. Deaths by suicide must receive the same level of concentration.
Studies have shown that 70% of young males know of someone who died by suicide. For 17% of them, it was a close friend. We must address this issue. A further feature of the statistics is that 60% of people who die by suicide are 44 years or younger. They are a young cohort. This issue should be addressed in a practical way.
The Minister of State is carrying out a welcome review of A Vision for Change which is now ten years old. In the context of the position in Limerick, the fact that the rates have been consistently high needs to be addressed. A Vision for Change committed to the opening of 20 inpatient child and adolescent mental health beds in University Hospital Limerick, but that has not happened. It must happen. As part of the Minister of State's review, this should be a priority. If a child or an adolescent has mental health issues, he or she will end up in an adult ward, which in the modern age is unacceptable. Given that the levels of suicide have been consistently high in Limerick City, will the HSE or the Department carry out a specific study of the reasons for this? There is a myriad of factors, for example, alcohol and drugs.
In 2014 St. Patrick's Hospital's mental health services presented the stark result of a survey. Some 65% of Irish people believed being treated for mental health problems was a sign of failure. We must get rid of this taboo. Among young males, there appears to be a fear of admitting to any mental health problem because it is seen as a sign of failure.
Will the Minister of State discuss a suggestion with her counterpart, the Minister for Education and Skills? As part of the curricula at primary and secondary levels and as Senator Gerry Horkan referenced, CSPE subjects should include modules on physical and mental health and well-being which must be on a par. This would have a major benefit, as people would feel it was not taboo and that, if they had mental health problems, they could treat them just as they could a broken leg. We cannot afford to have 451 people dying by suicide, as we did last year. That is the reported figure, but many suicides go unreported.
As promised in A Vision for Change in 2006, 20 inpatient child and adolescent beds should be provided in University Hospital Limerick. A study should be undertaken by the Department of Health and the HSE to discover why the suicide level in Limerick City is so high. Mental health and well-being should be included in the curricula at primary and secondary levels.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Minister of State is welcome. This is my first time to address her in the Chamber. As I told her privately yesterday, she has taken on a tough portfolio and I wish her the best with it.
Research produced by the ESRI last year indicated that workers exposed to bullying and harassment showed high levels of mental distress, anxiety and ill health.
There is ample anecdotal evidence that at least one in ten workers experiences bullying, leading to episodes of low self-esteem, anxiety and even suicide.
While a lot of work has been done by organisations in drawing up and implementing dignity at work policies, there is an epidemic of bullying in the workplace the likes of which has never been seen previously. Last year I hosted a series of meetings with individual workers who related to me horror stories of bullying incidents and the impact on their mental health. Paragraph 5 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 (Code of Practice Detailing Procedures for Addressing Bullying in the Workplace) (Declaration) Order 2002 describes bullying. There is a huge difference between robust management and bullying in the workplace. During my time as president of the Teachers Union of Ireland a colleague contacted me to tell me that they were suffering horrendous bullying because of their timekeeping. When I asked what the problem was, they said, "I am usually in by 9.05 a.m.", to which I replied that that was not bullying but a management issue. That is what it was all about.
I have looked into the eyes of cowardly bullies. I have seen the way they work first hand. They destroy the individual psychologically. They break him or her down little by little until he or she becomes a shadow of his or her former self. It is in the loneliness of that existence that I raise this issue in a debate on mental health. It is when one is in one's sitting room, bedroom or dining room at 3 a.m. or 4 a.m. looking into the darkness and wondering why one has found oneself in this position. Usually, those who suffer from what I call character and personality assassination are the strongest, best workers one will find. They are the most innovative and friendly of the staff. They are the ones who are held in the highest esteem by colleagues, yet they are the ones who are broken down.
Only last week a person came to see me. It had taken him two years to realise what was happening to him. It involved sly remarks such as, "We have heard enough from you, John; we do not need to hear any more," or "John, do not attend the next meeting; we do not need you," or "John, would you stop trying to make out that that job you are doing for us is the greatest thing that ever happened?" That is what brings a person slowlyu down. Sadly, I have experienced two examples of this in my lifetime. I am convinced to this day that the people concerned took their own lives for one reason only - they had been broken by the managers with whom they had worked and I mean they had been destroyed by them.
Currently, there is only a civil redress option for those affected by workplace bullying, but within the criminal justice system there is legislation entitled the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. We are crossing two Departments and probably three and four - perhaps we should look across all Departments - but when we talk about bullying and the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997, the Minister of State might work with her colleague, the Minister for Justice and Law Reform. We all talk about managing the problem of bullying among children in schools. Yesterday we heard statements following the murder of Jo Cox, MP. Politicians in this and the other House, from all parties and none, related stories of the horrendous treatment they were receiving online, including in telephone calls or when people came into their offices and pounded the table, which in itself is a form of bullying. It is time we took the bully out of the equation and became a bully-free society that will not tolerate that type of attack on an individual. Every person has a right to his or her dignity. Every person has a right to do what it is he or she believes is his or her best at work, in his or her contribution to society or whatever else, yet we have those who seek to destroy. I am not talking about physical destruction but the mental destruction that takes place. While the issue crosses a number of Departments, the Minister of State can take the lead and offer those who are suffering this horrendous treatment a lifeline by saying she will take an interest in the problem of bullying in the workplace and its effect on the mental health of those affected. If she does this, she will do the greatest service ever for those suffering this horrendous problem. I thank her for her time.
Senator Ray Butler: I welcome the Minister of State to the Upper House and congratulate her on her appointment as the new Minister of State with responsibility for mental health services and older people. I believe she will take the necessary measures to address the ever-growing number of pressing issues surrounding mental health.
I am also encouraged by the fact that the Cabinet approved the restoration of funding for mental health services in 2016. Commitment was clearly shown by the previous Government which is continued by the Government in the programme for Government. A Vision for Change provided for the ring-fencing of an allocation of €35 million within the overall health budget to develop community mental health services and ensure early access to more appropriate services for both adults and children.
A key focus has been the provision of additional posts to strengthen community mental health teams for both adults and children. They have been used to enhance specialist community mental health and forensic services and increase access to counselling and psychotherapy services by way of suicide prevention initiatives. Appropriately, 1,550 new posts have been approved since 2012, up to the end of 2016, of which 1,153 had been filled or were part the recruitment process by the end of last year. The posts facilitate the policy of moving away from the traditional institutional based care to a patient-centred, flexible and community based mental health service in which hospital admissions will be greatly reduced, while providing inpatient care, when appropriate. While all of these steps are towards a common goal in looking after the needs of those suffering from mental health difficulties, there is a very long way to go. I will outline some key areas which need urgent scrutiny, together with a change in legislation, to help those most vulnerable in our society.
Ireland has the fourth highest rate of youth suicide in Europe. Suicide is everybody's problem. One in four of us will at some stage throughout our lives suffer from mental health issues, regardless of age. Those at local general practitioner level and staff working in emergency departments are not sufficiently trained to recognise or deal with patients who present with a mental health issue. What training is provided in this area? Is it updated and, if so, how often? Emergency departments are not equipped to deal with a person in crisis. Access trained crisis support 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is essential. Let me give another example. A young man with mental health issues had been in a Dublin hospital for a medical procedure but was discharged at lunchtime the same day. That evening he was seen by his general practitioner for a check-up and despite the fact that he was attending Pieta House, the medical professionals did not deem him to be suicidal. He took his own life before the day was out.
A major factor that works against those suffering from mental health issues is patient confidentiality for anyone over the age of 18 years. Those who have a member of their family suffering from a mental health condition understand how frustrating it is to have their hands tied and unable to intervene to help their loved ones owing to this confidentiality provision. In reality, we have a system under which the family or a loved one of someone suffering from a mental health illness is not permitted to access the most basic information to support him or her. That does not make sense at any level. Families must be involved in the care of someone suffering from a mental health illness. I ask the Minister of State to make this a priority and bring forward legislation to ensure the best possible care for all.
In the case to which I referred the mother involved said, "As a mom looking after our son, I should have access to as much information as possible in order to keep him safe." In my constituency I dealt with a person with mental health issues and her neighbours and I watched her die. Her house was filthy and there were maggots all over her body. The HSE told us it could not do anything. She had to sign herself in. We had to look at this, knowing what was going on behind closed doors.
Access to counselling needs to be a priority. Private services are not affordable for the majority. There are those who desperately need this assistance and shorter waiting times. Someone in crisis may not always have time on his or her side. People have been referred by the public sector to a private service as the public sector does not have specialists available. The cost is €140 per session and it is not suitable for everybody. Sometimes there is no alternative except to endure endless waiting lists and hope and pray loved ones will be able to hold on.
I know that the Minister of State's portfolio is close to her heart and it has touched all of ours also. I am excited to know which changes she will bring about. I wish her every success in her new ministerial role.
I will finish with a sobering thought written by Shane Gillen: I am a 28 year old male in Ireland. Some day I will die, and the chances of me dying by suicide are higher than the chances of me dying of liver disease, leukaemia, stomach, pancreas, oesophagus, liver or colon cancer, kidney disease, lymphomas or from a serious injury or car crash. Today's Ireland sees suicide ranked among the top ten killers in the land.
Senator Máire Devine: I thank the Minister of State and all Senators for their passionate speeches and statements on mental health. According to the World Health Organization, mental health is the most important public health issue. Even every poor society must afford to invest to promote and protect it. Mental illness is the world's most neglected disease and the leading cause of disability worldwide. As previous speakers said, anyone can experience it. Depression and anxiety are very common conditions and affect almost 500,000 people in this country. One in four of us will be affected by depression at some point in our lives and, tragically, each year several hundred people take their own lives, with grief and shockwaves rippling through family, friends and communities forever. We are a society in distress and have a moral responsibility to demand resources to guarantee the provision of a modern mental health system to meet today's needs. Public demand has never been so high. Since the establishment of the State, all Governments have failed miserably in this regard. They have had no comprehension of mental distress and appeared not to possess compassion, a word we need to use repeatedly. Yesterday we lauded A Vision for Change, which takes us from the antiquated Victorian era. Instead, Governments have used it as a fiscal scalp to cut services without any community replacement.
Many reports by the Mental Health Commission and Mental Health Reform rage against the failure of mental health services. Yesterday saw the launch in Buswells Hotel of a wonderful document by the Psychiatric Nurses Association, PNA, and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, RCSI. I hope the Minister of State has a copy and will go through it. It details the failure of A Vision for Change and the stark fact that the budget was drastically reduced from 14% to a measly 6%. This is unpardonable and inexcusable. Of the recommendations made in A Vision for Change, 75% have not been implemented. Regarding inpatient bed status, A Vision for Change was to seek community replacement of inpatient facilities. Figures taken from the report show that in 1984 there were 12,500 inpatient beds, whereas in 2004 the figure had gone down to 4,000 and in 2015, to 1,600. The percentage drop between 2004 and 2015 was 60%. The budget was drastically reduced at the same time. The document speaks about broken promises and the heartbreak felt throughout the country. The mental health service has always been the Cinderella of the health service, but it needs to be at the top of the agenda in every Government's decision and policy-making. It needs to be a central focus of health policy.
I applaud and congratulate community groups and families who are standing up and innovators in the vanguard in leading the fightback to inform communities and demand the provision of appropriate care and understanding for those who are in distress. They are the mental health advocates and warriors who are challenging attitudes and changing lives. We do not need further reviews. What we need is implementation. We have reviews coming out our ears, so to speak. We all know what needs to be implemented. The will is needed to do so. I hope the Minister of State will work with us all in this regard.
On the issue of stigma, to which the Minister of State alluded, it was hopeful to witness the See Change Green Ribbon campaign which was fantastic and really well done. It started a conversation. If people wear the green ribbon, they are open; they want to talk about mental health and disperse the stigma attached to it. The research See Change has carried out in recent years has shown that people are much more comfortable in discussing mental health issues; we just need to keep it going. In addition, last week in the Mansion House there was a fantastic community-initiated report on suicide and its effects on communities and families in the Dublin 8 area. I would like to see the Minister of State invite the South West Inner City Network to present the report and to be part of the youth group she wants to put together. It speaks from the heart and is a community initiative. Those involved are not professionals but concerned about the matter on the ground. Dublin 8 has had its fair share of pain and grief. The report speaks mostly about the love they have for those whom they have lost.
I welcome the Minister of State's report and the postgraduate course to try to convert some nurses into specialist psychiatric nurses. We need to tackle the concerns of student nurses. The intake is 300-odd a year, with drop-outs, yet there are 1,000 vacant posts this year and we will spend 15 years trying to catch up to provide nurses to care for families in distress.
Senator Maura Hopkins: I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and wish her every success in her new role.
Minding our mental health is a constant requirement every day of our lives. How we feel filters into everything we do and experience, from being involved in our community to having a job, meeting friends, financial stress, online criticism, feelings of inadequacy, bullying and feelings of depression. We must ensure at all times that all people know how valued they are. We must ensure in times of difficulty that we have someone to whom we can turn, someone who will listen, that we are equipped with the coping mechanisms to deal with life's challenges and, above all, that we have a mental health service which supports us when we need it.
The annual report of the Mental Health Commission for 2015 published a number of days ago clearly emphasises that a lot of work needs to continue in developing a properly resourced community-based mental health service with a focus on prevention and recovery. It is of major concern that just under half the HSE's community mental health services provide support seven days a week. It is unacceptable that in 2016 substantial areas of the country are still without full weekend support services for people with a mental health difficulty. I very much welcome the contribution of the Minister of State that we need more community mental health teams, together with improved 24/7 response and liaison services.
The intensive home treatment team established approximately a year ago in Roscommon works on a seven days a week basis to treat more people at home. It also allows for greater family involvement. It has a consultant psychiatrist, an occupational therapist, a psychologist, a nurse and a social worker. The feedback I have received from a number of service users is positive, but teams such as these need to be further developed and properly resourced in order that an holistic service is provided, the service user is very much at the centre of his or her own care plan and appropriate supports are provided, where necessary.
The restoration of the allocation of €35 million for mental health services was absolutely necessary in the light of the challenges we faced in delivering a proper service. I thank the Minister of State, with the Minister for Health, Deputy Simon Harris, for ensuring its restoration. Following publication of the report recently, the chairperson of the Mental Health Commission stated there was still a significant absence of psychology, social work, occupational therapy and other multidisciplinary team members. There are distinct difficulties in recruiting specific professional staff, despite funding being made available in 2015 for an additional 700 staff. I welcome the focus of the Minister of State on the challenges we face in recruitment. The HSE's reintroduction of a one year post-registration programme in psychiatric nursing is most welcome. What changes will the HSE and the Department of Health recommend as needing to be made to recruit increased staff to fill all multidisciplinary team positions?
I very much welcome the establishment of the youth mental health task force, to which the Minister of State referred. It is absolutely critical that, from an early age, young people have the coping skills they need to deal with life's challenges in order that we deal with prevention rather than cure. As the Minister of State is well aware, a lot of urgent work needs to be done in child and adolescent mental health services which are not properly resourced. Children and adolescents are being assessed and treated in inappropriate facilities.
Voluntary organisations provide vital services, particularly in the context of education on mental health well-being and counselling services. However, they need to be provided with proper funding support from the HSE.
I am enthusiastic about the need for a review of A Vision for Change which the Minister of State mentioned. It is absolutely critical that we respond to the changing demands of our society and I hope a review would allow us to plan mental health services to respond to these needs. I very much look forward to working with the Minister of State and thank her for giving me the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
Senator Frances Black: I will share time with Senator Collette Kelleher. It is lovely to see the Minister of State here and I congratulate her on her new role, in which I wish her well.
As many Senators are aware, ensuring we address mental health needs throughout the country is an issue that is dear to my heart. On a daily basis I hear from families and family members who are finding it difficult to access mental health services. Despite some excellent services and dedicated staff, the supports available are sporadic, at times unco-ordinated and not always fit for purpose. There is a prevalence of mental health difficulties in Ireland and we need to stop writing reports, policies and strategies and start acting to implement international best practice.
One in seven adults in Ireland will have experienced a mental health difficulty in the past year, while 9% of the population aged 15 years or over have a mental health problem, according to the Healthy Ireland survey. The survey also shows that mental health difficulties are an issue of inequality. Mental health problems are considerably more prevalent among people living in deprived areas, at a level of 13%, than among the overall population, the figure for which stands at 5%. The Minister of State can see from these facts that writing reports and not implementing them fully is costing Ireland dearly, in that we are not looking after the welfare of the people. Many good people work hard in delivering mental health services throughout the country, but problems in the mental health system felt are far and wide. Mental health service staffing is still 25% lower than that recommended in the mental health policy A Vision for Change. Specialist 24/7 mental health crisis services are not evenly available throughout the country. As a result, people may be obliged to wait for hours in emergency departments. In 2015 approximately one third of child and adolescent admissions to hospital were to adult units. There is no national advocacy service dedicated to families of people with mental health difficulties or to those with such difficulties who live in the community.
We must not ignore the contributing factor that alcohol is and how it exacerbates pre-existing mental health difficulties. It affects our ability to cope with everyday life and can have significant consequences when we face traumatic life events. It has a key impact on the number of suicides, being a contributory factor in more than 50% of cases. A total of 11,000 cases involving self-harm present to emergency departments each year, one third of which involve alcohol. The World Health Organization has estimated that the risk of suicide where a person is abusing alcohol is eight times greater than if he or she were not doing so. Suicide is the leading cause of death among young Irishmen aged between 15 and 24 years.
In tackling mental health issues it is imperative that we look at matters in an holistic way. In particular, we should look at a gender analysis. The HSE and the National Women's Council, with others, have been successful in securing the visit to Ireland in 2017 of the World Congress on Women's Mental Health. The HSE has had a successful project in policy-proofing gender analysis and we should work hard to ensure it is implemented in all mental health services.
We must not forget about the families impacted on by addiction. This issue is extremely close to my heart. We need to ensure the appropriate support services are available to the families concerned, that their risk of mental health issues is reduced by early intervention and that funding is found for the organisations supporting them. On a daily basis I deal with family members who are absolutely heartbroken because somebody they love has an alcohol, drug or gambling problem.
The task before us is huge. It is difficult but certainly one from which we should not shy away. We need direct action. We need to hold Ministers, officials and service providers to account and ensure we achieve the highest quality of services for the thousands of people throughout the country who are affected by mental health issues. Mental Health Reform has been campaigning for the implementation of the recommendations made. I support it in calling on the Government and the Minister of State to implement them and have the nation's mental health as a top priority. In acting now we will save further heartache, anguish and distress for our fellow citizens. A country is judged by how it treats its vulnerable. As I want us to be judged well, please let us start acting.
Senator Colette Kelleher: I congratulate the Minister of State, Deputy Helen McEntee, and look forward to working with her to improve the lives of those with mental health issues and older people.
I draw attention to a particular group in our society. The rate of suicide among Travellers is six times higher than among the general population. What immediate supports are in place to address this crisis, tragedy and source of heartbreak for Travellers? Will the Minister of State provide an assurance to the effect that the independent Traveller counselling service established on a pilot basis in 2008 is now on a firm and regular footing in the context of the provision of funding?
Senator Maria Byrne: I welcome the Minister of State. I support what my colleague, Senator Kieran O'Donnell, stated about the extra beds that were to be provided at University Hospital Limerick. I am dealing with three families who have members with various mental health issues. I am very concerned about one particular family.
An older mother who lives with a son and a daughter suffers from a mental illness, but she is very much in denial and it is hard to convince the family members to say there is an issue, even though the neighbours are involved and very concerned about what is going on. We must explore ways to encourage people, especially family members, to say there are issues within a household and provide the family with support. Some support services have been provided in this case, but the matter needs to be explored.
The shortage of beds in University Hospital Limerick has been mentioned, but I wish to commend the service provided by the hospital. I have had dealings with one family who have had two members in and out of a unit in the hospital. I can confirm that the services and treatment they have received are second to none. It is important to compliment the staff involved on providing such care. I urge the Minister of State to ensure extra resources and support will be provided.
Senator Gerald Nash: I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Health, Deputy Helen McEntee, and congratulate her on her appointment. She is passionate about her work in this area and her passion and commitment will make a big difference in the Department. Everyone in the House admired the work done by her predecessor, former Deputy Kathleen Lynch. Even though the Minister of State has big shoes to fill, she will make her own mark in the Department. She will work very hard to deliver better services and change in the essential mental health service.
There is unanimity in the House on what needs to be done to promote positive mental health and the services we need. Just like the debate yesterday on health services, there will be no shortage of ideas on the services that need to be resourced and towards which resources should be directed. We need to be very clear on the need to stop the almost routine threat of pilfering the budget for mental health service in the context of the overall and politically sensitive general health budget. It is not an overstatement to say that, traditionally, the mental health service has been the Cinderella when it comes to the overall funding envelope for the health service. My colleague, former Deputy Kathleen Lynch, fought a Trojan battle to try ensure resources would be ring-fenced for mental health services during what were very difficult times for the State in the past few years. If we are serious about funding mental health services, we need to adequately and properly fund positive promotional campaigns. We must also fund good services that are proved to work and responsive to people's needs.
Yesterday I met part of the leadership team at the Union of Students in Ireland, Mr. Kevin Donoghue and Ms Aoife Ní Shúilleabháin, to discuss the organisation's mental health priorities. It is an organisation that works on the front-line with young people in vulnerable circumstances. I pay tribute to it for its "I Am A Reason" campaign which promotes positive mental health and identifies the need for improved services across the country. Like others, the campaign directs much of its attention towards the absence of 24/7 crisis intervention services across the country. As we all know, personal crises do not occur on a nine-to-five basis, Monday to Friday. The official policy suggests a network of 16 crisis houses be provided around the country. They would deal with and provide accommodation and support for people in crisis on a temporary basis until such time as connections could be made with community and mental health teams to develop proper care programmes to deal with some of the issues experienced by them. They would also address the underlying problems that precipitated the crisis in the first place. I have no doubt that the Minister of State supports this objective and I look forward to hearing her views on how the policy objective can be achieved.
I shall conclude by responding to comments made by Senator Gerard P. Craughwell on bullying in the workplace. It is an insidious phenomenon. Many mental health crises can be put down to experiences in the workplace that may have been inadequately dealt with. The Senator is right when he says there is only the option of civil redress available, but it is a costly and slow process. Bullying in the workplace is a scourge. One of the reasons is no clear procedures have been set down. In 2006 the report of the task force on bullying commented on the lack of clear and formal procedures needed to deal with bullying complaints. It also mentioned the need to outline a formal route for an adjudication on such complaints because all too often they were not addressed quickly and efficiently and thus ended up in the courts, which is damaging both for the employee who may be the victim and the employer who may, in many circumstances, be doing his or her utmost to address what is an insidious problem. I wish to correct Senator Gerard P. Craughwell by stating this is not a matter for the Minister of State or any colleague in the Department of Health to address, even though I am sure the Minister of State has a view on it. It is a matter for the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation whom I ask to accept the will of the Dáil as expressed in the support shown for the Labour Party's motion tabled three weeks ago which included a provision to counteract such bullying by providing for statutory redress, thus providing a formal route to ensure the scourge of bullying in the workplace that can lead to enormous mental distress could be addressed efficiently and effectively. That is not the case at present.
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: May I share two minutes of my time with my colleague, Senator Aidan Davitt?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Yes.
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: I congratulate the Minister of State on her appointment. I know that she will do well in her new position. It is great to see the appointment of a woman.
No family is immune from mental health issues in some form. Beyond the striking statistics for suicide levels and the affliction of depression which is extracting a hefty toll in the day-to-day lives of countless people, the recovery model recognises that treatment is not merely about the listing of symptoms but also ensuring the person affected can live a productive and meaningful life, despite his or her continuing vulnerabilities.
I want to ask the Minister of State about funding. As she knows, her Department receives an annual allocation of €35 million for mental health services. I ask her to increase it to €37.5 million because the Department has stated it needs this amount to provide all of the services which are necessary. The provision of increased funding is critically important as I firmly believe the provision of funding holds the key to everything. We need to ensure we provide a proper service for people in need, particularly those who need mental health services.
I ask the Minister of State to establish a national mental health authority. Such an authority would show a sense of urgency in tackling mental health issues and reducing the levels of self-harm and suicide. In this regard, we must ring-fence the funding provided for mental health services. Far too often, as the Minister of State is aware, funding is pulled from the mental health budget and allocated to other services. I ask the Minister to ensure none of the mental health budget will be touched, rather that it will be increased. Early intervention is critical. Addressing mental health problems in early childhood and the adolescent years leads to better educational outcomes and the prevention of further mental health issues and can lead to a better quality of life. That is why it is important that extra funding be allocated.
The provision of counselling is essential. Teachers should receive mental health training to equip them to identify whether children need support. In particular, where they believe a child has mental health issues, they should be able to mention their concern to someone. We must restore the post of guidance counsellor in schools.
In the past such a service was in place, but it has been removed. I ask the Minister of State to reinstate it in every school as it is crucial.
A study of children's mental health in 2015 identified that while demand for the service was increasing, the number of staff was falling. A report has found that mental health services for children and teenagers are understaffed and overstretched, while access to support is confusing. Given the confusion, I ask the Minister of State to look at the issue. Some 61 approved centres were inspected in 2015, of which only six were rated as compliant. The remainder were non-compliant to varying degrees. It is critical that the Minister of State establish the youth mental health task force within 100 days. I make this request as a person who lives in Carlow and who has been a councillor for 19 years, during which time I have witnessed many changes. There have been several suicides of young people in Carlow recently. Like many other counties, it wants to be represented on the task force being established to examine the issue of youth mental health. The Minister of State has mentioned that within the next 100 days she will initiate an evidence-based expert review of progress in the implementation of policy and the improvement of mental health services. It is crucial that counties such as Carlow and neighbouring counties play a role in the task force. Every local authority and every part of the mental health service can play a role and have its say as it is crucial that we all know what is happening. The provision of information will be crucial. I, therefore, ask the Minister of State to set up a national mental health authority which is key the to getting everything on track. I would appreciate it if she came back to me with some answers.
Senator Aidan Davitt: Comhghairdeas leis an Aire Stáit. I have two queries, both of which relate to St. Loman's Hospital, Mullingar. Does the Minister of State have plans for the main building which is about 95% unoccupied? It is a landmark structure as one approaches the town of Mullingar. Funding has been put into some of the new infrastructure.
An issue was brought to my attention by HSE staff concerning the level of care provided in the community. The policy has been to return people to the community. Some staff members have expressed their concern that there are people being cared for in the community whom they consider should not be cared for in it. There have been a few incidents and I am sure Mullingar is not the only town in which this has happened. Has any assessment being made of how some clients are being cared for in the community? Perhaps some mistakes have been made and, if so, the people concerned should be assessed differently.
Senator Lynn Ruane: I wish to speak about dual diagnosis, an issue which is not raised too often in debate. Working in the homeless sector I have become increasingly worried, especially in the past decade, that having made the transition from institutional and asylum centre-type treatment, a large proportion of people end up on the streets owing to the fact that there is a big gap in service provision. They are not treated in the community and begin to be treated within a hostel setting by project workers who are not mental health professionals. To provide a little background information, on any given occasion 12 or more people would have to be subject to hourly checks because of their mental health. As one opens the door one does not know what one will find. I have had to cut people down from nooses. At one stage I had to use my stockings to stem the flow of blood from a man who had slit his throat. These are people who definitely should not be cared for within a hostel setting that does not have adequate services available to treat them. Ambulance personnel arrive, but the resident may refuse to go with them. A project worker can invest hours in trying to convince a person who is suicidal to go to the emergency department where two things can happen. Because of the dual diagnosis, the addiction takes over and the person goes into a state of withdrawal and leaves without receiving adequate treatment or he or she is seen and told the wounds will be looked at but not be treated. Given that dual diagnosis is normal, care plans should be in place to deal with a person's mental health and addiction rather than sending him or her from one door to another. On many occasions people have left the emergency department. Last year a man walked out straight under a car after he could not handle waiting in the emergency department owing to suicide ideation.
The report, Homelessness: An Unhealthy State, by Dr. Fiona O'Reilly and Dr. Austin O'Carroll, in the compilation of which I was involved and which looks at the issues of health status, risk behaviours and service utilisation by homeless persons in Dublin and Limerick, points out that almost half of the sample, 47%, experienced mental health issues and addiction problems. This has been termed dual diagnosis. People with both substance misuse and mental health problems have particular difficulties in exiting homelessness in taking care of their physical and mental health. The research shows that more than half the sample had previously experienced suicidal thoughts, while more than one third had attempted suicide. One in three homeless persons had been so desperate that they had attempted to commit suicide. Shockingly, the statistic gets even worse for those with mental health problems, with half of those with a diagnosis reporting that they had attempted to commit suicide in the past. The depressing statistics which reflect my experiences show mental ill health as being the norm among the homeless population, with 58% having had at least one mental health issue diagnosis. Some 13% had been diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis compared to a figure of 1% among the general population.
The inverse care law states those most in need of care are least likely to receive it. That a cohort of the population exists on the margins of society where mental health problems are the norm demonstrates the existence of this inequitable inverse care law. Will the Minister of State commit to turning it on its head and bringing equality and fairness to light by ensuring those most in need of mental health care will receive it? Will she commit to the following as a matter of urgency? A coherent and specific step approach to presentations by homeless persons in crisis in line with national suicide prevention guidelines should be established within the homeless sector. A crisis house for homeless persons, as recommended in A Vision for Change, also needs to be provided. This could take effect immediately by ring fencing 24/7 the allocation of a number of existing beds within the homeless sector, with nursing staff linked with inpatient psychiatric care provision for homeless persons at risk who are not best served within an emergency department. Professional care services need to be equipped with specific skill sets to meet clients' needs, that is, mental health social workers are needed on site in homeless accommodation, given the very high level of mental health service need evidenced in the study. These professionals can identify need among homeless individuals and navigate the many excellent mainstream services available, remove barriers for homeless personsand allow them access to appropriate care services. Mental health training and guidance for workers in the homeless sector and the provision of appropriate supports for clients are needed. There is also a clear need for recognition of dual diagnosis in a reconfiguration of services which should be treated as the norm rather than the exception. Addiction and mental health services have evolved separately and without reorientation towards the service user. As a consequence, the homeless person continues to be shifted back and forth between the two services.
Minister of State at the Department of Health (Deputy Helen McEntee): I thank Senators for their contributions. This debate has been useful, like the continuing debate in the main Chamber. I assure Members that I will take on board absolutely everything that has been said. I may not be able to come back with a response on all of the specific issues raised, but I will certainly do my best to do so during the course of the next couple of weeks.
Across the political divide there is consensus that we need to improve services. We are all on the same page in that regard. It is important that we work together, listen to each other and work with the services to improve what is already in place. It is reasonable to say, however, that there have been real and significant developments in the service which were initiated by the previous Government. I acknowledge the work taken on by my predecessor, former Deputy Kathleen Lynch, and all those involved in the Department.
Additional funding of up to €115 million has been allocated to mental health services under the HSE’s national service plan. The funding will be used to enhance all aspects of the service. New investment and new personnel have been directed towards developing specialised services which, until now, did not receive the attention they deserved and needed. I will stand over the commitment to increase mental health funding every year. Obviously, the restoration of the €35 million development fund was important to me and I am glad that it has been restored. While I am Minister of State, I would like to be able to say it will never happen again.
I acknowledge the work carried out by the HSE and the voluntary and statutory organisations because they are working with those who are often at the lowest point in their lives. It is a difficult environment and, with increased demands and resource limitations, we need to ensure they will get all the credit they deserve.
There is a real and genuine will across all political parties to modernise services and bring us into line with best practice. Fundamental to this is our attitude to mental health. While we have come a long way in a short time, there is still a long way to go. To reduce the stigma and associated isolation, we need to start thinking of it in the same way as physical illness. If a person breaks a bone or cuts himself or herself, he or she will go to an emergency department or his or her doctor. If people feel under pressure or do not feel they are supported, we need to get to the point where they will believe it is okay for them to seek help and the stigma will thereby be reduced. In that regard, we need to make a concerted effort with men in their 40s in the same way we targeted women through BreastCheck to deal with a specific problem and stop it at an early stage. We need such a programme to target men who are at risk, particularly those in the workplace. I hope to progress this in line with our Connecting for Life strategy and by placing greater emphasis on health and wellness, early intervention and prevention. Education is key in this regard. My colleague, the Minister for Education and Skills, Deputy Richard Bruton, is rolling out the wellness programme through his Department. Through the task force I am establishing, I would like to see it being brought back to an even earlier stage.
The review of A Vision for Change is necessary, but I agree that progress cannot be halted at the same time. The vision will not change, even with a review. The review needs to operate in tandem with continued investment and implementation. If changes are to be recommended at the end of the review, they should be incorporated into policy.
As I have said previously, it is not just the Department of Health which needs to deal with this issue. It also touches on homelessness, the Traveller community, work environments and the judicial system, meaning that I will need a lot of support from my ministerial colleagues. I intend to ask them to identify key areas in which they need support from me.
I will come back to Senators on the matter of St. Loman's Hospital and other specific issues. If there are other specific questions on which I have not touched, they can contact me about them.
Sitting suspended at 2.05 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.
EU-UK Relations: Statements
An Cathaoirleach: I welcome the Minister.
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Charles Flanagan): I very much welcome the opportunity to address the recently convened Seanad. I wish everybody a successful, busy and productive time in the course of his or her tenure here. In particular, I offer my personal congratulations to the Cathaoirleach on his elevation and appointment to his important national role. I wish him good health in his time here.
An Cathaoirleach: I thank the Minister.
Deputy Charles Flanagan: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue just ahead of polling day in the United Kingdom in the referendum on membership of the European Union. As Senators are aware, it has been a closely fought campaign in the United Kingdom and the tragic events of last Thursday understandably cast a dark cloud over proceedings in the final days. We all felt absolute horror at the murder of Jo Cox, MP, above all for her young family. As parliamentarians with deep links with our communities and constituencies, we find the brutal killing as Jo went about her work at her clinic particularly chilling. She and her family remain in our thoughts.
The Government's position on the referendum should be well known to everybody. We want the United Kingdom, as our friend, closest neighbour and partner, to remain a member of the European Union. This is a view which enjoys almost unanimous support within both Houses of the Oireachtas, although I recognise and respect that there is a differing point of view. The reasons underpinning the Government's position will also be familiar to Senators. They include important considerations relating to the economy, Northern Ireland, the common travel area and, of course, the European Union.
The Government and our diplomatic teams in Britain, Northern Ireland, Brussels and across the European Union have been very active on this issue since the moment the British Prime Minister, Mr. Cameron, signalled his support for the holding of a referendum in 2013. The momentum of this work has never eased at any stage in the past three years. Our first core objective was to help to get agreement on a settlement package for the United Kingdom which would be acceptable to all European partners and enable the British Prime Minister to recommend and campaign for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. The Taoiseach was heavily involved in working to secure such an outcome at the February European Council.
With that agreement reached, the focus turned to the referendum. In tandem with the EU negotiations, since 2013 we have also been systematically setting out the Irish case for the United Kingdom remaining in the European Union. The Taoiseach, other Ministers and I have set out Ireland's position in keynote addresses across Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as with our UK counterparts during regular bilateral meetings. I spoke most recently with the UK Foreign Secretary, Mr. Philip Hammond, on Monday at the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg. He knows from our frequent conversations that Ireland is firmly of the view - a view shared by our partners - that negotiation and decision-making at EU level benefit from having a strong British voice at the table.
At all stages other Government colleagues, our diplomats and officials and I have ensured regular contact with Irish communities across Britain and it is to these communities that we appeal for participation in this vital decision for all of us. During the course of a visit to the United Kingdom in early April I identified a desire to hear the Irish perspective among the Irish community, on behalf of the Government and the Opposition. My experience of referendums here meant that I was aware of the sensitivities, but at all stages I was happy to give our perspective, when asked to do so.
In the past three months or so as the formal campaign was under way, Senators will have noticed that the Irish Government, complemented by active engagement by civil society in Ireland, the Irish community in Britain and leading Opposition figures, has made its own contribution to the referendum debate. We fully respect that the decision ultimately lies with the UK electorate, but we strove to put across the Irish perspective, including through a programme of 14 visits at Government level to Britain and Northern Ireland since the beginning of April. As Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, I have managed this programme across government and as part of which I visited London, Belfast, Derry, Liverpool and Manchester. As I stressed during my visits to Belfast, Derry and elsewhere, the fact that Ireland was the only EU member state that shared a land border with the United Kingdom was a particularly compelling reason for the Government to feel obliged to ensure our perspective was known and clearly understood. As a Minister who has spent a considerable period of my time focused on the need to support and sustain political stability in Northern Ireland, I am acutely conscious of the negative implications of a "Leave" decision for the progress that has been made in the past 20 years.
Polling day is tomorrow and the UK electorate will, of course, have the final say on this important issue.
Polls suggest both outcomes are equally possible. The Government is as prepared as we possibly can be for both outcomes; therefore, whatever the result, it will strive to protect and promote the key strategic national interests of Ireland. The Dáil and the Seanad will play their full part in that important work.
I look forward to listening to the contributions of Senators and, if time permits, I will be available to respond at the end of the debate.
Senator Robbie Gallagher: I welcome the Minister for this important debate. People in Britain will make a crucial decision tomorrow. While the matter is one for Britain to decide, Ireland is in a unique position heading into the vote this week as the only country in the European Union that shares a land border with the United Kingdom. Britain is our nearest neighbour and largest trading partner. Reports have warned of the repercussions for Ireland across several sectors, including the trade, travel, tourism, energy and agrifood sectors. Although a Brexit would affect us all, Border counties would be most exposed to its effects should Britain decide to leave the European Union. The 310-mile frontier that separates Northern Ireland and the Republic is the only land border between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. Although heavily militarised, with checkpoints and road closures, during the Troubles, peace has opened up a seamless crossing between the two jurisdictions. Young people today do not recall the Border checkpoints and customs hold-ups we had to endure in the past. If someone crosses the Border today, there is little to alert him or her to such checks; the crossing is seamless. One might notice a red post box, a subtle change in the road surface, miles instead of kilometres on road signs or the disappearance of bilingual signs, but that is all. Thousands of people cross the Border every day on their way to work, to go shopping or on day trips. If one visits a school along the Border, one will find children with parents, grandparents or other family members from across the Border, but it is not only families. Farms, businesses and properties also straddle the Border. Thousands of people from Southern Border counties work across the Border and vice versa. People living in Border counties such as Donegal, Sligo, Leitrim, Cavan, Monaghan and Louth are anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Brexit referendum.
The "Remain" camp which includes the Chancellor George Osborne has warned that a hardening of border controls would be inevitable in the event of the United Kingdom voting to leave the European Union. Given that migration has been an important factor driving the "Leave" campaign, the British Government could come under pressure to impose Border checks to prevent Ireland from becoming an access point for undocumented migrants. The Chancellor has warned that a vote to leave the European Union would cause an economic shock in the North, forcing the return of Border checkpoints and the slashing of farmers' incomes, at a cost of in the region £1.3 billion. Some time ago he stated, "Let's be clear, if we quit the EU then this is going to be the border with the European Union ... ie new immigration checkpoints, border controls and an end to free movement - that has a real consequence, and there would have to be a real hardening of the border imposed either by the British government or indeed by the Irish government."
For the first time in a generation, Border controls and customs checkpoints between Northern Ireland and the Republic have become a distinct possibility. We remember the hassle, the nuisance, the cost, the queues of trucks and the waiting overnight. We are not looking forward to their return. A Brexit would be an obstacle to the cross-Border economic co-operation that is profoundly benefiting both states on the island. It would also damage trade and investment, North and South. The reality is that those campaigning for a Brexit are asking people in Northern Ireland to swap the benefits of membership of a single market with 500 million people for an uncertain future, where free trade would be curtailed and new tariffs would undermine the competitiveness of Northern Irish exports. Locals in the Border region fear that such factors and the reinstatement of checkpoints would be a deterrent to trade and travel. We know from experience that there will be knock-on effects.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers, who is campaigning on the "Leave" side claims that, in the event of a Brexit, the Border would remain as "free-flowing" as it is today. Ireland and Britain had a common travel area before either became a member of the European Union and that arrangement has prevailed during the years, but Ms Villiers has been contradicted by the Governments in Dublin and London which have left open the possibility of new controls being introduced. It is difficult to imagine a situation where there would be no controls or checks in the movement of goods if the United Kingdom were to leave the European Union. It would inevitably involve additional costs and there might conceivably also be British as well as EU measures. In Amsterdam in January the Taoiseach said that if Britain were to leave the European Union, we would be looking at Border controls in Ireland, despite the fact that there was a common travel area. That view has been echoed in London, where a report by the British Government Cabinet Office in March warned that if the United Kingdom was to leave the EU customs union, "it would be necessary to impose customs checks on the movement of goods across the border". It further stated, "Questions would also need to be answered about the common travel area which covers the movement of people".
In the Border counties and frontier towns such as Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk, Sligo and Letterkenny the economy is very fragile. We need freedom of movement for visitors, in particular. Reports suggest unemployment could rise by as much as 14,000 in Northern Ireland over two years if the United Kingdom was to leave the European Union, with 2,000 being added to the youth unemployment figure. It must be remembered that many of those employees are from this side of the Border. Fewer jobs in Northern Ireland and possible knock-on effects on business and employment on this side of the Border would see family incomes hit and the value of people's homes and pensions falling.
The United Kingdom has had a greater influence on the European Union's development than it realises and if it chooses to stay, it can and will continue to have a major influence. I hope that when people in Britain and our friends in Northern Ireland go to vote, they will make the right decision and vote to remain as part of the European Union.
Senator Frank Feighan: People in Britain will go to the polls tomorrow to decide whether they should remain in or leave the European Union. It is the second time a referendum on the issue has been held in the United Kingdom. In 1975 a large majority - 67% - voted to remain in what was then the EEC.
Throughout the current campaign many issues have been debated vigorously, including immigration, security and the economic consequences of remaining or leaving the European Union. Some months ago I had the good fortune to be invited to speak in London to the Irish4Europe organisation. I said we had a history of referendums in this country - people in the United Kingdom are not that familiar with them - and that often people did not answer the question put to them. They might dislike the Government or have a problem with various issues but sometimes the compelling question is not addressed in referendums. That is democracy, but the important message in terms of immigration, security and the economic consequences is sometimes missed in the debate. This day week I was heading into Belfast when I heard a powerful but, I believe, factually incorrect advertisement on a local radio station - it may have been Downtown Radio. It referred to the hundreds of millions of pounds being given every week and the fact that 300,000 immigrants, equivalent to the population of Cardiff, were coming to Britain every year. That hit a nerve and it can be said by those on both sides of the debate. I congratulate the members of Irish4Europe for the work they have done.
My father worked for most of his life in London and I know many people who worked in Manchester, Birmingham and Glasgow, but in the past 50, 60 or 70 years we did not mobilise in the way we should have. I put this down to not having the confidence to mobilise or not being as mobilised as other nationalities. I thank the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for all the work they have done, but I also thank all parties, North and South, for their involvement in trying to ensure the Irish in Britain will vote to remain in the European Union.
It is a decision for the British electorate. We have to look at it from the outside. However, we must have a say and I believe we do. If one thing happens as a result of this referendum, I hope it is that Irish people who are in favour of the European movement will once more mobilise in a united way to pursue and support all aspects of Irishness in the United Kingdom. I hope our voice will be heard a little more. It is wonderful to see all the various people working behind the scenes. I remember that people of all hues and from all parts of society were at the meeting I mentioned. Their voices were being and must continue to be heard. We have come a long way and can now stand up as a nation and as part of a republic and more or less state we have a voice.
The economic arguments in favour of the United Kingdom staying in the European Union are compelling. Some 45% of the United Kingdom's trade is with the European Union, courtesy of its access to the Single European Market which is free of tariffs and border controls. It is estimated that approximately 3 million jobs in the United Kingdom are tied to the European Union. Economic data demonstrate that Ireland's relationship with Britain has been and continues to be incredibly valuable. The United Kingdom is Ireland's second largest trade market after the United States. The United Kingdom exports more to Ireland than it does to China, India and Brazil combined. I will set out some of the data in more detail. Goods and services worth more than €1.2 billion are traded between our two islands every week. Some 200,000 people are employed in Ireland as a direct result of the export of Irish goods to the United Kingdom. This accounts for 10% of all employment in Ireland. In 2015, 3.5 million UK tourists visited Ireland, while 2.6 million Irish tourists visited the United Kingdom.
When I have to travel to England or elsewhere in Britain, I can take a flight or travel without a passport. Ryanair and Aer Lingus flights are very good value, but it can cost over €200 if one has to book a flight on the day. One can get on a boat at 8 a.m. and be in London for 6 p.m., having completed one's journey by train, for just €53. One does not need a passport, although one sometimes needs identification. These are things we take for granted. I travelled to Cardiff for the opening of the Welsh Assembly two weeks ago. It was a lovely journey and nobody looked for a passport. I ended up in Cardiff at 9 p.m. that night. I fear what will happen in the event of a Brexit.
The previous speaker rightly referred to the possible reintroduction of Border controls. Thirty years ago people were smuggling little items like butter across the Border where I remember queueing in previous times. I live 40 miles from it. I used to represent the constituency of Roscommon-South Leitrim right beside the Border. We take for granted the great work done on the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement, into which all of the major parties have put great work. In the past three years the North-South Inter-Parliamentary Association has met in Stormont and this august Chamber. It has gone unnoticed that members of all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Republic have attended meetings of the association. I really think we should rejoice because we have come a long way. I am worried that people will vote in favour of Brexit, but I hope that on Friday the people of the United Kingdom will vote to remain.
Senator David Norris: I welcome the Minister. I was touched by his references to the late Jo Cox. Last night I watched an interview with her husband and was immensely impressed by his dignity, self-control and concern for the real issues that lay at the heart of this terrible and tragic political murder, if one can call a murder by a madman a political act.
I am a reluctant supporter of Britain staying in the European Union, in which I have always believed. The European Union in which I believe is a union of people, a social Europe, rather than a Europe of financial institutions. In recent times we have seen the naked exercise of power by unelected and unaccountable European financial institutions, to the great detriment of the peoples of Europe who are fed up to their back teeth. There is not a country in Europe where there is no revulsion against the European Union and its dictatorial attitudes.
The holding of this referendum was a particularly stupid idea on the part of Mr. Cameron. I bet he is now regretting that decision because the margin is too tight to call. Nobody actually knows how it will go and the reason they do not know is that they are not discussing the issues at all. They are discussing everything else. Not a single major company is in favour of Britain leaving. I have not heard of a single reputable economist who is in favour of it leaving. Not a single country is in favour it leaving.
The Brexiteers are saying they do not want to be bothered with all the experts. If they are not going to listen to the experts, to whom are they going to listen? Are they going to listen to Mr. Boris Johnson? We all know damn well that he only threw his hat in the ring and changed his position because he had his eye on the leadership of the Tory Party. He is also a liar. We saw him approximately six months ago talking about Turkey which he was encouraging to join the European Union. He was saying this would be wonderful, but now it is the biggest scare tactic there is. It is being suggested all of the Turks will jump into Britain and overwhelm it.
This immigration business is utterly obscene, disgusting and repulsive. It does not do credit to a great country like Britain. It is a very complex issue. When I was watching television the other evening, it was staggering to hear two people raise the issue of immigration in the most negative way. One was an Afghan immigrant to Britain, while the other was a Moroccan. It is the usual human thing that the minute one gets in, one pulls up the ladder to stop anybody else from getting in. Morally, it is very repulsive.
People are disillusioned with the European Union. We can consider what it has done to this country as an example. I do not want anybody to tell me that Ireland is a net beneficiary. The European Union is a beneficiary, or perhaps a bene-fishery because it has received €200 billion of our fish stocks for nothing. An awful lot would have to be paid into the Irish Exchequer to get that back. We also need to look at what the European institutions did to this country. They humiliated the people. They forced a transfer of bank debts onto the shoulders of ordinary Irish people. They did the same in Cyprus and Greece. That is how much they care about the ordinary people of this country. Despite our alleged economic growth, we are still slave labour for the German and French banks, to which this country was indentured in a most disgusting way. People are disillusioned. I agree with the Brexiteers who believe there is a lack of democracy in the European Union. How many people could name those who are actually running it? They are unelected, paid enormous amounts of money and not accountable. There is a fundamental lack of democracy. I hope Britain will stay in, even though the result will be on a knife-edge. I hope that with the assistance of this country, Britain will help to push through real and radical reform of the European system. The whole European project was very badly thought out. The euro is a mess. It was not properly regarded or analysed before it was instituted. The expansion of the European Union, when it took in a load of eastern European countries in a sudden burst without really investigating them, was far too rapid and we are now paying the results.
We have skin in the game. In this global world it is perfectly legitimate for us to make a case because it will affect us.
As I told a group of distinguished visitors from London with whom I spoke in the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland a couple of weeks ago, one argument - they said it had not been made to them previously - was that we would be lonely in Ireland without the British because they shared our language, culture and, by and large, financial interests. I hope Britain will stay in by voting in favour tomorrow, but I hope it will lead to a more humane, decent and compassionate European Union, one that is not ruled exclusively by financial concerns.
Senator Paul Coghlan: I welcome the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, and wholeheartedly support his comments. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute on what is one of the most crucial referendums in the United Kingdom or the Republic that we will see in our lifetime. Tomorrow millions of British citizens, from Belfast to Bristol and from Dover to Dundee, will have the opportunity to vote on Britain's membership of the European Union. We can all agree that it is in our nation's best interests that these millions of voters vote to remain as part of the European Union.
As a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I have been following the referendum debate for some time. A. A. Gill, writing in The Sunday Times at the weekend, wrote: "The dream of Brexit isn't that we might be able to make a brighter, new, energetic tomorrow, it's a desire to shuffle back to a regret-curdled inward-looking yesterday." He was quite right. If one listens to any of the language being used by those advocating a "Leave" vote, it is always about wanting to make Britain great again, taking back power from Brussels and the other assertions we have been hearing for weeks. The majority of those who want to leave - they are a mixture of voters, although some claim they are older - are looking back to the bygone days of their youth which they remember with a certain sentimental value. They believe they can recreate them by voting to leave the European Union, but never has a group of people been so misguided. The European Union and its predecessor, the European Economic Community, wanted to promote interdependence, peace and economic prosperity among the nations of Europe and make another continental war unthinkable. They have succeeded in that regard. If Britain was to turn its back on the European project, it would be turning its back on the most successful political project the world has seen. It would be turning its back on a shared European history, of which we are all part. In doing so it would find itself isolated and alone, much like the United States was during the 1930s.
From an Irish perspective, Britain leaving the European Union would have serious consequences, north and south of the Border. As our closest neighbour, the United Kingdom is naturally one of our most important trading partners for goods and services, as has been the case since the foundation of the Irish Free State. For example, we export goods worth €14 billion and services worth €20 billion to the United Kingdom. The ESRI has asserted that, if was a Brexit was to occur, it would reduce trade flows between Ireland and the United Kingdom by 20% on average, with the impact differing significantly across sectors and products. Can we credibly say nothing would change along the Border between the Republic and Northern Ireland? Of course, we cannot. It is unrealistic of people to suggest matters would remain the same. We would have an EU border stretching from Dundalk to Derry, similar to the Greek-Turkish border.
The Republic of Ireland holds its breath as we await the outcome of the referendum. For our sake, I hope the British people will make the mature, smart and right decision to remain part of the European Union. Consider the effect on tourism. The British are our best customers. The numbers we receive each year have been mentioned. Thanks be to God, sterling is strong. Last year we had our best season and this year it has been even better. One cannot find a hotel bedroom in Dublin, except at an awful price, but that is a separate issue. Recently, the stock market became jittery and volatile because the "Leave" side was dominant in the polls. Thanks be to God, they are back in sync; the markets have recovered somewhat and sterling has strengthened again. The British are our most valuable customers and we need to hold onto them. They are playing with fire, but we will have to wait until tomorrow to know the outcome. I hope the right decision will be made from their point of view, as well as ours.
I support everything the Minister, his colleagues and everyone in the other parties have been trying to do in campaigning to ensure Irish voters, the number of whom is large in Britain's cities and the countryside, will come out tomorrow to vote.
Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a bheith anseo linn chun an t-ábhar seo a phléigh. Tá sé pléite againn le cúpla lá anuas ach sílim go bhfuil sé iontach maith agus iontach dearfach go bhfuil an seal againn le díriú isteach ar an ábhar tábhachtach seo fá choinne mhuintir na hÉireann san iomlán. I thank the Minister for appearing before us to discuss this important issue. It is an eleventh hour debate in terms of what we can contribute, but the issue has been raised in the Chamber in the past two weeks and we are unified in our concern about what a Brexit might do to the national interest. Other Senators have eloquently and comprehensively laid out the potential economic dangers and the impact of a Brexit on the State and the entire island, North and South, all of which would be negative.
I was going to make a lengthy speech, but I will not now, as I am in the unique position of having a vote on Thursday and I intend to use it to vote in favour of Britain remaining in the European Union. This is not a quick-witted, gut or knee-jerk reaction but a considered and tough decision, as I am sure has been the case for many across the North.
The Minister and many other colleagues will appreciate that I do not want to be a victim of Little England. I do not want to be a victim of David Cameron's attempts to see off Nigel, Boris and the rest of those on the far right. What a political masterstroke holding the referendum has turned out to be for him. It is a sad reflection that our fortunes, North and South, could be damaged and impeded by that ill-considered move. At its heart, the referendum is about immigration. It is not about Britain's membership of the European Union or the benefits it brings to Britain and this island. It is simply a gut reaction to the pressure exerted by immigration. What a sad reflection on the political leadership of that country.
I do not need to remind the Minister that he has a duty of care to Irish citizens across the island, North and South. In the event of a Brexit, it is imperative that the State ensure there will be no subversion of the institutions which were hard fought for and hard won under the Good Friday Agreement. This issue must take precedence. The State must ensure the political protection of citizens, North and South. It must build on the eloquent points made by Senators about solidifying the peace process and building reconciliation across the island. The European Union has played a key role in that regard through, for example, human rights legislation. The Minister knows, however, that the British Government is trying to claw back on the Human Rights Act and that there is no such Act in the North. If we were to lose membership of the European Union, it would have a detrimental impact. Human rights, employment rights, maternity leave and trade union rights are affected day to day by membership of the Union.
A notable issue for me and many others in an ever growing community in the North is that of the failure of the British Government to introduce, as agreed at St. Andrews, an Acht na Gaeilge. The only legislative protection for the language is provided by European legislation, namely, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. Losing it would hit the many thousands of páistí atá ag dul tríd an earnáil gaelscolaíochta. It is fair to say we have no friends in the British Government when it comes to upholding their rights.
Other Senators have referred to the PEACE funds. Previously, I was employed in a position in north Belfast that was funded under the PEACE III programme.
I was legacy co-ordinator with Bridge of Hope, an organisation based in north Belfast that works to bring together grassroots community leaders, former combatants and political prisoners, as well as victims and survivors of the conflict in peace building initiatives. This work is invaluable and, as the Minister appreciates and understands, vital for peace building, community relations and sustaining and embedding the peace process, particularly as we head into the summer months when we will face the challenges and difficulties that occur every year.
We have the infrastructural benefits of being part of the European Union. The recently opened £30 million extension to Belfast Waterfront was part-funded by the European Regional Development Fund. This facility will be critical in attracting tourists to Belfast and the North in general. We appreciate what tourists bring to the economy. The Border must not be hardened, nor can we return to Border checks and all of the problems and nastiness to which previous speakers referred.
The British Government will not reimburse the North for the loss of European funds because it is, in the first instance, a government of Tories driven by an ideological position that supports austerity and, second, it has already cut €4 billion from the North's block grant. That is the agenda it is driving and it will mean that farmers, ordinary citizens, workers and Irish language speakers will lose out, as will, ultimately, the peace process. We must ensure the interests of Ireland, North and South, will be placed front and centre.
I appreciate that the only certainty in the referendum has been uncertainty. I also appreciate the restrictions that apply to the Minister and his position. Nevertheless, a carefully thought-out process will be required in the event of a Brexit. While I hope Britain will not leave the European Union, the Government must have in place a process for such an eventuality, one which will ensure the Good Friday Agreement will not be subverted, the peace and political processes will be sustained and the rights of Irish citizens, not least freedom of movement, will be protected and upheld.
Senator Alice-Mary Higgins: I thank the Minister for joining us and facilitating this important debate.
Many Senators spoke eloquently about the impact and economic costs of a British exit from the European Union. There is an irrefutable economic case for supporting a "Remain" vote in the referendum. Substantial costs would have to be borne if the British people were to choose Brexit, especially in Northern Ireland, as has been eloquently and clearly set out. What I will focus on initially are some of the other costs, namely, the human and social costs, that could flow from the referendum.
In the past five years alone 90,000 Irish people have travelled to live and work in the United Kingdom. Many of them were driven by a period of austerity and recession. Building on generations of complex interrelationships between the Irish at home and living in Britain, we now have families with members from England and other European Union member states. People now have a network of complex family relationships which in many cases involve partnerships with citizens from elsewhere in the European Union, including the United Kingdom. Families regularly cross borders, whether it be the Border with Northern Ireland or Britain when they fly or take a ferry to the United Kingdom. I share Senator Frank Feighan's interest in the ferry service as I like to travel by sea. There are constant communications with the United Kingdom and many people have working careers that span Britain and Ireland. All of these people who are living complicated lives will face undue further complications if a Brexit takes place. Those who must already navigate complex families bred across nations will face further obstacles.
On a human and practical level, the European health insurance system will not apply in the United Kingdom and the many Irish people who have spent part or all of their working lives in Britain will face unanswered questions about how pensions will be negotiated between Ireland and Britain.
People who are married to European Union citizens would face serious obstacles, particularly in travelling and crossing borders. There is no doubt that the Border would also be hardened in the event of a Brexit, while customs and associated obstacles would be strengthened. Social, creative, cultural and human exchanges which have led to deeper connections and a deepening of the peace process in recent years would be placed in jeopardy.
In addition to these consequences for Ireland, I will speak briefly about Europe as a whole. There is no one Europe. It is neither a beneficent monolith nor an instrument of repression but a ground on which we are all active and engage. There is no consensus in Europe because multiple opinions are battling out on what type of Europe we should have. I share the concerns of many, for example, about trade, having campaigned against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP. I am also concerned about the potential impact of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, between Canada and the European Union. Major concerns arise about the austerity policies that have been pushed through the semester process and the downgrading of the much more ambitious and important Europe 2020 commitment to sustainable and inclusive growth.
There are visions of a social Europe, but they are narrowing and there has been an erosion of democratic accountability. These are real concerns, but our allies in these concerns are each other. It is only by working together across Europe that we can tackle these issues and ensure we will have the type of Europe we want. I assure those who are worried about the erosion of workers' rights in the United Kingdom that the European trade unions are their allies. Those who wish to protect public services are part of many movements across Europe. For my part, having served on the executive of the European Women's Lobby, I have seen the strong support the European Union has given to women's rights in Ireland during the years. We are now seeing a backlash against women's equality in many eastern European countries and a conservatism that is sometimes frightening. Being part of the European Union, whether in its women's lobby or other such movements, is a resource for civil society in these times.
Many of those who wish to create obstacles to the free movement of people are not averse to the free movement of capital. Again, it is the European Union that has sought to impose constraints on the free market, while many of those strongly advocating a Brexit are happy for their money to travel at will to offshore locations. The challenges we face are global. One cannot run away from the collective action needed on issues such as climate change and the building of peace. These are collective issues and no border or decision can make them any less collective. I ask and encourage all those living in Britain and Northern Ireland to vote to remain in the European Union, to be part of the collective struggle and reinforce the peace process while working for peace across Europe. If we see a victory for xenophobia and the types of anti-immigration message we have seen in the media, the message against peace will have ripple effects across the rest of Europe. I strongly encourage a "Remain" vote.
I thank the Cathaoirleach for allowing me to exceed my speaking time.
An Cathaoirleach: If speakers confine their remarks to six minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will be able to do so, although that does not appear likely. I am not referring specifically to Senator Alice-Mary Higgins because all speakers are stealing a few extra seconds.
Senator Neale Richmond: I welcome the Minister and thank him for his contribution. It is only fitting that I join in the many expressions of grief and sympathy following the assassination of Jo Cox last week. Regardless of the outcome of the referendum tomorrow in Britain, the campaign will be forever remembered as forming the backdrop to the brutal murder of an excellent Member of Parliament, a loving mother and a dedicated wife.
With less than 48 hours to go in the campaign on British membership of the European Union, many will have made up their minds and many more will have already voted through postal ballot. At this stage, we must start to address the range of issues and challenges that the campaign has presented. I request the Minister to return to the House next week to hear what might perhaps be more reflective statements on EU–UK relations in the wake of the result, as is being done in many other member state parliaments and assemblies.
We need to prepare the European Union for change. Regardless of the result of the referendum, it is clear that the European Union needs to change. For me, growing up in Ireland in the 1980s the European project represented something big but still tangible. Our copybooks were adorned with maps of the then EEC countries in order that we could learn off their capital cities and perhaps dream about visiting these countries with ease, on holidays with our families in France or Spain, or perhaps even working in some of the great cities of the world such as Rome and Amsterdam. It was impossible to drive down any new road in Ireland without seeing - rightly so - huge signage plastered with the European flag, informing us that the new roads were being built with the assistance of Structural Funds. For older generations, my parents and grandparents, the European project represented something a lot simpler, namely, bringing peace to our continent for the longest continual period in history: there would be no more ration books, no more air raids, no more fear of men and women being once more called up to "do their duty".
Unfortunately, the contemporary European Union has drifted. It has become the very definition of meddling bureaucracy and micro-intervention, an entity the image of which is one obsessed with regulating and intervening in areas and issues that are removed from so many people's daily lives. Too often national governments, including our own, are to blame for this. Governments are too quick to blame Brussels for all the bad news and jump on the bandwagon and claim credit for all the good news coming from the European Union. To counter this, to quote Mr. John Major, the European Union needs to get back to basics. We need to see more of a focus on the positive, obvious initiatives. Following on a period of austerity, the European Union needs to be front and centre of a new, modern infrastructural programme. Let us clearly show the ordinary people of Europe how the Union works for them. A rare recent success in this regard was the new regulations on roaming charges.
We need to champion, not admonish, the four defining freedoms of the European Union. Let us not pick them apart for niche negatives or focus on isolated incidents often taken out of context. The European Union needs to improve existing initiatives and scale back the bureaucracy that stops good programmes such as Erasmus+ from flourishing, preventing many European citizens from reaping the benefits provided due to something daft like a 52-page application form.
The vote tomorrow in the United Kingdom represents the greatest threat to stability in Europe since the Second World War. Regardless of the result, the United Kingdom's relationship within or without the European Union will be changed forever. It is in this context that Ireland has the greatest challenge to face and perhaps the most important role to play. I take a moment to thank the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Minister of State, Deputy Dara Murphy, for their visits to the United Kingdom in recent weeks. I also give credit to Sinn Féin, which is rare for me, for its activities in the North and the campaign it has run. The campaigns of Sinn Féin, the SLDP, the Alliance Party and the UUP will have a major impact which I hope to see reflected in the result.
That said, I conclude by outlining what I have been annoying many of my friends and family who are voting tomorrow with for the past few weeks, be it on Facebook, in text messages and e-mails or as part of European Movement Ireland's postcard campaign. I make one last sincere appeal to the good people of the United Kingdom, especially the massive Irish bloc who are entitled to vote to please vote to remain.
Senator Mark Daly: I welcome the Minister. History does not repeat itself as much as it rhymes. In 1975, instead of the Conservative Party tearing itself apart, it was the Labour Party that held a referendum in the United Kingdom against the backdrop of the exact same arguments being made today. Ironically, the current leader of the British Labour Party, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, voted against remaining in the EEC at the time and the same arguments made in 1975 are being made today by the former Mayor of London and Mr. Nigel Farage, that their wives will not be able to get into hospital and that their kids will not be able to get into schools. We are hearing the same arguments being made.
What we must understand is that when the United Kingdom joined the EEC in 1973 and started the process over a number of decades, it was doing so from a position of weakness rather than being positive about its engagement with the EEC, as it was at the time. It was doing so against the backdrop of the loss of its empire. At the end of the Second World War the United Kingdom was in charge of nearly one quarter of the planet, with 630 million people under its control. By 1961 only 300 million people were under the control of the British Empire and its dominions, at which time it was engaging with the EEC not because it wanted to do so but because it saw the Commonwealth and its responsibility, power and influence being diminished. It considered the EEC as a way of getting it through what were very tough economic times. It had also gone through its own form of a bailout programme with the IMF.
What the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama, and others have said about Britain within the European Union is that the Union does not diminish the United Kingdom's role but actually magnifies it and its ability to engage with what is now a larger bloc and to have its influence, which, as other Members said, is very important in lessening the power of the bureaucrats. In many ways, the European Union has lost its way because it is no longer and many would say it never was a democracy. To some extent, the European parliaments and those governments that assisted the European Union and those that are part of it do not want it to be a democracy, but that means that the public, the general population, the citizens of Europe, do not have any trust in what are unofficial, unelected bureaucrats. That was the argument made by those who were against remaining in the EEC when the previous referendum called by the British Labour Party was held in 1975 and it is now being made again by the Conservative Party which is stating the European Union is heading towards federalisation and that this is not something the citizens of Europe favour, as we saw when the United Kingdom voted against the referendum to introduce a European constitution. That proposal was abandoned by the bureaucrats because referendums kept being lost. They were lost in France, Ireland and the Netherlands. Of course, as good bureaucrats do, they found another way and brought forward a treaty that was ratified at parliamentary level in every country, except Ireland. Of course, we were asked to vote on it again. There is no longer any faith in the European Union as an institution because it has been designed by bureaucrats to be run by bureaucrats.
The most fundamental failing of its citizens by the European Union occurred when the banking crisis hit Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Cyprus. It was the citizens who suffered, while the people who benefited the most were the millionaires and billionaires. There is no way the European Union can regain that trust, unless it gives power back to the people. The Minister will be aware of the different reports compiled by the ESRI in November 2015. The ESRI talked about the trade, foreign direct investment, energy and migration issues that will affect us if the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union. If there is a Brexit, everything about this has the potential to result in negative outcomes. Teagasc's report on the impact on the farming sector stated it would affect us negatively and result in a direct loss of between €150 million and €800 million. IBEC has also looked at the issues that would affect us directly.
There is now the distinct possibility that another referendum on Scottish independence will take place in the next decade or so. This is obviously a longer term, decades long issue based on what could happen in the referendum tomorrow if the United Kingdom decides to leave the European Union. That is not to say the Scottish National Party, SNP, is campaigning to leave the Union. It is telling voters not to make this a referendum on independence. That is, however, one of the foreseeable outcomes which in itself, with the loss of 31% of Great Britain's territory, would mean that the foreseeable outcome of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union is that Scotland would leave the United Kingdom. Consequently, Northern Ireland would then become a real issue, as my colleague from Sinn Féin has pointed out. Nobody knows what would happen on the Border. What would become very obvious to everybody, however, is that a border re-established in Europe at a time when everybody else was getting rid of land borders would be a disaster for Ireland, North and South. That could precipitate a longer term discussion of whether Northern Ireland should remain in the United Kingdom. All of these issues are foreseeable. The outcome, therefore, for Mr. Farage and Mr. Boris Johnson, when they are talking about trying to leave the European Union, is that Scotland and Northern Ireland could leave the United Kingdom which would then comprise only England and Wales. The country that would lose most, however, and which, outside Britain, has most to lose is Ireland because of our strong trade links, the common travel area and the fact that, apart from the Taiwan-China route, the busiest air route in the world is that between Dublin and London.
I ask Senators to imagine the chaos in having increased security and border checks as a result of Britain deciding to leave.
An Cathaoirleach: I again repeat that if everybody steals one minute, some Senators will be disappointed, as I will not be able to get everybody in.
Senator Ivana Bacik: I welcome the Minister, Deputy Charles Flanagan, back to the House and congratulate him on his reappointment as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. I look forward to working with him, as I am now Labour Party spokesperson on foreign affairs.
I commend the Government for the work that has been ongoing, as detailed by the Minister. It has included interventions such as the Taoiseach's article in The Guardian, supporting the "Remain" side, while being sensitive to the fact that this is a matter for decision in a different jurisdiction. However, it is clear that we have a major interest in it as citizens and residents of the neighbouring island. The Labour Party leader, Deputy Brendan Howlin, was in England last Thursday campaigning on the "Remain" side among the Irish community.
It is impossible to take part in this debate without mentioning, as others have done, the brutal murder on Thursday of Jo Cox, to whom we paid tributes yesterday. We note that today would have been her 42nd birthday. For many of us, the ugly rhetoric that had come to characterise some of the anti-immigration arguments on the "Leave" side consolidated our strong support for the "Remain" side. That ugly rhetoric was perhaps summed up on the awful poster revealed by Mr. Nigel Farage, MEP, last Thursday which clearly played on racist sentiment.
We have a direct connection and a very close relationship with Britain, but for some of us, it is even closer. I emigrated to England and voted in previous British elections as an Irish citizen resident in England. As a Dublin University Senator, I represent many Irish citizens who have a vote in the referendum. Some weeks ago I spoke to Trinity alumni in Derry and have been in contact with Trinity alumni branches throughout Britain and Northern Ireland. I am very heartened to hear back from so many of our graduates there who are passionately on the "Remain" side and have been doing a great deal of work in canvassing other Irish citizens resident in Britain to seek their support. I speak to people such as Mr. Nick Beard whose blog on headstuff.org provides very compelling reasons for the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union. I also speak to Mr. Brian O'Connell from the Irish4Europe campaign group. He has noted that, with over 600,000 Irish-born people living and working in Britain, it is a larger group than citizens from many other EU jurisdictions and could be very influential in terms of the result of the referendum, particularly given how close the two sides appear to be according to the polls.
As many have said, if the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union, one of the main concerns for us on this island would be the citizens in the North. Most of us are very dismayed at the position the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Ms Theresa Villiers, has taken on the "Leave" side, in not seeming to recognise, as the historian, Roy Foster, has said, that a vote for a Brexit could be disastrous for the advances we have seen in relations between the Republic and Northern Ireland. We should not take for granted the huge role the European Union has played in British-Irish relations and its role in the peace process. British and Irish partners sitting as equals side by side at international tables of the European Union from the early 1980s onwards arguably did more than many other things to improve British-Irish relations and begin the processes which lead to the Good Friday Agreement. That is an important factor for us.
It is also important not to be dismissive of all of the arguments on the "Leave" side because clearly there are people on that side who genuinely believe in Brexit without adhering to the horrible rhetoric of Mr. Farage and his allies in UKIP. Some of the arguments on the "Leave" side indicate a very high level of disillusionment with the European Union, a sense of a democratic deficit, as Senator Alice-Mary Higgins mentioned, a sense of concern about democracy and decisions being made by an unelected European Commission. Many of us believe consolidated action is required to tackle this. We need the added voice of Britain at the table to help us in countering it and putting the case, for example, for a social Europe and on the need for the European Union to have a united front in facing crises such as the economic crisis which was felt so recently, as well as the crisis resulting from so many refugees seeking to enter Europe.
There are very strong arguments in favour of remaining on economic and social grounds, in particular, the strong economic evidence to which so many have pointed. The ESRI, for example, has pointed to enormous losses for Ireland as a crucial partner with the United Kingdom. There are many reports on the adverse economic effects for the British economy should the Brexit side prevail. However, there are also very strong social arguments in favour of remaining in the European Union. We should not forget that the Nobel committee presented the European Union with the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, noting its work over six decades in advancing peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe. The European Union serves as an example for many other countries of what can be achieved through solidarity and transnational co-operation. The European Union's work in seeking to progress equality measures, in particular women's rights, should not be taken for granted. The SNP leader, Ms Nicola Sturgeon, has emphasised the progress made for women as a result of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union. Also in Britain, Ms Frances O'Grady of the Trades Union Congress published a report entitled, Women's Rights and the Risk of Brexit, in which the point was made that Brexit ran the risk of turning the clock back decades on hard-won rights. The socialist movement in Europe has a strong tradition. The red flag of the Labour Party was first marched under in 1831 in Merthyr Tydfil by oppressed miners and red remains the colour of many of our social democratic partners in Europe, including the SPD in Germany. We are seeing a strong sense of European and national identity emerging from these movements around workers', trade union and women's rights.
While the decision clearly rests with others tomorrow and is not one to be made in this jurisdiction, for us the Brexit debate raises many worrying sentiments. We need to challenge some of the arguments made in favour of a Brexit and meet them with confidence because the European project, encompassing an open society and involving international solidarity of trust and mutual co-operation, is an ideal that is worth supporting and building on in co-operation with our neighbours. We need to have the confidence and leadership here and elsewhere to counter racist and narrow-minded commentary about immigration. We also need to plan for a brighter future. My hope, with that of so many others, is that the United Kingdom will vote to remain and that we can all work together to face the crises that will confront the European Union in the rest of the 21st century.
Acting Chairman (Senator Catherine Noone): I welcome Councillor McGuire from Westport who is in the Visitors Gallery. I have to be strict on time because we have to call the Minister to reply at 3.55 p.m.
Senator Kieran O'Donnell: I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his reappointment. I wish him well.
The European Union was set up after the Second World War when it was agreed in the spirit of Schuman and others that we would be creating a Europe in which war would never happen again. However, there was also an economic context to it.
We cannot ignore the advance of people such as Mr. Nigel Farage, MEP, and his party, UKIP. If the United Kingdom had our electoral system, UKIP would have seats in Parliament, but this does not happen under the first-past-the-post system. We cannot ignore, however, that there is disenchantment with much of what has happened in Europe. From our point of view, the design of the euro and the establishment of the European Central Bank initially did not favour small nations. It was set up on a principle preferred by the Germans which was based on an inflation rate of 2%. There are elements at which we have to look.
We cannot ignore the reasons the referendum is being held. Taken in context, it is not good for Europe overall. The European Union will be weakened if Britain decides to leave. Britain would also be weakened in leaving. For us in Ireland, there is no benefit. It is a question of how exactly it would impact on us. It would impact on us in a number of areas. Clearly, it would impact on us economically. If sterling was to weaken, our exports would be less competitive in a British market and that would cost jobs. We do not know how many, but jobs would be lost.
Many Irish students attend college in the United Kingdom. Brexit would probably have implications in terms of the fees paid by them and their parents.
On travel and the free movement of people, there would be implications for us. However, there would also be implications for British workers in travelling throughout Europe and for workers entering Britain.
If Irish people travel anywhere in Britain or elsewhere in the European Union, effectively they have access to the same health services as they receive in Ireland. More than likely, that would change.
The energy sector operates on an all-Ireland basis. There is effectively a common energy market which could be affected.
Could there be implications for the peace process in the North? Yes, there could. These are all factors that we have to take into account.
The decision to be made by the people in Britain is monumental. Some 600,000 people who were born in Ireland live in Britain. There are 2 million to 3 million second and third generation Irish. One of my complaints is that in debates people are made to take polarised sides and there is no common sense. The normal rules by which people debate almost seem to go out the window. This morning I heard a man from Britain being interviewed. He stated he did not know how he would vote as he could not get a clear pattern of the implications. After the Second World War Winston Churchill called for a united states of Europe. A couple of decades later we have many Conservatives - Mr. Churchill was once of a different party, the Liberal Party - looking to leave the European Union. They are doing the people of Britain an injustice because I cannot see how they would benefit. They would not benefit economically or socially or from the European movement. I am concerned that people will vote based on emotions and how they feel about what is happening in Europe. They might believe certain factors are not working in their interests and rather than voting on the issue-----
Acting Chairman (Senator Catherine Noone): May I have silence for the speaker, please? It is very noisy in the Chamber.
Senator David Norris: I cannot hear a thing.
Senator Kieran O'Donnell: People will play the man rather than the ball when voting on this issue. I cannot see how it would benefit Northern Ireland if the United Kingdom was to leave the European Union and hope common sense will prevail. Jo Cox's husband, Brendan, asked the British people to vote to remain. I hope that in her memory and the interests of Britain, their families and the Irish in Britain, as well as the European Union, they will vote to remain. Are there elements of the European Union that do not work? The answer is probably "Yes". Is the European Union in need of reform? The answer is yes, absolutely, but one does not throw out the baby with the bath water. I hope, therefore, that the people of Britain will vote to remain.
Senator Michael McDowell: I welcome the Minister and thank him for participating in our proceedings.
The Lisbon treaty inserted an article in the treaties which govern the European Union giving each member state the right, in accordance with its constitutional arrangements, to withdraw from the Union. It provided for a two-year negotiated exit mechanism and if there was to be an extension of that two year period, it would have to be done with the unanimous agreement of all member states. I will come back to this point.
What is in the interests of the United Kingdom is a matter for the people of the United Kingdom and they will not listen to what is being said here and change their views based on what we say. We must be very clear that if there is a Brexit, Ireland will lose us its strongest possible ally at the European Council table. I know that the Minister will agree with me because I speak from experience in this respect. The United Kingdom and Ireland are close allies on a great many European issues and we cannot afford to be left alone in dealing with them without a strong ally.
People have spoken about Ireland's economic interests. No matter how closely the post-Brexit arrangements would approximate to the Norwegian and Swiss arrangements, there would be economic barriers between this state and the United Kingdom which would cost jobs and raise costs for Irish industry.
Ireland's interests are also at stake in the case of Northern Ireland. Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement would be seriously undermined if the land boundary from Derry to Newry was to become a tectonic plate similar to the San Andreas fault and a demarcation line between two states moving in different directions, with one harnessed to the European project and the other moving in a different direction.
An issue the President of the European Council, Mr. Donald Tusk, recently mentioned was that the peoples of Europe had been left behind by federalist rhetoric at the centre of Europe. People such as Jean-Claude Juncker, Guy Verhofstadt and Daniel Cohn-Bendit have articulated a model of the European Union, a strongly integrated federal superstate, which leaves most people cold. It is not just in the United Kingdom that there is a difficulty in this respect. There is also a difficulty in this country. The Irish Times, a strongly pro-European Union newspaper, conducted an Ipsos MRBI poll to see where Irish people stood on the issues that had arisen in Mr. David Cameron's negotiations with his European partners. By a margin of 2:1 or 3:1 further integration along federalist lines was opposed by the Irish people. On other issues they are not aligning themselves with the federalist model being articulated on our behalf by some who are enthusiasts for the project.
The debate in this country is very stilted. It is between those who are negative and anti-European Union, on the one hand, and wild enthusiasts, on the other. The great majority of Irish people belong in neither camp and find themselves without a champion and anyone to speak up for their view that the European Union should not be a federal superstate but a partnership between sovereign states, sharing sovereignty, where necessary, and retaining it, where appropriate. This is the vision of the European Union most people have, not just in Ireland but throughout Europe. As has been said, the constitutional treaty was rejected in all countries where an attempt was made to put it to the people. The Lisbon treaty was a half-hearted attempt to achieve many of the same results.
The international trade agreement, the TTIP, has been mentioned. Recently, I received a circular stating I could go to a room somewhere - I believe in this building - and, provided I put away my camera and telephone and entered into a pledge of secrecy, I could examine the current state of the negotiations. We all very courteously received this invitation. It underlines the fact that if there is a democratic deficit in the European Union, it is strange that elected representatives - Deputies, Senators and parliamentarians throughout Europe - are not entitled to see the negotiating documents on which our economic future is being decided. This is the attitude that must change. If, as I earnestly hope and strongly believe, a Brexit will be rejected in the referendum tomorrow, we, in this country, must articulate a different view of the European Union, stand up for our vision and against the values which are alienating the peoples of Europe from the European project.
Acting Chairman (Senator Catherine Noone): To include Senator Gerard P. Craughwell, I ask Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh to share time.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Ba mhaith liom freisin a bheith luaite leis na smaointe ó thaobh an fheisire Jo Cox, a clann, a muintir agus a comrádaithe faoin uafás a tharla ansin. If fate had treated me to a different hand, I would have the opportunity to vote in the referendum tomorrow, as somebody born to Irish parents and brought up in England.
It is important to note that the Irish diaspora in Britain is vast. There are different estimates, but the figure is between 500,000 and 600,000. Up to 24% of the population of Britain claim Irish ancestry. I welcome all attempts by the Irish in Britain and those made by the Taoiseach and Ministers to engage with them to try to ensure a positive vote in favour of the "Remain" side. If there is a Brexit, I hope the Government will show the same zeal, if necessary, in seeking a Border poll on a united Ireland. It may be necessary to do this post-Brexit, if Britain decides to leave the European Union. We will push the Government on that issue on a different day.
Many arguments have been made, but I have no doubt that a Brexit would leave the agrifood sector, North and South, in a difficult position in terms of access to export markets. Farmers in the North receive €326 million annually in support. This money is particularly important to the agriculture industry. Farmers in the North have also secured £186.5 million in EU funding under the new rural development programme, money which would be sorely missed.
If the United Kingdom votes to leave the European Union, it will inevitably lead to customs and immigration checkpoints being re-established on the Border, which would be a significant setback for the political process in the North. In all likelihood, it would also undermine the protection of human rights and workers' rights. It would be a significant move away from building an all-Ireland economy, creating an all-Ireland tourism destination, an improved all-Ireland transport structure and having an all-Ireland approach to agriculture and food production.
Sinn Féin is an all-Ireland party committed to Irish unity. We have no wish to see only part of the island of Ireland being in the European Union. Sinn Féin is the only party which has MEPs elected in each of the four European constituencies in Ireland. We speak with one voice - an all-Ireland voice - and perspective within the European Union. Sinn Féin is critical of many aspects of the Union, in particular, the democratic deficit at its core. However, the possibility that a part of the island of Ireland could end up outside the European Union is not one that would benefit the people. Those who live on either side of the Border cross it to work, shop and visit relatives, often on a daily basis. Brexit threatens that free movement.
It is important to note that the British Government led by Mr. Cameron plans to repeal the UK Human Rights Act. A pro-Brexit vote will encourage this proposal and put at risk crucial human rights legislation underpinning the Good Friday Agreement. We want to remove the power of the British Government to impose its policies in any part of Ireland and believe a Brexit would increase that power. We want to bring partition to an end, but a Brexit would increase the power to entrench it. It would hamper trade and investment across Ireland. Successive British Governments have set aside all human rights norms in the North. That is why the European Convention on Human Rights is a central tenet of the Good Friday Agreement. In the event of a Brexit, the British Government could repeal the Human Rights Act and walk away from the European Convention on Human Rights.
The fact that EU funding is available to address decades of under-investment by successive British Governments in the North is a crucial consideration. History demonstrates that EU funding lost to the North will not be replaced by the government in London. Recent estimates put the cost of a Brexit to the Northern economy at €1 billion per annum and to the Southern economy at €3 billion per annum. The agriculture sector in the North stands to lose €326 million in direct agricultural support payments. These are some of the arguments we make.
I will give way to my colleague, Senator Gerard P. Craughwell. Ba mhaith liom go mbeadh muintir na hÉireann sa Bhreatain ag tacú leis an bhfeachtas chun fanacht.
Acting Chairman (Senator Catherine Noone): The best I can do for Senator Gerard P. Craughwell is less than two minutes.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I will not speak about the grand United Kingdom, nor will I try to influence anyone living in the United Kingdom, as I do not think people living there are watching the Oireachtas television channel today. What concerns me is the loss of corporate knowledge of the management of the Border in the event of a Brexit. We once had the military patrolling the Border. There were Customs service officials and Garda stations along the Border. At a conference I attended recently in Dundalk these were the issues that were alluded to. In the unlikely event of a Brexit, will the Minister advise us whether there have been reconnaissance patrols with a view to ensuring we will be able to secure the Border correctly? We know what has been happening in the case of diesel, cattle, cigarettes and so on. If there is a Brexit, we will have a serious problem on our hands. By the way, I should have said at the start of my contribution-----
Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: They might get me also.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: The Senator is welcome to the House. They might stop him and he might have to bring his passport with him.
Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: I have an Irish passport.
Senator Gerard P. Craughwell: I am delighted that the Minister has been reappointed to his position.
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Deputy Charles Flanagan): I acknowledge the importance of this debate and the informed contributions Seanadóirí have made. On the occasion of my first visit to the new Seanad I am struck by the number of Senators present for the debate which underlines its importance. I avail of the opportunity to wish all Members, including the new Senators, a fulfilling time, personally and professionally, although, looking at some of the faces, it may be more appropriate for me to wish them a short tenure, as I know many of them would wish to avail of the opportunity to travel across the building to the Lower House.
In closing the debate I wish to address briefly the core elements of what might take place after the referendum once the result is known later this week. If there is the preferred outcome, a vote in favour of the United Kingdom remaining firmly and positively as a member of the European Union, the next steps will be somewhat straightforward. The settlement concluded in February by the EU Heads of State and Government will take effect immediately. The agreed measures on economic governance, competitiveness, sovereignty and freedom of movement would be effective straightaway. In parallel, work would progress in amending or complementing existing EU regulations to implement the measures agreed to in the case of social benefits and addressing the abuse of the concept of free movement.
I have been struck by the number of Members who have called for a reformed European Union to take a more socially sensitive path. On behalf of the Government, I not only note the point but say it is something I will take in hand.
We need to consider plans in the event that there is a vote to leave by the people of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, as well as those British citizens residing in this country. Should there be a desire on their part to leave the European Union, the next steps obviously are more uncertain and less clear. Procedurally, the expectation is that withdrawal negotiations would take place in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union following the submission of a formal notification to the European Union by the United Kingdom of its intention to leave. This point was referred to by Senator Michael McDowell.
Negotiations on the future UK-EU relationship would also be required. These negotiations would probably take place in parallel with the negotiations on withdrawal. The two sets of negotiations would be expected to last for a period of two years. However, as Senator Michael McDowell said, we might well be dealing with a far longer timeframe. In this regard, it is important that we emphasise that the United Kingdom will not leave the European Union immediately if on Thursday it votes to leave. It will continue to remain a member state throughout the negotiating period. The least that can be said at this point is that it would be a lengthy and complex process. EU leaders, including the Taoiseach, would be in a position to discuss the outcome together almost immediately when they meet next week at the European Council.
One thing is certain: regardless of the outcome of the referendum, Ireland's position on EU membership is unwavering. As part of a competitive and diversified global economy, we will continue to remain a committed member of the European Union and a full member of the eurozone. Ireland will have a clear plan in place to deal with the implications in the event that there is a vote to leave. A framework has been developed on a whole-of-government basis across a range of Departments to identify contingency plans in the days, weeks and months ahead. As I stated, the key priority for the Government at all times is to protect and promote Ireland's key interests. On Friday I hope we will continue our journey together in a renewed union of 28 member states which will work together in facing the many challenges that face citizens, not only in Ireland but throughout the other 27 member states. In spite of some misgivings, everyone has stated it is his or her wish that the United Kingdom will vote to remain. In that regard, I remind Senators that they have the opportunity in the next 24 or 48 hours to phone someone on the register, a friend, a relative or an associate, in the United Kingdom. They might like to take the opportunity to do so to impress on them the need to bear in mind the importance of British-Irish relations in the context of the very important vote to take place in the United Kingdom on Thursday.
 4 o’clock
Waste Management (Collection Permit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016: Motion
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: I move: That Seanad Éireann resolves that Statutory Instrument No. 24 of 2016 – Waste Management (Collection Permit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016 – be annulled.
Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit, an Teachta Seán Kyne. Silim gurb é seo an chéad uair dúinn labhairt le chéile sa Teach seo. Ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis tar éis dó bheith ceaptha mar Aire Stáit na Gaeltachta. Is dócha go bhfuil sé ag déileáil le cúrsaí dramhaíola chomh maith céanna sa díospóireacht áirithe seo. Tá mé cinnte ón aithne atá agam air go ndéanfaidh sé a mhíle dícheall ó thaobh cúrsaí Gaeilge agus Gaeltachta agus tá mé ag súil go mbeidh cuid mhaith díospóireachta againn anseo ar na hábhair sin.
Mar is eol don Aire Stáit, is dócha gur tháinig an cheist seo chun solais i gceantair an iarthair - i gceantar na Gaillimhe, ach go háirithe - i bhfianaise an obair taighde an-mhaith a rinne Raidió na Gaeltachta maidir le cúrsaí dramhaíola. Tá a fhios againn gur thug an t-iar Aire, an Teachta Alan Kelly, isteach an ionstraim reachtúil seo nuair a bhí sé i mbun Aireachta chun athrú a dhéanamh ar an gcóras a bhaineann leis na ceadanna a fhaigheann na comhlachtaí bailithe bruscair ó thaobh bruscar a bhailiú. Is dócha gur tháinig sé seo isteach faoin radar nuair a raibh an oiread sin cainte ann faoi cé mbeadh nó nach mbeadh i Rialtas. Bhí daoine ag iarraidh an mbeadh Micheál nó aon duine eile ann, nó pé rud é. Murach gur thosaigh dreamanna cosúil le "Inis Aniar" ar Raidió na Gaeltachta ag déanamh fiosruithe faoi seo, agus gur thosaigh daoine sa phobal ag ardú ceisteanna, ní bheadh sé tagtha chun solais chomh mór go raibh an rud seo le bheith chomh éagórach.
Tá riar mhaith comhlachtaí príobháideacha ar fud na tíre ag plé le cúrsaí dramhaíola i bhfianaise socruithe a rinneadh roimhe seo príobháidiú a dhéanamh ar an gcóras agus an fheidhm sin a bhaint de na húdaráis áitiúla, rud nach mbeimid ar a son go huile is go hiomlán. Bhí sé beartaithe sa scéal seo go dtosófaí ag athrú an chórais. Is dócha gurb é an rud is fearr le déanamh ná sampla Chonamara a thabhairt. Bhí sé i gceist táille seasta a thabhairt isteach ag an dream a bhí ag fáil réidh leis an dramhaíl i gConamara. Tuigtear go raibh sé sin le bheith suas le €224 in áiteanna áirithe sula raibh bosca bruscair ar bith pioctha suas. Bhí éagóir breise ansin ó thaobh cúrsaí dramhaíola chomh maith - sé sin go mbeidís siúd atá ina gcónaí níos faide ón baile mór ag íoc níos mó mar tháille seasta. Léiríonn an phointe sin go raibh na táillí a bhí an chomhlacht áirithe seo ag iarraidh a bhaint de mhuintir Chonamara éagórach amach is amach. Ar an taobh eile, fuaireamar amach go bhfuil an chomhlacht céanna atá ag feidhmiú ar an taobh sin tíre ag cur seirbhís ar fáil i gContae Liatroma. Bhí muintir Liatroma ag fáil margadh i bhfad níos fearr agus fair play dóibh. Bhí táille seasta de €80 á bhaint de mhuintir Liatroma ar an tseirbhís ceannann céanna sular ardaíodh aon araid bhruscair. Tá sé an-deacair oibriú amach cén chaoi a bhféadfadh comhlacht an méid sin a bhaint amach i gContae Liatroma agus i bhfad níos mó - beagnach trí oiread an méid céanna - a bhaint amach i gConamara.
Senator David Norris: I am sorry to interrupt the Senator, but there does not seem to be a translation service. My Irish is reasonable, but I am having a little difficulty in following the Senator. We should have the facility of a translation service.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Has the Senator turned on the headset? A service should be available.
Senator David Norris: I found one and switched it on, but it made damn all difference.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I understand there is a volume control on the headset.
Senator David Norris: I switched it right up to the top.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I understand the system is working, but I will certainly look into the matter for the Senator.
Senator David Norris: Hold on one minute. I beg the indulgence of the Chair to take one minute of Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh's time. I switched the volume control right up and right down. I also tried to use a different unit.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We will follow up the matter for the Senator. I invite Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh to continue. I am sorry about this.
Senator David Norris: I apologise to the Senator.
Senator Denis Landy: On a point of order, there are no headsets along this row. We cannot put on something that we do not have.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Can the Senator find them in another row?
Senator Denis Landy: There are no headsets in the other row either, but I see one that I might be able to use.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: It would be helpful if the Senator could find a headset somewhere else. We will have to look into the matter. I again apologise to Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh who has been interrupted twice.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Tuigim an phointe atá déanta ag na Seanadóirí ó thaobh leagan Béarla a fháil. Ní dóigh liom go mbeadh sé ceart ná cóir dá mbéinn ag iompú ar an mBéarla agus Aire Stáit na Gaeltachta os mo chomhair, go háirithe nuair atá aistriúcháin ar fáil sa Teach.
Bhí mé ag déanamh comparáide idir chás Chonamara agus cás Contae Liatroma. Is é sin rud amháin a bhí i gceist. Chomh maith leis sin, bhí na táillí a bhí á mbaint amach ó thaobh an bosca bruscar glas, an bosca bruscar gorm agus an bosca bruscar dubh thar a bheith doiléir. Bhí sé deacair ar dhaoine éagsúla dul i dteagmháil leis na comhlachtaí. Ní raibh an córas áirithe a bhí i gceist i gConamara soiléir ó thaobh daoine a bhí úsáid málaí bruscair. Is é sin an sampla is mó a bhfuil eolas agam faoi. Tá daoine ann nach bailíonn mórán dramhaíola. Bhíodar ag úsáid córas málaí bruscair. Cheannódh siad málaí sa siopa áitiúil ar luach an mhála de réir mar a bhí málaí ag teastáil uathu. Ní raibh a leithéid d'fhéidearthacht le bheith ann faoin leagan amach nua a bhí le teacht i bhfeidhm - bhí ar dhaoine málaí a cheannach díreach ón gcomhlacht agus riar mhaith málaí a cheannach le chéile ag an am céanna. Cinéal bulk buying ón gcomhlacht a bhí i gceist, rud a chosnódh i bhfad níos mó airgid oraibh. Bhí ceisteanna eile ag daoine chomh maith maidir leis an bunachar sonraí agus an t-eolas a bhí na comhlachtaí éagsúla ag iarraidh a bhaint de dhaoine. Cá raibh an t-eolas agus na sonraí pearsanta a bhí á lorg an an gcomhlacht príobháideach seo, nuair a bhí daoine ag clárú, ag dul? Cén cumhacht a bhí acu an t-eolas sin a roinnt agus mar sin de? Nílim ag rá go raibh tada as bealach á dhéanamh acu, ach ní raibh sé soiléir céard a bheadh ag tarlú sa chomhthéacs áirithe sin.
Ar ndóigh, tá sé ráite ag riar mhaith daoine trasna an Tí agus sna meáin go raibh an córas a bhí le cur i bhfeidhm éagórach go huile is go hiomlán ar theaghlaigh, go háirithe teaghlaigh ina bhfuil páistí óga, a bhíonn ag úsáid clúidíní agus mar sin de, iontu. Bheadh níos mó costais orthu ós rud é go mbeadh an t-ábhar a bheidís ag cur sna málaí bruscair níos troime. Tá sé an-deacair feiceáil cén buntáiste a bheadh i gceist faoin scéim seo le athchúrsáil nó athúsáid a dhéanamh, nó do chuid bhruscair a laghdú ar an gcéad dul síos. Dá bhrí sin, bhí sé deacair dúinn i Sinn Féin feiceáil cén buntáiste ar chor ar bith a bhí ag baint leis an gcóras nua seo agus cén chaoi a raibh an tAire sásta cead a thabhairt do na comhlachtaí príobháideacha an rud seo a chur i bhfeighil. Thugamar faoi deara go raibh an ionstraim reachtúil áirithe seo i gceist agus go raibh sé de cheart ag an Seanad í a tharraingt siar taobh istigh de mhéid áirithe laethanta ina mbeimid inár suí. Táimid ag iarraidh go dtarraingeofaí siar an ionstraim reachtúil seo. Nuair a bhí a leithéid á phlé againn ar an Déardaoin seo caite, ba léir go raibh daoine ó pháirtithe éagsúla ag tacú leis na moltaí a bhí á gcur chun cinn againn agus go raibh an imní céanna orthu faoin mhéid a bhí beartaithe. Dar leis na meáin, ní raibh sé i gceist ag an Aire bualadh leis na comhlachtaí dramhaíola go dtí am éigin an tseachtain seo, ach chomh luath agus a chuala sé go raibh an rún seo curtha chun cinn againn, bhí cruinniú aige leis na comhlachtaí. Tháinig siad ar mholtaí thar an deireadh seachtaine agus is cosúil go bhfuil na comhlachtaí dramhaíola ag brú na moltaí seo chun cinn.
Ní fheiceann muide i Sinn Féin cén fáth gurb iad na comhlachtaí dramhaíola atá ag casadh an phoirt agus gurb é an tAire atá ag damhsa de réir an phoirt sin. Tá an tAire i gceannas. Is léir go bhfuil an córas a bhí molta ina phraiseach agus nach bhfuil leath dóthain machnamh déanta faoi.
Is léir go dtéann sé siar freisin go dtí aimsir an iar-Aire, Phil Hogan. De réir na tuairiscí a chuala mé ar chláracha raidió, bhí plé idir Phil Hogan agus na comhlachtaí dramhaíola tamaillín siar maidir leis an gcineál córais a bheadh i bhfeidhm - sé sin, an mbeadh iomaíocht taobh istigh den mhargadh i gceist nó an mbeadh iomaíocht le haghaidh tairiscintí, ina mbeadh comhlacht amháin buacach agus ina dhiaidh sin ag feidhmiú mar sórt soláthróir sna ceantracha éagsúla, i gceist. Is léir ní hamháin go raibh lámh Phil Hogan sa rud seo ar fad, ach freisin go raibh an Teachta Kelly sásta an rud a chur i bhfeidhm le linn a thréimhse mar Aire.
Ag an bpointe seo, táimid ag iarraidh go dtarraingeofaí siar an ionstraim reachtúil seo. Sílim gurb é sin an rud ceart le déanamh. Ní ghlacann muid le an méid atá á rá go poiblí ag an Aire, ná ag Fianna Fáil ach go háirithe, maidir leis na moltaí atá á gcur chun cinn ó thaobh na ceiste seo. Níl i gceist i bplean an Rialtais ach an scéal seo a bhrú ar aghaidh agus an chaora a chur thar abhainn. Tá siad ag iarraidh an fhadhb a fhágáil ag duine éigin eile. Tá an Rialtas ag tabhairt cineál "hospital pass" don Aire, an Teachta Naughten, ó thaobh cúrsaí dramhaíola. Tá siad ag loic ar an dualgas atá orthu déileáil leis an bhfadhb seo agus ag tabhairt mí-ádh dóibh siúd a gcaithfidh déileáil leis bliain síos an bóthar. Táimid ag rá nár chóir é a bhrú síos an bóthar ar an mbonn go bhfuil deis againn anois an ionstraim reachtúil seo a tharraingt siar taobh istigh de mhéid áirithe de laethanta. Má rachfaimid chun tosaigh leis an bplean atá curtha chun cinn, ní bheidh an chumhacht sin ag an Seanad. Is é sin an fáth go bhfuil sé tábhachtach go ndéanfaí é seo anois.
D'ardaigh mé an cheist seo Dé Céadaoin seo caite, agus bhí mé an-sásta an lá dár gcionn nuair a d'aontaigh ceannaire Fhianna Fáil sa Teach seo, an Seanadóir Ardagh, go bunúsach leis an méid a bhí le rá agam. Bhí mhaith liom an méid a dúirt sí ar an Déardaoin a mheabhrú do dhaoine: The policy change agreed by the former Minister, Deputy Kelly, to pay by weight could result in charges increasing from €200 to €400 per year. This is unrealistic and completely unfair.
Dúirt sí níos déanaí: People are being faced with a double whammy of standard fees being increased under the pay-by-weight system, which will add extra costs.
Dúirt sí beagáinín eile ina dhiaidh sin: The Government must listen to the concerns and must not keep ignoring the problem in the hope it will go away, as it will not. I call on the Minister, Deputy Coveney, to come to the House to explain what actions he intends to take to address this problem and to address the exorbitant bin charges that are being sold to Members as climate change measures. Personally, I do not buy that.
Ba léir dom ar an maidin sin go raibh Fianna Fáil ar bord leis na moltaí a bhí á ndéanamh againn agus gur aontaigh siad le mórán de na rudaí a bhí á rá againn. Bhéinn ag súil inniu go mbeidh Fianna Fáil sásta tacaíocht a thabhairt don mholadh atá againn an ionstraim reachtúil seo a tharraingt siar.
Tá sé seo fíorthábhachtach ar fad ó thaobh pobal na hÉireann. Nuair a théann an tAire Stáit siar go Chonamara, tuigfidh sé go maith go bhfuil daoine ar buile faoin gcostas atá ag baint leis na táillí seo agus na costais eile atá ag titim orthu. Is é sin bun agus barr an scéal seo. Tá daoine bánaithe le roinnt bliana anuas de bharr na beartais déine atá tugtha isteach ag na Rialtais roimhe seo. Tá an Rialtas seo ag leanacht leis sin. Tá daoine ag rá liom go bhfuil sé deacair orthu an muirear teaghlaigh a íoc. Tá costais brúite orthu ó thaobh cúrsaí uisce. Tá an méid airgid ina gcuid pócaí laghdaithe go mór. Tá cuid mhaith daoine a bhí ag obair dífhostaithe nó ar uaireanta laghdaithe anois, agus ag brath ar íocaíochtaí leasa shóisialaigh. Creideann siad nach bhfuil anseo ach cáin bhreise - cáin bhruscair - atá curtha anuas orthu ag an Rialtas. Is féidir a rá nach bhfuil an Rialtas ag baint amach an cáin seo go díreach, ach ní mór a rá go bhfuil an Rialtas ag tabhairt deiseanna d'áisíneachtaí príobháideacha a lámha a chur i bpócaí an phobail agus airgead a tharraingt amach astu. Nil sé sin ceart ná cóir. Tá ceist eile faoi seo. Cá bhfuil an t-airgead breise-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator's time is nearly up, but I will give him a little extra.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Leas-Chathaoirligh. Tógfaidh sé nóiméad amháin an phointe seo a dhéanamh. Cá bhfuil an t-airgead ar fad ag dul? Má tá an chomhlacht atá i gConamara anois chun a chuid táillí a chur suas thart ar 200%, cá rachfaidh an t-airgead breise sin? An bhfuil aon chuid de ag teacht ar ais chuig an Státchóras? Cá bhfuil sé i gceist go rachfaidh an t-airgead sin?
Ba mhaith liom a rá mar fhocal scoir go bhfuil mé an-sásta go bhfuil an deis seo faighte againn díriú ar an gceist áirithe seo. Is í seo an chéad uair go bhfuil Gnó Comhaltaí Príobháideacha curtha chun cinn ag Sinn Féin sa Seanad. Is féidir linn beart a dhéanamh de réir briathar anocht. Is féidir linn deireadh a chur leis an gcostas seo anocht. Táimid ag impí ar Fhianna Fáil seasamh leis an bpobal agus le Sinn Féin agus an táille seo a stopadh. Tá súil agam go dtiocfaidh Fine Gael agus na Neamhspleáigh ar bord linn chomh maith céanna. Fágfaidh mé an t-urlár anois ag mo chomhghleacaí, an Seanadóir Mac Lochlainn, atá ag cuidiú liom.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Go raibh maith agat, a Sheanadóir. I ask Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn to second the motion.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I second the motion. In the past few weeks there has been public discourse after it emerged that many of the waste collection companies would double or treble the cost of waste disposal services. That did not come from nowhere; it did not come from left field. Let us remember that the legislation was deferred for an entire year. I would have thought, therefore, that the then Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, over the heads of his senior departmental officials, would have brought in representatives of the waste management companies and local authorities and said the following to them: This is what we intend to do and these are the objectives. We are doing really well in the case of dry recyclables. We are doing well in recycling plastic, paper and cardboard. We are doing a really good job because years ago the necessary infrastructure was put in place, but we are not doing well in the case of organic waste. We are also not doing well in recycling food waste, garden cuttings and clippings and need to do a lot better. We need you to roll out a three bin system. In Dublin, for a certain type of recycling service, the bins are green, but in Donegal they are blue. The brown bins take organic waste; the black bins take whatever is left and their contents must go to landfill.
It has been a legal requirement for over one year, where one lives in a town with a population of over 1,500, to ensure one's waste is separated. One must ensure organic waste is put in a brown bin, that dry recyclables are put in a blue or a green bin and that the rest of the waste is put in a black bin. Tens of thousands of families have yet to see a brown bin. They cannot, therefore, comply with the law, even if they wanted to and most of them want to do so. In a week's time people who live in a town with a population of over 500 must comply with the legislation. Can one imagine the number of towns that will now join the list? Can one imagine the tens of thousands of households who are supposed to comply with the legislation but cannot do so?
Today the bin provider in my part of County Donegal received an inquiry. A member of staff said that not only could they not give a date when brown bins would be delivered but that they would not do so as the company did not have the capacity to do so. The infrastructure is not in place in the county to make such provision. In one week the new legislation will come into force, but not a single brown bin has been delivered in County Donegal. The council was then contacted and a member of its staff said: "We have people on leave, out sick, etc. and cannot oversee it." That shows that there is no oversight and regulation of waste companies in the State.
Many good citizens may be listening to this debate, or perhaps they have better things to do, but those listening may think to themselves: "I recycle plastic, paper and cardboard, so I am a good citizen." Despite this, significant amounts of recyclables are incinerated in waste energy plants instead of being recycled. There are big questions marks in that regard.
What is the level of oversight? If a local authority does not have oversight of waste management companies and they have no inclination to implement the law the Government is insisting on bringing forward, the entire initiative is a farce. That is why Sinn Féin has tabled the motion to have the statutory instrument annulled. We want the secondary legislation to give effect to the changes to be annulled and withdrawn and to go back to the drawing board. In so doing one would avoid the last minute panic in bringing in representatives of the waste management companies to ask them to freeze the charges for one year. I do not want the Minister to paper over the cracks.
The Minister must negotiate properly, which will mean speaking to departmental officials, managers of county councils and directors of services in local authorities. He must also tell the waste companies what they must do. If this is done properly, it will have the potential to increase recycling rates, which currently stand at between 40% and 50%. We can do better than that by minimising the amount of waste going to landfill and being incinerated. Those who came before us set this process in motion. They pursued laudable objectives but were failed by a lethargic Department and Ministers.
One would have expected the Fianna Fáil Party to embrace the motion on the basis that it was common sense and to have called on the Government to go back to the drawing board. I have read the Fianna Fáil amendment on the Order Paper and agree with most of it. However, the party has decided that the new politics in the Houses will be that its motions will be passed with the collusion of the Government and that the Government's agenda will be passed with the collusion of Fianna Fáil. God forbid that a Bill or a motion is tabled by any other part of the Opposition because Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael will vote it down. What we have is new politics for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael and the same old politics for Sinn Féin and everybody else.
Senator Paudie Coffey: Sinn Féin is engaging in opposition for the sake of it.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Fianna Fáil councillors across the State are wringing their hands and telling people that while this is terrible, there is nothing they can do about this awful and unfair mess. However, when a motion is tabled and the Seanad is in a position to exercise one of the few powers that would make it relevant, capture the imagination of citizens and act in their interests, it transpires that we will not be able to get it over the line because Fianna Fáil has done another deal with Fine Gael. If, as expected, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael unite again to vote down a sensible Opposition proposal that would have us go back to the drawing board for the reasons I have outlined, the Minister will have to tell householders in County Donegal and elsewhere who live in urban conglomerations with a population exceeding 500 what they should do with their organic waste. How will he ensure they will have the brown bins they need to separate their waste? Will he ensure they will not be punished under the legislation introduced by his Department which provides that inspectors may inspect bins to ensure waste has been separated and may issue fines to householders who do not comply with the law? Will he amend these elements of the relevant statutory instrument?
Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government (Deputy Simon Coveney): It has not yet taken effect.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: It is a complete mess. Why do households in some parts of the State pay between €5 and €7 to have a bin of recycled waste collected, while in others collection of the green bin is free of charge? Why are recyclable products being incinerated when people believe they are being recycled? The Minister knows tjat he should have withdrawn the statutory instrument. We have another case of last minute panic as he seeks to sort out the issue. If the motion is voted down, the Minister had better tell the tens of thousands of families who do not have a brown bin and do not have equality of access to recycling infrastructure how he proposes to solve the problem. If this "Fianna Gael" Government is to do another deal as part of its new politics, the Minister must address this issue and reassure the people who are following this debate.
Senator Paudie Coffey: I welcome the Minister. I know that he has been closely engaged with this issue since long before the recent events highlighted by the Opposition and others.
We need to examine how we behave and manage waste. The starting point was our unsustainable dependence on landfill sites. This has left many local authorities with major legacy issues, with which many Senators will be familiar. We are still paying the price for unsustainable practices in waste management. As a result of the various initiatives, including the green schools programme, we need only ask children what the solution to the waste problem is. "Reduce, reuse, recycle and compost" is how we will divert waste from landfill sites. However, we must also have in place a formal system that will allow us to manage waste in a responsible manner. We cannot afford to continue our dependence on landfill sites because it is unsustainable, costly and bad for the environment.
Waste collection systems have been introduced nationwide. As a former member of a local authority for eight years, I recall when change was first proposed in waste management. When we introduced recycling and charges, Sinn Féin engaged in populist opposition to the changes proposed. We are elected to be responsible. We cannot be populist all the time and while people have legitimate concerns about waste charges, Sinn Féin is not offering solutions. It engages in rhetoric that appeals to emotions and exploits distress without offering solutions. Over time, people will see through this.
I support the Minister in his endeavours, especially his efforts in recent days to engage with stakeholders and the waste management industry. As we know, this is not about increasing charges but about changing the behaviour of householders in how they manage their waste by encouraging and incentivising a reduction in waste going to landfill. Ultimately, this will be good for all of us, including future generations.
I remember trying to adopt waste management plans and introducing the first recycling bags in County Waterford, which I represented on the council. We introduced what I considered to be a fairly small charge. Even then, we faced major opposition from Sinn Féin because there was resistance to change. In the interim, it has been demonstrated that recycling, for which we charged initially, has been extremely successful.
Senator Máire Devine: It was privatisation.
Senator Paudie Coffey: I do not hear Sinn Féin acknowledging the significant progress made by local authorities in diverting waste from landfill sites. This success and progress should be acknowledged. Instead, the party acts opportunistically by jumping on people's fears and concerns and hyping up the issue to change it into something else. I am entitled to hold that opinion.
Statistics show that in 2011, when the most recent survey was carried out, 46% of households were paying a flat fee, 34% were paying for either a tag or on a per-lift basis and 20% were using the pay-by-weight charging system. Studies have shown that the introduction of a pay-by-weight system would mean the diversion of more than 450,000 tonnes of waste from landfill sites every year. That is the nub of the issue. The Minister's engagement with the waste companies and commitment to introduce a dual pricing policy will help to communicate and raise awareness of how to change behaviour to divert waste from landfill sites. If we are all being honest, we must ask whether we compost waste at home and engage in all of the actions we advocate in the Oireachtas. The home is where waste management starts, which leads me back to schoolchildren and how they could teach us all a lesson or two on sustainability, waste management and caring for the environment.
Hysteria is being stoked about something that is not an issue. A regulation is being introduced in accordance with the polluter-pays principle, with which, as has been shown by the support for the waste collection systems introduced ten or 15 years ago in the face of significant opposition from Sinn Féin, most people agree. The diversion of waste from landfill sites works. I urge politicians to behave responsibly and lead the way, as children are doing in schools, on sustainability and waste management.
As I stated, the fundamental issue is the polluter-pays principle which incentivises and encourages people to reduce the waste being placed in bins and transported to landfill sites. The pay-by-weight system is a means of achieving this and gives people more control over their waste collection costs. Those who try to manage their waste in a positive and progressive manner will find their charges will fall because they will send less waste to landfill sites. This will, in turn, reduce the costs to the State arising from landfill site management and remediation costs. We are building up a legacy for the future. Perhaps the Minister might clarify how many millions have been spent in the past ten or 20 years in remediating landfill sites. A number of such sites have been remediated in my local area at substantial cost. While some have been turned into beautiful amenities, all of this has come at a cost to the Exchequer and taxpayers. If we do not manage waste, we will ultimately pay the cost.
Ultimately, we will pay for it if we do not manage it. That is a fact. Ultimately, the taxpayer will pay the price. There are many private landfill sites around the country which must be managed and remediated. We have a long way to go in dealing with the legacy with which we were left in terms of bad practice and bad waste management for many years.
Another issue that must be reviewed is that of franchise bidding versus side-by-side kerb side collections. In the larger urban areas numerous competing bin collection companies are operating in the same areas which is causing frustration for householders. A review took place as part of the regulatory impact analysis in 2012 which recommended that we continue with the existing system. However, the next 12 months will provide an opportunity to review the system again to see if there is a more efficient and better way of doing things through franchise bidding in the market.
I reiterate that it was never the Government's intention to increase charges to householders. We all have a responsibility to be honest and open with the public. We are supposed to show the way; therefore, rather than creating hysteria, we should be communicating, as the Minister is proposing to do, what the proposed system can bring in benefits for householders if they manage their waste and reduce the amount going to landfill, thus reducing the cost. The open market can function by competing for household waste business which should also help to drive down the cost.
It is very important that we acknowledge the enormous progress made in the past ten to 15 years in recycling and the diversion of waste from landfill sites. It should be acknowledged by the Opposition that we have advanced significantly.
Senator Máire Devine: It is insulting to call people hysterical.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Order, please.
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: I welcome the Minister. Fianna Fáil supports the replacement of flat-rate bin charges with pay-by-weight bin charges for households. This will reduce the amount of residual waste going to landfill, give householders more control over their waste costs and reward those who recycle. However, we acknowledge that implementation of the new charging regime has been highly problematic owing to the opacity and lack of transparency of the new pricing models.
Fianna Fáil welcomes the price freeze for customers for the next 12 months, based on current pricing plans. During the second half of 2016 the waste industry will engage in an intensive public awareness, information and promotion campaign to promote the benefits of the pay-by-weight charging model, supporting customers in understanding how they can change their waste management behaviour to better manage their waste costs. No later than 1 January 2017, customers will receive a dual pricing plan detailing the costs under the current model and the pay-by-weight model of disposing of the waste they generate and be given the opportunity to switch to the pay-by-weight system. This is very productive and will give householders the chance to ensure they pay less for household waste disposal. Following the 12 month transition period, a review will take place which will inform decisions on arrangements from 1 July 2017, including the requirement for comprehensive billing information on the pay-by-weight system, through amendments to the relevant statutory instrument. It is intended to keep the operation of the price freeze under review, with further legislative interventions to be considered, if necessary. The waste industry has made a commitment to provide for a weight allowance for 60,000 HSE patients supplied with incontinence wear in order to reduce their waste charges and the Government has agreed to a 50% reduction in the landfill levy on waste companies for such waste.
Fianna Fáil calls on the Minister to introduce a waiver scheme for low-income households, those with special needs, larger households and those with babies who could be negatively affected by the new charging structure. This is a very important issue for Fianna Fáil and those who have attended our clinics and argued that the new system will be unfair to them. Fianna Fáil also calls for a mechanism to be put in place to ensure apartment dwellers and those who cannot store wheelie bins will be provided with a fair pricing system. We also need to examine the issue of bags because we were told that from 1 July this year bin bags would no longer be collected. The Government must introduce measures to increase the diversion of food and compostable waste from landfill sites and encourage the reuse and recycling of green waste. Such measures could include ministerial orders compelling waste collectors to provide separate compostable waste bins in areas in which householders do not currently have them and to enable householders to recycle glass in their green waste bins.
Sinn Féin never comes up with answers. Its members always say we should get rid of this or that-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Fianna Fáil is so cynical. Cynicism drips off it.
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: -----but we must move forward and give people real answers.
(Interruptions).
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: There has been a lack of information and a growing sense of fear and frustration among families about the charges, which I understand. There has been a complete failure of communication on the part of the Department and the providers on the new charging structure. The issues of information provision and regulation must be addressed. Fianna Fáil is committed to promoting awareness of the value of recycling through education and information campaigns urging householders to reduce, reuse and recycle. That should be the motto for every household because such behaviour will enable consumers to save money and reduce their bills.
The motion is about providing value for money and making sure the most vulnerable in society will not pay more but less for the disposal of their household waste. Fianna Fáil wants to ensure that by next year every family will pay less for waste collection. We must encourage everyone to reduce, reuse and recycle.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does the Minister wish to respond now?
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am happy to wait if others wish to contribute.
Senator Victor Boyhan: I wish to share my time with Senator David Norris.
Deputy Simon Coveney: On a point of information, some of what I will say in response to the debate might assuage some of the concerns expressed so far and may impact on Senators' contributions. It is up to Members to decide, but I can respond at the end of the debate or do so now.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We will finish the contributions-----
Deputy Simon Coveney: That is fine.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I ask Senator Victor Boyhan to make his contribution and will then call the Minister.
Senator Victor Boyhan: I welcome the Minister to this important debate and thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion which, to be specific, calls for the annulment of a statutory instrument. During the debate Members have wandered off to discuss other issues mentioned on the Order Paper, dealt with in previous debates and debates we may have in the coming days. As I said a number of days ago, I am absolutely in favour of waste and water charges. I was first elected to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council in 1999. Because of political posturing by all parties and none, we have never seriously tackled the issue or been advocates of the polluter pays principle, which principle is critically important. There have been many arguments for and against it, but the reality is we must pay for both waste collection and water. This debate is about waste collection.
I again thank Sinn Féin for tabling the motion.
I have been involved far too long in local government to know that every time a representative of Sinn Féin speaks, everyone else opposes him or her, but that is not democracy. We keep talking about new politics, but there is none. There is simply a new reality: people have to do business and be civil with everyone. We can dress it up as new politics and I hope there will be an opportunity to be part of it, but I am not convinced by that new buzzword or phrase.
I wish to put three points to the Minister. It is important to have a fair national pay-by-weight collection system which must be in line with the polluter pays principle. It must also be based on fairness and ability and capacity to pay. It must have regard for those who cannot pay and may need to avail of a generous waiver scheme.
I have tried to think of how I can encapsulate in one sentence what I believe people want or what the people who have contacted my office say they want. The Government's objective should be to secure a reasonable and fair free allowance per person and a fair unit price for any excess waste. I have not heard too many people talk about this.
Senator David Norris: I thank Senator Victor Boyhan for sharing part of his time with me.
I welcome the Minister and wish him well in his new job. I wish to preface my remarks by saying, as I said on the Order of Business yesterday, the biggest mistake of all was providing for privatisation which was complete and utter nonsense. The waste business should be controlled by the city authorities. There is no reason for it to be hived off to these peculiar and rather squalid operations. I remember them operating like the Mafia, in burning out the lorries of competitors and so on. It was absolutely disgraceful.
Senator Paul Gavan: They were sacking workers, too.
Senator David Norris: They were.
Senator Máire Devine: There are no unions either.
Senator David Norris: I did not understand the rationale behind privatising the service.
Let us look at the business of privatisation. Senator Victor Boyhan says he does not mind paying. I do not mind paying for things either. We pay for water through the water tax. We pay for bin collection services through the bin tax. We pay for roads through motor tax. Then we have the property tax. Hello - what is it for? If we are paying for everything else, why are we paying property tax? People's homes should be sacrosanct.
The real reason I am contributing to the debate is that I sent a letter to the Minister. I am not sure whether he has even caught sight of it. I sent it approximately one month ago and also sent a copy to Mr. Andrew Rae at the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. In the letter I raised questions about the proposed merger of Panda and Greenstar. This raises serious questions. I have ten for the Minister. Is the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission satisfied that in this matter competition rules have been appropriately enforced? Is it true that Panda required and was given detailed operational information by Greenstar? Was the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission informed of this? Has the commission audited company e-mails and records as a result? That is an important point. Certain things would be revealed if such an audit was to be carried out. I call on the Minister to indicate to the House whether such an audit has taken or will take place. If the merger goes ahead, Panda will control the Dublin waste stream at the three biggest waste transfer stations: Greenstar, Millennium Park in north Dublin; Panda, Ballymount in west Dublin; and Greenstar, Bray which covers south Dublin and Bray, County Wicklow.
Waste is an asset, a point which is not fully understood outside the industry. Having control of disposal depots for sorting, recycling and bulking up for onward disposal after recycling means all small operators have to pay the waste in-take price. The price for all waste, including domestic waste, will be set by Panda. Does this not constitute a monopoly? In addition, I understand Panda has an agreement to supply the Dublin incinerator with 400,000 tonnes of waste to meet its annual requirement to deal with 600,000 tonnes of waste. Over time this will allow Panda to set the price for incinerator operators and, therefore, the taxpayer. A Greenstar-Panda merger would mean that the firm would have a monopoly in dealing with this waste stream. Without a Greenstar-Panda merger there is open competition for waste contracts and the waste stream required to supply them. This will drive down the price to European waste disposal levels. Is this a matter of concern to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission? After the proposed merger Panda will have control over 90% of domestic waste customers in the Dún Laoghaire area. It has been told that it will have to off-load a portion of these customers. Should Greenstar not have been required to off-load customers under supervision? Were data protection regulations taken into consideration during the process?
The new charging mechanism for green bin collections has recently been signed into law, allowing for charging by weight, etc. Does the market research not show that, with the new rules, waste volumes will drop by 25% initially due to consumer over-reaction to a perceived higher charge? As consumers get used to the charges, they will readjust and volumes will recover over a short period. Waste companies will factor in the reduction in volumes to recover their losses and increase their margins, but prices will not be readjusted as volumes recover. In practice, the real cost of waste disposal to the consumer is set to increase significantly. Is it not true that in acquiring Greenstar Panda will also gain 30% of the market in Cork and 40% of the market in the south east, making it the biggest waste operator in the country with an ability to crush its competition, as many waste collectors are small and unable to sustain the challenge in dealing with a major competitor?
In assessing the size of the merged entity I understand the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission took into consideration or included the Kildare and Wicklow regions, as well as parts of counties Westmeath and Louth, that is, all of the surrounding counties. Does this not dilute the real picture, as the analysis should have been based on the Dublin boroughs?
Senator Denis Landy: On a point of order, would you agree, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, that it would be fair if the leaders of the six groups were allowed to speak before the Minister? You have allowed the speakers for four groups to contribute, but there are two more groups.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister is entitled to come in when he wishes to contribute to the debate. I am following a strict rota.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I have no issue with that suggestion.
Senator Denis Landy: I am asking the Leas-Chathaoirleach-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I cannot answer.
Senator Denis Landy: I am asking the Minister to agree. Only two speakers remain.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I have no issue with that suggestion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I am following the order. If the Minister does not wish to come in now, the next speaker will be from Fine Gael. Who is offering? Is it Senator Maria Byrne or Senator Kieran O'Donnell?
Senator Victor Boyhan: There are no takers.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Neither Senator wishes to speak. We are back to Sinn Féin. Senator Paul Gavan is to speak next.
Senator Denis Landy: On a point of order-----
Senator David Norris: The Leas-Chathaoirleach had better let the Minister in.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Prder, please. I am following the order.
Senator Denis Landy: Senator David Norris has had his say.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: No, the Senator is out of order. I am following a strict rota.
Senator Denis Landy: I am trying to ask you a question.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I do not like all of these interruptions, but the Senator should carry on.
Senator Denis Landy: I am very sorry, but I am keen to see fair play.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Yes and I am trying to ensure it.
Senator Denis Landy: Sinn Féin which has seven Members has had one speaker.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We are dealing with a Sinn Féin motion. My hands are tied.
Senator Denis Landy: I wish to see them untied.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Will the Senator, please, obey the Chair?
Senator Denis Landy: I will accept your ruling.
Senator David Norris: All the Leas-Chathaoirleach had to do was to ask the Minister.
Senator Paul Gavan: I wish to continue the point Senator David Norris was making. It is an important one, given the industry about which we are talking. It is a scandalous industry because of the privatisation which happened throughout the country with the active support of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. In fairness, that is and has always been their ideology, but it has been a disaster.
I ask the Minister to recall the dispute with Greyhound only two years ago. The strike continued for 14 weeks and workers were sacked unceremoniously, all because the company was trying to impose pay cuts. What we have seen in the waste industry since privatisation is a race to the bottom in terms and conditions to reduce costs. This has resulted in a squeezing of workers. I have heard people from Fine Gael talk about the waste industry, but I have yet to hear anyone from it ever talk about workers' rights. Is it ever going to happen? The answer is probably not because, to be fair, it is not on Fine Gael's agenda.
Senator Paudie Coffey: How dare the Senator say that? Sinn Féin does not have a monopoly when it comes to workers' rights.
Senator Paul Gavan: Not once has anyone from Fine Gael mentioned the rights of workers in the waste industry and its disgraceful standards.
Senator Paudie Coffey: I was a union representative. Does the Senator believe me when I say that?
Senator Paul Gavan: The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has called for a joint labour committee to be set up in the sector. Of course, in reality, it should be brought back into public ownership, as Senator David Norris pointed out. However, if we cannot achieve this because it is against Fine Gael's ideology, the Government should at least provide for decent standards in the industry, but, again, it is something about which we will never hear from Fine Gael. Having said that, I invite the Minister, if he so wishes, to make an announcement of providing support for the establishment of a joint labour committee, which all Members would welcome, but somehow that is unlikely to happen. It is a scandalous industry, one in which terms and conditions have been destroyed. There are appalling rates of pay and no permanency of tenure.
I will return to the key point. We had an opportunity to actually make a difference. Let us consider the phrase "new politics". There is new politics for Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael which are now joined at the hip, on which I congratulate them. However, it is old politics for the rest of us. We could, however, have made a real difference for struggling working families by annulling the statutory instrument.
We could have had legislative change to protect hard-pressed working families, but, unfortunately, our colleagues in Fianna Fáil chose not to do this. Instead, they have come up with long-winded waffle which kicks the can down the road and will enable waste companies to have a fresh cut at upping charges in 12 months time. Fianna Fáil has decided to duck legislative change and swap it instead for a wish list, of which there will be no legal enforcement. We know that the proposed hikes in charges were wrong and that this is what the bin companies planned to do. Does anyone seriously believe they will not make this move again at the first available opportunity?
Fianna Fáil, in particular, had a choice to make today. It could have stood with the people or the Government. However, it chose the latter. We are all the poorer in this Chamber for that lack of courage in facing down the Government on this issue. We had a chance to demonstrate the real relevance of this Chamber by standing together and annulling the statutory instrument. Fianna Fáil, however, would not do this. In fact, it has some cheek sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber. Two weeks into this term, we can see that it is joined at the hip to Fine Gael. It seems to have adopted the words of Madonna, “True blue, baby, I love you”.
Senator Aidan Davitt: What is the Senator's proposal?
Senator Paul Gavan: Our proposal is that the legislation be annulled.
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: What then?
Senator Paul Gavan: Did the Senators not read it? At this point, our Fianna Fáil colleagues look more blue than Boris Johnson. While it is a huge disappointment that Fianna Fáil has stood with the bin companies, it is hardly a surprise. After all, that is what right-wing parties do.
(Interruptions).
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Order, please.
Senator Paul Gavan: Fine Gael does not have the courage to stand up against the private waste companies. Neither does Fianna Fáil, as we can see today. Sinn Féin wants to have the statutory instrument annulled and then we could have a wider debate on the issue, with a public model of waste collection being introduced to deliver an effective public service to all citizens of the State. We had a chance to make a start today, but, unfortunately, beyond the hot air and rhetoric of Fianna Fáil, beyond all of the concern we heard expressed last Thursday, it has decided to side with the Government, the new allies, Fianna Gael.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Does the Minister wish to contribute at this point?
Senator Denis Landy: On a point of order-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: No, I am calling the Minister. There is no point of order.
Senator Denis Landy: I am entitled to raise a point of order. We are talking about new politics.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I do not want to hear opinions now but a point of order.
Senator Denis Landy: We have a situation where four groups have been allowed to make their contributions to the debate. However, two groups have been excluded.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister has precedence.
Senator Denis Landy: Through no fault of his own, the Minister may have to leave the Chamber, as I have seen many times before.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: He is entitled to come in when he wants to do so. The Senator is out of order. There are two speakers before him.
Senator Denis Landy: I may be out of order, but I am going to seek to have Standing Orders changed on this point.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Of course, the Senator can; that is his right. However, this is not the place to do so.
Senator Denis Landy: Thank you for allowing me in. It is much appreciated.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I have ruled on the matter.
Deputy Simon Coveney: My understanding is there are two more speakers before Senator Denis Landy.
Senator Denis Landy: My point was about the debate.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I think it might have been helpful if I had made a contribution in the middle of the debate. I am, however, staying to the end and will listen to what Members have to say. It may influence what some Members will say if they hear the Government’s perspective and build on some of the matters referred to by Senator Paudie Coffey. I also want to clarify some of the issues raised because the concerns are not valid, although they might be honestly held.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn referred to the roll-out of brown bins. The requirement to roll out brown bins to households in urban areas is dealt with under a separate regulation, not the statutory instrument Sinn Féin is seeking to annul today.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I know; it is Statutory Instrument No. 81.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The European Union (Household Food Waste and Bio-Waste) Regulations 2015 require waste collectors to provide brown bins on a phased basis in areas designated for brown bin collections. If waste collectors fail to provide such a bin service in a designated area, the regulation can and will be enforced by local authorities. Whether the statutory instrument is annulled today, it will make no difference in dealing with the issue of brown bins as raised by Sinn Féin. We need to talk about the facts.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister should check the statutory instrument.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Senator David Norris referred to the State’s role in dealing with waste collection companies. It concerns assessing permit applications. Mergers of companies are not matters for local authorities or me. The consequences of a merger may well impact on waste collection, but it is a competition and mergers issue. There has yet to be a decision or ruling from the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission on the proposed merger referred by the Senator. Perhaps he raised a genuine issue, but I have confidence that the commission will look at it and rule in time. I certainly cannot intervene in that process.
Senator David Norris: Will the Minister get the commission to reply on the matter?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Order, please. The Minister to continue, without interruption.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Senators should be aware that Statutory Instrument No. 24/2016 which Sinn Féin is proposing be annulled does not deal simply with the introduction of mandatory pay-by-weight charging but includes a range of other vital provisions and reforms for household waste collection permits and requirements. There would be serious consequences in annulling the statutory instrument, for whatever reason. The provisions include the application of fixed penalty notices or on-the-spot fines for specific breaches of waste collection permits for household waste collectors. Do Senators believe it would be in the interests of waste collectors to annul this regulation? They would probably be happy if we were to do so.
The provisions also include the automatic review of waste collection permits for specific offences such as not weighing waste or not making the weight available to householders. A review may conclude with amending or revoking the permit. Again, it is trying to ensure that, if people involved in the waste industry are stepping out of line, there will be a response to it. This regulation is about enforcing the rules and ensuring there will be a level playing field for everybody. These are the facts, rather than emotion.
There is also a provision for the automatic review of waste collection permits where there have been three contraventions of specific permit conditions within a five-year period, where the review may conclude with amending or revoking the permit. Again, this is about enforcement of the rules and ensuring there will be no cowboy approach to waste collection. That is what the statutory instrument does, as well as providing for the introduction of pay-by-weight.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The Minister already has it.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: On a point of order, I want to correct the record. The Minister said-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Will you just hear me out? The Minister made a direct reference to the fact that the statutory instrument has no bearing on the collection of brown bins.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I said the provision of brown bins.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Let me quote the statutory instrument that clearly gives effect to the legislation. The Minister needs to correct the record.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Minister is responding to the motion.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I did not say that.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I am asking the Minister to correct the record. I clearly interpreted the legislation, but the Minister has intentionally danced around the issue.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Order, please. The Minister must be allowed to continue.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: We know what the statutory instrument does. It gives effect to the legislation to which he referred.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Will the Senator, please, obey the Chair?
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Will the Minister correct the record? I can quote Statutory Instrument No. 24 of 2016.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator will have the right to respond as the motion in his name. In the meantime, we will hear the Minister.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister has misled the House on an important issue central to the debate.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Please allow the Minister to continue, without interruption.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: He has misled the House. I will provide the reference in the statutory instrument for anyone who wants to see it. It gives effect to the provisions for the collection and separation of waste in brown bins.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We have heard the Senator.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister should not try to mislead the House.
Senator Máire Devine: On a point of order, surely we are entitled to receive a copy of the Minister’s speech.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: That is not a point of order.
Senator Paul Daly: Senators should show the Chair some respect.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: Exactly. The Minister to continue, without interruption.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am trying to be helpful. If Members will, please, allow me to-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister intentionally misled the House on the issue of brown bins. I can show it to him in black and white. Does he want me to read his own statutory instrument?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator cannot argue across the floor. He will get a chance to respond later.
Deputy Simon Coveney: What I said clearly - the Senator does not like it because it does not suit his argument, which is why he is trying to be aggressive-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister intentionally misled the House.
Deputy Simon Coveney: What I said was that the requirement to roll out brown bins to households in urban areas was dealt with in separate regulations, namely, the European Union (Household Food Waste and Bio-waste) Regulations 2015. It has nothing to do with the collection-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Paragraph 20(a) of the statutory instrument gives effect to that legislation.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: I must rule the Senator out of order. He will have a chance to respond.
Deputy Simon Coveney: What Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn is talking about is the obligation to collect and separate waste, but that is not what I am talking about. What the Senator said concerns the obligation to give households brown bins-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: To separate their waste.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: We cannot argue about the matter now. The Senator can make the points he wishes to make when he responds.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn made his point earlier. I listened to him and I am trying to respond to explain-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister is potentially misleading the House.
Deputy Simon Coveney: -----that the statutory instrument he is seeking to have annulled does not concern the roll-out of brown bins. There is a separate regulation-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Can I have the Minister's response clarified-----
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: The Senator must address his remarks through the Chair.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn does not want to hear me. That is the problem.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: He cannot address the Minister directly.
Deputy Simon Coveney: He does not want to hear me. That is the reality.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach: He will have a chance to respond. The Minister to carry on, without interruption.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Of course, the regulation about which we are talking and which the Senator proposes be annulled relates to the separation of waste, with which nobody is disagreeing. What I am talking about is households being given a brown bin in the first place and rolling out the relevant provision. Will the Senator, please, accept that that is a separate regulation? He does not want to do so because it would not suit his argument.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister is wilfully misleading the House. He can continue with his misleading.
Deputy Simon Coveney: With respect, I am not seeking the Senator's permission to continue.
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Minister to make his contribution. Every time he is delayed, I will add one minute to his time and somebody else will lose out as da result.
Deputy Simon Coveney: People are talking about new politics and being cynical about it. Issues have been raised which I accept are genuine. I am seeking to give accurate answers, but the Senator does not want to hear them. That is what is happening.
(Interruptions).
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am making the point that if we choose to annul the statutory instrument, there will be consequences. The consequences are that one will essentially annul a series of rules that actually hold waste operators to account and ensure a level playing field to avoid the cowboy behaviour about which some Senators are concerned. If we make a choice to annul the statutory instrument, we will actually facilitate those operators who want to break the rules and we will not be able to hold them to account. That is the point I am making and it is valid. I am not misleading anybody.
On the issue of pay by weight, about which Members of all parties and Independents have raised genuine concerns, whether they be members of the Anti-Austerity Alliance, People Before Profit, Sinn Féin, Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, the Green Party, the Labour Party-----
Senator Paul Gavan: Fine Gael.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Yes, absolutely. Last week I answered questions in the Dáil about the concern that was understandably building about the mandatory switch-over to a new charging structure linked with a statutory instrument introduced last January for all the right reasons, in an effort to encourage a shift-over for about 80% of people who had bins collected and were not yet using a pay-by-weight pricing model. Most of them would not have seen a change in their pricing structure. For what it is worth, most people who have switched to a pay-by-weight model in the past few years do not want to switch back as they see the benefits. They have been encouraged to adopt - they have done so willingly - a different approach to waste management that involves separation at source in the home using three different coloured bins. I accept what Senator Padraig Mac Lochlainn has been saying. In some parts of the country brown bins are not available. We need to ensure we correct this before people will be required to separate their waste. What I have done is change the approach because many people have protested and expressed genuine concerns about the fact that they may be forced-----
Senator Máire Devine: Why did the Minister call them hysterical?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Let us not get too precious. We have responded as a Government to the genuine concerns expressed last week. People from all parties and none asked me to engage with the industry to ensure no household would be ripped off as we moved to a pay-by-weight charging structure. That is exactly what I did. Last Friday, the day after the questions had been raised, we met representatives of the waste industry for at least three hours. I had a very direct discussion with them. I told them that in no circumstance would the Government allow a situation where households would be mandated to switch over to a new charging system that would result in dramatic increases for many of them. That has not happened, but Members are talking in this debate as if it will. It will not. There is an acceptance by the Government that we are not prepared to make the transition on a mandatory basis to a charging structure based on pay by weight. Clearly, some companies are seeking to hike charges during the period of confusion in the change of structure and pointing to the fact that the Government is requiring them to do so. I made it very clear that that was not acceptable. What we have is an agreement and a deal with the industry that there will be no increases in waste fees or charges for the next 12 months. For the first six months we will focus on raising awareness, education and promotion to demonstrate why it is good to consider switching to a pay by weight system, while in the second period of six months waste companies will be required to offer what is called a dual billing system, under which people will be able to see what they are paying and what they would pay if they chose to switch to the pay-by-weight model. On top of this, we have an agreement with the industry that anybody who wants to opt for the pay-by-weight system can do so. Therefore, instead of requiring households to change their behaviour through a mandated charging system, we are encouraging them to do so of their own accord and the industry to facilitate a changeover.
An Cathaoirleach: The Minister has one minute left, but I will allow him two minutes because he was interrupted on a number of occasions.
Deputy Simon Coveney: The point I am making is that the approach proposed that caused such a negative reaction from many households who had genuine concerns is no longer being followed. Instead there is a different approach that incorporates a 12-month price freeze. Therefore, no one need worry about being ripped off. While they are considering in a serious way switching to a pay-by-weight system, they will be given all of the information they need and will then have the option of opting in. We have committed to engaging in a full structural review of the waste industry which will incorporate many of the issues Senators have raised, including whether we should have a regulator and whether the market is functioning in the way it should in the interests of households in recycling, reducing and minimising waste through composting and so on-----
Senator Paul Gavan: Will the Minister include in the review rates of pay for workers?
An Cathaoirleach: Please allow the Minister to respond-----
Senator Paul Gavan: No, he will not.
An Cathaoirleach: The Senator's side of the House will have five minutes in which to respond at the end of the debate. He should not keep interjecting.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Workers' rights is a broader issue that is receiving attention from the Government. We actually increased the national minimum wage twice during the term of the last Government and also introduced a series of other labour support measures-----
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Like JobBridge.
Deputy Simon Coveney: -----but what we are talking about is ensuring the concerns expressed by many households last week can be addressed by the Government in a comprehensive way. That is happening.
We have also got from the industry an absolute commitment on the treatment of incontinence wear. Some 60,000 people in Ireland require incontinence wear from the HSE which gives rise to about 40,000 tonnes of waste a year. If households had to pay for this waste at, say, a charge of €30 or €35 a tonne, the cost would be €12 million. The industry has made it quite clear that it will not charge for this waste but will consider introducing a credit system to support households to ensure they will not incur this cost.
One can call it new politics or whatever one wants, but the support we have received for these proposals from Fianna Fáil does not form part of some kind of political alliance.
(Interruptions).
Senator Máire Devine: Fianna Fáil enabled Fine Gael to get into government.
Deputy Simon Coveney: Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn does not want to hear about solutions. He only wants to hear about politics-----
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Minister is so cynical.
Senator Máire Devine: Holier than thou.
Deputy Simon Coveney: -----because for him this is all about politics and trying to manoeuvre for political gain. What I am interested in is dealing with the concerns of households and homeowners.
Let me say very clearly that the issues-----
Senator Máire Devine: Neither of you respects ordinary people.
Deputy Simon Coveney: We are making the changes because we respect ordinary people.
Senator Máire Devine: You made a faux pas. That is what you did.
An Cathaoirleach: Through the Chair, please. Will the Senator, please, respect the Chair?
Deputy Simon Coveney: Senator Máire Devine seems to think Sinn Féin is the only party which cares about ordinary people.
Senator Máire Devine: Fine Gael thinks it is the only party-----
Deputy Simon Coveney: No, I do not. What I am saying is if that Senators choose to annul the statutory instrument today, it will do nothing to change the bills of households for waste collection. It will remove a statutory instrument that provides for the introduction of a series of enforcement regulations-----
Senator Paudie Coffey: It would be a huge faux pas.
Deputy Simon Coveney: -----to ensure a functioning industry and a level playing pitch and that people will not be ripped off.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: Enforcement - seriously.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I am afraid the Senator has-----
An Cathaoirleach: I call Senator Grace O'Sullivan.
Senator Grace O'Sullivan: I thank the Minister; that was very useful. I still find it shocking that the country lacks an effective and responsible waste management policy in the 21st century. We need a waste management policy that will operate in the best interests of the economy, citizens and the environment, one that treats waste as a potential valuable resource that can be turned around to create indigenous employment and support local sustainable jobs. The goodwill on the part of citizens has been absolutely ruined by events such as those of recent months. The trust that prices will not shoot up suddenly has been undermined and eroded. There is so much outrage, which I completely understand. Many citizens are well aware of their responsibilities in the disposal of their household waste and know the benefits of recycling, not only the economic benefits but also the feel good factor in doing the right thing. Citizens are prepared to pay a fair and reasonable charge to ensure their waste is disposed of properly.
A pay-by-weight system is, in principle, a good way to ensure those generating excessive amounts of waste pay for what they generate, leaving the average householder to pay a fair price. This principle should not be undermined by an excessive hike in service charges, but once again the Government has landed us in a dilemma owing to its failure to recognise the importance of the issue. It is blatantly obvious that it should have intervened earlier to properly regulate the waste services market, but it failed to consult the industry, one of the key stakeholders. It should have negotiated a capping of service charges at a much earlier stage. I understand the Minister has had very fruitful talks in recent days, but it is very late in the day and has caused much concern among citizens. The Government failed not only to consult in a timely manner with the industry but also with all stakeholders involved. As a result, citizens find themselves having to take to the streets once again.
Earlier this week I had the honour to raise the sixth green flag at Glór Na Mara primary school in Tramore, County Waterford where pupils received their global citizen award for litter and waste management. I cannot help but think it is the green schoolchildren of Ireland who are showing us real leadership on how to handle our waste. The Government should not fail future generations and should lead by example.
I welcome as a first step the freezing of annual service charges announced yesterday as it gives time to work out a proper response to fixing the challenges in waste management policy. Some may see this as kicking the can down the road, but I see it as recognising the concerns of citizens and taking the time to prepare an effective solution in consultation with all of the key stakeholders and as being in the best interests of the public and the environment.
We need greater regulation of the waste market. The Government should consider establishing a waste market regulator to ensure fairer outcomes for citizens. We need to explore and examine ways to overcome the legal obstacles to introducing a franchise bidding model of waste collection. This would allow companies to compete for a single contract covering a set area for a set time. Like many EU countries, we need to examine ways to reduce the amount of unnecessary packaging that enters the market in the first place. We need to use this time to build a public awareness campaign on the best ways to reduce the amount of waste generated in homes.
We need to find ways to encourage and incentivise enterprise and industry to create sustainable Irish jobs using this potentially valuable resource. I ask the Government to stop wasting our time. Let us use this time to find right solutions in waste management in Ireland. I understand very well why my colleagues in Sinn Féin have tabled the motion seeking the annulment of the statutory instrument. Even though I share their concerns about the impact of higher charges on ordinary householders, I cannot support the motion. However, I look forward to working with them in the Chamber to try to put forward real solutions that will result in an affordable, effective and environmentally sound waste management policy.
Senator James Reilly: Yesterday I congratulated the Cathaoirleach on his appointment and do so again today. I also congratulate Senator Gabrielle McFadden on becoming the Whip in the Seanad.
I congratulate the Minister, not only on his appointment but also on brokering this deal which will give comfort while we have an opportunity to tease out the problems and people's fears about this issue. I will not reiterate what the Minister said about the motivation behind the motion, but it is important to reiterate that what is envisaged is not a new charge but a new way of charging and that we need, as my colleague has just said, more recycling to reduce the volume of waste going to landfill and to make householders more conscious of how they can help in this regard. The main purpose of the pay-by-weight system is to encourage householders to recycle and compost more. I know that some households do not have the capacity to compost, but many do and very often it is underutilised. I am reassured that there is no charge for the green bin because many households are only coming to terms with learning how to recycle and we need to keep this incentive for them. I commend the Minister for this. He has mentioned those with specific medical problems and needs, particularly for incontinence wear, an issue which will be addressed, which is welcome.
At the end of the price freeze the Government will do all in its power to keep prices down. In my area of Fingal Mr. Stephen Peppard is responsible for recycling plants, one of which is located in the estuary. It accepts all types of waste, including electrical, plastic and wood.
I wish to speak about the need for transparency. I am very pleased that the National Standards Authority of Ireland, the NSAI, has a role in ensuring the equipment used to weigh bins will be properly monitored, as fuel outlets are to ensure pumps are accurate rather than interfered with. However, there is an issue which needs to be addressed and it may fall within the Minister's remit. I am referring to the fact that so many of the companies involved are owned offshore, meaning that there is no transparency when it comes to their profits. If we want trust, their profit figures should be open to us to inspect. If they are trying to make a case for increased charges, I do not see why we should not know what their current profit margins are. They will argue, as they did to Mr. Shane Phelan in an excellent article he wrote on 13 July 2015, that they want to protect sensitive commercial information.
Let us call a spade a spade. If every company was required to open its profit figures to inspection, it would create a level playing pitch. Given our history on these issues, the Government must pay particular attention to ensuring profit figures will be available for inspection, which would mean having companies registered here rather than abroad and as limited rather than unlimited companies.
I commend the amendment and oppose annulling the statutory instrument for the reasons the Minister outlined.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: There is no amendment.
Senator James Reilly: The motion is based primarily on opportunism and populism. From an organisation and a political party the leader of which commends as a good republican a person who had certain associations with diesel and other fuel laundering-----
Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile: What relevance does that have?
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Senator James Reilly is talking rubbish.
Senator James Reilly: It may be rubbish to the Senator, but I am talking about the reality. If Sinn Féin's approach is to interrupt every speaker, so be it. That is its form of democracy.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: If the Senator checks the blacks, he will see that Fine Gael Senators repeatedly interrupted Sinn Féin speakers. Perhaps he might correct his statement later.
Senator Denis Landy: The debate is so robust that I am afraid to speak. Thankfully, my hearing in one ear is poor such that I will not hear interruptions the Senators opposite may make.
I welcome the Minister and agree with his comment that if the statutory instrument were to be annulled, it would be open season for operators. They were not his words, but that was the nub of his argument. A previous speaker suggested to him that research was needed on this issue. The previous Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government, Deputy Alan Kelly, carried out research before introducing the statutory instrument. Based on this research and three pilot projects in three local authority areas, 83% of citizens would be better off if the statutory instrument were to be implemented as intended. However, the service providers viewed the interregnum after the general election and before the appointment of a new Government as an opportunity to increase standing charges.
The pay-by-weight system is the fairest available. Providers do not have a right to increase standing charges and I commend the Minister for seeing them off on that issue, but I have no doubt that they will try it on again. The previous Minister specifically informed service providers that if they attempted to change standing charges, he would rescind the other elements of the statutory instrument. The industry made its move and attempted to introduce unacceptable charges in the vacuum created by the absence of a Government. That is the nub of the problem.
Like Senator Paudie Coffey, I propose to delve into history a little. In the mid-1990s local authorities provided an efficient and effective waste service nationwide. Staff were gainfully employed; trade unions were recognised; there were proper rates of pay and, most importantly, a waiver scheme was in place in every local authority area. Across the country, however, the Trots and certain elements within Sinn Féin started a protest campaign against waste charges and successfully closed down every local authority waste collection system. Yesterday one of the leading representatives of the waste companies stated Cork County Council's waste management service was €12 million in the red. Before the waste management service in my small local authority of Carrick-on-Suir closed, its share of the market stood at approximately 30%, with the remainder held by the private sector. Some 60% of its users were availing of a waiver scheme at the time of its closure. The service was closed down as a result of protests by the Trots and Sinn Féin elements. What happened to the protesters when the private sector entered the market? They disappeared and were never heard from again. Local authority waste collection services were closed down and transferred to an unregulated private sector that was cherry-picking the best areas and refused to provide services in rural areas. We have to fight to get it to operate in rural areas.
As Senator James Reilly noted, almost half of the 13 major waste collection companies are offshore entities unregulated by Revenue. Despite this, the companies are securing contracts and licences through two regional authorities and local authorities. Regulation is needed not only of the prices paid by customers, although this is extremely important, but also of staff in the private waste collection companies who are required to work at low rates of pay and in atrocious conditions. The industry must be pulled together and registered employment agreements introduced, if necessary by the State or by a regulator under the collective bargaining system introduced by Senator Gerald Nash when a Minister of State in the previous Dáil.
In 1997 the then Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Martin Cullen, transferred responsibility for waste collection services to county managers because he believed elected local authority members would not take decisions on the matter. County managers determined the waste management policy that would apply in the various regions and subsequently decided - correctly because the system was impossible to run - to allow the service to be privatised. That is a little history lesson for certain Senators on whom the history of the issue may have been lost and for some genuine Senators. In this regard, I commend Senator Paul Gavan for his bona fides. In a previous life he represented workers in SIPTU, particularly Greyhound workers in Dublin who had been forced to work in poor conditions.
A regulator is needed to regulate prices, ensure uniform standards apply nationwide and provide for proper terms and conditions for workers. These three issues are paramount. We must study this issue in the next 12 months in order that the Minister or his successor will be ready to act when the suspension period concludes. We should not start to review the system at that point.
Senator Paul Daly: I propose to share time with Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill.
As a new Senator, I thought I had a good grasp of politics, but it seems I will have to go back to the drawing board. I thought I had an understanding of the word "socialism" and a grasp of the left-wing, right-wing and centrist political model. Little did I know that in one of my first contributions I would oppose a motion tabled by Sinn Féin which, if carried, would benefit a large industry at the expense of ordinary working class people and cause great pain, grief and sacrifice for elderly people and young families. I find it hard to get my ahead around this.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Will the Senator explain that comment?
An Cathaoirleach: I followed the debate on the monitor and in fairness to Senator Paul Daly, he did not interrupt any other speaker. Please give him a chance as he only has four minutes.
Senator Paul Daly: While I do not have a problem with the statutory instrument the motion proposes to annul, I have a difficulty with the manner in which it was introduced. It is most unfortunate that the previous Minister, Deputy Alan Kelly, signed the relevant ministerial order two days before the general election, with little interaction with the waste collection companies.
Senator Denis Landy: On a point of order, the Senator is incorrect. The former Minister interacted with the companies for at least six months before he signed the statutory instrument.
An Cathaoirleach: As the Senator is well aware, that is not a point of order.
Senator Denis Landy: The record must be correct.
Senator Paul Daly: There was little interaction with the companies or members of the public whom this affects most since the signing of the ministerial order two days prior to the calling of the general election. That is where the problems arose that have us here today. I commend Sinn Féin for raising the issue, but, as ever, it is seen as an opportunity to grab headlines such as "We will ban bin charges". It can do this in the Seanad and has done so. What would it put in the place of bin charges?
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The Senator would do nothing about it.
Senator Paul Daly: Sinn Féin has no solutions, answers or proposals as to what should be done if the statutory instrument was to be annulled.
Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: The Senator's solution is a wish list.
Senator Paul Daly: I commend Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor; our representative in the Dáil, Deputy Barry Cowen, and the Minister who, when the problem was flagged, sat down with industry representatives, came up with solutions and negotiated a model. It is not the ideal solution and there will be problems in the forthcoming year, but in that solution he has taken the opportunity to monitor developments and provided for a scenario where the statutory instrument or legislation can be amended if other problems arise. If the statutory instrument is annulled today, the industry operators will be the winners at the expense of the people. They have hiked charges, but thanks to the Minister, following negotiations with them, they have agreed to freeze them. If we annul the statutory instrument, they will resume their hikes. I cannot believe I have to oppose a Sinn Féin motion that favours the industry over ordinary people.
Senator Brian Ó Domhnaill: I concur with Senator Paul Daly. This has been an interesting debate. I acknowledge the work of the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. I grew to know him when he was Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in the past five years in my role as agriculture spokesperson in the House and always found him to be hands on and that he dealt with issues efficiently and effectively in the public interest. He has done so in this case also.
The statutory instrument was not ideal and the circumstances in which it was introduced were wrong. It was rushed through. There may have been consultation with the industry operators, but that is not what they are saying. Nonetheless, we found ourselves in a precarious position which had to be dealt with swiftly. The negotiations between our spokesperson, Deputy Barry Cowen, the Minister and his officials have resulted in the best solution to this dilemma. The alternative before us, if we were to vote in favour of it, is to annul Statutory Instrument No. 24. However, as previous speakers said, it covers much more than what some Members would like people to believe. The Minister alluded to this. For example, it deals with permits for the collection of waste, a central pillar of the waste management strategy, the tax clearance certification of those who collect waste, fines, local authority powers and the national hazardous waste management plan, the provisions relating to which would all be annulled if we were to vote in favour of the Sinn Féin motion. That would do a disservice to the environment, the industry and, more importantly, consumers because every rogue dealer up and down the country would be able to collect waste and fleece them from tomorrow morning. We could not stand over this and support that position. We engage in realistic politics. I got into politics to engage with others of different political persuasions to try to ensure a better outcome for the citizens we all represent. That is the new politics the House is seeing tonight. It is about responsibility and trying to sit down with those of a different political persuasion to hammer out a deal that will benefit the vast majority of the people.
A study was carried out in 2009 of waste management and how to move forward. The most efficient and effective way to collect waste for the consumer, the industry, the environment and the State is by using a pay-by-weight system. We cannot row back on this and even to annul that provision in the statutory instrument would be wrong. There is a road map for the next 12 months, but serious dialogue must be engaged in. The Fianna Fáil group in this House and the Dáil will not be found wanting in that regard. We must have the transparency the window of the next 12 months will open up. It is not about creating grey areas. This move will bring about the necessary transparency. When a Minister should be commended, there is an obligation on all of us to do so. I commend the Minister for his engagement in the past week on this issue.
Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: I apologise I was not present earlier. I was in County Mayo to greet and welcome the US Vice President Joe Biden who received a huge Mayo welcome when Air Force One landed at Knock airport.
I missed the Minister's contribution. Is he saying that if the proposed legislation had not been amended, a total of €12 million would have been imposed in charges on carers, people with disabilities and other vulnerable persons? I am concerned by this. I am sure, therefore, that we are doing the right thing in tabling the motion to have the legislation annulled.
Deputy Simon Coveney: They are entirely separate issues. The negotiations on incontinence waste have been ongoing for weeks and that issue would have been finalised one way or the other. The issue of increased charges which is separate is what we acted on last week.
Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: I will have to take the Minister's word for it. I also take Senator Denis Landy's point about privatisation and what happened, but that is not what happened in County Mayo. Sinn Féin only had one member on the council at the time and he could not get another councillor to second his motion to stop the privatisation of waste collection services in the county because we knew that was the wrong thing to do. If county managers cannot deliver essential services such as this effectively and efficiently, they need to examine their own management skills and how they run some county councils, but that is probably an issue for another day.
The Government is stating all of these regulations and the legislation are needed to protect people because waste operators are running riot. I wonder whether any of them has been in place in the past 15 years. I would be greatly concerned if they have not been. What is the position on waste operators who did not even bother to show up for the meeting with the Minister? Were they abroad counting their money? It is ridiculous, but it is also indicative of the attitude of the industry we are dealing with that they have set up offshore companies in order that they can avoid paying tax in this country.
Why has legislation not been introduced to address the issue of packaging? Surely that should be the first action taken to help people to reduce waste. Are there so many vested interests that this cannot be done or that the Government does not have the will to do it? I know carers and people with disabilities and others who are crippled by bills. They are watching television and being told we are doing well and that we are on a roll, with money being put away for a rainy day. However, it has been a rainy day for them for a number of years and they have been crucified by the additional charges.
In seeking to have the statutory instrument annulled we are trying to protect them. I would be failing in my duties and commitment to the ordinary people of the country if I did not use every mechanism possible to prevent the instrument from commencing.
An Cathaoirleach: Senators Terry Leyden and Gerry Horkan indicated. As there are only ten minutes left, do they want to share time?
Senator Terry Leyden: Yes. I welcome the Minister, Deputy Simon Coveney. He used his skills to bring about a solution.
Wanting to have the statutory instrument annulled makes for a popular soundbite and is attractive when seeking support from the electorate. When Sinn Féin's spokesperson appeared on "Tonight with Vincent Browne", he went on about this great achievement, but what would be achieved? There would be chaos. I examined this issue from a political and Fianna Fáil point of view. I have a certain sympathy for Sinn Féin's position in that it is trying to garner more support and take out Fianna Fáil. By God, it would have to get up early in the morning to take out Fianna Fáil.
Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: That is what the party-----
Senator Terry Leyden: Sinn Féin can try it anywhere it likes.
Senator Máire Devine: That is not an asset.
Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: That is what Deputy Micheál Martin said too.
Senator Terry Leyden: I was a Member of this House before the Senators were. Sinn Féin can use every instrument, strategy and technology to try to do it.
Senator Paul Gavan: Fine Gael's pet.
Senator Terry Leyden: At the end of the day we represent the ordinary people of the country, working-class people-----
Senator Máire Devine: Expert at it.
Senator Terry Leyden: -----to ensure new regulations are introduced in consultation. So be it if some call this "new politics", but in the old politics prior to the general election this statutory instrument would have been rammed through without debate. Now, in consultation with Fianna Fáil and our spokesman, Deputy Barry Cowen, who tabled progressive policy suggestions-----
Senator Máire Devine: In reacting.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The Deputy said nothing about it before last Thursday.
Senator Jennifer Murnane O'Connor: Let him speak.
Senator Terry Leyden: -----a Minister who negotiated the programme for Government has adopted a constructive approach. We have an opportunity. The statutory instrument process has been abused by all Governments. The provisions of the statutory instrument should have been included in primary legislation in the first instance, not as an amendment to an Act. It is a long document and many of those who oppose it probably have not even read it. It requires study. As the Minister stated, it would be a free-for-all on 1 July if the document were to be opposed. I want Sinn Féin to explain what it is offering as an alternative to the statutory instrument and what the Minister, in consultation with Deputy Barry Cowen and others, is doing. What is its proposal?
Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: Was the Senator not present at the beginning?
Senator Terry Leyden: Yes.
Senator Rose Conway-Walsh: Did the Senator not listen?
Senator Terry Leyden: I have been listening intently. This is not like recycling oil. I know about the problems with diesel laundering and smuggling in the North. I know what is happening north of the Border.
(Interruptions).
An Cathaoirleach: Stick to the motion, please.
Senator Terry Leyden: I know how many cars have been destroyed, with very little being done about it. I want to clamp down on that activity, as well as illegal dumping. If the statutory instrument is not passed tonight, there will be further illegal dumping. That does not and will never suit Fianna Fail. We abide by and support the law. We want people to be tax compliant, as set out in the regulations, and the industry to be controlled. At home, we pay €320 a year for the collection of two bins every two weeks. If the Minister finds after the assessment that pay-by-weight costs are in excess of what has obtained, he will be entitled to introduce a further statutory instrument. This is a time for study. It is a wake-up call for the industry which seems to be unregulated. A good aspect of the debate is that the issue is being brought to the fore. We will have a regulator who will ensure the industry is properly organised.
Senator Gerry Horkan: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in the new ministry with responsibility for housing, planning and local government.
It was Deputy Dara Calleary of Fianna Fáil who raised this matter during Leaders' Questions last Thursday and I commend the Minister for his swift action in addressing it.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: We raised it on Wednesday.
Senator Gerry Horkan: The Minister met representatives of the industry for negotiations and we have this resolution. I come from a local authority background, having been a councillor from October 2003 until my recent election to the Seanad. Other colleagues from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown, Senators Victor Boyhan and Neale Richmond, are also present in the Chamber. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council introduced a pay-by-weight system in 2005. Prior to that, one paid €300 a year and could dump as much as one liked in any bin. I do not think we even had green bins at the time. We must acknowledge the progress that has been made. Initially, one could not put plastic in green bins. Therefore, much has changed for the better. When people are monitored, they behave in a certain way. They examined bin weights and started to buy compost bins. They discovered that there was a benefit, not just in reducing waste by composting but also in using the compost in a garden.
The scaremongering has been outrageous. Of course, we must take into account people with medical issues and those who may produce large amounts of waste. In the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area there is a flat standing charge of €64 a year with Panda. One is then charged per lift and kilo. Will the Minister consider introducing this system? Since it is a per lift and kilo charge, people only present a bin when it is full, which makes the system more efficient, instead of everyone putting out bins that are 80% empty. Routes are now longer, with only one bin in every ten being collected. Most people have discovered that they hardly ever put out their black bin unless, for example, they have young children or medical issues. By and large, a significant quantity of what we dispose is recyclable, for example, paper, Tetra Pak and plastic. Some operators accept glass in green bins, while others do not. Either way, there are numerous bottle banks. We should also consider this issue. I was surprised to learn that many local authorities did not use a pay-by-weight system. It is a positive step. I would not recommend hikes in the standing charge which should be as low as possible. One should be charged based on what one puts into a bin and how often one presents it. This would help people to change their approach.
It is important that civic recycling facilities be available to accept, for example, fluorescent tubes, light bulbs, aerosol cans, etc. There is a landfill levy to try to stop people from putting material into landfill. The more a pay-by-weight system is implemented, the better it will be for consumers. Assuming the standing charge is fair, few people should end up paying more. If they have not considered using this system, they should talk to people who have used it, for example, those living in the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown area who have been very happy with the outcome. When the bin collection service was finally privatised, 80% of customers had already left of their own will and signed up with Panda and Greenstar which were offering a cheaper and better service. We had been left with hardly anyone. That happened in 2010 and Panda applied a price freeze for four years.
I am sure there are some, but not all bin collectors are rogue, cowboy or fly-by-night operators.
Senator Paul Gavan: Fianna Fáil is cheerleading privatisation.
Senator Gerry Horkan: It worked in Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown and I am sure it can work elsewhere.
Senator Lynn Ruane: I have been listening to the conversation in which the need to change consumer behaviour has been mentioned. It is positive reinforcement, not attaching charges to recycling, that will change behaviour, for example, having a weight related monetary incentive at the end of the year. Something must be done to incentivise people. The issue is being handled the wrong way round. The Journal of Economic Surveys has indicated that monetary incentives have a greater impact on the level of household recycling than any other initiative.
In terms of their behaviour, when people are charged for or taxed on something, they view it as negative, regardless of whether they will save money as a result of it later. They just see it as a charge and as a result regard recycling as a negative rather than a positive process that will result in a gain for them.
On having two and three bins, in Tallaght the position is very difficult. If a pay-by-weight system is introduced, it will make the problem of illegal dumping worse because in a housing estate like Killinarden we all live on top of each other. As our sitting room is also our kitchen, we cannot have three bins to dispose of our waste. The structures are not in place to enable us to do it. If we have a brown bin, a green bin and a black bin outside our door - some of us live in very small apartments and flats - they will be robbed and we cannot afford to replace them. We also cannot bring them inside the house and do not have back and front gardens. Regardless of what system is introduced, the necessary structures are not in place for residents on many estates to enable them to recycle; therefore, it is counter-productive. Also, we live at the foot of the Dublin mountains. I could bring the Minister along any trail when he would see evidence of illegal dumping, a problem which would only get worse. Most of us have got rid of our green bin, if it has not been robbed or burned at Halloween. I am saying to the Minister that there are other solutions which would be regarded as positive reinforcement measures. When this debate commenced a number of years ago, I knew a man who was living in extreme poverty in Cushlawn. At the time the aluminium factory in Tallaght village paid for cans which were returned and he would spend the entire day collecting cans to deposit. In Germany people get money back when they deposit empty bottles. That type of positive reinforcement measure would be much more productive than charging for waste.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Is léir, ar aon nós, gur tharraing an díospóireacht seo neart cainte. It has been a robust debate, if nothing else. On a point of clarification, we understand the issue in the roll-out of brown bins. I thank the Library and Research Service for the great work it does for us, but even in its explanatory note it has been made quite clear that its independent reading, not that of Sinn Féin or anybody else, is that the waste management regulations introduce new rules which will take effect from 1 July. They include an obligation on all householders, with some exceptions, to segregate food waste from other household waste and an obligation on waste collectors to provide separate receptacles such as wheelie bins for food waste, to be collected at least once a fortnight using a pay-by-weight charging system.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I have no problem with that.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: It backs up what Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn has been saying.
I want to address some of the issues which have been raised. A number of Senators have bandied around the idea that we believe people should pay. I do not know of anybody who is not paying for waste collection other than someone who is brilliant at recycling. I know of one or two people who make compost. They separate their waste and once or twice a month or every couple of months bring a very small bag of waste to a landfill site, but from what I can see, everybody else is paying. The issue is not about people paying but about being fleeced, which is what would happen if the system was to be introduced on 1 July. We are all agreed on that point. We cannot fool anybody. In Connemara, for example, the standing charge would be much higher than what people are currently paying on an annual basis. They were going to be asked to pay double the cost.
In fairness to Fianna Fáil, nothing it is suggesting would be affected by our proposal. Everything it is proposing could be done even if we were to rescind the statutory instrument. We have seen Ministers come and go with statutory instruments and must call on the Government to rescind the statutory instrument. If the Minister wants to come back next week with the elements with which we do not have an issue, we will agree to that, but the problem is we have concerns about transparency and the moneys involved. It is a bit rich for Senator James Reilly to talk about the transparency of the profits of companies when, as Minister for Health, he did so little to tackle many of the drugs companies which were making massive profits and costing the State a great deal of money.
Senator Paudie Coffey: He actually saved €100 million.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: There are issues in policing the dumping of rubbish. It is my understanding the local authorities and community wardens have been asked to police the dumping of rubbish.
The question I asked was where would the extra money the companies wanted to charge go. If they wish to increase costs to increase their income by 200% to 300% from a service they have been providing for a number of years - I did not see any go out of business in Galway - where will the money go? Was the money going straight into their bank accounts offshore? Was any of it being put back into the community? Why were local authorities being charged to employ staff to police dumping in areas in which there was a shortage of community wardens? We are told there has been great investment in recycling centres, etc., something to which Senator Paudie Coffey alluded, but in Casla in south Connemara we have been campaigning for well over ten years for a recycling centre, for which the county council has constantly asked the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government for money. However, it has been turned down by both Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael-led Governments. Communities are trying to do the right thing in reducing, reusing and recycling waste, but the State has not supported them.
I understand the Green Party's position, but I call on it to reconsider. We want to do what it has called for almost verbatim, but the private companies are ruling the roost. They are driving the agenda, not the State and the Government. We need to turn this on its head and send them a strong message by rescinding the statutory instrument. If the Minister wants to come back with an amended statutory instrument next week, he can do so. Fianna Fáil could then bring forward its motion. As we proposed previously, an independent commission should be appointed to proof the measures, assess the impact on carers and other groups such as people on low incomes, those in receipt of State benefits and those who suffer from ill health or a disability and make its findings known. Let us do this right. The cart is being put before the horse. The privatisation agenda is ruling the roost again. We have to oppose it and have a chance to do so in the Seanad today. We will not get this chance again. It only happens once in a blue moon.
Another important point is that waste is not being recycled by many of the companies; rather it is being burned. If individual citizens were to burn their bags at the back of a field, they would be fined, rightly so. We have to tackle this industry.
Deputy Simon Coveney: I can assure the Senator that the companies can be fined, too.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: Why should we believe them when they told us that 80% of people would pay less, but the opposite is the case in that they would pay up to 200% more? I implore the Minister to support Sinn Féin's motion.
Senator Paudie Coffey: He could not support it.
Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh: The Senator probably could not support it.
Question put:
The Seanad divided: Tá, 9; Níl, 27.
| Tá |
Níl |
| Boyhan, Victor. |
Burke, Colm. |
| Conway-Walsh, Rose. |
Butler, Ray. |
| Devine, Máire. |
Buttimer, Jerry. |
| Gavan, Paul. |
Byrne, Maria. |
| Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig. |
Clifford-Lee, Lorraine. |
| Norris, David. |
Coffey, Paudie. |
| Ó Clochartaigh, Trevor. |
Coghlan, Paul. |
| Ó Donnghaile, Niall. |
Conway, Martin. |
| Ruane, Lynn. |
Daly, Mark. |
| |
Daly, Paul. |
| |
Davitt, Aidan. |
| |
Feighan, Frank. |
| |
Gallagher, Robbie. |
| |
Hopkins, Maura. |
| |
Horkan, Gerry. |
| |
Kelleher, Colette. |
| |
Leyden, Terry. |
| |
McFadden, Gabrielle. |
| |
Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer. |
| |
Noone, Catherine. |
| |
Ó Domhnaill, Brian. |
| |
O'Donnell, Kieran. |
| |
O'Donnell, Marie-Louise. |
| |
O'Sullivan, Grace. |
| |
O'Sullivan, Ned. |
| |
Reilly, James. |
| |
Richmond, Neale. |
Tellers: Tá, Senators Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Trevor Ó Clochartaigh; Níl, Senators Paudie Coffey and Gabrielle McFadden.
Question declared lost.
An Cathaoirleach: When is it proposed to sit again?
Senator Jerry Buttimer: At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.15 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 23 June 2016.
|
Page
of 2
